What? I didn’t claim Monsanto, or whatever, is a monopoly. Oligopoly is what we’re talking about. And if you think that there aren’t multiple large firms that dominate food markets (amongst many other industries) working cooperatively to control regulation, pricing, etc., you haven’t been paying attention for the past 40 years (at least).
1 Like
In my opinion, the problem is not the GMO organism itself having some properties (mutated proteins or something?) that is damaging to the human. The problem is that the GMO has been made resistant to pesticides/herbicides, and therefore is subject to more intense spraying or application of those toxins to kill pests and weeds, which then translates to greater human exposure downstream.
Are we trusting the conventional farmers in big agribusiness to only apply herbicides sparingly, when liberal application is a way to guarantee a full crop and therefore maximal $?
That’s my concern - increased exposure to toxins, because we’ve made it easy for farmers not to care. Especially when there are no federal agencies or anybody testing toxin content in any meaningful way in the food supply. We are basically poisoning ourselves. (Are we? How would we ever know? Nobody is looking.)
As far as the GMO itself, there are many useful applications of certain ones.
2 Likes
While those companies will donate money to similar political ventures, make no mistake they are in violent competition with one another. Just wait until the EU allows GMOs and watch Syngenta and Monsanto go after one another. a defining characteristic of oligopolies is an abscence of competition. Prices that gouge will absolutely drive customers to competitors.
Trying to constrain the discussion to seed markets is cute. I’m talking about the firms that dominate the global food growing, processing and distribution system like ADM, Cargill, Tyson, Smithfield, etc. But even if I was discussing only seed markets, firms that control even a plurality of a market (and likely more if you break down the markets into regional sectors) can construct barriers to entry, control pricing and regulatory frameworks, dominate subsidies and destroy entire national markets with their predatory tactics. For one example, look at how NAFTA basically destroyed Mexico’s small farmers and internal agricultural sector: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/01/beer-explains-20-years-naftas-devastating-effects-mexico.html.
1 Like
They compete in certain ways, and in others, where it benefits them, they work together. There is no monolithic behavioral pattern to be discerned as you seem to suggest, and their collusion isn’t simply limited to “donating money to similar political ventures”. One key, and probably the most important, way they work together is to erect barriers to entry that eliminate further competition, in addition to pushing “free” trade agendas that crush national markets: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/01/beer-explains-20-years-naftas-devastating-effects-mexico.html.
Absence of competition may be “a” defining characteristic of oligopolies, but its by no means the only one. And firms may compete in certain ways while colluding in others. A few competitors that control a market and don’t allow competition from outside (as if that’s not bad enough) will eventually wind up dividing markets between themselves to cut costs, and often wind up fixing prices. Just because Syngenta and Monsanto may compete for marketshare at some point doesn’t mean they always will, and doesn’t mean we have healthy, “free” markets. I’m not really sure what you’re trying to argue here honestly.
2 Likes
Dude… no! Identify as Green and correct the un-scientific idiocy that goes on within the movement. That, or make friends with the assholes you hate.
I proudly state that I am Green, but will be the first to point out that nuclear is probably one of the best options for Australia’s power generation and that people smugglers should be tracked down and brutally assassinated by ASIO. Not typically Green attitudes to say the least, but at least (in Aus anyway) the Greens speak out on moral and ethical issues while the 2 majors continue to suck the proverbial dick of our large trading partners. I’d rather we have less GDP from exports than play nice with bad people.
3 Likes
One of the first things the seed companies wanted to do was introduce seed sterile or pollen sterile plants to prevent contamination, but the activists pitched a fit over the looming imaginary Sterile Pollen Apocalypse, so that got scrapped. So you can thank Grennpeace for cross contamination, and they happily raise money off it. Brilliant!
3 Likes
FWIW, all soybeans are naturally genetically engineered by the integration of foreign DNA from Agrobacterium, which is also true of practically every legume you’ve ever eaten. This is how scientists discovered plant genetic engineering is possible, and it has been going on for millions of years, like it or not.
