I think I agree most with J Wong, #14 and #39 Spike Gomes. Let people decide. People should have the right to know, whether its for known allergic reactions, or one’s personal skepticism of big monied interest, or just an expression of autonomy, or perhaps the inquisitive nature of a scientific mind that wants to know as much as possible about their world. Let’s not argue with that sane point that people have a right to know. It doesn’t force anyone to eat or not eat GMOs and WILL likely be like Prop 65 as Simon says.

Government regulation is a necessary “evil”- Why do we label anything in food or put caloric and fat labels? There are of course many bad instances of regulation where “the road to hell was paved with good intentions”. However, the way money is pervasive and influential in politics within an ever increasingly centralized government, with the monopolistic nature of media influencers, the more power put back into the hands of citizens, the better. The alternative is a corruptive influence that has and will most likely accelerate the consolidation of power and money, control of information and ideas, decrease in competition and the prevalence of the American entrepreneur spirit. I would argue that the largest corporations in the world have on the whole done more harm than good, by far. Small is beautiful.

Let the people decide on whether they have a right to know what they are eating, and let the people decide whether that information is meaningful to them or not. I don’t think any can argue with that rationale, unless they want to bring in the tired argument that people don’t know how to govern themselves or don’t know what is best for themselves, which is an inherently flawed argument if you actually believe in the tenants of the Constitution based on universal understandings derived from all but 200 plus years of human civilization.

Regardless of the science, this is about living in a world where a group of people protecting their own interest don’t have the right to keep information from people who want it and as free market consumers, are entitled to. Knowledge is power and in the spirit of science’s pursuit of knowledge, why would someone want to deny another’s right to know and therefore choose .

If GMOs are so good on the whole, there should be nothing to hide, and in fact, it is the decision to not label GMOs, therby forcing them on people, that has led to a lot of suspicion that the system is being gamed by a few. Again- that is what’s clearly at stake here, and for valid reasons.

What you are really saying is that you cannot be bothered with facts as it is more interesting to attack me personally as condescending or obsessed with Good and Evil.

My usage of “good and evil” is a caricature of the attitude that is self-evident in your posts and others like it. It is evident in how you negatively talk about GMOs or Big Ag and talk longingly about small farmers and the environment. That there is no substance to these claims, that they do not adequately weigh the pros and cons, and that you are evidently more interested in personal attacks than addressing the lack of evidence for your case speaks to an emotionally based assessment of the issues over a factual one.

For instance, there are multiple ways of looking at “Cheap food”. Cheap food means fewer people in this country go hungry. If only 10% of your income goes to food, then its easier to feed your family than when 25% or more did. You can say it contributes to obesity, but as Norman Borlaug argued when he was busy revolutionizing crop production in the third world, the first priority is to make sure people are not going hungry. Healthy food is cheaper along with unhealthy food, so its not a simple reduction to “cheap food.” That we lead an increasing sedentary lifestyle is a major factor. That we have an aging population structure is a major contributer.

So weigh your pros and cons. The more expensive food is, the more people go hungry. Thats the other side of the coin that you do not consider, consistent with your lack of balanced opinion.

LOL. I stand corrected. (sorry, could not resist replying to that one) Super-cheap, *heavily subsidized* junk food, giant sugary drinks and processed foods have NOT, I repeat HAVE NOT in any way contributed to the obesity epidemic in the US. It’s all a matter of choice! In fact they have saved millions of poor people from starvation! The powerful food and ag lobby doesn’t even exist! (another myth obviously)

You seem a little obsessed with Good and Evil. You are the only one who keeps using these terms here. The reason I won’t argue seriously with you is that I could tell right away that you have a need to be right, no matter what anybody else says, that you will bulldoze anyone who disagrees with you with long comments filled with endless facts and opinions until your adversaries go away, bored with playing a cartoon stereotype in your one-way argument. You aren’t here to have a conversation; you are on a mission, just like the most extreme people on the other side so there is no talking to you. Your “middle ground” is phony to. This was my original point.

Given Organic production levels, it would take ~1.1 billion more ha to produce the same amount of food that is currently produced as a result of technological innovation due to the Green Revolution, intensive farming, etc.

I have long had a problem with those people upset over Monsanto’s prosecution of farmers and its for good reason.

The developmental cost of a new GMO, just the breeding program alone (not including regulatory approval) is ~$100 million. Also, using alternating breeding in the mainland and tropical regions means 2 generations in a single year for the typical crop. Using this strategy, the developmental pipeline takes 10 years to bring a GMO to market.

Financially and time wise that is a massive investment, even for a large corporation.

From this Monsanto must make a profit. Early after the release of Roundup, many farmers tried to save a few bucks on the technology fee by replanting their seed. That is stealing. Plain and simple. They took technology that another put massive amounts of time and money into develop and tried to avoid giving the company its dues by essentially stealing their seed.

Conventional Varieties are common place, have been available publicly for decades. They are still readily available. Any farmer wanting to save a few bucks by replanting seed can just as easily use these public varieties. A few got greedy, tried to steal a new technology.

