The New York Times on Monday reported in an article entitled, “In Lean Times, Biotech Grains Are Less Taboo” that “Soaring food price and global grain shortages are bringing new pressures on governments, food companies and consumers to relax their longstanding resistance to genetically engineered crops. In Japan and South Korea, some manufacturers for the first time have begun buying genetically engineered corn for use in soft drinks, snacks and other foods. Until now, to avoid consumer backlash, the companies have paid extra to buy conventionally grown corn. But with prices having tripled in two years, it has become too expensive to be so finicky.”
Today, Grist, the environmental blog, picked up on that and said, “In fact, the few giant companies that dominate the global food system are fattening themselves on higher prices, consolidating their grip over the world’s palate.”
I’m chiming in to say that GMOs shouldn’t be the Band-Aid to the world’s food crisis. Here’s why: We are jumping the gun. The jury is still out on GMOs and their affect on the natural environment.
Remember, GMOs only came around about a decade ago. Sure some have been taken to task for taking to task GMO manufacturers. (Nature had to retract an article on GM maize.)
Meanwhile, organic farmers say, done correctly, their way is just as effective if not more in natural resource savings. (See Michael Pollan’s take on this in The Omnivore’s Dilemma.)
I look at GMOs like I do nuclear energy: A resort — but of the last kind.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Snap decisions to save a buck have got to stop! Consumers need to have more input into where our food is coming from. Things are changing so rapidly with the environmental and food/agricultural issues our planet is facing, the knee jerk reactions of companies fearing economic losses that it is nearly impossible to determine the accuracy of the information available. How is a person to really know what they are getting or where it is coming from anymore. We need to demand there be restrictions placed on producers of food products from making the kinds of decisions (like using gmos) until proper investigation is done into possible effects. It is not enough even to say that for example the corn mentioned in this article has been tested as there has not been a long enough amount of time past to discern the reality of the health value of these products, not to mention how they may react with other ingredients. Have we not learned anything yet from mucking with nature. The less natural something becomes the less nature tends to accept it; and by that I mean that nature does not have a very good track record for being able to effectively break down or process man made substances. What makes us think that gmo food products will be any different???? We have to learn to be patient. Buy local from non-gmo producers and better yet, local organic. The system won’t crash if we can’t continue to plow along the way we are now. We need to take the time to build up our options realistically in regard to what is the best resort not only for our selves and our economies but for the planet and it’s future. What will sustain us indefinitely? Maybe it is gmos but we can’t say that with confidence at this juncture and can we really afford to gamble these days? There have been so many “oops, i guess that was a bad idea”s, that by now it should be evident that the shortest path to the quickest buck is not always the right idea. People need to stop panicking and start thinking wisely.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Snap decisions to save a tree have got to stop! Consumers need to have more input into what our food is costing us. Things are changing so rapidly with the economical and food/agricultural issues our planet is facing, the knee jerk reactions of companies fearing greenmail losses that it is nearly impossible to determine the accuracy of the information available. How is a person to really know what they are getting for their money anymore. We need to demand there be restrictions placed on producers of food products from making the kinds of decisions (like not using gmos) until proper investigation is done into possible effects. It is not enough even to say that for example the organic corn mentioned in this article has been priced as there has not been a long enough amount of time past to discern the reality of the economic value of these products, not to mention how they may react with other economies. Have we not learned anything yet from mucking with progress. The less progressive something is the less people tends to survive; and by that I mean that mankind does not have a very good track record for being able to effectively live and survive on girl made reccomendations. What makes us think that non-gmo food products will be any different???? We have to learn to be patient. Buy national from gmo producers and better yet, local gmo. The system will crash if we can’t continue to plow along the way we are now. We need to take the time to build up our options realistically in regard to what is the best resort not only for our selves and our economies but for the planet and it’s future. What will sustain us indefinitely? Surely it is gmos and we can say with confidence at this juncture that we can’t really afford to gamble on non-gmo’s these days? There have been so many “oops, i guess that was a bad idea”s, that by now it should be evident that the shortest path to starvation is not always the right idea. People need to stop panicking and start thinking wisely. As a last example I would cite Discover’s recent article on how many major Environmentalists have finally woken up and realized that nuclear power is the only present viable source of energy that we can use to slwo down global warming and if they had only been this smart when they were 20 instead of 50 we wouldn’t be in the shape we are in right now with our environment beginning to collapse around us. I believe, Sarah, that you people have finally cried “WOLF” once too often and that the world is done with your kneejerk reactions to society’s issues.
April 27th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
“Thomas M. Kostigen …traveled the world—from the deserts of the Middle East to the slums of India; from polluted cities in China to the jungles of Borneo; from the Arctic Circle to the Amazon; as well as many other environmental hot spots—to investigate the effect of man on the planet.”
I can only assume that he has done this by swimming and walking (all the time while growing his own organic crops in a backpack he was carrying with him) so as to limit his impact on the earth’s environment.
More likely he is just like most of the other so-called “environmentalists” who believe that we should change our uses not him.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Yawn. I won’t go long into addressing the fact that I invest in alternative energy programs to specifically offset the carbon emissions from my travels and energy use. Nor will I go into how much of a green lifestyle I lead: using less water and eating lower down the food chain, etc. I’ve written about these things on this blog before. But what I would like to address is the fear with which so many, such as the previous person commenting, seem to have about change.
As many know, I am not an all-sum environmentalist. But it is always surprising to see how afraid people are of doing simple things to help save the planet. They prefer to live deep inside Plato’s proverbial cave. I can’t explain it. In my way of thinking we need a majority to effect change around the world. But there will always be a minority who won’t budge. Living in and with fear is both sad and tragic. And for that, I have empathy.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Every food you have ever eaten, will eat, or could eat is GMO. Get over it.
It is unfathomable to me why people believe it is safer to accept the results of cross-breeding of unknown random mutations by Joe-Bob the farmer than it is to accept the results of deliberate changes by a team of scientists…who at least have half a clue as to what they are doing.