A systematic overview of more than 100 studies comparing organic and conventional farming finds that the crop yields of organic agriculture are higher than previously thought. The study, conducted by UC Berkeley researchers, also found that certain practices could further shrink the productivity gap between organic crops and conventional farming.
The study, to be published online Wednesday, Dec. 10, in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, tackles the lingering perception that organic farming, while offering an environmentally sustainable alternative to chemically intensive agriculture, cannot produce enough food to satisfy the world’s appetite.
“In terms of comparing productivity among the two techniques, this paper sets the record straight on the comparison between organic and conventional agriculture,” said the study’s senior author, Claire Kremen, professor of environmental science, policy and management and co-director of the Berkeley Food Institute. “With global food needs predicted to greatly increase in the next 50 years, it’s critical to look more closely at organic farming, because aside from the environmental impacts of industrial agriculture, the ability of synthetic fertilizers to increase crop yields has been declining.”
The researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 115 studies — a dataset three times greater than previously published work — comparing organic and conventional agriculture. They found that organic yields are about 19.2 percent lower than conventional ones, a smaller difference than in previous estimates.
The researchers pointed out that the available studies comparing farming methods were often biased in favor of conventional agriculture, so this estimate of the yield gap is likely overestimated. They also found that taking into account methods that optimize the productivity of organic agriculture could minimize the yield gap. They specifically highlighted two agricultural practices, multi-cropping (growing several crops together on the same field) and crop rotation, that would substantially reduce the organic-to-conventional yield gap to 9 percent and 8 percent, respectively.
The yields also depended upon the type of crop grown, the researchers found. There were no significant differences in organic and conventional yields for leguminous crops, such as beans, peas and lentils, for instance.
Dennis von Arb, near Orange City, Iowa, is concerned about the use of glyphosate on crops.
On a windy day this spring, his neighbor sprayed glyphosate on his fields, and some of the herbicide blew onto Mr. Von Arb’s conventionally grown corn, killing the first few rows.
He’s more concerned, though, about the soil. During heavy rains in the summer, the runoff from his neighbor’s farm soaked his fields with glyphosate-laden water.
“Anything you put on the land affects the chemistry and biology of the land, and that’s a powerful pesticide,” Mr. Von Arb said.
But 20 miles down the road, Brad Vermeer brushes aside such concerns.
He grows “traited,” or biotech, corn and soy on some 1,500 acres and estimates that his yield would fall by 20 percent if he switched to conventional crops and stopped using glyphosate, known by brand names like Roundup and Buccaneer.
In short, it is just too profitable to give up.
“Local agronomists are starting to say we have to get away from Roundup,” Mr. Vermeer said. “But they’re going to have to show me that conventional genetics can produce the same income.”
The local differences over glyphosate are feeding the long-running debate over biotech crops, which currently account for roughly 90 percent of the corn, soybeans and sugar beets grown in the United States.
While regulators and many scientists say biotech crops are no different from their conventional cousins, others worry that they are damaging the environment and human health. The battle is being waged at the polls, with ballot initiatives to require labeling ofgenetically modified foods; in courtrooms, where lawyers want to undo patents on biotech seeds; and on supermarket shelves containing products promoting conventionally grown ingredients.
Now, some farmers are taking a closer look at their soil.
First patented by Monsanto as a herbicide in 1974, glyphosate has helped revolutionize farming by making it easier and cheaper to grow crops. The use of the herbicide has grown exponentially, along with biotech crops.
The pervasive use, though, is prompting some concerns.
Critics point, in part, to the rise of so-called superweeds, which are more resistant to the herbicide. To fight them, farmers sometimes have to spray the toxic herbicide two to three times during the growing season.
Then there is the feel of the soil.
Dirt in two fields around Alton where biotech corn was being grown was hard and compact. Prying corn stalks from the soil with a shovel was difficult, and when the plants finally came up, their roots were trapped in a chunk of dirt. Once freed, the roots spread out flat like a fan and were studded with only a few nodules, which are critical to the exchange of nutrients.
In comparison, conventional corn in adjacent fields could be tugged from the ground by hand, and dirt with the consistency of wet coffee grounds fell off the corn plants’ knobby roots.
“Because glyphosate moves into the soil from the plant, it seems to affect the rhizosphere, the ecology around the root zone, which in turn can affect plant health,” said Robert Kremer, a scientist at the United States Agriculture Department, who has studied the impact of glyphosate on soybeans for more than a decade and has warned of the herbicide’s impact on soil health.
Like the human microbiome, the plants’ roots systems rely on a complex system of bacteria, fungi and minerals in the soil. The combination, in the right balance, helps protect the crops from diseases and improves photosynthesis.
