SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Earlier this month, a federal judge in San Fransisco ruled that farmers can grow genetically modified sugar beets, at least for the near future. Environmentalists have tried to stop the growth of these beets, saying that their seeds would contaminate un-modified sugar beets and related species, like swiss chard.
But 95 percent of all sugar beets grown here are modified — accounting for half of the nation's sugar supply — and an immediate ban would cause 1.5 billion dollars in losses. These GMO (genetically modified organism) beets were created to resist a particular herbicide, and were patented by Monsanto.
The Center for Food Safety, Earthjustice and several other groups and organic farmers brought the suit against GMO sugar beets. They sued the USDA over its approval of the new plant, and Monsanto over its development and distribution. And the legal challenges aren't over yet; it's possible that a ban on GMO sugar beets might come down the road.
But even if a ban on GMO sugar beets takes effect, GMOs might be here to stay. GMO corn, soy, cotton, papaya, alfalfa, squash, and canola are grown all over the country. Portland Monthly recently estimated that 70 percent of all products on supermarket shelves throughout the nation contain some genetically modified ingredients.
How do you feel about GMOs — grown on your land, or served at your kitchen table?
GUESTS:
Professor Steven Strauss: University Distinguished Professor, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society at Oregon State University. GMO tree expert.
Wes Sander: Reporter at Capital Press
William Freese: Science Policy Analyst with the Center for Food Safety
Tagged as: agriculture
Photo credit: Dag Terje / Creative Commons
-
Too late....they've already dumbed down some crops. Have you eaten a tomato lately? They have been bred for long holding life, but no flavor. As I was typing this, I was trying to remember if I've ever tasted a real tomato. (If I have, I must have been rather young.)
(And, actually, MONSANTO can't pass a law by itself, but it can get the legislators the company buys to pass it.)
(By the way, since tomatoes and potatoes are both members of the nightshade family, if you managed to crossbreed them, would you get a potato that comes with its own ketchup?)
-
I don't want GMO beets but I've probably already eaten them without knowing it.
I don't believe all the uknown unknowables concerning GMOs have been discovered yet. I think companies like Monsanto are wrecklessly prying the lid off Pandora's box.
Please watch this video:
http://twilightearth.com/environment-archive-2/the-world-according-to-monsanto-full-documentary/
-
No such word as wrecklessly. Sorry about that. It's recklessly.
Oh dang! 95% of sugar beets used to manufacture sugar in the U.S. are Roundup Ready already? I guess I should go pee in a crack to see if it kills the dandelions.
http://news.opb.org/article/6148-judge-will-decide-will-beets-be-round-ready/
-
Round Up Ready means the sugar beet plants are resistant to Round Up. These fields can be sprayed with Round Up and it will kill weeds without damaging the sugar beet crop.
Crops have been modified for specific traits for thousands of years. Before the ability to modify crops at the cellular level, crops were modified by many different methods which could take years to decades to develop. Plants were grown and seeds from the individual plants with the best trait, be it color, insect resistance, drought tolerance, most fruit production or whatever would be singled out and cross pollinated with other plants with the same or other desirable traits. The seeds from these plants were collected, grown into plants and the process of determining the plants with the best traits was repeated. It can take many generations to produce the desired results. This is a slow process.
Basically, modifying crops genetically is finding the genes which give a plant a specific trait. Once these genes are isolated, they are put into plant cells. The plants which are produced from this and have the desired trait are used to develop more plants with the specific trait. Only after the trait is found to be stable and after much testing and scrutiny is the crop placed into production.
It is not as scary a process as some make it out to be. Many crops we regularly consume are genetically modified such as corn and soybean grown throughout the Mid West and Southern United States.
-
I understand that plants have been cultivated by humans over thousands of years. Only in the last several hundred years have humans started churning out solutions in years instead of centuries or millenia.
I protest the arrogance and over confidence that people claim once they have a degree or two and some extensive education in a particular topic. Too often these learned people behave as if they completely understand the processes that occur in nature with thorough understanding.
