The Future of Food

Link To Video


Watch it - you will be surprised, and angry.

 

I went and saw the whole thing at UVic last summer. It was pretty eyeopening.

 

bought the dvd a few weeks ago. great documentary, important to know about.

 

Genetically Modified food, will lead to a more stable agricultural environment globally, and has already drastically improved food output in places where it has been grown.

GMO hysteria is based on very simple misunderstandings of the nature of agriculture, and more importantly, the nature of hunger.

Plant pathology has been used on our planet by our agrarian ancestors for the past ten thousand years. They've used selective breeding to find out more beneficial traits of plants so that they can thrive better to changing weather patterns and different environments.

In normal plant pathology, you're taking 50,000 genes from one plant, and mixing them with 50,000 from another plant. In GMO's your moving around a few carefully selected genes to produce a more beneficial crop. GMO is just advanced plant pathology, and their have never been any cases of people or animals being harmed by GMO's.

Moreover, the largest study of it's kind was concluded a year ago, showing that GM crops and non GMO's could co-exist. (You'll have to sign up to read this) http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20041124/04/

It's also been studied that consumers prefer the taste of GMO's.
http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/news.asp?id=48499

If there were any negative health effects of GMOs, there would be law firms buckling to take the case to the court, but there aren't. In fact, for GM crops to be sold by US corporations, they have to be approved by the FDA, the DEA, and the USDA. These are the most highly and diversely tested crops in existence.

Dr. Norman Borlaug, Nobel Prize winning agronomist, estimates that on existing farmlands using only organic farming methods, the world could only produce enough food to feed 4 billion people. That means with a population of 6 billion people, there would be huge rushes to clear as much forest and grasslands for farming as possible while we tried to shore up enough food for the other third of our planet.
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/borlaug/doomsayers.html

All recent hunger crises could be averted to some extent using GM technology. Nigeria's recent famine is one example is one example, and Darfur is another.

http://www.wfp.org/english/?ModuleID=137&Key=1987

The situation of misinformation perpetuated is so bad, that in 2002, famine stricken Zambia refused donated GMO food aid from the United States, food that Americans eat every day, while millions of their people faced starvation. Many people starved as a result of this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2371675.stm

GMO acts as an important means to boost food production in areas that cannot produce adequate supplies, and also are able to provide essential nutrients that are unavailable in common crops in other areas. Golden Rice is an excellent example, becoming a staple in areas where rice is heavily grown. according to the World Health Organization, clinical Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) affects up to 230 million children, as is responsible for the deaths of over 1 million children annually. It is also the leading cause of blindness in the third world. It's also been bolstered using simple GMO techniques to improve it's Iron content, Iron Deficiency Anemia effects almost a third of the planet, mostly women and children, and is responsible for millions of deaths and birth defects every year.

Fortunately, the scientists behind Golden Rice worked very hard for the humanitarian applications of this crop. Where by the patent holders of the crop (Zeneca) support it's humanitarian use, and any amount of the rice grown under $10,000 (US) is free from patent payments, meaning it's humanitarian (free from patenting obligations)to all small scale farmers in the third world.

http://www.biotech-info.net/GR_tale.html

There are many other things I could say in advocating the use of GM crops, but for now I'll just post these.
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/GMmyths.html
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/critical.html

 

Approval by the FDA, DEA, and USDA is (in my opinion) meaningless, given that they also allow many other hazardous foods to be sold at supermarkets (I'm thinking of feedlot meat...).

And this presents a profound dilemna: Do we really wish to feed a larger and growing population? It's technically possible (as long as it can be sustained, which is highly debateable) but is it wise, in the long run?

 

The corporations are the government. Multinational corporations are the new central planners.

 

Mansato would like you to think that corn genetically engineered to withstand the use of roundup or other of it's pesticides/herbicides is better for you because it increases yield per acre. But when our grandchildren start showing mutations in their genes because we and they consumed these products will it really matter. And it sometimes takes generations to manifest.

 

I think that Genetically modified food isn't about feeding hungry mouths or preserving a bountyfull supply of crop harvests.It's really all about preserving maximum $ profit margins.

 

and if it feeds the woefully poor and hungry, this is bad?

 

Not if it's the same thing you feed your own children and grandchildren. Is it?

 

Theres no array of evidece showing that feedloat meat is maleficial to human health, despite no lack of testing. Most people were arguing that BGH was going to make our children larger... a hormone that stimulates mammory tissue in cattle...