2 Likes
I see, so its the Green movement’s fault that GM plants are cross-contaminating with non-GM plants. Did anyone ever tell you that you argue with the integrity of a thief?
1 Like
Oh I see. You don’t want to talk about Monsanto’s place in the market they are in and how that relates to the classical definition of an oligopoly. You want to talk amount some vast global capitalist food conspiracy and call it oligopoly. Um, I’m just going to back away from that pool of crazy right there.
They are a solution to food security issues. Last year David Suzuki was a guest on an Australian TV show called Q&A and the topic of GMO crops came up. He expressed a general concern against GMOs which seemed reasonable enough, until he got (metaphorically) torn a new asshole by two GMO researchers who had salient and reasonable responses to all of his concerns. Most of what you guys are saying (i.e. most of the general anti-GMO talking points) were very effectively countered by these guys. You can watch the episode here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hKdmQMVJ70#t=2047 or read the transcript here: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3841115.htm
To be clear, I think labelling GMO foods is reasonable enough, but the thing that amazes me is how much noise is being made over the issue when we don’t even have proper labelling of the origin of processed foods yet which, IMO, is a far bigger problem. “Made in _____ from local and imported ingredients” means fuck all since the origin countries of the imported food is unknown and the types of chemicals that can be used around the world vary greatly according to local laws.
1 Like
If what Preston is saying is true (which I don’t doubt… he’s good with details) then yes, that’s precisely what happened. Who else’s fault would it be if they were the ones demanding methods to stop crops cross-pollinate be removed?
Did the GM developers plant people in the anti-GM movement to demand removal of cross-pollination protections in order to be able to litigate against people years later?
Mod Edit: Removed insult
It’s not that Greenpeace created the cross contamination problem to profit from it, but rather that they don’t hesitate to argue both sides of issue and keep throwing random crap at the wall until something sticks. Since there is no organized pushback against them specifically, it just works. Notice that most of their arguments have not changed in 25 years, because new knowledge simply isn’t relevant to that strategy.
1 Like
-
95% of American corn acreage is grown with hybridized corn. Monsanto, among others, holds patents on these seeds. These seeds do not breed true, making the farmer dependent on the seed supplier.
-
“RoundUp Ready” doesn’t tell you anything about how much pesticide a crop received as RoundUp is an herbicide. Making crops resistant to herbicides in theory allows the farmer to use less total herbicide by spraying a high concentration just a few times. In practice
-
Monoculture absolutely is a problem, but one that exists independently of how the dominant variety was created. The Gros Michael commercial banana variety was completely wiped out by Panama disease because it was an extreme monocrop made up of clones. This may happen again with the Cavendish banana and the Black Sigatoka fungus for the same reason.
The concerns you listed are damn good ones, they just aren’t inherent to GMO.
Such is the case of most strong ideologues nowdays. It’s hard to have a conversation where both parties feel like they learned something from the other. Did I say hard? I meant impossible.
You utterly disregarded most of what I wrote and mis-characterized the rest.
Mod Edit: Removed insult
1 Like
This is only strange if you believe that what passes for science these days is right 100% of the time. It’s fine to worship pure science (aka truth) but that’s not what we’re getting here on earth where there is quite a history of obfuscating for profit. Consider the tobacco industry which successfully hid the truth about the dangers of cigarettes. And there was a recent article about billions spent denying climate change. The “lefties” that believe in climate change and are concerned about GMOs are in both cases on the side of caution. The science on GMOs is incredibly warped by financial interests. Scientific fundamentalism is not much better than religious fundamentalism.
3 Likes
And they were sold to us in the 90s as reducing the need for pesticides.
1 Like
Roundup is not safe. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/25/roundup-health-study-idUSL2N0DC22F20130425
2 Likes
Ok so “I conducted an experiment following these steps and obtained this data” is not much better than “because God said so”?
Because I would say it is a shitload better. Like, out of the dark ages better.
5 Likes
