I mentioned in the last post that I was going to write a series of commentaries on organic comebacks. So here goes the next topic, GMO.
This is perhaps a little less scientifically oriented as perhaps a GMO activists would like it to be. But, science can't deny the fact that some issues, just don't feel necessarily 'okay'. Here are just a few reasons I feel that. I don't claim to be anyone important or anyone who should know any more than anyone else. I just felt like sharing what I currently view about these topics.
I am not quite sure why I chose this specific article to go through and make rebuttals. Although he is a 'botanist' and a professor. I find his way of writing... a little over the top with caps locks, and sometimes quite un-meaningful claims. But, he has written a lot, and if I am able to go through these reasons, I find it unlikely that any would be left out, he seems to have explained the pro-GMO argument quite extensively, even though his method of argument could use some editing .. in my opinion :)
Lol, I'll even address some of the claims that make me giggle. Only because right now, I have nothing else urging to do, otherwise, I would probably think that this was a complete waste of time, but hehe anyway, here we go.
1-- organic supporters are fundamentalists-
-- Sure, I can agree to that. Organic agriculture does have a strict set of rules that needs to be followed in order to be labelled as such, without this strict adherence, there would be little meaning in the word 'organic'. It ensures that artificial fertilizers aren't used, sludge isn't used, biodiversity is considered, alternative farming methods are considered, water and soil aren't contaminated with man made chemicals that have long- residual effects on the eco-system -- or even other natural elements.
-- being a fundamentalist isn't necessarily a bad.. or a good thing, it just is. Even conventional agriculturists are fundamentalists in a way. They are proponents of chemicals, gmos, of not changing the current system. If they were interested in another way... they would probably be a finding another way to do things.
Of course that is on one side of the spectrum, the other side of the spectrum would be totally against tilling, weeding, chemicals, gmos, etc etc, altogether.
I've also met an organic farmer who was a huge proponent of GMO's-- of course she couldn't grow them with the organic label that she had, but there are all types of people. Some fit more into specific categories than others.. in the end, fundamentalist doesn't mean much, mostly because the organic label was created by the USDA, and is managed by the USDA -- atleast in the USA, abroad there are different organizations that decide-- but it's all under international agreements about what organic means and how it ought to be labelled. This was requested by the poeple and for the people.
The author's next point is on the 'health' argument for/against organics. I address that in a previous blog.
But I will mention a tiny detail about what he says at the end of the paragraph -- about a study done to prove that conventional food is perfectly fit for consumption.
-- All I have to say is, "Can we really be sure, with 100% certainty that these biological toxins are safe in small doses on all of our foods, not just in our generation, but for the upcoming generations? Can any 2-4yr scientific experiment be enough to tell us with accuracy how this will affect our minds and bodies or those of our children 50,100 or 200 years down the line?"
And by that time, if there are any kind of negative consequences associated, and we've invested all of our farmland into producing GMO's to 'save' the world... then... what...?
2. Organic Farming takes up much more land than conventional farming.
In the end, organic and conventional means really nothing when it comes to how much land it takes up. Honestly, it's a style of farming, but within that either conventional or organic farming can be extremely land consuming, or can be literally produced in the backyard.
His argument is that organic farming needs manure, and if we are 9 or 10 billion soon to be people on earth, than we won't have enough manure to meet these needs. Well, what about our excrement, we've got plenty! But this is the assumption that organic farming needs manure.. which isn't always the case. Organic farming doesn't necessarily need manure, or anything for that matter, there are plenty of farmers who don't actually put anything into their gardens. Where I work the main source of nutrient is actually planting legumes interspersed with the crops. This adds nitrogen back into the soil for a fraction of the cost of manure. Also compost can be used, which essentially could be left over plant material, either plant residue or table scraps, or carrot tops, whatever, yard clippings. Manure doesn't need to be used.
And currently synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is produced from using a non-renewable product. Natural gas. Which is, in it's own regard land consuming, and polluting--when extraction doesn't go as planned. Conventional farming systems use mono-crops, which doesn't really utilize all the vertical space that could be used for growing food. Organic can include companion planting-- groundcovers, vines, tall plants, short plants, trees... the more mixed the operation the more the land can produce, not necessarily of one product but of many. This in the long run is much healthier for the soil and more financially stable than only growing one crop. Think of a farmer who only grows tomato... they have one bad pest year for tomatoes and their whole crop is finished, it might even put the farmer out of business if it's bad enough. But if only part of his garden is tomatoes, he'll still get enough food and product to use and sell to not be totally destroyed as a farmer for that year.
