The GM Nation business, at least in Oxford was appallingly run. It wasn't well publicised in general, and the limited number of places had been well-advertised on anti-GM mailing lists. The councillor who organized it was in no way impartial - she happened to be leading the discussion on our table, and began by saying "Well, I think we know where we all stand on this", and seemed genuinely surprised when I suggested that we might want to, er, discuss the issue.
Just make Catholicism illegal and give free condoms to everyone in the entire world. With a bit of luck our ludicrous population situation would come back under control, and we wouldn't need to move heaven and earth to increase crop yields.</HHOS>
I'm fairly strongly opposed to GM crops, though I'd like to think my opposition is less knee-jerk than most:
Since there would be few GM strains compared with the number of non-GM strains, widespread adoption of GM crops would reduce genetic diversity.
I suspect that this, in time, would render crops more susceptible to disease, once the diseases had adapted to attack that one specific culture. We could end up with world-wide blights on particular kinds of crop.
It would further the trend towards blandly uniform food.
The GM varieties would, by being hardier and higher-yielding, tend to displace and possibly even endanger other varieties planted nearby.
Even if they didn't displace other varieties, they would certainly establish at least a small presence. Should the worst happen and some health risk from a GM strain become apparent years or decades down the line, how could we eliminate that strain from the food chain?
The technology is in the hands of a few multinational companies. It's very likely the increased yields wouldn't bring food prices down or make farmers richer, merely line Monsanto's pockets. This hardly benefits humanity as a whole, and is especially unattractive for third-world countries.
Indeed, and there are already concerns about their future, though they have since been debunked — for the time being, at least.
Further, I suspect people would be at least mildly disappointed that there's just one variety of banana, had this not always been the case. Imagine how we'd feel about ending up with only one kind of apple!
A lot of your worries would affect the farmers more than you: these things going wrong with their crops will make them less economic to grow.
How about including a worry about how said crops would affect you and me. The weedkiller resistant ones would be sprayed with a lot more weedkiller than conventional crops are and I suppose you and I would then end up eating more of that weedkiller.
Yes, a lot of those concerns affect the farmers more than they affect me directly as a consumer.
The bland uniformity and the difficulty of backing off if a problem were found later are of direct concern, though.
I'm not convinced by the weedkiller argument; weeds would surely adapt quite quickly, leaving us in a worse position — weedkillers and GM foods.
Also, although the stranglehold Monsanto could acquire over farmers wouldn't affect us directly as consumers, it would certainly affect us indirectly. They might well succeed in making it uneconomical for farmers to buy seed from anyone else. Then, in effect, we would be presented with a monopolistic food supplier, thinly disguised by a layer of homogeneous middle-men entirely beholden to them. Whereas now farmers are led by consumer demand in what they produce, suddenly they would have to produce what Monsanto told them to, regardless of our wishes.
If you haven't read it already, I recommend Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser. While it only touches upon GM foods, it gives a depressing insight into a culture of global conglomeration in the fast food industry that could easily be spread into other areas of the food industry if we allow Monsanto to exploit farmers through the provision of GM seed.
Plus, if we, the electorate, allow Monsanto to screw the third world then we, the taxpayers, will be morally bound to foot the consequent aid bill.
So, in short, I don't like the idea of paying Monsanto huge amounts of money to build themselves a monopoly, while reducing the choice of foods on our supermarket shelves, endangering biodiversity and creating a risk (however small) to human health. What's in it for the rest of us?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-19 01:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-19 01:32 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 03:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-19 03:21 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 03:52 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-19 02:28 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 03:17 am (UTC)The sad thing is, some people are so addicted to it that they actually die when deprived of access to it.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-19 02:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-19 03:31 am (UTC)I'm fairly strongly opposed to GM crops, though I'd like to think my opposition is less knee-jerk than most:
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-19 03:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-19 03:52 am (UTC)Further, I suspect people would be at least mildly disappointed that there's just one variety of banana, had this not always been the case. Imagine how we'd feel about ending up with only one kind of apple!
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-19 05:50 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 06:00 am (UTC)I understand this has proven to be the case already, with some GM crops, in , iirc (which isn't likely) Canada.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-19 09:58 am (UTC)How about including a worry about how said crops would affect you and me. The weedkiller resistant ones would be sprayed with a lot more weedkiller than conventional crops are and I suppose you and I would then end up eating more of that weedkiller.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-19 10:35 am (UTC)The bland uniformity and the difficulty of backing off if a problem were found later are of direct concern, though.
I'm not convinced by the weedkiller argument; weeds would surely adapt quite quickly, leaving us in a worse position — weedkillers and GM foods.
Also, although the stranglehold Monsanto could acquire over farmers wouldn't affect us directly as consumers, it would certainly affect us indirectly. They might well succeed in making it uneconomical for farmers to buy seed from anyone else. Then, in effect, we would be presented with a monopolistic food supplier, thinly disguised by a layer of homogeneous middle-men entirely beholden to them. Whereas now farmers are led by consumer demand in what they produce, suddenly they would have to produce what Monsanto told them to, regardless of our wishes.
If you haven't read it already, I recommend Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser. While it only touches upon GM foods, it gives a depressing insight into a culture of global conglomeration in the fast food industry that could easily be spread into other areas of the food industry if we allow Monsanto to exploit farmers through the provision of GM seed.
Plus, if we, the electorate, allow Monsanto to screw the third world then we, the taxpayers, will be morally bound to foot the consequent aid bill.
So, in short, I don't like the idea of paying Monsanto huge amounts of money to build themselves a monopoly, while reducing the choice of foods on our supermarket shelves, endangering biodiversity and creating a risk (however small) to human health. What's in it for the rest of us?