Roundup might not hurt beets, but human ingestion of Roundup residue might have long-term health consequences that aren't apparent today. Monsanto uses people as guinea pigs.
Unintended consequences occur when humans rush to change the existing nature of things without enough knowledge and wisdom regarding life's inner workings. I recommend that humans proceed through time with more caution, due diligence, and enhanced sensitivity - to everything.
Holes in the ozone layer, polluted ground water through thoughtless mining practices, dried up aquafirs from consuming more water than can be supplied are problems created by humans who believe the Earth is here for exploitation and profit.
When farmers wear hazmat suits to work in their fields because the herbicides, pesticides, fungicides and fertilizers are dangerous to living organisms, this suggests to me an out-of-balance way of being.
PCBs have beneficial aspects but over time we've learned their negative consequences. We didn't know until recently how dangerous Mercury is, and now Mercury contaminates all levels of the biosphere. Too often we learn after the fact, and maybe too late, the affect that rapidly-deployed human technology has on Earth and all its organisms.
I'm not discouraging science and discovery, I'm asking humans to be more humble, thorough and less driven by lust for short-term profits which can create huge costs and environmental damage later. Some questions don't have quick or easily applicable answers.
Hopefully humans will learn to follow a middle path that balances too much caution (my comfort level) against overzealous application of that which hasn't been vetted thoroughly enough.
-
Can never decide what to think about GMOs? The endless conundrum of what is nature exactly, and should humans modify it? And, is that modification also nature or natural? Those are the areas which so many of these questions boil down to, or are actually about. Aren't GMOs nothing but humans helping along evolution? I can understand what if we make a mistake, but 'nature' surely makes mistakes all the time. Or at least nature does things that aren't in 'somebody's' best interest. Disease is after-all nature! We generally don't mind interfering to stop the spread, or attempt to cure, disease in humans. ...
-
No, Scott, this isn't helping evolution, unless you consider having round-up ready microbes in your stomach evolution. And, it is not a matter of making a mistake and then just saying "Sorry" bacause this mistake cannot be taken back. And, perhaps you suggest that we genetically alter humans to fightr disease as they do plants? Okay, let's put the genes of shark into you since sharks don't get cancer. What will te isde effects be... well, like GMO, we don't know. Okay?
-
... The topic of GMOs is yet another subject, with which we have endless pontifications about the details, many layers up, from the root issue, that we never actually address. Then we all pat ourselves on the back like we have gotten somewhere. But, again and again topics come up that boil down to the fundamental concepts that we rarely discuss. So it is no wonder we collectively make slow progress. Just like with the health-care debate, all the discussion was about the details and how it is going to effect A or B. When really the details should be the easier part. What actually mattered was whether you believe health-care should be fundamental a right or service in our society. If you sell people on the real enchilada, it is easier to get somewhere. Maybe there are no correct answers to the enchiladas---I am not sure---but, we should at least spend more time discussing them.
In design it became fashionable to romanticize the idea of 'the details,' and this spread to every area. Charles Eames said “The details are not the details. They make the design.” And, Mies van der Rohe said "God is in the details." I think we ran with these redundant, obvious and rather pointless statements. The quotes sound lovely, but mean little in application. Today people brag about how detail-oriented they are, whatever do they mean by that? If you never forget to turn off your computer at the end of the day, never miss an appointment, never forget to return a phone call, or notice every tiny thing, but you still do sub-par work, then who cares about the details? Yes, really, it is all details, but the big details are the ones that generally matter the most. The small ones can enhance things, but you still need to get the big details correct too. We make errors in our priorities and in much of our conversations. We feel that details and technicalities make us sound smart and well-researched, and meanwhile the elephants in the room are defecating all over us, because we are too worried about the correct shade of taupe for our walls to notice them.
-
OK kiddies, gather around. Elvis left the building topicwise many years ago.
Let's say you eat tofu...soy is the most studied, modified, genetically engineered crop in the world. And all you soy eaters depend on the lab as much as the soil for your protein.
Corn? you are kidding me. The great midwest has been growing GM corn for decades.