You could point out dozens of mistakes that these groups have made particularlly the FDA, but considering the rigorous testing that they put through each trial, they've kept thousands of harmful medicines from the public while allowing for the approval of the thousands of life saving medicines such as insulin and penicillin.

All the documentary was able to present as counter-evidence to GMO was the desturction of small scale farms, presented as one argument, while the fact is that corporate farming has been a reality since the 50's, and most of it's meaning is that less of us in North America rely on substinance farming. If you want to counter that argument, you should make that your argument and not try to blur it together with GMO's.

The other was a small outbreak of an allergen crop, which wasn't approved for human consumption. It was immediatly removed off the shelves. Then they have some lady saying how we should be sure what we eat is safe, despite the fact that before the USDA, food poisoning was a rampant cause of death in the US, and there we're almost no medications available to treat allergic reactions before the FDA started approving medicines.

The only other was wild speculation where no scientists were found to speak on Camera, about possible biblical scale crop failures, ignoring the realities of hunger we have going on right now.

It's fine to be skeptical of the government. I certainly am, but I'm not going to confuse that with the issues of GMO's when their is abundent evidence from these orginazations and NGA's both foriegn and domestic, many of them with the agenda of trying to prove that GMO's are unhealthy, and yet no ample evidence has been presented.

We have no other option. It's not like if we discontinue farming implementation in less developed countries their population growth will dis-continue immediatly. What will happen is population growth will continue at current trends until their is a scarcity, at which point their will be major famines. I can't see a method of farming that can only produce enough food for 4 billion people to be called sustainable. Their is very little debate amongst agricultural scientists that the way we produce food now is more efficient, more nutritous, more safe, and provides an enviornment where much fewer people have to rely on substanince farming to live then 150 years ago.

More monoculturing can lead to an enviornment where plants are more suceptible to diseases, but in modern agriculture, we have testing of strains of seeds to rid out these naturally occuring viruses from ruining food supplies.

http://www.hort.uconn.edu/Ipm/veg/htms/viruspot.htm

The Irish famine had more to do with economics then potatoes. Food viruses are much more common in agrarian societies then in modern societies. That hyptothetical situation doesn't hold up to much scrutiny. Remember the bannana crises?

http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/bananas.asp

We cannot ignore a holocaust of famine. The population of the planet will continue at current trends unless a lot of people starve. That's not a solution. So the solution must be through technology. The current prediction for population growth is sustainable growth through the year 2080, at which point the population will grow to about 9 billion people, at which point the population will peak and we will reach a stasis in growth.

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/borlaug/billions.html

Furthermore, the video is right on one point, hunger isn't a food problem, it's a distribution problem.

We have enough food here in the US and Europe to feed them. Why not?

But the fact is, that is what we are doing, and it is negativly effecting the economies of lesser developed nations, especially African nations.

Theres enough food being produced in Africa to feed all Africans, in fact, Africa produces more food waste then any other part of the world.

The problem is two fold, supply problem. In one village, food may be bountiful, and have food that rots, and in a village 50 miles South, they may have a famine. The problems are they may not have the proper infrastructure of trade, such as markets, or they may not have the means to transport food such as proper roads, trucks, and refrigeration. Much of the infrastructure in some areas such as Uganda, Sierre Leone, the DRC, and Zambia have been destroyed by wars.

Giving them more food which can be grown locally through GMO, can solve much of this suffering. In the case of Nigeria, giving them crops which are more resistant drought in localized areas would help out tremendously.

But hunger isn't the largest problem facing Africans, it's malnutrition which leads to the body shutting down. The difference is they have enough food, but aren't getting enough nutrition.

And why is that? It's because they are only depending on one or two crops to meet their nutritional requirements. Why don't they trade for more diverse food with their African neighbors, fulfilling their dietary needs?

The problem is close to globalization, which the video mentions, but not exactly. It has more to do with colonialism. In around the 1800's, most European farms we're producing much more food then they needed to feed their populations. So what did they do with this excess food? They forced Africans to buy it.

This still happens today. In the US and Europe, Japan, and elsewhere, we subsidize our agriculture exports. That means that food we produce is much cheaper for Africans to buy then African food is. Africa has the largest untapped agriculture market in the world, but due to agriculture subsidies, and other production factors, Africans can't sell this food. That means that a farmer may grow enough wheat to feed his family, but may not be able to barter enough of it away to buy other food he needs for his families substinance.

Also a family producing cotton, would be unable to sell enough to feed his family. They bring up cash crops in the documetary, but they dont thorughly explain why it's a problem. It's not that their isn't enough food being produced in Africa, it's that these 'cash crops' don't sell.

