Home | About | Donate

New Report Debunks 'Myth' That GMOs are Key to Feeding the World


#1


#2

Surprise! Monsanto was not telling the truth!


#3

And poverty is caused by people having children at a rate of three additional people per second and ignoring that resources are finite.

It is also a myth that people can grow enough food in any manner to sustain that rate of population growth, especially considering that the environment is already totally screwed up, climate has already changed and all that inconvenient truth stuff.


#4

It's nice that the uselessness of GMO crops has been documented - again - but it really doesn't matter. Science is never going to trump money in US politics.

mcp


#5

If you look at the history of Monsanto, it is no surprise that they don't tell the truth. From PCBs, to Agent Orange, to Saccharin they have lied about the dangers of their products, that they were well aware of, even before they were put on the market. They have never had any concern about the health of the public, or the environment. Money is their only concern. Monsanto is a criminal origination that should be shut down, and some of their people should be locked up.


#6

Bulldoody. The quickest, easiest way to drop the birthrate in extreme poverty populations is to raise the standard of living above basic sustainability, including UNIVERSAL education to the secondary school system. By merely parroting the "poor people are stupid" myth you reveal your own biases and privileged economic status.

Poor people are far more charitable than the "wealthy" or even "middle" classes.

Allowing agrarian societies to continue with traditional LOCAL mixed farming methods is far preferable to imposing corporate/industrial mono-agriculture/feedlot-meat. Instead of stockpiling "wealth" in offshore accounts, that wealth should be taxed away and used to provide appropriate infrastructure that promotes low-impact agriculture and animal husbandry.

Big Ag needs to get out of society's way and allow us to feed ourselves. Bill Gates and Monsanto have no business telling the rest of us how to live. And they don't know how to thrive without mansions and massive corporate waste. Drop Bill and his family in sub-Saharan Africa with a hoe and some seeds and see how well he does.

I recall an apocryphal story about some USAid workers setting up a bunch of vegetable gardens in a remote African village, and were upset that the locals were not inclined to help out. The locals even questioned why the USAid kids would do such a thing. The USAid workers soldiered on, the garden grew and US-know-how was set to reign supreme. Silly locals... Then one night the village was awakened to a loud ruckus in the veggie garden. Seems the local elephants didn't mind that the veggies weren't QUITE ripe enough for human consumption. When the USAid workers expressed frustration that the locals didn't warn about the elephants, the locals replied, "you seemed so confident, we thought you knew something we didn't".

So repeat this hubris on a grand scale and you have the failure of US "foreign policy" and colonialism in general writ large. Monsanto is merely promoting GMO/economic colonialism by another name. The smartest guys in the room usually aren't.


#7

Well what about Monsanto? Do you want Monsanto to starve? GMO's are a cash crop and Monsanto needs cash to survive. Are you going to be the one to condemn a corporation to death? Corporations are people too. They have as much right to survive as we do, maybe more 'cause they have much longer life spans and they're rich.


#8

Lobbyist Claims Monsanto's Roundup Is Safe To Drink, Freaks Out When Offered A Glass


#10

Hi John, MonSatan is doing what all corporations do - pumping up the short term monatary interests of their shareholders.
Of course "They have never had any concern about the health of the public, or the environment." If they did they be booted out of their cushy jobs by those shareholder's lawyers.


#11

Saw that from RT the other day. Thanks for posting it.

mcp


#13

Poverty is overwhelmingly caused by rich people stealing from relatively poor people. This used to be called Colonialism, now neo-Colonialism, aka "free" (actually corporate) trade, or even just "trade" or "economics" or "development".

Climate catastrophe is overwhelmingly caused by rich people. (The poorest half of humanity, 3 1/2 billion people, cause only 7% of the greenhouse gas emissions and similar proportions of most ecological problems while the richest 6 or 7% of people cause half the GHGs and the richest 20% cause 80% of the GHGs.