3. Organic Agriculture can't feed the world.
Again, he is using the same reasons that he mentioned above for this point. He says that we are already using all of the arable land, so the only way to increase production is to increase the productivity of the farm lands we are already have.
He says that with current models organic ag can only feed 4 billion people.
--- This may be true with the assumption that every person on earth needs animal products 3 or more times per day. This is pretty unsustainable and actually, conventional farming can't even keep up with the demands of food for people today. At the rate we are currently destroying the rain forest for these, "conventional practices" We may find ourselves living in an a very oxygen deprived world. :/
These ideas that conventional practices can feed the world and will save the world, are nice thoughts, but the reality of it is, is that these countries that are currently providing the western world with all of their meat, foods, fibers and other products aren't really able to afford these agriculture chemicals and soil additions that the west can. We've introduced them to this 'superior' way of life where we obtain a livelihood from destroying our surroundings. Because they can't afford to buy these agro-chemicals, the lands can only produce food and fiber for a year or two before they have slash and burn the next segment of rainforest. In places where it 'seems' like they can afford it, for example India -- because they are able to use pesticides and fertlizers on their land, its not because they can afford it, it's because they have taken out so many loans that are pretty much indentured servants to England and other countries who have set up these systems for them. There are 100's of Indian farmer suicides every year because farmers feel completely lost and hopeless as to how they can ever get out of debt or ever make a proper livelihood for themselves.
The more we emphasize organic, the more we can teach people how to be self sufficient how they can use the rainforest to acquire all the needs for their own livelihood sustainably--- for example brazilian nuts, are an example of a cash crop which can only grow in the most pristine forests, therefore, buying brazilian nuts, preserves those very delicate eco-systems. We can teach those communities in South America about composting, about utilizing what they have available and to combine agroforestry with their crops so they can preserve more land. (as well as every other place on earth currently destroying natural land for their livelihood)
Organic definitely isn't perfect, and it doesn't automatically mean that our problems will magically vanish. But it is a step towards re-considering our current farming methods and ways in which we can do them more efficiently and also incorporating native wisdom-- before it's all gone. Indigenous people have such history and such knowledge of their forests, who are we to say that our thinking/ rational brains and chemical laboratories are more beneficial than 10,000 year old wisdom??
So far it hasn't failed us.. but at the rate that we are currently destroying the rainforests... it seems a little too obvious that red flags are in the air... that an alternative relationship to our natural world may be approaching, if humans wish to stay here a little longer.
4. The author puts a lot of emphasis that GMOS have been around for a whole, 20 years.
How wonderful. and twenty years is supposed to be a long time? Plants are plants? For some reason this argument as it is, just isn't enough of an argument for me to even want to say anything. Ancient wisdom which has been around for 1,000's of years, where communities knew not to wash their dirty hands in streams because some society down stream would then have to deal with that in their water.... And today this.. All I have to say about GMO's is this,
Scientists are learning all the time about micro-nutrients and the perfect balances of substances found in plants continually. Why is it not possible for human beings to survive on supplements alone?
Why have their efforts to enrich white breads and pastas with nutrients haven't worked to provide superior food for people? It may or may not be possible to survive on enriched white bread alone.. but I know how I feel after I've only had 1 meal of it.
Scientists can do their best to make the 'healthiest' foods available. But in the end, we haven't learned everything. We don't know everything. We are all children in a sense, we have only made hypothesis, and have tested them over and over again, but just because those results have seemed to fit our educated guesses, doesn't mean they have 100% accuracy. I guess I would personally rather not play god. I do think that nature is perfect as it is. If bugs are eating our crops, so what. If weeds are wanting to grow next to crops, so what. This is life :) This is how it's supposed to be. If you feel like manipulating with plant genes and inserting fish genes into them--- in the end, there's nothing I can do or say to stop you. But don't make me eat whatever you have created, because to me, it just seems weird and unnatural.