Same with wheat, sorghum, all the nuts, wine, hops and fruit in the Willamette Valley, and any other crop that requires a farmer or agri-corp to invest heavily in the risk of growing food. If you are literally betting the farm on the crop you are growing, you surely want some science on your side.
PLEASE get some knowledgable brain-heavy folks from the state universities on this show to inform this conversation. Most applied genetic technology is sound and tested and is making it possible for a galloping world population to feed itself.
There is no food except Frankenfood. If you feel hinky about insecticide and fertilizer, grow your own edibles from seeds in your own garden. You will get produce that tastes great and is as healthy as you can grow it. The PROBLEM is that here we can have fresh produce for maybe 4 or 5 months. THe rest of the time we depend on the farmers who feed us all.
We depend with our very lives on the ag people being able to grow, process, and store edible and nutritious food. Let's give them some room to work and an occassional "thank you".
-
Right on roboturkey, Are you a genetically engineered fowl? I never heard of a machine turkey cross,
-
The trouble is, those of us who want to grow our own organic crops in our gardens will soon have gmo cross contaminated seed ...much of the organic vegetable seed is grown here in the Willamette Valley. Monsanto's Round up Ready genes are narrowing the diversity of our choices and food supply.
-
"If you feel hinky about insecticide and fertilizer, grow your own edibles from seeds in your own garden. You will get produce that tastes great and is as healthy as you can grow it. The PROBLEM is that here we can have fresh produce for maybe 4 or 5 months."
The other hitch with this suggestion (which is otherwise a great idea) is that some of us live in a duplex (my partner and I live in an "over & under" duplex) or an apartment with no yard. Can you imagine going out into the common areas of an apartment complex and tilling it up to plant your carrots and tomatoes and peppers? One would likely be evicted before the day was out!
(Don't get me wrong -- it is a great idea, generally.)
-
This is more complex than whether GMO seeds are "good" or "bad" -- it's also about agronomics. As a new organic vegetable seed grower in the Willamette Valley, I am grateful for the work that is being done on this issue. It's important to understand that the specialty seed growing industry in the Willamette Valley is perserved and made possible only by cooperation between growers -- vegetable seeds require 'isolation' distances to maintain 'true' seeds of the same type. Beets and chard are wind pollinated and require the largest isolation at FIVE or so miles between seed plantings -- this is a huge distance!
Speciality seed growers participate in a voluntary cooperative process where they agree to not grow too close to each other in order to make the industry viable. What the organic seed growers are asking for here is completely precedented. Right now it is not legal to grow canola in the valley because of pressure from the seed growing industry -- canola crosses with too many 'brassica' seed crops and also has the possibility of introducing brassica pests and diseases into the valley. The seed growing industry has been united in this controversial issue but less so on the GMO sugar beet issue. Similarly, an organic seed grower (such as myself), needs to be able to produce vegetable seeds that do not contain any modified genes.
The Willamette Valley is a very unique place for seed growing -- we have mild winters and dry summers. The climate makes it ideal for seed production of all kinds, especially organic crops which cannot be 'helped' along with petroleum based pesticides or fertilizers. The risk of cross-contamination between the GMO sugar beets and organic beets and chard is incredibly high -- I wish that the seed growing industry would embrace this issue in the same way that they have embraced the canola issue. We need to stand together in order to maintain the valley's unique position as a seed growing region.
-
Well explained!
-
Canola pollen can cross with cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, and Brussels Sprouts? That is something I did not know until now!
-
This invasion of an air shed is really upsetting of such non-natural active genetic materials. As a farmer who has spent over 50 years fighting standard breeder's (think Burpee, Burbank...) monsters (think blackberries,) I worry about another thing Monsanto doesn't want: responsibility. It doesn't want the responsibility of polluting virgin airsheds organic growers and seed savers use. And more importantly, it will deny any ownership the minute patents expire for any damming spreading of the gene. So the barn door is not yet closed on these two issues. Making them reponsible for the spread switches the current curse, where they can claim all seed contining their gene. We know who put these genes in the environment. The patents are still current. So let's legislate now.
