There are several references here to our Iowa's adopted son Tom Vilsack.
Regarding the mention of "Farmer Tom," I don't recall that Vilsack has ever
engaged in farming.--Tom Mathews
In a message dated 4/23/2009 6:05:18 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
EXTRACT: Even Monsanto's own research demonstrates the limits of GM
techniques. According to a study they funded, RoundUp Ready crops still require
significant investment, careful pest management and applications of multiple
kinds of pesticides. Say what? The dark side [genetic engineering] is
supposed to be the quick and easy path. Now it turns out that the stuff doesn't
even do what it's supposed to do. That's one seriously naked emperor.
---
---
Yielding to reality
Biotech's history of overpromising and underdelivering may be catching up
to it
Tom Laskawy
GRIST, 22 Apr 2009
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-22-biotech-overpromise/
Tom Philpott's post on USDA chief Tom Vilsack's comments regarding biotech
deserves a bit more attention. Vilsack was speaking at the first ever
meeting of the Group of Eight agricultural ministers. I guess we have to
consider it progress that the top ag officials from the eight largest
industrialized nations finally decided it was worth getting together despite the fact
that there’s no consensus on what to do about food.
It doesn't help that when Tom Vilsack leaves the country - the meeting was
held in Italy - he goes from being "Farmer Tom" to "Salesman Tom." His
prime responsibility (indeed a fundamental mission of the USDA) is to further
the interests of US agriculture. Right now that means two things - pushing
US food and technology exports. It's almost a reflex - there's no
indication of any meaningful thought behind his position. Rather, if you take
another of Vilsack's statements in the FT article Philpott linked to - [t]his is
not just about food security, this is about national security, it is about
environmental security" - at face value, it's entirely at odds with a
reliance on GM seeds. After all, GM seeds are controlled by a handful of
companies—Monsanto, Syngenta and Dow (although Monsanto really is the most
dominant player)—and are wedded to the Three Evil Sisters—synthetic pesticides,
synthetic fertilizers and diesel fuel, which has nothing to do with
"environmental security."
But while I'm not willing to overlook Vilsack’s presentation of the false
choice of GM seeds as key to food security, I would hope that he’s serious
about bringing what he referred to as "agricultural science" front and
center. Because if he does, he'll see that perhaps, at last, the research tide
has turned against GM seeds. Most notably the Union of Concerned Scientists
just released an analysis of 20 years' worth of scientific research
designed to determine the extent to which GM seeds have improved overall crop
yields. The answer? Only one GM crop - Monsanto's RoundUp Ready corn—has shown
ANY yield increase. And it has managed a mere 3-4% total increase over 13
years. That's it, folks. No huge jumps in productivity. No magic seeds.
Why is this? According to the UCS:
"One likely reason is that new yield genes often have much more complex
genetic interactions with the plant genetic material than the few currently
successful transgenes, and therefore cause more genetic side-effects that
often lead to undesirable agricultural properties."
In other words, the herbicide resistant genes (which represent the only
true GM success stories) don't cause much in the way of adverse genetic
side-effects that might interfere with plant growth. But the genes involved with
yield do. So while the industry's ability to manipulate individual genes
has increased over time, their ability to control the side effects of their
manipulation has not. And there is no indication that this will change.
Monsanto, however, will forever sing the siren song of the magic
yield-doubling - or even tripling - seed to anyone fool enough to listen. But they
simply can't deliver.
The UCS report also addresses the question of the whether GM (aka GE)
seeds will produce greater benefits in the developing world where yields are
generally lower to being with. The signs point to no:
"The record so far suggests that GE is unlikely to play a major role in
increasing yields in developing countries - especially those with limited
public infrastructure - in the foreseeable future. Overall, GE has not had a
major impact on yields in developing countries. As with developed countries,
there are only a few GE crops, with herbicide-tolerant soybeans being most
widely grown (in South America), followed by Bt cotton, primarily in India
and China. There are small amounts of Bt maize (corn) in South Africa and
a few other countries."
Even Monsanto's own research demonstrates the limits of GM techniques.
According to a study they funded, RoundUp Ready crops still require
significant investment, careful pest management and applications of multiple kinds of
pesticides. Say what? The dark side is supposed to be the quick and easy
path. Now it turns out that the stuff doesn't even do what it's supposed to
do. That's one seriously naked emperor.
Unlike the US, the UN understands all this, which is why they released a
report declaring that organic techniques are ideal for answering the
developing world’s agricultural needs. In fact, adopting the basic organic
techniques of composting, mulching, and crop rotation could double or even
quadruple current yields in Africa. Take that, Monsanto!
Of course, organic practices aren't patented. There are no license fees
or expensive supplies. No flying in compost from Iowa or manure from North
Carolina. Just education and investment in "human capital." How awfully
boring and unsexy. But until US international ag policy focuses on results in
the field rather than on the balance sheets of US biotech conglomerates,
we'll have to listen to otherwise smart guys like Tom Vilsack parroting their
party line.
................................................................
This email should only be sent to those who have asked to receive it.
To unsubscribe, contact [log in to unmask], specifying which list you wish
to unsubscribe from.
**************Recession-proof vacation ideas. Find free things to do in
the U.S. (
http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/national-tourism-week?ncid=emlcntustrav00000002)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
|
