I've been blogging occasionally about the risks of GMOs to human health and the wider ecosphere, and most recently, I pointed out the fact that some farmers are rejecting GMOs and returning to natural seeds, as productivity over a short time of GMO crops fell in their fields, and hence, their profits with it. Initially, GMOs tend to outproduce natural crops, but nature seems to adapt faster than human genetic engineers, and eventually productivity falls.
Now there is a new concern on the horizon, and it is essential to bring it to your attention here, since most American crop production is now in the form of GMOs:
As the article points out, so much of the "science" certifying the safety of GMOs was nothing but scientism, the purchase of an expert to mouth reassuring platitudes guised in scientific nomenclature, whereas the truth and common sense alone would have indicated that multi-generational testing over time, and on a variety of species, was necessary, which was not done. Instead, in the name of substantial equivalence, these products were approved for market since they looked like their natural counterparts, and superficially, provided similar nutritional value.
Now the nutritional value itself is under assault as more and more studies are strongly suggesting human health effects, including now - as I recently blogged - the discovery of GMO sequences in the human bloodtsream via "some unknown mechanism" that scientists are at a loss to explain.
But there is a greater problem looming, and that is the relative lack of genetic diversity in GMO crops compared to their natural counterparts:
"In fact, as Taleb convincingly argues, genetically engineered crops are specifically designed to have a survival advantage over conventional crops, allowing them to better resist droughts or infestations of pests or weeds. This survival advantage -- if it's as real as seed manipulators claim -- means genetically engineered plants can out-compete non-GMO crops in open fields. The genetic pollution which is already underway across North America will only get worse, therefore, and there's no reversing it because all living systems -- even genetically engineered ones -- have a natural drive to spread, multiply and survive.
"The result is that GMO crops will out-compete and thereby displace non-GMO crops over time. Why does this matter? Because the rise of GMOs is nearly synonymous with the collapse of genetic diversity in seeds and food crops. You don't have to go back very far in history to find examples of mono-cultured food crops failing due to lack of genetic diversity, either:
"- The Irish Potato Famine of 1845-1852 was caused by over-reliance on a genetically narrow food crop. Shockingly, one-third of the Irish population relied on a single crop, and when potato blight (a fungal microorganism) successfully attacked the crop, over one million people died from starvation.
"- The current crisis in world banana production is caused because nearly all commercial banana trees are genetically identical clones.
"- The near-collapse of Florida citrus due to disease is also caused by a striking lack of genetic diversity across citrus orchards."
And this immediately following:
"Any legitimate scientist in the fields of anthropology, genetics or agriculture will warn you that low genetic diversity is the first step toward crisis and collapse of any given population. When genetic diversity is lost, the entire species becomes vulnerable to being wiped out by epidemic disease.
"This principle is irrefutable and widely recognized as truth among nearly all scientifically-literate thinkers... except those pushing GMOs, of course. Those denialists selectively edit "scientific truth" to exclude any concerns that might question the wisdom of displacing the world's treasure of seed diversity with corporate-patented seeds. The Precautionary Principle is gladly thrown out the window when corporate profits are to be realized from doing so."
Of course, Duponzanto and Mon(ster)santo are not the slightest bit concerned with these scenarios, but they ought to be. A scenario of epidemic collapse of crops and resulting starvation of whole populations, given their purpled prose extolling the benefits of their patented crudola, will only rebound against them. As I recently blogged, the Russian State Duma is considering a complete ban on GMOs while their effects can be studied over time, and precisely in the intergenerational and multi-species context that should have been done at the very beginning. One may envision that the Russians are clever enough scientists to design experiments to test for precisely the type of genetic diversity-decline scenario outlined in the article.
If they do, the results will be fairly predictable, but if they do, and they publish those results, it will become increasingly difficult for the scientismists in the pathological American plutocracy and the presstitutes in the American media to counter.
This should be, but is not, on the radar screen of American strategic planners, for if the scenario of declining genetic diversity leading to epidemic and starvation does occur, it may put America at the mercy of countries that have not sold out to the monsters at Mon(ster)santo and Duponzanto... countries we might have to rely on for "grain shipments"... countries like Russia. And given our recent meddling in their back yard, they are likely to extract a very high price... It was a Rockefailure toad and lackey, no need to mention names here, that first suggested that food be weaponized, and thus was born the idea of "patentable crops"... but GMOs increasingly appear to be a weapon that have backfired...
See you on the flip side.