How else are we going to encourage small, near city farmers? The folks growing sugar beets are not our solution to huger and getting local foods. Local farmers are. So how do we protect their airshed?
The battle over canola, alfafa, and others are right here now. It is not small farmers. One alfafa seed grower took 1,100 acres of production to Canada. But how far away from airsheds with the wrong pollen in it can we live? Think of all the weeds we have now from somewhere else. Why have more?
-
Just curious to hear how, exactly, roundup ready crop reduces herbicide use? Isn't the idea that the farmer can now be less discriminating in herbicide application since the crop is immune to it's effects?
-
Also, I'm curious why Frank Morton (the organic seed farmer who started this laysuit) isn't going to be on the show today? He is incredibly articulate and can tell his story well.
-
We asked! He decided that he shouldn't join us because of the pending lawsuit.
-
I totally agree. As are other faculty members at OSU.
-
Sugar beets, table beets and chard are all the same species...Beta vulgaris. They are wind pollinated. The pollen travels by wind. The Round Up Ready gene is in the pollen. The characteristic is dominant, I've been told by beet geneticists. If the pollen lands on an organic field of blooming beets or chard, the crop becomes GMO, contaminated by the gene. USDA approved these beets without any studies....they "rubber stamped" Monsanto's data, saying that the gene is safe, it wouldn't escape.
-
I am a produce buyer for a small family-run store in SE Portland. We specialize in mostly organic produce with an emphasis on local and sustainable. The idea is to preserve farmland and support our farmers in the area while providing our customers with exceptional quality.
There are many concerns that I have related to genetically modified plants. A few of them would be their inability to produce seed that can be saved and replanted ( their seeds are essentially sterile), as well as Monsanto's ownership of those seeds making it illegal to do so if they were viable. I am concerned about the lack of real and long standing scientific research on the long term effects of GM seeds and their relation to other seeds in the environment. I am concerned with the idea that it is okay in our world to spray a product that kills all insects, plants need bees and other insects for pollination. I am concerned with the business ethics of a company that has put generations of farmers out of business.
With all of that said, people can educate themselves about the topics and issues of farming and genetic modification, but what we still don't have is proper labeling of geneticaly modified foods. There is a reason for that. Monsanto knows that people, people that care, will avoid GM foods if given the option. I find that people care very much where their vegetable seeds come from (customers specifically ask if our seeds are GMO-free), and how their food is grown. I don't believe it is an accident that high end stores and farmer's markets are booming.
-
I was raised in Pennsylvania and lived right down the road from PA's most well known beet farmer, Dwight Schrute.
Although I am sure that Dwight NEVER planted GMO beets, it is possible that he himself was genetically modified.
-
Hah!
-
Isn't Dwight Schrute a character on NBC's lamest of shows, "The Office?"
-
Please do not slight Dwight. He is a gentleman and a scholar.
-
I don't mind the idea of GMO's, however in practice I disagree. Monsanto seems to have a monopoly on GMO's and has a habit of bulling farmers. They send in Private investigators to terrorize farmers. If your non Round Up Ready crops get contaminated with Monsanto's Round Up Ready seeds they will sue you and near put you out of business.
-
Please ask your guests if they have ever spoken with Dwight Schrute about GMO beets.
-
Last year in Tangent, Oregon, a GMO sugarbeet grower sold his topsoil, laden with growing sugarbeet seedlings, to a landscape supply company in Corvallis. This was sold as fertile mix; hundreds of cubic yards of soil with growing gmo sugarbeets were delivered in "fertile mix" all over the Willamette Valley. The sugarbeet industry was informed of this; denied responsibility for this, saying it wouldn't happen.
-
Why did you not get GMO expert Jeffrey M. Smith to comment on this issue... instead of the bumbler who is obviously dancing around these questions that you pose.
With this as large a threat as it is... you chose a dweeb to hide the issues surrounding the GMO issue.
Check out the truth for yourself @ http://www.seedsofdeception.com
The REAL reason for GMO foods: Monsanto can PATENT the seeds... then they will control ALL SEEDS... FOREVER... because the pollen will spread and "INFECT" all the ORGANIC seeds... so there will no longer be ORGANIC seeds.