In some studies, scientists have found that a big selling point for the pesticide — that it binds tightly to minerals in the soil, like calcium, boron and manganese, thus preventing runoff — also means it competes with plants for those nutrients. Other research indicates that glyphosate can alter the mix of bacteria and fungi that interact with plant root systems, making them more susceptible to parasites and pathogens.
“Antibiotics kill bacteria or reduce their growth, but some of those bacteria are useful,” said Verlyn Sneller, president of Verity, a small company that sells sugar-based fertilizers and water systems and works to persuade farmers like Mr. Vermeer to switch to conventional crops.
But research detailing the adverse effects with glyphosate is limited, and other studies counter such findings.
Monsanto, which sells Roundup and seeds resistant to glyphosate, says “there is no credible evidence” that the herbicide “causes extended adverse effects to microbial processes in soil.” A team of scientists from the Agriculture Department similarly reviewedmuch of the research and found the herbicide to be fairly benign. In response to a request from Monsanto, the Environmental Protection Agency recently increased the amount of glyphosate that is allowed on food and feed crops.
<nyt_text>
“Another factor that weighed on our minds quite a bit was that when you look at the yields of the three major glyphosate-resistant crops — corn, soybeans and cotton — there’s generally been a trend upwards that hasn’t changed since they were adopted,” said Stephen O. Duke, one of the U.S.D.A. scientists who worked on the review. “If there was a significant problem, I don’t think you’d see that.”
The roots appear healthier on the conventionally raised plant, right.
In defending the herbicide, Monsanto scientists and others cite research that has found that mineral deficiencies caused by glyphosate can be mitigated with soil additives. They also point to studies showing that the increase in plant diseases — which some have attributed to the use of the herbicide — instead could be linked to weaknesses in the variety of the plant that was chosen for genetic modification, or to the rise of “no-till” farming, which leaves plant materials that harbor pathogens on top of the soil where they can infect the next crop.
The company and the government continue to assess the impact of the herbicide.
The U.S.D.A. is conducting studies in Illinois, Mississippi and Maryland. Earlier this year, Monsanto bought parts of a company founded by J. Craig Venter, the first scientist to sequence the human genome, as part of an effort to develop microbes and other “agricultural biologicals.” The foray into microbes, said Robert T. Fraley, Monsanto’s chief technologist, is to improve yield and address some of the issues raised about glyphosate.
Until the debate is settled, some farmers in the Corn Belt are rethinking their methods.
Several years ago, Mike Verhoef switched to biotech corn and soybeans on his 330 acres in Sanborn, Iowa. He regularly rotated the two crops with oats, which are not genetically engineered, to help replenish the nutrients in the soil.
Almost immediately, he said problems emerged. He noticed that his soil was becoming harder and more compact, requiring a bigger tractor — and more gas — to pull the same equipment across it. The yield on his oats also dropped over time by about half.
“It took me that long to figure out what was going on,” Mr. Verhoef said. “What I was using to treat the traited corn and soy was doing something to my soil that was killing off my oats.”
Two years ago, he gave up and started growing conventional crops again. He is now working with Verity to improve soil quality and says his yields of conventional corn and soy are “average to above average” compared with neighbors growing biotech crops. It does take a bit more work, he acknowledges, since he has to walk his fields and figure out what mix of products is needed to treat the issues.
Although a neighbor told him that he would go broke growing conventional crops, Mr. Verhoef has no plans to go back to genetically engineered varieties. “So far, so good,” Mr. Verhoef said. “I’m not turning back, because I haven’t seen anything that is going to change my mind about glyphosate.”
In a seemingly crazy decision, a Monsanto executive is winning this year’s “Nobel Prize of agriculture” the formerly prestigious World Food Prize, and he is getting it basically for creating GMOs. Awarding it for this harmful science legitimizes the sort of rampant genetic modification Monsanto pioneered, and helps validate a ruthless business model that impoverishes farmers and monopolizes our food.
Often hailed as the Nobel Prize of food, the World Food Prize has received as much attention this week for its ties to industrial agriculture and genetically modified (GM) crops as it has for honoring those who feed the poor. The WFP has been a magnet for worldwide criticism since June, when it announced its laureates.One of them was Robert Fraley, an executive at the biotech corporation Monsanto, which has been at the center of a number of controversies over GM crops. Fraley shared the honor with Syngenta scientist Mary-Bell Chilton and Plant Genetic Systems co-founder Marc Van Montagu, fellow pioneers in the development of high-yield GM crops resistant to disease, pests and harsh climates.
Oh but we are not done yet! The founder of Syngenta, the same biotech giant joining Bayer in suing Europe to keep selling bee-killing pesticides, will also win the prize,and with it, a share of the $250,000 prize money. This prize has legitimized GMO’s and bee killers.
