Slashdot Mirror
How 4H Is Helping Big Ag Take Over Africa
Lasrick writes 4H is in Africa, helping to distribute Big Ag products like DuPont's Pioneer seeds through ostensibly good works aimed at youth. In Africa, where the need to produce more food is especially urgent, DuPont Pioneer and other huge corporations have made major investments. But there are drawbacks: "DuPont's nutritious, high-yielding, and drought-tolerant hybrid seed costs 10 times as much. While Ghanaians typically save their own seeds to plant the next year, hybrid seeds get weaker by the generation; each planting requires another round of purchasing. What's more, says Devlin Kuyek, a researcher with the sustainable-farming nonprofit Genetic Resources Action International, because hybrid seeds are bred for intensive agriculture, they typically need chemicals to thrive."
What are the possible choices for farmers?
1. grow crappy crops with free seeds and lots of expensive water,
2. grow good groups with seeds that you need to pay for but use less water?
#2 will make you more money, so the cost of the seeds is a non-factor. #1 will make you poor, because when it doesn't rain your crops die.
So, what exactly is the issue?
I'd like to, but Big Ag and GMO proponents have lobbied hard to keep labels on food from saying if it is GMO or not. If this shit is soooooo good for us, then label it and let the market decide.
GMO foods are harmful in exactly the same way that homeopathy can cure major illnesses. i.e. it may be true, but nobody has proven it yet, so it hasn't entered the pages of peer reviewed research, just like homeopathy hasn't penetrated Western medicine. I would guess that's the reason that laws about labeling of GMO foods aren't ubiquitous. If you are aware of respectable studies that prove otherwise about GMO foods, I'd love to see them -- seriously.
No, it's really about a binary label of GMO/No GMO being pretty deceitful, and pretty expensive for what you get, especially for very processed foods.
The argument of wanting information would make a lot more sense if the labeling was actually detailed, as it's not like there is only a single strain of GMO corn in the market: We are well in the hundreds over the years, just with corn and soybeans. Surely a variety of GMO that has been out there for 10 years is different than one that is new for this season, right?
When you make the label binary, then what you are really telling the consumer is that all that matters is whether there are GMOs in there or not, and that only makes any sense for people that just think that GMOs are bad in principle.
There's also the costs involved. It's not as if most companies out there buy their grain from a single farmer, so accurate labeling puts quite a bit of expense into the entire supply chain.
You'd be better off just labeling certified organic. Then you at least only put the onus on those that really want a certification, instead of on everyone. Not that it increases food safety anyway: You'd be surprised by how toxic many treatments that are certified organic can be,
If he is, he has the weight of evidence supports him.
http://www.plosone.org/article...
In short, after factoring in the higher costs of using GM seed, GMO crops help developing farms substantially. Even more so than the farmers in developed markets.
Africa is a victim of corrupt resource management. Nothing can be done until that is addressed.
Africa is not monolithic. There are certainly corrupt countries in Africa. But Ghana, the subject of TFA, is one of the least corrupt, and most prosperous countries on the continent. The are a democracy, with well functioning institutions, a free press, near universal literacy, and a per capita GDP of about $4k, which makes them a middle income country.
You are confused about what homeopathy means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.... Homeopathic medicine is very specifically not medicine.
You are thinking of traditional medicine. Which is, indeed, not 100% hogwash (not 0% either).
quite frankly if there is no proven harm there should be no harm in a label.
It's just arbitrary. Might as well label something as made by people with princess leia hair. I'm pretty sure there's no proven harm, but I would oppose a label for that.
Agitate for people to label things as non-GMO. That's what you really want anyway. When you go to the store for milk you don't check each liquid vessel to exclude the ones that contain traces of apple, orange, alcohol, etc.., you go for milk. If you want something that contains no GMO, then ask for no-GMO labels (and enforce truth-in-advertising laws).
Lets not forget that a large reason for GMO seeds is to increase yields by protecting plants from pests. We are already seeing super pests [ucsusa.org] that can bypass the built in GMO protection and creating a much larger threat to agriculture than existed previously.
Here is an actual point. However, labelling isn't likely to solve that, you'd have to completely ban them. I'm extremely skeptical that we are worse off, but I'm willing to hear more. So far it looks just like the same "Red Queen's Race" evolution has always provided.