[p2p-research] controversy: GM foods and organic agriculture

Fri May 22 03:47:42 CEST 2009

Hi Ryan,

I think there are two weaknesses in this reasoning,

First that, we are facing a huge increase in world population, so food is a
separate issue, not just a derivative of the 'market'.

Second, you seem to assume free markets, regarding Monsanto, but it never
works that way, Monsanto actively destroys traditional livelyhoods and
farming autonomy. I haven't seen it, but The World according to Monsanto has
been recommended several times.

I'm hoping agricultural activist Roberto Verzola can shed some light on
this,

Michel

Perhaps not very balanced in tone, but here is a quick report on that
documentary:

Under the plausible guise of eradicating world hunger with genetically
modified seeds resistant to Round-Up, a best-selling herbicide it also
developed, Monsanto has launched an insidious campaign to achieve worldwide
market supremacy, regardless of the social cost to small farmers and rural
economies.

It's all laid out in previously classified documents, and confirmed by
scientists, politicians and victims. What the evidence suggests is that
Monsanto has long waged a dirty war of pressure campaigns, corruption,
collusion with government and prevarication, also known as big fat lies.

We know where Robin stands on Monsanto. We also know she tried early and
often to get the company to talk for her documentary. It refused, on the
grounds it would not come off looking good. It doesn't.

As far back as 1937, a study showed the "systemic toxic effects" of PCBs.
Its production continued for decades, with shattering results still felt
today.

Repositioning itself as an agricultural company, Monsanto developed Bovine
Growth Hormone (rBGH) to increase milk production in dairy cows. Despite
flawed science and obvious health risks, the company rushed the product to
market, using such subtle measures as attempting to bribe Canadian
government officials.

It failed, and the drug never crossed the border. But it was accepted in the
States, where deregulations initiated during the Reagan years have put the
company into bed with successive governments committed to leading the
biotech revolution. Yes, that's Bush senior checking out the mutant Monsanto
seeds when he was Ronald Reagan's VP.

As someone says, "biotech is so important, we can't let problems get in the
way." Which explains the current GMO saturation of global markets and the
stealth penetration of those seeds through "transgenics" into native seed
stock.

It's not scary. It's terrifying. Like a Kurt Vonnegut Ice Nine effect,
Monsanto's GMO market penetration looks to turn the world to mono-culture
and potential environmental catastrophe. Rather than feed the planet, says
Robin in this essential wake-up call, Monsanto is well on the road to
ruining it.

(
http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/arts/story.html?id=3f87922f-20eb-4493-8a29-a60a11dea213
)

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:07 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> It is interesting that GM foods are designed so as to minimize production
> loss risk--another string in this same list.
>
> I don't worry about their (GM foods') safety; in my opinion grains in
> general aren't that good as human foods, but if you are hungry, grains fill
> you up.  A real challenge is to get people productive enough so that they
> can earn some money to buy things--thereby creating demand for
> infrastructure that will lead to roads, shops, etc. where people can buy
> things.
>
> Productivity requires education, capital and enough political stability so
> that investments can work.  I've seen guys borrow 200 Euros on MyC4 in Kenya
> to get a few more goats.  They pay off the loan (sometimes at 17%+ interest)
> and hugely increase their livelihood within a couple of years.  Very few
> actually fail--less than 3-5%.  That will lead to more food, lower costs,
> etc.
>
> I've lent money to guys who buy and then rent out tractors in Uganda and
> who repair shoes or sell cellphone batteries in Ghana and Tanzania.  It
> always seems to work.  These people (many are women) know their demand and
> can gauge their appropriate investment to increase supply, and then build a
> small business that earns funds to get stuff...like appropriate food.  If GM
> is a bad idea, they won't buy it for long.  If it is a good idea, they'll be
> sending orders to Monsanto right and left.
>
> What will not work is shipping excess food from Texas to Ghana and then
> passing it out of the back of a truck.  That may keep people alive, but it
> isn't going to build stable farms, towns, etc.  GM crops might though if
> they are more drought resistent, bug resistent, etc.  Only time will tell.
> Nothing stops people from competing with Monsanto or starting a foundation
> to assure that organic seed is subsidized at competitive prices.
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Pamela Ronald <
>> http://Boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/16/the_new_organic<http://boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/16/the_new_organic>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > To meet the appetites of the world's population
>>
>> What a dangerous load of cruft.
>>
>> If higher production were the goal we could
>> simply discontinue the insane practice of
>> paying farmers to *not* grow.
>>
>> But our corporate operated governments will
>> never stop paying for scarcity as long as profit
>> is being treated as a reward for the current owners
>> instead of being treated as an investment from the
>> consumer who paid it.
>>
>> Profit *only* occurs during scarcity and is most
>> meaningfully interpreted as a payer's plea for growth.
>>
>> Profit proves there is an imbalance in the ownership
>> of the Means of Production, yet tapers toward zero as
>> the payer approaches sufficient ownership in the
>> Means required to provide him with his own needs
>> and wants, for then production can safely occur "at-cost".
>>
>> Moving toward 'perfect' distribution of ownership
>> would be easily attained and even self-correcting if
>> price above cost were invested for the one who paid,
>> and then eventually *vested* back to that same actor.
>>
>> But this fact will continue to be resisted for many more decades
>> because our brains have been washed into believing product
>> is not nearly as important as keeping price above cost.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>

-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090522/362d91af/attachment.html>