AND Monsanto wants us to use more ROUND-UP... which is a toxic PESTICIDE... and the results show that most farmers spray twice as much with GMO crops... meaning not only that you get a GMO product that has MODIFIED proteins that will WILL CAUSE ALLERGIES... but you'll also get DOUBLE the DOSAGE of PESTICIDES on your food.... and this leads to TWICE the pesticides in the air and on the ground... running into our water system.
STUPID DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
They have brains on where they sit.
-
No, we chose an agricultural reporter who has been covering the case. But William Freese is on now to talk about what he sees as the dangers of GMOs.
-
I remember watching an interview with one of the vice presidents of Roundup when it first came out and he said it was so safe that he could drink a glass of it without being harmed.
I wonder if he would still hold to that belief?
-
Jerry Brown drank Malathion to prove that it was ok to spray over Ca when he was governor and look what happened to him....Oh oh heees baack!
-
One problem with the Roundup Ready crops is based in the way that crops reproduce-pollen! There are already signs that some of the weeds that Round-up used to kill that are developing resistence to it BECAUSE they have been "modified" by the pollen from the proximity to the Roundup Ready crops.
But I am certain that Monsanto has the NEW Roundup ready to sell to farmers in a warehouse somewhere, along with the new Roundup Ready seeds that can withstand it.
-
I have a few questions...
What happens when these seeds contaminate an organic farm? Do the farmers have recourse against Monsanto? When this has happened to other farmers it has been Monsanto that goes after them for now having their seeds on their property - How is this Ok?
Why are the same consumer protections and labeling excused for Monsanto? I am sure that the Tobacco Industry would prefer not to have to label their products as well?
If you want to plant a gmo plant that is your right, but it my right to know what I am buying and eating - and you should have to tell me what it is - How is that not false advertising???
-
No, the farmers don't have any right to sue Monsanto. Quite the contary. Monsanto then owns any seeds they produce as the seeds have Monsanto's patented genetic material. It is obscene. This is how they took seed from Indian farmers who had not planted their seeds, but who were in the same airshed. Monsanto has the right to make the seeds, sell the seeds and all that. But what is lost is that they do not have the right to pollute the airshed, but there are few laws against this. So they just do it.
-
Isn't it a little disingenuous to blame the organic market? The market exists because consumers want it there. In this state we have been denied the opportunity to choose crops grown without GM technology. Organic is really the only label we have.
-
Watch the movie called Food, Inc.
You'll learn a lot about Monsanto........I would say that the company is the devil reincarnated, but I am afraid their goons would come after me.
We need to save seeds and stop all GMO idiocy.
Why do the European countries shun GMO food production? Why do we allow Monsanto to continue their destructive folly?
-
Great just what we need, already the sugar subsidy the United States gives a few heavy political contributors serves to cause the dumping of cheap susidized sugar on world markets and destroys the economies of many poor countries. Then the American taxpayer whoever he is gives these countries foreign aid.
Genetic engineering has been an ongoing process since pre-colombian times in the western hemisphere. The staple of the Americas maize is a good example of a human engineered plant.
-
Not only is the Federal Government subsidizing the sugar industry, it is also subsidizing the dairy industry, the corn industry, the soybean industry, as well.
Remember the episode of "The Simpsons" where Bart gets into a 4-H farm? He learns how to drive a crop harvester, then says, "Set brake, dis-engage harvester drive, and endorse farm subsidy check for crops I didn't grow."
(I'm sure that I'll get flamed by scottmil, but I think this illustrates my point about Federal Farm Subsidies.)
-
PFE. Nope. Don't remember. Have never watched the lamest of shows "The Simpsons."
PS. I was stuck in lamest of cities this weekend, Eugene, Oregon.
-
There is a huge difference between classic gentic work and GM genetic work. GM allows things to happen that would never or rarely happen in nature. For example, RoundUp folks whould have to spray field after field to find resistant plants in a species and then breed those out in the old fashion way. (Note certain bacterias and germs naturally select well in this style against medicines.) But that is expensive compared to GM paths of incerting a genetic piece that allows the changed that is the goal.