The only significant population growth is happening among the poor. Having more children is a rational strategy when faced with high death rates especially of infants and children, in poor, unequal, patriarchal and insecure societies. So the way to reduce population growth is to equalize politically and economically, help people empower and educate themselves, especially women, and ensure security in sickness, hard times and old age while making contraception freely available.

Almost all the increase in numbers happening now is because more children are living, people are living longer and young age structures (more people coming into childbearing years than leaving them as they age) are compensating for the huge decrease in children per couple the world has experienced in the last 60 years. That too is stabilizing.

Population growth has halved since it peaked in the 1960s, and is projected to stop by 2050 so population levels off at 9-11 billion and then starts to decline. Those projections don't account for the increase in death rates already starting and about to take off because of climate catastrophe so our numbers will almost certainly peak lower and sooner.

The world produces enough grain alone to feed everyone on Earth 2700 Calories a day or more, a plentiful diet, and that doesn't even include beans, nuts, vegetables, fruits, mushrooms and organic home-grown Tom Kha.

However, more and more grain (etc.) goes to feed livestock and fuel cars, both for the indulgence of rich people. Even countries experiencing famine keep exporting food, due to the unfair, manipulative and elite-benefiting trade rules set up by the WTO, NAFTA and other corporate trade deals. (TPP would be even worse.) As the article said, people are hungry because of poverty, which is structural and intentional, not because of lack of food in the world. We can feed everyone expected, if we equalize, eat less meat than people in the US do, and stop feeding food to cars.

We do need to massively and immediately replace fossil fuels with clean renewable energy, efficiency, conservation, and ecological lives and rational priorities to avoid any more degradation of Earth's carrying capacity than is already inevitable, We need to reforest the planet and transform global, commodities-based, meat-centered chemical industrial agriculture to networked, local, low-meat, perennial plant-based organic permaculture. We can feed the world and even reclaim land for nature if we start on all those now.


#14

Bingo...you won


#15

These corps don't realize they have signed ours the their own death warrants. In case no one has noticed this is a finite world, everything does and can run out. I think we need a large CME to start the process. We had one in 1889 or there abouts, it took out the telegraph in North America and Northern Europe. If we had one now it would take out the electrical grid worldwide.


#19

Uh, dude, "famine and malnutrition" and food insecurity go hand in hand. The fact that enough food is produced to feed everyone does not mean that everyone gets fed.

mcp


#20

Except the yields are substantially better, even in developed countries.

Consider Corn Yields between the US, where 90+% is GMO and the EU, where 0% is GMO

Here's the data from 2011 to 2014 for corn yields (Data from USDA and IndexMundi)

Year - EU Bushels - Acres - EU Yield per acre - US yields per acre

2011 3,133,658,000 - 22,493,513 - 139 - 148

2012 2,709,216,000 - 24,013,178 - 113 - 122

2013 2,955,914,000 - 24,065,069 - 123 - 158

2014 3,411,360,000 - 23,635,115 - 144 - 171

Had the EU gotten the same yields as the US they would have produced 1,892,385,207 more bushels of corn in just those 4 years, a 15% increase over what they managed.

Now the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that about 805 million people were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2012-2014. So if that 1.9 billion bushels of corn was provided to these people, it would provide every chronically undernourished person ~42 lbs of corn each year which would be a decent increase in their daily food intake.

Notice also the slope of the trend for yield

US slope is y = 10.5x while the EU slope is but y = 2.5x

In a decade, at this trend rate, US would produce 270 Bu/Acre compared to 160 bu/ac in the EU


#21

One of her claims is we don't need GMO because we waste so much food.
A) those aren't related
B) While there is a lot of waste, there isn't nearly as much as she claims (1/3 of all food we grow/raise is wasted)
C) Most of the waste occurs in small amounts along the way to the end consumer, and thus there is no economical way to get this "waste" to any consumer. The fact that our mechanical harvesters only get 97% of the crop is simply the best we can do. Yes 3% is left in the field, but there is no way to go gather that 3% over 240 million acres of land.
D) Lots of waste is simply because food is perishable, when that last pint of milk goes sour before you finish that gallon jug, you can't give that milk to the poor.

