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

[Michel Bauwens]

thanks for this very convincing response, I will also publish it on the
blog,

Michel


On 5/22/09, Roberto Verzola <rverzola at gn.apc.org> wrote:
>
> There are several points I'd like to raise in response to the
> article. Developing these points fully will take a long article,
> so I will just be brief:
>
> 1. Organic food has proven its healthful effect over centuries of
> use, and this has been confirmed by modern consumers of organic
> food. On the other hand, genetically-engineered food is so novel
> that we've had very little time to assess its health impact. The
> organic movement therefore rightly insists on strict standards
> that exclude any GM ingredient in organic foods. And those who
> market it have tried to make sure we cannot effectively assess
> the impact by opposing the mandatory labelling of GM food. But
> the few studies which have been done (the Russian feeding study
> on GM soya and the Austrian feeding study on Bt corn) already
> reveal the harm GM food can cause on smaller mammals. The few
> scientists who do independent studies like these are often
> persecuted by the chemical/GM industry, unfortunately. The Obama
> administration promised adopt the mandatory labelling of GMOs.
> Expect the GM industry to fight this to death, because that will
> be the end of their business.
>
> 2. The article makes a big issue out of the cost of organic food.
> This cost is due to a regulatory system designed to make organic
> foods expensive and chemical/GM foods cheap, by forcing organic
> foods to shoulder all the costs of differentiating the organic
> category from the chemical/GM category. In fact, since organic
> practice is the natural default, and chemical/GM is the
> synthetic exception, a  fair regulatory system would put the
> burden of identifying themselves on chemical/GM foods. This
> means that we should have a system of mandatory labelling of
> GM/chemically-sprayed foods: they should bear the burden of the
> cost of recording, testing, labelling, and ensuring they can be
> distinguished from the naturally, organically-grown, in
> accordance with the "polluter pays" principle. If this were the
> case, the cost structure of the food industry will shift in
> favor of organics.
>
> By the way, the Obama administration offers $50 million for
> organic farming. It is a good start, but that is less that $1
> million per state of the U.S., a pittance compared to the
> subsidies that the GM/chemical food industry has been getting.
>
> 3. GM food cannot even feed the U.S., how can it feed the world?
> In 2006, around 10% of American adults and 17% of children
> suffered from occasional involuntary hunger, despite the
> aggressive introduction of GM crops in the U.S. (Food Research
> and Action Center, “Hunger and Food Insecurity in the United
> States,”
> http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html) "Feeding
> the world" is just an excuse.
>
> 4. The real reason for GM, gene patents, and modern hybrids is
> control of the seed and food supply by a few giant monopolies.
> These developments are in effect a declaration of war against
> farmers in a global battle for the food supply of the world. The
> movement against GM is part of the movement to keep our seeds
> and our foods free from corporate monopolies. We must regain
> control of our food supply.
>
> Roberto Verzola
>
>


-- 
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/20090523/125cc2a4/attachment.html>