The genetic work of the Americas is hidden from us in a Western history bias. Farming in the Willamette Valley, for example, is 10,000 or so years old, when Indians burn the valley to select where deer roam and help the oaks spread to assure acrons. Our history tells of farmers pouring in to the valley in the mid-1800s and finding a virgin land. But they advertise in fliers the vast oaks for hogs to feed on acorns, so miss that the virgin land was far from it.
The true work in this hemisphere shows in corn or maize genetics. The original plants are not near where they are now. In fact, unrecognizable to the average person. The time that genetic shift took is rarely calculated. Barley and wheat, for example, have wild fields in the lands they first were "cultivated" that look much like the modern varieities.
If you want to get a good view of a good view of agriculture in the Americas, read "1491." There, you find the eastern forests planted to produce a cornicopia of "native" foods. And even the Amazon Basin shows organization long before Columbus showed up with his boat loads of germs.
-
Inspired by a desire to know how much GMO food has taken over our lives a friend of mine is doing an interesting experiment this month to see if she can go an entire month without using products that rely on Monsanto, it has turned out to be much harder than she thought. You can see her progress here: http://www.monthwithoutmonsanto.com/
-
No, I DON"T want genetically modified food of any kind! I prefer organic foods that are not genetically modified for several reasons. One of them is that we need to stop polluting the soil, water and ourselves. It is extremely upseting to see our country which is supposedely "for the people", do anything for the sake of the corporation. Do we even matter as individuals? Not really, we are only the mechanism in which multiple coprporations benefit from.
How can we control the pollen from genetically modified foods traveling to organic farms? Don't this farms have the same right to protect their business? Don't I have the right to choose the foods my family and I consume?
-
Aha! You're finally getting to the real economic issue. Monsanto sells its GMO seed to farmers and then sues nearby farmers for stealing their "iintellectual property" when pollen from that crop infiltrates a crop that wasn't from Monsanto.
This started at least 10 years ago when Monsanto sued a corn farmer over this issue because his crop included GMO pollen evidence. Monsanto is working to corner the entire seed/crop market and has the capital to drive small farmers out of business with lawsuits.
This issue was on the front page of the Capital Press recently...related to alfalfa crops in Oregon.
Please get your Capital Press person to comment.
Victoria Stoppiello
-
Monsanto pressed very hard to get ALL the sugarbeet growers in the valley to grow GMO. They didn't really have a choice. Not all of them wanted to go this way.
-
Yes, the Capital Press even covered this issue last year -- many farmers simply refused to grow the GMO seed because of the crazy legal forms they would have to sign and the fact that they'd have very little real legal control over their crop. These were conventional seed growers who didn't want to participate in Monsanto's schemes -- it isn't just about organics.
I wish the Capital Press reporter had brought this up. But clearly that newspaper has a bias, as is obvious in every edition.
-
Reading Omnivore's Dilema really opened my eyes to "Agra Buisness" at the expense of farmers and consumers.
Very big corporations have the money and political power to run over individuals, even interest groups. How can I impact changes I want to S L O W down?
EMax
-
ENOUGH ALREADY!
All of us have a right to farm our land, but we don't have a right to let our farming practices recklessly spill over our fence lines. Why is an organic grower's right to keep their crop GMO free or pesticide free take a back seat to what conventional growers want? We already have to give up part of our land to keep buffer zones (15 feet) from our conventional neighbors, we have to pay money to be certified organic, we have to constantly prove that what we do doesn't violate any rules. A conventional farmer growing sugar beet seed, GMO field corn, etc. doesn't have to prove their pollen isn't contaminating crops in neighboring fields. They don't have to prove that they didn't spray pesticides or herbicides over their property line. The system is backwards. Growers of GMO crops should shoulder the burden of proving that they have not contaminated neighboring crops whether they are organic or not.
-
You have hit the nail on the head.
I live in the trees and if one of the major growers conduct aerial spraying on their tree seedlings it's up to me to prove that I have been damaged by their overspray when the inevitable over-spraying occurs. This too is backwards.