Of course, being “small farmers” the media and public instantly treats them as inherently “good”. I have recently been rereading Pinker’s The Blank Slate and am reminded of the fallacious notion of the “Noble Savage”. Its a very similar attitude with small farmers, as many people assume that “Small Farm” is inherently good and uncorrupted.

To give you an idea of where my biases lie, my father, uncle, grandfather are all small farmers. I grew up in a small farming community where everyone I knew was involved in agriculture. I also work in academia so have no affiliation with Monsanto. My inherent bias is to favor small farmers. Reality and knowledge of the facts lead me to conclude that in this case Monsanto has a right to defend its intellectual rights and profits.

I would agree that Monsanto has taken it to far in attacking the advertising of Dairy Farmers. So we can find middle ground on that.

#64

Let me change the wording then. Your opinion is bereft of facts regarding the complex nature of obesity in America and leaves out many associated causes and assumes that people are not responsible for their own health. Your opinion is wrong.

I don’t care if you find what I say condescending. You are spreading inaccurate and unsupported claims. You say that I am full of inaccuracies and annoying assumptions….how so? I have yet to see you back up any claim you have made with a substantive argument or case. This is evident in your last line where you abandon the argument that fruits and vegetables are not cheaply available to people and instead move the goal posts to loss of varieties and taste. The first has been occurring long before big agriculture and a diversified variety of fruits in stores is not necessarily a good thing. The latter is simply a subjective assertion, besides, lettuce is tasteless no matter how you grow it. Thats why we have salad dressing.

Cheap apples–> loss of 100′s of varieties. Cheap lettuce–> tasteless.

“So why don’t you explain exactly what it is that Monsanto, or Pioneer, or Roundup, or Bt, etc have done that have been so evil?”

Really?

For starters:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805

Again, for the opponents of GM, the environmental concerns may actually come from a political/economical wellspring rather than being independent of one another.

As I pointed out to an earlier poster, the future will see integration of practices like cover crops and better rotation designs with the use of pesticides and GMOs, offering the best of both worlds. I have pointed out specific examples of how new technological developments, driven by Big Ag, can improve over previous practices. In the 1930s, conventional small farms led to ecological disaster. The Green Revolution brought vast improvements and new challenges. In more recent years, continued developments, such as GMOs and No-till farming have further changed the face of agriculture. I do not give all credit to Big Ag, but neither am I so biased that I do not recognize where it has been good. So rather than being black and white on the subject, I have already argued for grey areas and how one can improve agricultural production by taking from multiple areas.

I contrast that to your replies where you have attacked “Big Ag” and Monsanto without specific reason or case examples. You have yet to give a good reason why we should “hate” Monsanto or modern farming. I gave specific examples of how modern farming practices, furthered by technology from companies like Monsanto, are actually beneficial environmentally and for individual customers.

Healthy fruits and vegetables are cheaper as a result of modern farming than without. Apples are cheaper as a result, lettuce is cheaper as a result. Obesity is not a simplistic problem driven by the cheapness of corn. Your analysis does not include the effects of an increasingly sedentary lifestyle. It does not include aging population structure. It does not include the multiple factors associated with obesity in the US. But worst of all, it assumes that people are not responsible agents capable of making choices for their own lives and that they are but slaves to market forces and the cost of corn versus an apple.

I am from a community of <150 people, I left the farm by choice. Farming is hard dirty work. You are dependent upon weather, market prices, and ever increasing fuel, equipment, fertilizer costs. The decline in the small farm has not simply been due to Big Ag. Big Ag has come because a lot of people….given the choice, do not want to farm. That leaves room for those that do to expand and operate on greater acreages with less available labor. I have known many old farmers, making their living from small farms with no children wanting to continue it. The children left not because there was no opportunity, but because they had no desire to farm. Where it not for improved mechanization, millions would still be tied to the farm, regardless of their desire to do so.

So why don't you explain exactly what it is that Monsanto, or Pioneer, or Roundup, or Bt, etc have done that have been so evil?

Yes, wasn’t that part of the Green Revolution, sold by science to the general public. Better Living through Chemistry and all that. This is what I mean about the cynicism having a rational basis even though it may often be misguided.

@ 57: “a lot of the problems with medicine would probably resolve IMO by loosening the monopoly that MDs have on a log of services.”

Yes, I totally agree!

As far as making food super cheap, I don’t agree with the whole idea of food being as cheap as possible. I am a grad student and I’m sure I spend 25% of my income on food. And the “cheapness” of food has contributed to the obesity epidemic. People may be spending less in the US, but they also have crappier diets. Products made from (heavily subsidized by taxpayers btw) “cheap” corn and soy may be less expensive, but are healthy fruits and vegetables? Most of those small farmers did not want to stop farming, and I think their communities have suffered for that.

Yes you need a reason to hate Big Ag or Monsanto. Otherwise you are left with unjustified hatred. There is nothing inherently bad or evil about either and nothing inherently good about small farms.

