Green | January 03, 2009 | 40 comments

GMOs not the answer to the food crisis: top Vatican official

source: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16322.cfm

Image
JanforGore
Wow, I actually agree with something the Vatican says. Hmm, and he called those using them only seeking profit 'unscrupulous.' I wonder who he was talking about?

From the article:

NOTE: Note the tone of Cardinal Martino's statements here about hunger and GMOs.

The head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has previously been seen as little short of Monsanto's man in the Vatican, working hand in glove with the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See to try and achieve the papal blessing of GMOs as a key tool in the fight against hunger.

If Cardinal Martino's remarks have been correctly reported here, then this looks like a massive setback for the industry.

I wonder what brought about the change?
  1. groups:
    News and Politics,   Politics,   Green,   Food,   1 more
  2. tags:
    Politics,  News and Politics,  Green,  Environment,  11 more
  3.     
    |

40 comments // GMOs not the answer to the food crisis: top Vatican official

  • Project54Tour
    • 0
      Project54Tour  

    • It's time for all corporations to be held accountable. As citizens we are told that we must take responsibility for our actions. This should hold true for corporations also.

    • 4 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Why did someone on this staff put a NON NEWS tag on this thread when it was voted up to number 2? Actually, the placement doesn't bother me as much as the NON NEWS tag, when that isn't true. I've seen this tag placed on many posts that are news. Anyone on this staff care to explain this, or wil I be ignored again? Did the Monsanto plant complain?

    • 4 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Exposed: Europes's GMO Hype in times of food and fuel crisis.

      Excerpt:

      Such scaremongering ignores the well-known fact that GM crops have at best, variable impacts on yields and are therefore not a solution to the food crisis, as was confirmed by the recent IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) report on the future of agriculture [12].

      More importantly, it ignores the fact that the major cause of the food and feed crisis is not European GM policy, but the rush to biofuels. Even the World Bank has now confirmed what NGOs have been saying ever since the notion of a food crisis was first mooted, that the Bush-subsidised ethanol boom (with the EU's agrofuel boom following in its wake) is by far the single most important factor in creating the food crisis that is driving 100m people worldwide below the poverty line. The report, which has not been published but was leaked to the UK's Guardian newspaper, says biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75 percent. The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3 percent to food-price rises. Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George W. Bush [13].

      The irony is that exactly the same people who created this disaster by promoting the rush into agrofuels are now promoting a rush for GMOs as the solution. It is this hype that the European Commission and British politicians appear to be swallowing, without being honest about the vested interests at stake.

      Monsanto does a complete about-turn on GMOs being needed to feed the world
      And here's another irony. The truth about GMOs as the solution to the global food crisis is not coming from politicians but from industry itself. Previously, in the face of growing global opposition, Monsanto has long proclaimed that GM crops are vital for feeding a hungry world, while critics countered that the food is there and that distribution is the key to tackling hunger. But as opposition to biofuels is rising in Europe and even in the US on the grounds that they are not a solution to climate change and are contributing to the food crisis, Monsanto is now keen to defend the biofuels gravy-train that sent food prices sky-rocketing, and the company's spin has suddenly gone into complete reverse.

      The ethanol boom may be pushing millions towards starvation and hundreds of millions deeper into poverty, but, says Monsanto's chief technology officer Rob Fraley [14], "From a production perspective, we have abundance [of food]". Fraley now says the "challenges" are in distribution and access to food because of wealth distribution, in other words, poverty.

      Fraley made his pitch at the launch of a new multi-million dollar lobby group for ethanol, the Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy, that Monsanto has helped set up. There could be no clearer demonstration that Monsanto's concern has never been feeding the hungry; its leading role in the ethanol lobby shows that the hungry can happily starve, just so long as it's good for the company's bottom line.
      __________

      Also, for those who may not have seen it yet, The World According To Monsanto.

    • 4 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • ras_menelik
  • retran
    • 0
      retran  
    • JanforGore:

      The problem is the vatican's statements aren't clear on why they're against GMO. They make a claim of a certain condition (that there's too few people controlling food distribution), but don't really link it to the science of GMOs. Seems like they could separate the two and not make a sweeping condemnation of GMOs. That's why there must be conjecture as to an alternative reason why they're against GMO science.

    • 4 years ago
  • barkingdog24
  • retran
    • 0
      retran  

    • Let's be clear. The Pope is not concerned because of health or safety.