The idea that 33% of our food is wasted is not based on anything but a single report, not published in any peer reviewed journal.

This is what % of food they claim is wasted at each step:

Estimated/assumed waste percentages for each commodity group in each step of the FSC for North
America.
Agricultural production -Postharvest handling -Processing -Distribution -Retail -Consumption
Cereals 2% 2% 0.5%, 10% 2% 27%
Roots and tubers 20% 10% 15% 7% 30%
Oilseeds and pulses 12% 0% 5% 1% 4%
Fruits and vegetables 20% 4% 2% 12% 28%
Meat 3.5% 1.0% 5% 4% 11%
Fish and seafood 12% 0.5% 6% 9% 33%
Milk 3.5% 0.5% 1.2% 0.5% 15%

So that last column is what supposedly we buy, but don't eat. 27% of our cereals, 30% of our roots and tubers, 28% of our fruit and vegetables, 11% of our meat, 33% of our fish and 15% of our Milk/dairy.

NO WE DON'T.

Most of the other numbers are more reasonable for losses that we have along the way, foods are perishable by nature and much of what is done is mechanized, so even though we do lose some, there is little potential savings as each of those processors are for the most part using "best practices" to keep losses to a minimum.

This is the doc if you would like to explore other figments of their imagination.

The idea that 33% of our food is wasted is not based on anything but a single report, not published in any peer reviewed journal.

This is what % of food they claim is wasted at each step:

Estimated/assumed waste percentages for each commodity group in each step of the FSC for North
America.
Agricultural production -Postharvest handling -Processing -Distribution -Retail -Consumption
Cereals 2% 2% 0.5%, 10% 2% 27%
Roots and tubers 20% 10% 15% 7% 30%
Oilseeds and pulses 12% 0% 5% 1% 4%
Fruits and vegetables 20% 4% 2% 12% 28%
Meat 3.5% 1.0% 5% 4% 11%
Fish and seafood 12% 0.5% 6% 9% 33%
Milk 3.5% 0.5% 1.2% 0.5% 15%

So that last column is what supposedly we buy, but don't eat. 27% of our cereals, 30% of our roots and tubers, 28% of our fruit and vegetables, 11% of our meat, 33% of our fish and 15% of our Milk/dairy.

NO WE DON'T.

Most of the other numbers are more reasonable for losses that we have along the way, foods are perishable by nature and much of what is done is mechanized, so even though we do lose some, there is little potential savings as each of those processors are for the most part using "best practices" to keep losses to a minimum.

This is the doc if you would like to explore other figments of their imagination.

fao dot org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00 dot htm


#22

Emily writes: "Given that creating just one genetically engineered crop variety can cost upwards of $130 million, you'd think Big Ag companies would invest in strategies that have been proven to work and less on GMOs that may not even increase crop yields. But what corporations really care about is increasing their profits, not feeding a hungry world."

All corporations are interested in increasing their profits, but that doesn't mean that they ALSO don't want to help feed a hungry world.

The main product the company sells is SEEDS.
The only purpose of seeds is to grow crops to feed hungry people.


#23

[This is my first post on this forum, and I'm not sure how to reply to stoplessmcpartlandattax. It's showing that I'm replying to Pechorin, but I'm not, I'm replying to a reply.]

Technically, you are correct. Pechorn misused the phrase "food insecurity". He should have said "food insufficiency", but that's not the real issue, and I think we all know it.

Pechorn was replying to the oft-referenced Monsanto meme that GMOs are necessary to feed the world's growing population, implying an insufficiency of food production.

It is important in the ensuing discussion (here) to make clear that there IS enough food to feed everyone on the planet a good, wholesome diet. It is the current political / cultural / imperialist power structures that are dooming so much of the world's people to starvation and not an insufficiency of food. No GMOs are going to improve that. In fact, GMOs will probably make it worse, since the whole point of GMOs is for the ruling elite to be able to control the world's food supply.

That's why Monsanto is one of the partners in the Doomsday Vault in Norway.


#24

Duh!!! What else is new??