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

Sun May 24 01:41:52 CEST 2009

Professor,

Care to comment?  I've suggest GMO is a good thing for Africa--a line I've
been told many times by development economists.  Maybe you could give some
pointers to "independent" studies.  Is there an honest middle party?  How
would one know an honest middle party?

Ryan

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Roberto Verzola <rverzola at gn.apc.org>wrote:

> When I looked at the page given below (GMO Food for Thought), it
> was a blog by the well-known C.S.Prakash. His blog refers to the
> Austrian Bt corn study, but the associated link is not the study
> itself but instead an effort to discredit the study citing
> supposedly "independent scientists", although the caption
> says "Monsanto scientist's recalculation of Austrian... study."
> If Monsanto were a person, it would have absolutely no standing
> in the science community, given its past record of scientific
> fraud. But a corporation, it seems, can perpetrate scientific
> fraud, and continue to direct "scientific" work and try to
> discredit genuine scientists using attack dogs like C.S.Prakash.
> Indeed, issues become complex when very simple matters like
> excluding fraudsters from scientific debate or labelling novel
> foods to enable public health monitoring, not to mention
> respecting consumer rights, are ignored.
>
> Roberto Verzola
>
>
> On Sunday 24 May 2009 3:53:16 am Ryan Lanham wrote:
> > I think it deserves a contra side...there are many pro-GMO
> > blogs by academics--many.
> >
> > Here's one:
> >
> > http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/
> >
> > It is a complex issue and there is no clear and obvious up or
> > down on GMO even if certain companies (especially Monsanto)
> > have been immoral in their practices.
> >
> > Ryan Lanham
> >
> > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Michel Bauwens
> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
> > > 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/
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > p2presearch mailing list
> > > p2presearch at listcultures.org
> > > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcul
> > >tures.org
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090523/c1e27598/attachment-0001.html>