-
What about what happened in the soy bean industry? Most farmers have been forced to use Monsanto's seeds because of cross contamination of fields. Farmers are forced to prove they haven't used them. (See Food Inc.)
-
To the tree Prof; I have wondered when you guys will take the mint trait of square stems and put it into trees. Just imagine the savings in cutoff waste compared to round tree stems.
-
I have not heard anyone mention the health problems associated with GMO's. Several doctors have warned me to use only organic products to ease my fibromyalgia and arthritis. This is getting more and more difficult, especially now that we are thinking of GMO sugar beets. Think of the number of products that contain sugar. Also, think of the difficulties that organic farmers continue to have keeping their crops pure.
fuchsiagal, Portland
-
Wes Sander was awful. He doesn't understand anything about this. The seed industry is in the valley not "just because the industry developed there" but because seed crops require very specific climatic conditions that are found in the Willamette Valley. If he's the reporting export on this both sides are in trouble. Nor does he understand the difference/similarity between table beets and sugar beets. Yikes.
This suit was primarily about organic seed farmers, organic farmers, and consumers having the right to have seed free of GE contamination. The judge's opinion (which Sander's never referred to) was clear on this issue of choice of seed/food. Could OPB really not get a better expert on this?
-
My thoughts exactly. As an agricultural reporter for the major western agricultural weekly paper, he was terribly uninformed on the issue...from not knowing that sugar beets, table beets and chard are all the same species. And not knowing that Oregon has the nation's premier vegetable seed producing conditions. These are so fundamental in understanding this issue.
-
Professor Steven Strauss compared GMO contamination in organics to pesticide drift, but the two issues are not exactly parallel for many reasons. First of all, pesticide drift only potentially affects the immediately touched crop -- it does not have the self-replicating possibility that GM-contaminated seed does. One beet plant might test positive for a small amount of pesticide drift, but that situation does not inherently create any further problems for the future. One GM-contaminated beet seed plant, however, has a serious multiplying effect. Not only does that one plant produce thousands of seeds, which will produce thousands of contaminated beets for consumption, but GM-contaminated seed will affect future generations of seed production too! This is why the issue is being brought up by organic seed growers like myself -- we are the start of a long chain of genetic influence over what finally ends up on people's tables!
Also, right now in the U.S., all growers are legally liable for their chemical applications. If what one farmer sprays drifts onto another farmer's crop, it is called "chemical trespass" and is the grounds for a lawsuit -- this is true whether either farmer is organic or conventional, and it is important because an herbicide that is useful on one farm could prove lethal to a neighoring farmer's crop. However, at this point, the same liability system is not being applied to the use of genetically modified seeds and contimation -- in fact, the victim farmer has been held liable for 'patent violation' instead!!!
-
In the short term, people can still buy cane sugar (C&H is one brand) at the grocery store. It is not raised organically and cane production has its own set of environmental issues, but it does let you avoid using GMO sugar beets.
-
The larger issue raised by Tuesday's show, and one that would make a great topic for a future show, is the rapid rate at which U.S. farmers are being reduced to sharecroppers. That is, they technically own the means of production, but are so far in hock to the folks that front them their seeds, fertilizer, baby chicks, etc. that they are effectively only working for a paycheck from an agribusiness empire. This is already the situation for chicken and hog producers and the trend is well under way for cattle production. Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, et. al. have made a good start on putting the same stranglehold on vegetable crops. Banking heirloom seeds and supporting small local producers is a healthy trend and one that could be encouraged through further discussion and awareness of the issue.
-
Are we still dealing with Monsanto and the GMO craziness of the 21st century? I am amazed and almost disappointed. I understand there are starving nations and if we grow food and give it to them we feel good. But it is poison. Not only is it poison but it often takes away from the local growers of the region (say Haiti) that have food to sell, but dumb ol' America is donating food in their place.
It sounds thoughtful but the effort is for a bad cause. Do people truly not care about the relationship between what we eat and diseases in the world? It is sad. When will you interview a Monsanto rep? I would be curious to psychoanalyze them. How do they feel about GMO? Or is it just a paycheck? Now that, is sad.
