Mr. V.T. contributed this article, and if you've been following the story of GMO foods and crops and the growing opposition to them, then this is an important development:
The pdf file of the report mentioned in the article is here:
This report is important because it confirms a number of other reports that I have blogged about, including studies from the University of Iowa that suggest that not only are GMOs ultimately less productive per acre than their natural counterparts, but their cost effectiveness declines over time as well.
But there's something else here as well, and I hope you caught it:
"After examining recent research on GMO crop production, the report also found:
- "Genetically modified crops—primarily corn and soybeans—have not substantially contributed to global food security and are primarily used to feed animals and cars(sic), not people.
- "GMO crops in the US are not more productive than non-GMO crops in western Europe.
- 'A recent case study in Africa found that crops that were crossbred for drought tolerance using traditional techniques improved yields 30 percent more than genetically engineered varieties." (Emphasis added)
This one line summarizes what has been wrong with GMOs all along: the lack of inter-generational study of their effects (and effectiveness) compared to normal natural seeds and the time-honored agronomical techniques of breeding characteristics into plants over time and several generations. We were confidently assured by corporate science that GMOs were not only safe, but the answer to world hunger and feeding the world's growing population. But the third point above implies that exactly the opposite seems to be the case. Add to this the second line "GMO crops in the US are not more productive than non-GMO crops in Western Europe", and, as the University of Iowa pointed out, over the long term more expensive to plant and raise, and one gets the picture.
What has been the response of I.G. Farbensanto and DuPonzanto and the other big agribusiness giants? They have fallen back on standard mercantilist policy, seeking government protections and interferring in local and state laws and campaigns. In short, the truth be damned: we need protection, because the jig is up, and we cannot compete without that protection. And the government and corrupt politicians have played along. In the end, of course, it will be to no avail, and the USA's GMO geopolitics will stand as another example of a bad policy, pursued to its end.
And one can expect, with the new Chinese Asian Infrastructure Development bank, and the participation of European countries such as Germany, that have increasingly called into question the whole GMO issue, that GMOs will be on the agenda once that bank is operating, and issuing loans. If those loans are made for agricultural infrastructure development such as has been advocated in this article and report, then we'll know that an old prediction of mine - that the BRICSA nations would eventually make the GMO a geopolitical and human rights issue - is happening.
See you on the flip side...