      The pope ain't against it because he's fearful that the current crop of GMOs on the market are only modified to be resistant to RoundUp (there's no other type of GMO crop sold yet) thus encouraging buildup and overuse of pesticides.

      No. The pope is against GMOs because of a mystical world view. He's against it because he feels a god has a static blueprint for all life on earth and genetics threaten that, thus making GMOs "satanic" plants. This doesn't give legitimacy to the argument against GMO food. This makes it sound retarded.

    • 4 years ago
  • ras_menelik
    • 0
      ras_menelik  
    • retran:

      EXTRACT: Famine and lack of nutrition are to be blamed on the poor distribution of plentiful foodstuffs...

      The responsibility for the food crisis "is in the hands of unscrupulous people who focus only on profit and certainly not on the well-being of all people," said Cardinal Martino.

      A more just system of distribution and not the manufacturing of genetically modified foods is the key to addressing the problem, he said.

    • 4 years ago
  • retran
    • 0
      retran  
    • retran:

      Okay so the vatican is blaming the food crisis on nameless boogeymen who laugh pleasurably in long cartoon voices at others misery??

      What does that have to do with rejecting the idea of GMO outright?

    • 4 years ago
  • ras_menelik
    • 0
      ras_menelik  
    • retran:

      I'm trying to show you what's in this article
      has nothing to do with what you say the pope is for and is against re GMOs

      I do think what you said about him is dead on when it comes to us humans

    • 4 years ago
  • retran
    • 0
      retran  
    • retran:

      The article fails to provide statements that back up why the vatican is against GMO food science. Only statements that the vatican doesn't like concentrated methods of food distribution, which is a sound concern. But how it relates to genetic plant science on a whole they did not address. I could only speculate.

    • 4 years ago
  • ras_menelik
  • UtopianSky
    • 0
      UtopianSky  

    • This sounds like fear of technology to me.
      There is nothing inherently wrong with genetically modifying crops, and without a doubt that will be the future direction of agriculture.
      It's just another example of the Church using people's fears about something new and unknown to control them.

      [sarcasm]
      Let's protect you from anything new, and let's keep you in the dark ages forever. Don't eat of the fruit of that tree, for you will surely die!
      [/sarcasm]

    • 4 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • UtopianSky:

      Another one claiming "nothing inheritantly wrong" with them without back up or data. Post the studies proving that. I also happen to know that Monsanto has Internet teams that scour websites to post such statements without back up. And it is not fear of technology, it is concern for IRRESPONSIBLE technology. And if you had even read this thread you would have seen the post noting that the Vatican was actually pushing them originally. So there must be a reason why they changed their tune. I know what it is even if you won't admit it. And GMOS may well stay around, but people will be educated enough to know how to avoid them. Of that you can be sure.

    • 4 years ago
  • retran
    • 0
      retran  
    • UtopianSky:

      Post a link to a peer reviewed study that shows something that indicates RoundupReady crops are inherently any more unhealthy in any way to humans than the plant they are based on. If you're afraid to because the Monsanto Monster might eat you, you can PM it to me.

      You have a lot of passion, but no data it seems.

    • 4 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Dr. Vandana Shiva is a heroine of mine. Her organization Navdanya is providing traditional seeds to farmers in India to counter the spread of BT cotton. Her book, Water Wars is also one that is a must read.

    • 4 years ago
  • retran
    • 0
      retran  
    • JanforGore:

      Shiva has an appealing set of ideologies. I too dislike the idea of plant monoculture. But why purposely have lower crop yields? I understand the conspiracy theories regarding Monsanto, they're a big meanie company just like all the others.

      But let me ask you: Have you ever tried to hand weed an acre of farmland? Two acres? Ten?

      Do you realize how many people would starve if we removed roundup ready plants from the world? I might agree that the earth's current population growth is not sustainable. But I don't think that reducing crop yields by tenfold or more and causing the poor to loose access to food staples is an ethical way to accomplish sustainability.

    • 4 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • JanforGore:

      People won't starve, and they might actually have MORE food not being tied down to Monsanto's contractual patent contracts and not being able to save seed. It is a problem of distribution and of access. Matter of fact, there are reports that were posted in the Monsanto tag here as well that already show that traditional crops produce just as much in yield as the Round Up glyphosate poison crops do, and as a matter of fact as well, that these crops are killing biodiveristy of traditional crops and that KILLS yield as opposed to improving it. And there is no substantial improving of yield (and it isn't only about yield but the QUALITY of the food) under conditions of drought and in places where soil is depleted.

