Wednesday, May 22, 2013

GMO Report Card. Failed Failed Failed

If I was in school and my performance matched the dismal results that Genetically Modified crops have returned, I would have gotten my ass beaten and had my nose forced into books every single minute of every day that I wasn't asleep, eating, pooping or walking to school. And yes, in my day we walked to school, my parents never had to worry whether or not we would go, we went because we knew we had to.  And if the bigger kids beat us up, we had to deal with it.  This sort of applies to today's world, and the creators of GM crops, they have beaten the little peons of consumers and actually the farmers as well, and now we are uniting to fight back, and now they have to suffer the consequences.

So, first off, I discovered in my research, another branch of the USDA, the ERS, or Economic Research Service.  Their job, is to make sure that the figures presented to the world show the lies and half truths that Monsanto and other Gene Tech firms and chemical producers want us to see.  Oops, that's not the real mandate, it just seems to be when you look closely at the data and conclusions they present.  (ERS info)  Their conclusions about how wonderful and healthful as well as productive and cost saving seem to be in direct conflict with the findings of, you got it, their parent organization, the USDA. 

Now, I don't know everything, as I have said before, if I did, I would be a woman, a really ugly woman.  But I know how to get information that I want, or need, so that I can be perceived as though I know a lot more than I actually do.  And thus comes the Internet.  And I began to look up info on crop yields for most GM crops to find out how they compare to conventional, and of course, organic, crops in similar environments and growing conditions.  I found this paper by the Union of Concerned Scientists - (Failure to yield)  One of the things that is discussed in this paper is that yields for most crops are rising across the board, but that those increases are attributable to non-genetic modifications such as improvements in farming techniques like satellite tillage, water and drainage management and other basic but high tech farming techniques.  the catch is that the increases are greater for non-GM crops than for GM crops.  So I wanted to verify this info, and found  (Cotton Yields)  (Corn Yields)  (Soy Yields)  and I even found one article on the differences in harvest in Tobacco Mosiac Virus Resistant Genetically Modified Squash.  It was really long and boring and showed that as an abstract that yields were slightly higher for GM but it was attributable to other factors. 

The true report card comes with grades in other subjects, not just yield per acre.  Those grades are for the tremendous use of pesticides on plants that are supposed to be toxic to insects if they eat them.  Ouch, we now have Bt resistant insects, and farmers are spraying ever greater quantities of traditional pesticides on their crops that are damaging beneficial insect populations and dramatically increasing the resistance of the populations of damaging insects that are targeted.  Plus the bonus of the Bt toxin being actually in every bite of the GM foods that we consume and with research just now finding out that those toxins are harmful to humans, are chronic and cumulative, and that the genes that cause the manufacture of the Bt toxin in the crops are passed into the bacteria living in the intestinal tracts of humans and animals that consume the crops.  Ouch, another failure.

Use of the toxin glyphosate has reached 1.3 billion pounds annually.  Contrary to what Monsanto would like us as consumers to believe, it is NOT harmless.  New research is proving that the stuff causes cancer, destroys the environment, and does not degrade for several years.  Humans in Germany have unbelievably high amounts of glyphosate in their urine.  If I win the lottery, I will set up a lab and start to test for that kind of stuff here in the US.  Sad to say, it costs a lot of money, and Monsanto will not pay for it.  And no governmental agency will pay for it either since big business runs the government.  The overall effect of spraying ever greater quantities of glyphosate on crops is that the stuff is pretty much everywhere, and yet the weeds it is supposed to eradicate just develop resistance to the weed killer in much the same manner that the crops have.  Ouch, another FAILURE.

 It is possible to farm quite effectively and profitably using non-GM crops and using organic methods.  In fact, the FDA itself has a complete section on their website about how to do it.  (AFICS) Alternative Farming 'Systems Information Center.  The number of organic farms in the US has increased over 70% since 2007.  And that is just the ones registered, many farms use sustainable practices but are just too small to justify the cost of the organic certification.  Or they just don't want to, like the Amish.  Who by the way, have been very successful at what they do for quite some time now.  It is possible, if we as consumers demand it, it will happen. 

Overall, things are just like the title states.  The GMO experiment now just some 17 years old, (well for the poison Canola, about 27) and the report card is a big resounding FAILURE.  The FDA has their own propaganda dissemination organisation, the ERS and it is telling us all how great and wonderful the experiment  is doing here in our life in "Animal Farm" world.  Thank you Snowball, our lives are all the better as we live with all the degenerative ills and cancers forming in our bodies from this horrific experiment known as "Monsanto Makes Billions as Humans Die!"

I just want to leave you with this thought, in 1998, 24 African scientists at a United Nations conference wrote an angry rebuke of Monsanto's advertising, which used photos of starving African children under the headline, "Let the Harvest Begin." In
their statement the delegates wrote:  We...strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from 
our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push technology that is neither safe,
environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to use. We do not believe that such companies 
or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural 
systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity 
to feed ourselves"

No comments:

Post a Comment