November 2007 - Posts

• What's the big deal with GM crops?

  The Victorian and NSW governments of Australia have recently released a statement saying they will lift the GM ban on canola crops. Many people have been a little bit upset by this, especially in Victoria where John Brumby basically decided without consulting his caucus, like some kind of autocratic ruler. That's another concern. However, there's no doubt that GM crops have some benefit, here's a couple I can think of. They can produce plants that need less pesticides, fertilizers and water It can lower the cost of food production in 3rd world countries Gene modification can boost immunity and develop inbuilt vaccines for livestock and poultry Crops could be designed to grow in areas of drought or with high salinity Crops could be designed to grow faster It can produce crops for medicine and could even find a cure for cancer (although a lot of people would be without a job if that happened) Many leading scientists in the world have said they are safe, so why all the noise and fuss? Some people argue that we don't have a right to genetically alter nature for our profit and that by playing God we enter into dangerous and unknown territory. How can we assume to know everything about the effects of GM? No one knew that asbestos was going to be as bad as it was or that by producing coal fuelled industry that we'd have an impact on global warming. So, whilst things may look fantastic at the outset, we really don't know where the GM path will lead. The other main argument against GM is how it's distributed. Large companies like Monsanto create GM seeds and license the rights to use them to farmers, which is fine. However, if pollen from the licensed farms is moved by wind or fauna - a natural phenomenon that has been going on for billions of years - and then germinates in other farms, Monsanto will then demand a license fee from the 2nd farm, whether they like it or not (see excerpt below Monsato v Schmeiser). How can you control this? Luckily, courts have ruled against them for the moment, but it does give an insight into how Monsanto's thinks. Some seeds are designed not to reproduce sowable offspring, called terminator seeds and in 2005, Monsato filed a patent to own a pig. Not just the selection and breeding method, not just the information about the genetic indicators, but, if you pardon the expression, the whole hog. Ask any farmer and they'll tell you that there's no such thing as containment, seeds always move and cross pollination is a natural occurring part of nature. GM crops are designed with a dominant gene and they inevitably win against any existing resident crop. So if GM seed finds a way to your farm, then good luck trying to get rid of them, I'm not saying it can't be done, but just good luck with trying to get rid of them. If you are a farmer and go GM with Monsanto, read the contract carefully, you will be asked to waive your rights of ever taking Monsanto to court in a lawsuit or talking to the media about your problem. So the question I am going to put out there is, do you want a company like this controlling your food source? Forget about the ethical discussion on manipulating nature, we've been doing that to some degree since history began. The big deal for me and my family is do we really want to hand over crop production, by any measure, to a company that is so mercenary in how they handle people? Or would we prefer to stick with mother nature? Well, I own an organic website so I'm a bit biased but please feel free to post your thoughts. __________________________   Monsanto v Schmeiser  Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan Canada whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola. Monsanto's position was that it didn't matter whether Schmeiser knew or not that his canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene, or whether or not he took advantage of the technology (he didn't); that he must pay Monsanto their Technology Fee of $15./acre. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with Schmeiser, ruling that he didn't have to pay Monsanto anything.. ....  Full Story   Other Sources http://www.gmfreeireland.org/interviews/schmeiser.php   Posted Nov 28 2007, 11:03 PM by jason with 1 comment(s) Filed under: schmeiser, GM crops, monsanto

• Scientific evidence on the benefits of organic

  A four year project led by Newcastle University has found that organic produce is better for you than non-organic. The study funded by the European Union, found a general trend showing organic food contained more antioxidants and less fatty acids. The study is yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal and the researchers have admitted that there are some variations. However they do question the stance by many that there is no evidence that organic food is better. Personally, I don't need science to tell me that naturally grown food is good for you, but in a world that will only believe something until it has been "approved" by science, it is nice to read about these sorts of findings. Researchers grew fruit, vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent organic and non-organic sites across Europe, including a 725-acre farm attached to Newcastle University. They found levels of antioxidants in milk from organic cattle were between 50 % and 80 % higher than non-organic milk. Organic wheat, tomatoes, potatoes, cabbage, onions and lettuce had between 20 % and 40 % more nutrients. Project co-ordinator Professor Carlo Leifert said: "We have shown there are more of certain nutritionally desirable compounds and less of the baddies in organic foods. Our research is now trying to find out where the difference between organic and conventional food comes from. What we're really interested in is finding out why there is so much variability with respect to the differences. What in the agricultural system gives a higher nutritional content and less of the baddies in the food?" He said he hoped the findings would help farmers in organic to improve the quality of their produce. Final results of the project are due to be published over the next 12 months and I am sure it is going to create a stir. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if a major corporation has already started funding research to try and refute the claims.  What do you think? Is this evidence a good thing? Any other thoughts? Posted Nov 05 2007, 11:27 AM by jason with 2 comment(s) Filed under: organic wheat, organic cabbage, organic food, organic onion, organic potatoes, scientific organic research, antioxidants, organic lettuce, organic milk, scientific research, organic tomatoes