      To say Round Up ready crops are feeding the hungry is a line of BS. They are being used to make Ethanol in Brazil now, and as feed for livestock more than anything else. If they are, why are there then so many people starving in this world right now? I will tell you why. Because the World Bank and WTO ARE interfering with the access to food. Don't tell me GMOS are feeding the hungry.

      Why then during a 'food crisis' does Monsanto actually RAISE the price of its seeds and poison herbicides? Why patent the seeds? Why not allow to replant the seeds? These are not conspiracy theories either, these are facts. Monsanto is in this business to make profit, not to care about the environment or the people. And again, I'll wait for you to post any evidence of your assertions about yields or the "inherant" goodness of these crops made with bacteria and viruses. I have yet to see anyone who asserts it give any information of substance to back it up.

    • 4 years ago
  • retran
    • 0
      retran  
    • JanforGore:

      I still don't understand how having less yield will bring more food. Fact: with RoundupReady plants you get more yield. You don't have to weed your field. The not saving seeds issue is moot as well. Monsanto doesn't charge roundup ready patent royalties in the developing countries. Only in developed countries.

    • 4 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • JanforGore:

      You are obviously a Monsanto plant with nothing to back up your posts. You sound like the AH in the beginning of The World According to Monsanto. This conversation is then over...unless of course, you have something of substance for the next post I make about Monsanto and how thery are destroying the biodiversity of this planet. Look out for it.

    • 4 years ago
  • ChewWawa
  • mhembree09
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • This video shows how Monsanto really makes GMOs. And like coal and tobacco companies, they spend billions on propaganda. The studies being done independently and events unfolding around the world regarding the actual destruction of biodiversity are now proving their propaganda wrong. Perhaps that is why people are now backing away from them. If you want to know anything else there is plenty of information included in the Monsanto tag here on Current.

    • 4 years ago
  • barbara3d
    • 0
      barbara3d  

    • GM Products: Benefits and Controversies

      Benefits

      Crops
      Enhanced taste and quality
      Reduced maturation time
      Increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance
      Improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides
      New products and growing techniques
      Animals
      Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency
      Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk
      Improved animal health and diagnostic methods
      Environment
      "Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides
      Conservation of soil, water, and energy
      Bioprocessing for forestry products
      Better natural waste management
      More efficient processing
      Society
      Increased food security for growing populations
      Controversies

      Safety
      Potential human health impacts, including allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects
      Potential environmental impacts, including: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
      Access and Intellectual Property
      Domination of world food production by a few companies
      Increasing dependence on industrialized nations by developing countries
      Biopiracy, or foreign exploitation of natural resources
      Ethics
      Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
      Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
      Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
      Stress for animal
      Labeling
      Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
      Mixing GM crops with non-GM products confounds labeling attempts
      Society
      New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries

    • 4 years ago
  • barbara3d
    • 0
      barbara3d  

    • just the words "genetically modified organisms" makes me gasp. There has to be a down side. And, if there are risks, who cares right? Its just going to poor people!? I admit I don't know a lot about GMOs.

    • 4 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • According to this article the Vatican previous pushed Gm foods... this then is indeed a huge break from previous opinion. Could this mean that even the Vatican knows which way GM's are blowing this year? Or have they been made privy as well to the studies that show that GM foods ( particularly BT corn) are really not safe for human consumption and that they were backing something that goes against everything they are supposed to stand for?

    • 4 years ago
  • retran
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • csmonut
  • JanforGore
  • pjacobs51
  • JanforGore
  • csmonut
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • From the article:

      In the article that appeared in the Vatican newspaper's first issue of 2009, Cardinal Martino assessed a variety of world events and issues that attracted the attention of the Vatican in 2008.

      He said the scandal of hunger in the world continues to be of concern.

      Famine and lack of nutrition are to be blamed on the poor distribution of plentiful foodstuffs, not overpopulation, he said.

      The responsibility for the food crisis "is in the hands of unscrupulous people who focus only on profit and certainly not on the well-being of all people," said Cardinal Martino.

      A more just system of distribution and not the manufacturing of genetically modified foods is the key to addressing the problem, he said.

      "If one wants to pursue GMOs (genetically modified organisms) one can freely do so, but without hiding that it's a way to make more profits," he said.

      Utilizing genetically modified foods calls for "prudence" because genetically modifying organisms can increase yields in some instances, he said, but people must not abuse their power to be able to manipulate nature.

    • 4 years ago
  • csmonut
  • ras_menelik
  • csmonut
more from Green:
from the community

top videos