Scientists also talk about putting more calcium into carrots and pesticides into plant cells.
Here is my issue:
If every plant is a perfected composition of millions of years of evolution and we have for 1000s of years evolved with that process, how can we possibly make a better composition of genes from our thoughts...
Nutritionists do the best they can to proportion nutrients in vitamin pills in a way that there aren't any excess nutrients, because excess nutrients can cause your body to leach other vital nutrients. But in the end, it's a best guess, nutritionists can't explain why someone who gets all of their nutrients from actual fruits and vegetables are much healthier than someone who eats a standard diet and supplements with those same nutrients from a pill. This is modern science. Any nutritionist who says otherwise, isn't mainstream, and is following their intuition.
So if we are manipulating plant genes so that they carry excess calcium? We just don't know the effects that that may cause.
If this was something people kind of took less seriously and people only had what, 1 gmo carrot every year or every other week even. Nothing is most likely going to happen. But the way our governments work, they like to subsidize what they think, is 'economically beneficial for the masses'
For example a diet high in fruit and vegetables would be the healthiest.... However, filling people's bellies is higher on the priority, therefore, the government really subsidizes grains to help farmers grow more grains. These become our staple crops.
These even become our staple crops for all of our farmed animals.
And according to this author, corn and wheat are actually completely made up varieties of plants... through breeding -- which I don't really have an issue with, as plants interbreed themselves all the time. However I do find it interesting that corn doesn't get digested by the human gut and wheat is one of the biggest human allergens.
... coincidental? If crazy breeding can create this for humans... what would be the effects of GMOS long term on the human?
Wheat and corn have already caused widespread hunger and malnutrition in many areas, as they aren't complete proteins and have fractions of the amino acids that many of the traditional grains that people grew had such as millet, quinoa, amaranth, etc.
5-- Pesticide producing plants
BT-- a natural pesticide used in organic farming, however not allowed in BT producing GMO plants.
Okay, so this author finds the organic movement as hypocritical because they allow BT as a spray and they don't allow the genes to be intermixed with the crops they plant.
To me, this one is obvious.
Okay, if a pesticide is on the outside of your food, you can wash it before you eat it, plus it has no residual life, so by an hour or so after spraying.. it's no longer lingering in the environment it's already broken down. If plants are made to produce this toxin.. it's always pumping out.. This is a bacteria.... could this cause your immune system to suffer, by eating all foods containing this toxin? I don't know, but this idea disturbs my gut.
6-- Gmo's can be planted back.
Okay firstly... would we even want them to be planted back? Actually this isn't exactly considered a good thing, a lot of measure is taken by scientists to make sure that these strains of 'super' plants don't get into the environment. we think we have a problem with 'invasive weeds' currently..... well what happens when our genetically modified Frankenstein plants start invading the natural world?
And if they don't spread and don't re-seed so easily.. well it's definitely better, but then what for those farmers who are stuck buying seed every year... with larger and larger bills to the scientific community for having to develop these seeds in a lab every year. Something about this image, seems like.. planet zeroxtera. Yes.. that planet doesn't exist. Yes, this idea seems so foreign and unnatural to me that it's making me come up with strange planet names lol.
Maybe it's true organic farming won't feed the world
But if we can learn to create more natural places in our world and learn more about native plants, it may be able to significantly supplement our need for organic farms.
Anyway, I enjoy my organic garden, I don't have to worry about the taste of chemical residues on my plants and I can see all the happy critters and creatures buzzing and living out their happy lives.
As long as I can have this close relationship with my surroundings, I'm going to.
And if in the meantime that makes me a hypocrite, a fundamentalist or an extremist.. than that's how it is. But I enjoy seed saving and I enjoy this intimate relationship I have with the natural world and it's gifts. Nothing needs to change or improve for me to be happy or for me to feel like the world needs to do anything differently.
Let conventional farmers and scientists go on this crazy goose chase to save the world and create whatever life that floats their boat.
I'll sit back, watch the sunset and play with the ladybugs. at least whatever animals/insect they keep trying to eradicate will have a home at mine, and whatever indigenous peoples they try to convert, will hopefully instead follow the rhythm of their own intuition.
May all beings find peace
May all beings find happiness