The solutions to this are muli-fold. To ameliarate local famines, we need more support to the FAO and the WFP to provide food in localized situations. That means we can't have groups like Greenpeace warning countries like Zambia that can't afford large scientific communities that this food will poison them.

But donating too much food to Africa is very bad for Africa, as it will further deflate the prices at which they can sell their crops. They need to be able to produce their own food locally, so local markets can begin to reestablish commerce. To help them do that we must be willing to share our systems of agriculture, as Dr. Borlaug explains in the previous link, so that they will be able to produce more food in their local 'states' and have sustainable agricultural trade between them. This will help lead to a system in which people are less dependant on sustenance farming, and can therefore further diversify their markets to complete globally.

The last problem is that of export subsidies. This is the means that the US, Japan, the EU, Australlia, and other governments, artificially deflate the prices of their crops, leading to a situation in which agriarian societies can't sell their produce to the rest of the world, or even their neighbor countries or districts. We must come up with a system in which agricultural export subsidies are ended, thereby allowing the African nations economic infrastructure to develop.

The situation isn't exactly easy, but modern agriculture has lead to an increase in the health of our society, and other western societies. In the meantime, our birth rate and the birth rate of most western countries is slowing. Sharing these benifits with the world is not only ideal for all of humanity, but also the steadiness of the enviornement.

The worlds population will continue to grow, and if you think modern agriculture is bad for the enviornment, you should research into slash and burn cropping methods, which are still in use in much of the lesser developed world. Slash and burn cropping is chatastropic for the enviornment, as the land is used for only a few seasons then abandoned. Slash and Burn cropping is the principal cause of deforestation in the Amazon.

Organic farming is different from slash and burn, whoever If we were to switch over to an organic farming system in all our farmlands today, that means that much of the third worlds forests, swamps, marshes, and grasslands would neeed to be cleared for agriculture. If the population continues to grow over the next century before we hit a curve, that means much more land would be cleared. If the entire planet switched to organic production as it's only means of producing food, it would be an enviornmental catastrophe.

Our planet will continue to grow. I agree with el video that we should reach harmony with our planet, and I also believe we should feed everyone on earth. We're not going to run out of resources if we use them wisely. That means we use the science and technology at our disposal, and continue to augment it to fit the needs of everyone on the planet.

Our planets population growth has already boomed in the past century. Things we're getting so bad that doomsday predictions of hunger in the third world were on the paper daily. In Mexico, millions we're predicted to starve in the 50's. They didn't. This was thanks to a brave scientist who went down to live amongst the people in mexico, and thanks to the introduction of agriculture techniques and a newly patholigized strain of corn, prevented the starvation of estimated millions.

This didn't stop their, he went on to India, where in the midst of a war with Pakistan, he increased yields of both countries 4 fold in only a decade, preventing what was predicted to be a famine that would kill millions.

He didn't stop their. He later went on to China, an introduced a new strain of rice and modern agriculture, ending the Chinese famine of 1958, the most deadly famine in human history, one which had already killed 30-40 million people by the time this man had reached China. This was thanks to this man, and the rulers of several provinces accepting his help, such as Liu Shaoqi.

This man's name was Norman Borlaug. When he won the Nobel prize in 1970, they estimated that he was responsible for preventing the starvation of a Billion people. No typo, that's 1000 million people. This great man revolutioned agriculture, and believes we can feed a planet of 10 billion. At 92 years old, this man continues to teach courses in how to revolutionize agriculture around the world.

http://www.reason.com/0004/fe.rb.billions.shtml

If a nobel winning foctor of agriculture who has already worked what could only be described as mircales for humanity belives that we can continue to feed this world, then I believe him.

Dr. Borlaug is the greatest human being who's ever lived. Being such a magnificent and brilliant agricultural scientist isn't a reason to take his words as the only source on the matter.

We should always look at things objectivly, that means looking for scientfic proof of the relationships of food between us and our enviornment, and how we can improve yields in places that need it most. After thorough research, you can begin to understand the benifits that GMO can have for the world.

Their are risks to any experiments, which although thoroughly tested, I admit GMO's still are experimental, however, when to potential benifit is to solve the problem of starvation and malnutrition which has been the primary struggle of humans throughout their history. GMO technology has the potential to make food acessible for everyone on the planet, and this will not only save countless lives, but ultimatly be responsible for our evolution as a species. Not because of some crackpot proposed theory of mutation from GMO food, but because we will have solved our ultimate rival to life, peace and stability throughout history.