-
If you want more real scoop on GMO crops that we are already eating, read Michael Pollan's book"The Botany of desire". He states that roundup ready potatos are not regulated by the FDA because of the makeup. The are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency due to the pesticide content.
-
Though the genetically mutated Sugar Beats may have some benefits, for example their hedged need for herbicides and pesticides. However; lets not forget that ANY amount of herbicide and pesticide are harmful to not only the human system, but those of animals and the local ecology. Is an organic Sugar Beat a possibility?
-
I'm bothered that we're not talking more about health. Agriculture is about more than just economics. Remember whenever you say "Roundup Ready" or now the even more scary "Agent Orange ready" that means that these are the pesticides that will be heavily sprayed on the crops. Making them ready for these pesticides means you can use more and use them liberally.
But another questions bothers me. I am a doctor (who also happens to have a bachelors in sustainable agriculture). I cannot tell you how many patients come up sensitive to beet sugar and corn sugar (they are not sensitive to cane sugar or other sugars for the most part). Is this because these two crops are now two of the most highly GMO crops in America? Also I can't tell you how many people have told me that they are senstive to certain food like milk products or wheat in America, but if they travel to Europe or Ireland, they can eat those foods there without any problem. There is something very wrong with the food in America and GMO is, I'm sure, part of the problem.
-
Also, the comment about pesticides meaning that farmers have to till the land less is short sided. They spoke about carbon emissions. just think about an acre on your own land of vegetables. What do you think it healthier if you will be the one eating the vegetables---spraying them with pesticide (which goes into the product, into the ground and into the ground water--and probably your well), or getting out there with a hoe to scrape away weeds? the choice is clear. Don't be fooled by scientific studies! They can say almost anything--especially if you don't read the whole text. Use your logic. Everyone will be talking about carbon emissions now because it's popular--just like they talked about world starvation in the 60's and how chemicals would help feed the world. The message of the chemical industry has not changed---USE MORE! Their tactics will change with whatever they can fool you with. Don't be dumb.
-
I am deeply disappointed in TOL's choice of guests for this show. I actually turned off the radio rather than listen to Wes Sanders, who was both ignorant about even the basic issues surrounding GMO sugar beets and totally pro-GMO. The fact that he has covered this issue for the Capital Press does not make him qualified to talk about it. He should understand the facts to be allowed to talk about it. Steven Strauss, while an expert, is a huge proponent of GMOs in every context. I didn't stay on long enough to hear William Freese, because I had work to do and was so disappointed in your show. Please try to do a better job at picking your experts in the future.
-
This comment has been removed by the TOL staff.
-
Comments are now closed.
I grew up on my families 7000 acre cattle ranch before the heavy usage of chemicals that promised to stop world hunger. Now I have lived to see the results of this abuse on our soil, food chain, and ecosystems such as the colony collapse of bees. So, GMO is now the “answer” to feed the world. No, it is not. It is merely a money making hostel takeover of our small sustainable farms or large family farming operations. It is putting honest family farms out of business, wrongfully suing farmers who’s crops become contaminated by the pollen of Monsanto’s and others GMO’s. As usual, GMO’s have been released into our food chain before any true, substantiated, honest good science was performed, instead, we are feed lies that support the marketing of this poison into our foods. Farming use to harm no one. Now, it can kill 10's of thousands and cripple millions as it does the pests these GMO's were designed for. This food will highly likely destroy human DNA, mental capacities and much more. A true dumbing down of Americans will happen and we will never know or remember what good food was all about or even how it once tasted. Babies may be born with 3 legs and 2 heads like the frogs found in ponds near these GMO’s. Sound crazy? Not really. If someone had told me 50 years ago that GMO’s would take precedence over God made foods and we would all be forced to eat the chemicals these plants contained, I would have thought THEY were crazy. If this food is so safe, WHY DID MONSANTO PASS A LAW PROHIBITING LABELING OF GMO FOODS IN ALL OUR FOOD STORES? WHY HIDE IT?