This year I lost every single one of my potatoes to scab. Imagine I planted those just after a civil war in central Africa. I need as much food - now, as I can get, right? Potato scab could seriously fuck me up. Therefore GMO potatoes sure seem like a great idea to me - if they're immune to scab.
Before 'monocrops' were engineered, nations went to war over food because it was scarce. Disease killed entire crops. Since Borlaug bred disease resistant rice and wheat - war is down. Way down. We make enough food.
Except - to keep up with growing populations, we have to use GMO technology to increase our agricultural output. Organic food is a first world nice to have. GMO food is a whole world MUST have.
Here's two facts that may change your attitude - or at least make you question what you think you know.
1) The father of the monocrop, Norman Borlaug won the Nobel prize for saving a billion lives by increasing agricultural output enormously... and yet most people have never heard of him. Bizarre, isn't it?
2) During the famine and widespread starvation in Africa in the 80s, Greenpeace successfully opposed the export of 'chemical' fertilizers from Europe to Africa. They were banned. Bizarre, isn't it?
The GMO fears are luddite. There is widespread misinformation. The FDA is incredibly strict here.
Gosh, you really want to grow some crops, I see. Well, I've got these seeds that are completely resistant to disease, only they cost 10x more than regular seeds and they're engineered so that you don't get any more seeds from the results. But you'll get a huge yield, we promise, more than enough to keep coming back to us and buying.
...One year later...
Oh, you say your crop failed? We didn't mention they needed twice as much water? That maybe they weren't as resistant to disease as we said? That there's another disease we hadn't engineered against? That the pesticides they were engineered to work in conjunction with will ruin your soil for everything else? Now you have no money left? Hmm, well... that sucks for you. Thank your government for our lucrative subsidies, though. When you commit suicide, I'm sure we'll be able to find a large corporate farming operation to come in and take over.
GMO isn't the problem (that we know of). Abuse of GMO, for the purpose of locking farmers in, that's the problem.
I don't personally know any farmers in impoverished parts of rural India, where this scenario isn't hypothetical at all, no.
As to what I sound like, my uncle is a successful independent farmer in North Dakota. He's not organic, but he strongly opposes GMOs in their current form strictly because of the lock-in issue.
Maybe I have been misinformed. I had it in mind that monocultures were only good for the first couple of years, then they failed miserably due to too much soil depletion for that specific crop, insect over-predation as insects exploited an abundant food source and overpopulated, and too disease prone, as there is less diversity to keep unwanted organisms out of the system...
I have been taking the easy (read lazy) way out with my two acres: I have been telling my neighbors that having many types of ground cover keeps my ground cover healthier by promoting a healthy ecosystem of insects (and birds), in addition to the plants themselves. While the neighbors keep the RoundUp nearby for the "undesirables"and reach for Scotts TurfBuilder every year, I just mow once in awhile... :)
Come to think of it, I water a whole lot less then they do, as well.
And as to the last sentence in your previous paragraph, I have the distinct feeling that the FDA (we are talking the USA's Food and Drug Administration, right?) might have been helpful in its early years, but it is now not only a hindrance but an outright danger. Similar to the human tendency to assume the existence of traffic lights means they do not have to examine a road intersection for themselves, the idea that the FDA is a good watchdog seems to me to be luring people into yet another false sense of security about their food and drugs.
I seem to recall (pun intended) increasing news stories about how little I can trust our current food system in providing safe items for my table if I am not mimicking a Consumer Reports-style monitoring of FDA alerts about bad food in the delivery system. Oops, that was shipped how many months ago? What alert color are we at now for spinach, orange? :)
Maybe I am assuming too much, but isn't the FDA overwhelmed with the job it is currently doing, and only spot sampling at that? Aren't we suffering from too many companies taking advantage of low to no oversight and shipping whatever they need to keep their bottom line healthy?
Charles Murray had an interesting idea about allowing a second market to arise that was caveat emptor, in return for lower costs to introduce food and drugs into the marketplace. Of course, it requires more responsibility on the part of the consumer, so we leave the existing FDA market in place beside it for those who desire their safety "government approved"...
1) Imported food where raw animal and human waste are used outside of FDA guidelines (i.e. no uncomposted manures used in fields within 120 days of harvest if the vegetable touches the ground, 90 days if it doesn't).
Look at #1. Its actually totally consistent with organic practice, other than the safety violation ;)
2) Rat and other animal feces in processing facilities - a la peanuts.
The FDA is not overwhelmed at testing GMO foods. They're overwhelmed in testing imports, and inspecting production facilities. Think of the scope of those two problems. The FDA sits at a chokepoint of GMO, and not at imports.
BTW - regarding monocultures you DEFINITELY have it wrong. They were responsible for a many times multiplication of agricultural output. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
Before 'monocrops' were engineered, nations went to war over food because it was scarce. Disease killed entire crops. Since Borlaug bred disease resistant rice and wheat - war is down. Way down. We make enough food.
Except - to keep up with growing populations, we have to use GMO technology to increase our agricultural output. Organic food is a first world nice to have. GMO food is a whole world MUST have.
Here's two facts that may change your attitude - or at least make you question what you think you know.
1) The father of the monocrop, Norman Borlaug won the Nobel prize for saving a billion lives by increasing agricultural output enormously... and yet most people have never heard of him. Bizarre, isn't it?
2) During the famine and widespread starvation in Africa in the 80s, Greenpeace successfully opposed the export of 'chemical' fertilizers from Europe to Africa. They were banned. Bizarre, isn't it?
The GMO fears are luddite. There is widespread misinformation. The FDA is incredibly strict here.