We must use caution when we use science and technology to improve our lives, but if we do it wisely, our potential is almost limitless.

 

All food donated to the third world is commercial food available in the United States. It is the stuff she probably feeds her children, and It's the stuff I eat.

I'm 172 pounds, exercise 6 days a week, and am a somewhat successful amateur kickboxer, I eat very healthy food, and my conditioning is in part thanks to this. My healthy diet includes food that is GMO and milk that has BGH in it. I feel healthy enough that I would want a diet like mine donated to starving people.

Not that personal examples are important anyway. Whats important are rigerous testing of the foods saftey applied in multiple studies of different people with different health conditions, which GMO's donated to foreign nations has passed the test of through the USDA, the FDA and the EPA.

 

we should eat people that die . and i would buy human meat from soldiers of wars those are fresh and healthy meat. older folks might be a tougher meat but a good pressure cooker well take care of that. hell china alone can supply all we need for Mcdee and BK.

 

Lodui:



Sorry I actually buy your arguments in your previous post. And I am an Horticulturist with a degree, but I don't have a lot of faith in the USDA, FDA AND EPA. I used to, but I've learned that their approval can be purchased.

I've raised viral resistant hybrids of different vegetable crops, and welcomed their introduction, but I've become a lot more skeptical lately. I wish I could be assured when I see those initials now, but I really don't trust them any longer.

Pat

 

That's a point of view held by some, which in some cases may be true. There are some intrests in the food market about getting as much money as possible. Not everyones a saint, and all large corps consider profit a primary motive.

They also enjoy publicity and notariaty, which creating foods that can benifit starving people will hep do. In this situation, I could care less if their intentions are dubious, as long as the results can save and improve lives for people living in impoverished conditions.

As I pointed out, earlier, the video blurs the line between corporate farming, and GMO's, not presenting a clear link, other then a few mentions on Monsantos less then sterling reputation on property rights. GMO's should be considered in a completly different topic then corporate farming, as the humanitarian uses of GMO's by non corporate entities has already been posted under the golden rice tale. I could provide several more examples if you wish of humanitarian applications, but I'll leave it at this for now in the intrest of brevity.

But their are also many noble scientists working in the field of plant bio-technology, who's primary intrest is getting a crop to help alieviate the hunger and malnutrition in the third world, as was well presented in the golden rice tale.

 

I agree, but so many times what they come up with if not quickly profitable is overlooked for something that may be detrimental but highly profitable in the short term.

 

I don't blame you for being skeptical. I'm not comfortable shoving anything down my throat just because Uncle Sam said it was okay. I do realise that approval of just about anything can be bought, however, I still think that Skepticism of governmental institutions should be put in a different catagory then questions about GMO's uses.

Not to say they shouldn't be considered, but when that's the last line to fall back on, I don't think it makes for a complete argument aginst GMO's. I still am glad that there is a USDA, FDA, and EPA, despite the fact that they may be bought, at least there was intensive testing done initially, and I'm sure if it made many people grow an extra arm out of their ass, you couldn't buy your way out of that.

I do understand concerns on the matter, and I'm glad that someone as knowledgeable as you are is around to discuss it. For a while I was considering a degree in horticulture as well.

 

i don't see why not. i've been hungry before. i know what it's like. it's awfully easy to say we shouldn't feed this stuff to these people when we're not the ones unable to feed our children. watching someone else's children die is a lot easier than watching your own, i suppose.

 

I realise this happens too. Remember when the fear of Birdflu came out last year, and we all became aware that that while there are about 8 or 9 pharmaceutical companies working round the clock on producing treatments for erectile disfunction and male pattern baldness, there was only 1 currently producing Tamaflu?

I actually found that morbidly hilarious.

But there is also this, while it doesn't have anything to do with food, does illustrate the potential for GM.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4671634.stm

We should be cautious, but I think ignoring the enormous potential advances in biology GM can create will slow down the progress of all humanity.

Of course their be fears of our tomatoes turning radioactive, and making pizza from our blood, but call me a skeptic. I'm not saying their aren't real concerns either, but I do see a lot of luditism from the anti-GM crowd, who intermingle their debates on saftey of GMO with socio-political isssues at times that are somewhat incoherent.

 

I really have a hard time justifying genetically engineering a plant species to deal with the application of an herbicide. Why, because farmers don't want to weed. Dealing with viruses and disease is one thing to engineer plants so a company can sell more herbicide is another.