The Dust Bowl occurred in the 1930s when the average farm size on the great plains was only 355 acres and there were 1.7 million on the great plains alone. All those environmentally friendly small farms did not rotate crops, use wind breaks, terrace, or any other practice that conserved top soil. They did however plow deeply and till their soil extensively resulting in a series of years where vast amounts of top soil were lost due to wind erosion.

Most modern farms incorporate conservation practices that help alleviate many of the problems that resulted from that time period. Some of the most crucial practices, such as No-till farming are made possible only through the use of herbicide treatements. No-till also reduces runoff of fertilizers into water supplies. They improve the soil structure and biodiversity.

Bt crops dramatically reduce insecticide usage. They are also targeted towards insects that attack the crops, not other species. Meanwhile Organic farms spray Bt indiscriminately.

So is Monsanto evil or have they had a positive influence enabling the use of better farming practices?

Its not so black and white as you make it. There are tradeoffs for everything. You speak about environmental damage as if it is one way. its not. I have seen first hand, in my own life-time even, these technologies change how farmers operate in a way that is BETTER for the environment.

When I was 5-6 years old, I remember riding in the tractor with my father as he used a moldboard plow. We would then go over it with a disk, typically followed by a field cultivator later. Sometimes we pull out the roller harrow before then. At the end, the soil was completely bare and loose, easily eroded.

As technologies like Roundup have made their way on the market, I have witnessed a change. My father no longer uses clean-tillage. He uses conservation tillage practices that are appropriate for each field. There is less erosion, less loss of fertilizer, less fuel and carbon emissions….

I remember going out and watching the crop dusters dump pesticides on Corn. Haven’t seen that in years. Not really a need to. Technologies like Bt corn mean my dad doesn’t have to spray as often for insects.

So when you talk about Environmental damage….what aspect are you talking about, which ones are you comparing? You claim you know a lot about this topic, so lets have a detailed discussion so that others can benefit.

Are you compared about the spraying of Roundup? Why are you not more concerned about the increased tillage, soil erosion, nitrogen runoff, fuel/carbon emissions that come from not using it?

And what about food costs. In the 1930s, when the great plains had the most small farms ever, Americans spent 1/4 of their income on food. Now its less than 10%. That is the result of greater efficiency in farming practices and reduced costs, primarily due to labor.

How do you judge the benefit to poor families who can spend less on food compared to the disappearance of inefficient small farms whose practices are no more environmentally friendly than the large ones?

Seems to me Louise’s reason have more to do with objections of “hidden” oligopolies, abusive corporate behavior, and regulatory capture. Environmental concerns descends form those anxieties, not the other way around.

It has been shown that Bt corn/cotton/etc greatly reduce pesticide use as a whole.

Furthermore, as crop production without herbicide use requires vastly more tillage, this results in increased carbon emissions, increased erosion, and increased runoff into our water supplies.

A recent report has shown that 1/3 of carbon emissions come from agriculture: http://www.nature.com/news/one-third-of-our-greenhouse-gas-emissions-come-from-agriculture-1.11708

It is thanks to Roundup Ready that Conservation tillage practices like No-till are made possible.

As much as people like you go on about the health and environmental risks, I would expect you people to actually know something about the real environmental and health impacts. But frankly, I know enough people like you to realize its not about facts. What it really is about is being anti-capitalist and having a reason to hate big corporations.

What these pesticide companies are doing is just plain wrong. They (Monsanto and Dow) are jeopardizing our health solely on the basis of profit. They are getting richer and we are getting sicker.

Over 60 other countries require the labeling of GMO foods – why do we not have the same right? Because pesticide companies like Monsanto have been able to have their former employees placed in high positions in the FDA to allow these unsafe GMO’s to flood the market without the requirement of not one human safety test.

How can we trust someone like Michael Taylor (former Monsanto Vice President and attorney) who is currently the Food Safety Czar for the FDA to insure that our food is safe? He also held a high rank in the FDA when GMO’s were first introduced in the market in the mid nineties stating that GMO’s were the same as conventionally grown crops, so they do not require any safety testing.

Since the introduction of GMO’s; pesticide use has increased by over 400 million pounds – Monsanto owns the Roundup ready seeds, the fertilizer and the pesticides – since these crops require much more pesticides than conventional crops because nature is now fighting back and there are now super weeds and super worms that can resist Roundup Ready crops – so this means more pesticides and more profits for Monsanto. Just last year, pesticide used increased by 20%.

When I finally became aware of what was happening to our food I had to do something to try to help educate others on the dangers of GMO foods. For anyone wanting more information I encourage you to check out documentaries on Netflix: Food Matters, Food Inc., Deconstructing Supper, and on YouTube: The World According to Monsanto, Islands at Risk – Hawaii, Scientists under Attack.

Also you can visit the websites of: The Institute for Responsible Technology, PAN (Pesticide Action Network), Carighttoknow.org and The Cornucopia Institute. These organizations are comprised of individuals who really do care about our human race and our environment which is being jeopardized by the increased use of pesticides and GMO products.

Vote Yes on Prop 37!

I’m voting against, but really don’t think it matters very much.