Around 2 million people from 436 cities in 52 countries around the world marched today against the corporate giant Monsanto. Would it be a better path if the GMO companies had to label the product so that the consumer knows what he or she is purchasing?
Of course lobbying efforts have increased in trying to keep the mandatory labeling from happening. They wouldn't want any of their sales to be jeopardized.
The "March Against Monsanto" group was formed only 3 months ago, an already it has around 2 million supporters. And it seems that more and more people are embracing the movement.
We can be the voice against these corporate "farmers" that tamper with our food. Perhaps getting rid of the Monsanto Protection Act would be a great place to start.
Protesters around the world march against Monsanto
No scientific bases for worry are found in your article...only the vaguest innuendos, but not specific worries, diseases, or conditions that have caused harm to the environment, human health, or anything else for that matter. Because of that, I went elsewhere, and this is the consensus of scientists:
Green Facts,
(link) - Q and A Facts on Genetically Modified Crops
1. What is Agricultural Biotechnology?
1.1 Biotechnology is any technique that uses living organisms or any of their parts for practical purposes in agriculture, medicine, and industry.
1.2 Traditional biotechnologies have been in place for thousands of years, such as yeast microorganisms for bread and different microorganisms to ferment grapes, hops, rice, rye, etc., and others preserve milk and cream as cheeses, yogurt, sour cream, and the like.
1.3 Natural and intended genetic modifications were noted by Gregor Mendal between 1854-1874, and since then, the principles of heredity have been used to yield better meat production in livestock, prettier flowers with more blooms for perfumes and enjoyment, and smoother potatoes for easier peeling and less waste, along with more wheat seeds per plant, better yields per acre, just by observing the best producers and cross pollinating them to get better yet plants just like the bees do.
1.4 Observations noticing some organisms kill illness organisms resulted in human disease control, giving us medicines like penicillin and others.
2. How can biotechnology be applied to agriculture?
Genes in certain individuals show higher fruit yield, better wood quality, disease resistance, higher milk and meat production, or body fat reduction traits desirable for human consumption.
This can be also useful in medicine to bring effective medicines into being to replace those in which people have become resistant or allergic to.
Test tube plants that have all the traits of the mother plants can be developed to get thousands of the same plant into a pot that produces a better yield, higher vitamin content, better antioxidants, or better taste to the food or juice it yields. It may also increase the number of bushels of green product per acre to save a starving planet. An example would be the case of 3 popular fruits the grow best in a limited environment. Tripling the increase of the fruit product means not having to worry about unavailable space for the product to be grown in. Some banana trees can be planted knowing the plant will produce a ton of bananas in a year's time rather than a couple of bananas that are the product of another tree. If the 2 bananas have a better flavor, they can be crossed with the megaproductive tree to yield megabunches of better-flavored fruits. Let the good hybrid tree grow a year, separate it into cells, and you have enough to populate a dozen plantations to replace non-productive trees. It's a win-win situation for humanity in which not only bright epicureans benefit.
3. Does conventional plant breeding have effects on health and the environment?
When toxins occur as the result of simple cross-breeding, the products are immediately removed from the market and are removed during the testing phase.
4. Are genetically modified plant foods safe to eat?
4.1
Foodstuffs made of genetically modified crops that are currently available (mainly maize, soybean, and oilseed rape)
have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the
consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the International Council for Science (
ICSU) and are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (
WHO).
A controversy has arisen about whether certain genetically modified plants (which are insect resistant because they carry the
Bt gene) could harm not only insect pests but also other
species such as the
monarch butterfly.
In the field, no significant adverse effects on non-target species have so far been observed
To date no negative effects on animals have been reported
8. Conclusions
8.1 Agricultural
biotechnology can be seen as both:
- a scientific complement to conventional agriculture, aiding for instance plant breeding programs, and
- a dramatic departure from conventional agriculture, enabling transfer of genetic material between organisms that would not normally mix.
Agricultural
biotechnology has international implications and may become increasingly important for developing countries.
1 However, research has tended to focus on crops important to developed countries.
More...
8.2 To date, countries where genetically modified crops have been introduced in fields, have reported no significant health damage or environmental harm. Moreover, farmers are using less
pesticides or using less
toxic ones, reducing harm to water supplies and workers' health, and allowing the return of beneficial insects to the fields. Some of the concerns related to
gene flow and pest resistance have been addressed by new techniques of
genetic engineering.
However, the lack of observed negative effects does not mean that they cannot occur. Scientists call for a cautious case-by-case assessment of each product or process prior to its release in order to address legitimate safety concerns.
Science cannot declare any technology completely risk free.
Genetically engineered crops can reduce some environmental risks associated with conventional agriculture, but will also introduce new challenges that must be addressed. Society will have to decide when and where
genetic engineering is safe enough. (
FAO 2004)
More...
Sorry for rewriting the essence of the article in the first 6 steps and completely omitting step 7 as well as some advice.
Humans have benefitted from "genetic alterations" in staple foods for thousands on top of thousands of years. Why all of a sudden the anger, pointed at a successful business? Isn't this more of a political lynching than one based in truth? How many people will starve when 98% of the world's food is removed from the market on account of eliminating all genetically-engineered foods included in even "organic" foods that were developed by hereditary manipulation prior to the appearance of "organic" foods in the supermarket before people knew peas, corn, potatoes, carrots, and other foods were all produced by someone paying attention to one plant being superior in one way from its 100 other seed packet pals?
How many of these marchers are ready to get up genetically-altered plants that make their beer? A few? A handful? Some? Most? All? None?
How many of these marchers are willing to take all antibiotics off the shelves and let people needing treatment die of natural causes by age 26?
I really don't want to read the headlines that 2,000,000 idiots, protesting things they do not understand were the downfall of 6 billion human beings worldwide due to hunger imposed when farmers cannot grow "genetically altered" plants. All on the market are the result of Gregor Mendel's studiously-recorded assessments with noted improvements, in the last two centuries.
Why not go about this rationally?
Who died on account of Monsanto? Millions? Hundreds? A few? None?
Specifics? I would like to know.
