tagged w/ soil nutrient depletion
-
For a technology that has sucked up billions of research dollars and prolonged agriculture's dependence on chemical inputs, GMOs (genetically modified organisms) have yet to justify their role in a world desperate for more sustainable ways to produce healthier food for more people. In a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists entitled "Failure to Yield," a summary of on-farm production levels of genetically modified crops showed less than marginal gains in actual yield. In fact, the review concluded that "no currently available transgenic varieties enhance the intrinsic yield of any crops."
Let's Put GMO Food on the Shelf
Such findings beg the question: Who needs GMO food anyway? If GMOs are developed to increase yields, then they have failed. If they are marketed to reduce costs for farmers, and the price of GMO corn seed is now three times greater than it was just a few years ago, they have failed yet again. If these seeds are engineered to use less herbicides when, according to recent indications, many weeds are becoming Roundup-resistant, requiring a cocktail of herbicide applications in certain farming areas while crop land is just being abandoned in others, they have most certainly failed!
GMO defenders cite net yield increases per acre due to weed and pest management traits, apparently comparing GMO-chemical regimes with non-GMO-chemical regimes in traditional intensive corn-soy production systems. They don't compare the genetically modified pest-management results with non-chemical systems where organic corn tolerates higher weed populations without yield loss, and where insect damage becomes insignificant in most years once basic crop rotations are established and soil health improves. It seems GMO defenders have failed to take the varying approaches of these two systems into account, which leaves us with only a chapter of the whole story.
GMO Food Just Doesn't Make Sense
Despite the failures of GMOs, it is clear that their developers have not failed at making huge profits in a system where farmers are forced to market on volume, and have no market rewards for nutritional quality or penalties for ecological impact.
So what have consumers gained? Perhaps the answer is unclear. But I do know why we in the organic movement are so dead against GMO food. The answer is pretty simple: Genetically engineered seeds just don't make sense. Here's why:
• How can a seed variety that is costly to patent (and legally can't be saved for replanting) help poor farmers around the world?
• How can a seed that needs increased levels of toxins to control weeds be the safest option, ecologically or from a human standpoint?
• How can a seed that is artificially injected with foreign proteins be harmless to eat?
GMO Food and Human Health: The Hidden Consequences
Whether genetically modified foods are safe for human consumption will remain a controversial issue. Yet some scientists who have been quieted or marginalized have found serious concerns about the safety of GMOs in laboratory animal studies. In many investigations involving GMO-fed animals, there have been cases of underdeveloped organs, reproductive problems, accelerated aging and even death.
As the four As (allergies, asthma, autism, and ADD) rapidly increase in U.S. health statistics, we must consider that GMOs could certainly be one of the causes. As a matter of fact, in a recent position paper by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, physicians across the country called for a moratorium on GMO foods because "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects."For a technology that has sucked up billions of research dollars and prolonged... more
-
-
In times when food is genetically manipulated and chemically contaminated, the metaphor "food for thought" can also stand for manipulated information and be toxic food for thought. Unfortunately, Dr M.S. Swaminathan's GM: Food for Thought (August 26), is as manipulated as the genetically-modified (GM) foods which were the subject of his article.
Dr Swaminathan's first scientific manipulation was the argument that conventional plant "breeding methods are very time consuming and often not very accurate. However, with the recombinant DNA technology, plants with the desired traits can be produced very rapidly and with greater accuracy". This is scientifically false. Genetic engineering is a crude and blind technology of shooting genes into an organism through a "gene gun". It’s like infecting the organism with a "cancer". It is not known if the transgene is introduced, and that is why antibiotic resistance markers have to be used. Nor is it known where in the genome the transgene gets introduced. This is not "accuracy", it is literally shooting in the dark.
Further, the genetically engineered construct is introduced into existing crops that are bred by conventional breeding methods. Thus Bt Cotton (Bt stands for Bacillus Thuringenesis) is the introduction of Bt genes into existing hybrids in the case of Mahyco (a company that produces and markets a broad range of seeds developed with biotechnology), and into a selection in the case of the Central Cotton Research Institute. GM technology does not substitute conventional breeding, it is dependent on it. Thus the arguments of "speed" as well as "accuracy" are false.
