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 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?