It seems almost a corporate cliche to argue that any shift from GMO means "the environment pays".
Only Monsanto is capable of arguing that the most environmentally friendly option for agriculture is GMO.
Only Monsanto is capable of arguing that the most environmentally friendly option for agriculture is GMO.
You should talk to some farmers. Seriously, it's a great way to get another perspective of someone that has to do "organic" and GMO based farming. Monsanto gets a bad wrap but a large majority of the negative press they get is simply false [1]. Regardless there are plenty of other organizations doing GMOs even if you do have an axe to grind with Monsanto.
[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top...
No, plenty of objective scientists argue it as well. It's just common sense.
You don't need a PhD to understand that for crops, you will have to choose between GMO or heavily pesticided products. The equation is that simple.
The author of the article certainly has its own agenda but you can make up your own mind about some of the points he makes, in particular the cycle of around the clock pesticide spraying that non-GMO seeds require in order to produce an acceptable crop.
It's time to step back and be a bit rational about all this, the anti-GMO movement is reaching levels of absurdity and hysteria approaching the anti-vax movement.
You're right, I made a false dichotomy there, sorry about that.
There is at least a third choice here (non GMO, no pesticides) but it costs a lot more money, so it's not viable for farmers or anyone involved in mass producing tons of crops each year.
> Seed control is another interesting thing about sugarbeet. Monsanto doesn’t own any sugarbeet germplasm, meaning they don’t sell or control sugarbeet seed. They certainly make money from Roundup Ready beet seed, since they’ve licensed the trait to the seed companies. But Monsanto doesn’t have much say in how sugarbeet seed is bred and sold.
Also,
> Only Monsanto is capable of arguing that the most environmentally friendly option for agriculture is GMO.
Science is actually quite capable of arguing a similar point as well:
http://www.cell.com/trends/biotechnology/pdf/S0167-7799(12)0...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871678410...
On the other hand, GMOs have saved countless lives where if it weren't for GMO I'm sure millions of people would be suffering.
The truth is the whole world can't shop at Whole Foods.
Sustainability might eventually push out the need for GMO. But GMO despite the nastiness of Monsanto has helped many lives. I personally shop local and support local farms (that's easy in SF with the Ferry Building, Divis, and Clement). But until local farms make a resurgence worldwide, it will be difficult to push out GMO.
(In fact, the seeds of a lot of GMO products cross-pollinate with so-called non-GMO; soy is one of those products where it is difficult to find unadulterated variants, despite being labeled "organic.")
I'm not criticizing you here, because clearly you're trying to look at both sides of the issue (though I'd argue there's an empirical side, and an imagined one). But that's incredibly rare. People are scared of genetic modification, manufacturers and stores are jumping on the bandwagon so they don't lose customers, and everyone loses out without even realizing it.
Anyhow, sustainable agriculture is--for better or worse--a very politicized term. It means different things to different people. But if the general idea is an approach to agriculture that seeks to minimize ecological impacts, then there's no reason to argue that genetic modification is in opposition to it. They're not. Every goal of sustainability can be furthered through genetic modification. But too many advocates of sustainability refuse to even consider the possible benefits of genetic modification.
But one area where I feel uncomfortable is whether or not GMO can be sustainable. I've read that GMOs have created issues with biodiversity and caused ecosystem shifts and can become weedy in certain conditions. In short, there is potential for GMO crops to become invasive species. We still don't completely understand what it means to tinker with biodiversity. Spanish colonists brought in their own grass to California and much of the native California grass is gone (it's an endangered species as a result of the European grass brought over). I will concede that most farm operations (GMO or non-GMO or otherwise) also impact the environment significantly.
Having said that I'm not against GMO, but for taste reasons, I'd rather buy local farmed (indigenous if possible) products that haven't traveled thousands of miles to me (which may or may not be GMO) because I like eating produce and vegetables from the natural growing season--nature still makes certain things taste best in the right season and when they're plucked when ripe. I am fortunate enough that I can support local farms and products seasonal to an ecosystem. I have a hard time eating fruits in general, and shopping at the Farmer's Market over Safeway ensures I get my supply of nutrients--and in many cases, the fruits from Ortiz Farms or Rodriguez are just as cheap as ConAgra Corporation yet they taste sweeter. (Ever tasted a strawberry in winter? Doesn't taste as good as the local farm's summer strawberries.)