The second scientific inaccuracy in Dr Swaminathan’s article is the claim that through GM technology "we can isolate a gene responsible for conferring drought tolerance, introduce that gene into a plant, and make it drought tolerant".
Drought tolerance is a polygenetic trait. It is, therefore, scientifically flawed to talk of "isolating a gene for drought tolerance". Genetic engineering tools are so far only able to transfer single gene traits. That is why in 20 years only two single gene traits have been commercialised through genetic engineering. One is herbicide resistance and the second is the Bt toxin trait.
Navdanya Trust’s recent report (Biopiracy of Climate Resilient Crops: Gene giants are stealing farmers innovation of drought resistant, flood resistant and salt resistant varieties) shows that farmers have bred corps that are resistant to climate extremes. And it is these traits, a result of a millennia of farmers breeding, that are now being patented and pirated by the genetic engineering industry. Using farmers’ varieties as "genetic material", the biotechnology industry is playing genetic roulette to gamble on which gene complexes are responsible for which trait. This is not done through genetic engineering; it is done through software programs like "Athlete" that uses "vast amounts of available genomic data (mostly public) to rapidly reach a reliable limited list of candidate key genes with high relevance to a target trait of choice. Allegorically, the Athlete platform could be viewed as a "machine" that is able to choose 50-100 lottery tickets from amongst hundreds of thousands
of tickets, with the high likelihood that the winning ticket will be included among them".
Breeding is being replaced by gambling, innovation is giving way to biopiracy, and science is being substituted by propaganda.
more at the link.In times when food is genetically manipulated and chemically contaminated, the... more
-
-
Intensification of drought, floods and cyclones is one of the predictable impacts of climate change and climate instability. The failure of monsoon in India and the consequent drought, has impacted two thirds of India, especially the bread basket of India’s fertile gangetic plains. Bihar has had a 43% rainfall deficit, Jharkhand – 47%, Uttar Pradesh – 64%, Haryana – 61%, Punjab – 26%, Himachal Pradesh – 63%, Uttarakhand – 42%.
In the final analysis, India’s food security rests on the monsoon. Monsoon failure and widespread drought implies a deepening of the already severe food crisis triggered by trade liberalization policies which has made India the capital of hunger. It also implies a deepening of the water crisis which compelled me to write “Water Wars”.
The monsoons recharge the groundwater and surface water systems. This year, because of drought there will be reduced recharge. Since 1966, as a consequence of the introduction of the Green Revolution model of water intensive chemical farming under World Bank and US pressure, India has over exploited her ground water, creating a water famine. I had written about this in 1984 in my book, “The Violence of the Green Revolution”. Chemical monocultures of the Green Revolution use of ten times more water than the biodiverse ecological farming systems.
In the 1970’s the World Bank gave massive loans to India to promote ground water mining. It forced states like Maharashtra to stop growing water prudent millets like jowar which needs 300 mm of water and shift to water guzzling crops like sugarcane which needs 2500 mm of water. In a region with 600mm rainfall and 10% ground water rechange, this is a recipe for water famine (see Navdanya’s “Financing the Water Crisis).
A new study led by Matthew Rodell of Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland published in “Nature” has shown water levels in North India have fallen by 1.6 inches (4 centimeters per year, between August 2002 and August 2008. More than 26 cubic miles (109 cubic km) of ground water have disappeared from aquifers between 2002 and 2008. Most of this ground water has been extracted for chemical, green revolution style farming.
Not only has water wasteful chemical agriculture mined ground water, it has also mined soil fertility and contributed to climate change. Chemical fertilizers destroy the living processes of the soil and make soils more vulnerable to drought. Chemical fertilizers also produce nitrogen oxygen, a greenhouse gas which is 300 times more potent the carbon dioxide.
The solution for the climate crisis, the food crisis, or the water crisis, under which India is reeling, the same biodiversity based organic farming systems.
Biodiverse ecological farms address the climate crisis by reducing emissions of Green House gases such as nitrogen oxide, and absorbing carbon dioxide in plants and in the soil. Biodiversity and soils are the most effective carbon sinks. They also help adapt to climate change and drought by increasing soil organic matter which increases the moisture holding capacity of soil, and hence provides drought proofing of agriculture.
end of excerptIntensification of drought, floods and cyclones is one of the predictable impacts of... more
-