Winning this prize will encourage the wider use of genetically engineered crops and be a huge obstacle to those fighting to investigate the long-term effects of its GMO’s, which is exactly what Monsanto wants.
From 1999 to 2011, Monsanto donated $380,000 (PDF) to the World Food Prize Foundation in addition to a $5 million contribution in 2008 to help renovate the Hall of Laureates, a public museum honoring Borlaug. The donations have prompted accusations that Monsanto essentially bought Fraley’s award — a charge denied by the foundation.
The picture above is from a study that was published in The Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal.
The study was led by a man named Gilles-Eric Seralini from the University of Caen and it was the first ever study to examine the long-term effects of eating GMOs.
Some quotes from the report:
“The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group.”
“Scientists found that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females.”
You might want to think twice when choosing food and seeds, and also before trusting the World food prize.
Today I talked to Jenn a co-organizer of March Against Monsanto, a grassroots action group based in St. Louis Missouri, but with chapters and solidarity marches in cities from Boston to LA, Minneapolis to Miami and all over the world. Monsanto’s US headquarters is based in St. Louis, In fact more than 400 marches will take place on Saturday October 12th, with future marches planned in the spring. The last march in spring of 2013 millions of people all around the world took part.
So why are so many people marching against Monsanto? My personal reasons are clear, after our dog recently died due to Roundup exposure, but why would millions march against this company?
According to Jenn; “Our big goal is to raise awareness of GMO’s and Monsanto’s crimes”
“Our biggest problem is industry funded Monsanto science. There is a ton of science that proves how dangerous GMO’s and Monsanto’s products are.”
In 1996 the New York Attorney General fined Monsanto $50,000 for false claims and extracted a promise from Monsanto to never again advertise in the state that Roundup is safe. This is just one example in the last 20+ years where deceptive advertising and lobbyists smear and stretch the truth until forced to do otherwise. In addition to this the EPA has thrown out several studies over the years finding them flawed. While that is a good thing the time it take to form and start a new study can be long, and the companies involved are allowed to use and sell their products in the meantime.
As the sign in the picture shows, Monsanto has been victimizing America for profits for a LONG time.
We need a Rachel Carson “Silent Spring” moment here, she fought against DDT, now it’s time for us to pick up the mantle and March Against Monsanto and their proven poisons.
Well, where to begin, everything seems like a haze right now.
On October the 6th 2013 our long time companion and best friend Sappho died. LITERALLY the reason that FutureFarming.org exists was to provide a safe farm environment for our dog, all of the rest was born from that single idea.
Sappho was only 9 years old and perfectly healthy last summer. Early in the fall of 2012 a nearby farmer made a HUGE “mistake” and sprayed many acres of our land. Sappho then was exposed to the Monsanto product Roundup.
It was nearly a week before we found out that she had been exposed, we had caught the farmer in the act and stopped him immediately, but not soon enough. The symptoms began to manifest as the Roundup caused our dogs body to attack itself.
The larger battle was yet to come. Three different veterinarians could not explain her illness, but also refused to concede that Roundup could do this. In fact on our last visit to the vet in August, there was a landscaping crew using Roundup right outside of the vets windows and doors.
The vets would say that the American studies here at Cornell and other places have shown how safe glyophosate is. We would point them at other studies in Europe and other places that would show her exact symptoms with Roundup exposure in both the real world and the laboratory.
William Meggs, M.D., Ph.D., School of Medicine, East Carolina University has done extensive research on Roundup and similar chemicals.
In patients who have been chemically injured by Roundup, Meggs has noted significant lymphatic hyperplasia, lymphatic tissue that is swollen and engorged. He has also found significant cobblestoning in upper airway passages. This represents chronic inflammation caused by lymphocytes migrating out of the blood stream and seeping into the tissues. Meggs has also noted thickening of the structure called the basement membrane, the structure on which the lining of cells that lines the interior of the nose sits. Meggs’ study also found a defect in the tight junctions (the joining of cells together) and a proliferation of nerve fibers.
“Chemicals bind to receptors on nerve fibers and produce something called neurogenic inflammation. These chemicals bind to these receptors and cause the release of potent substances that produce inflammation in tissue.
When chemicals bind to nerve fibers, they can produce inflammation. Inflammation, in turn, produces other changes in the tissue, and it brings in these lymphocytes. We believe that inflammation causes these barrier cells to open up and sometimes even come off the basement membrane. Below the basement membrane is the nerve fibers, so we have a process whereby a chemical exposure will damage the lining of the nose.
What happens is people have a large chemical exposure, they breathe in noxious chemicals, and this damages the epithelium. This huge exposure is able to penetrate this barrier we have between the chemicals we breathe in and these nerve cells beneath the lining layer that react to chemicals by producing inflammation. The inflammation, in turn, produces substances that cause further damage to the lining cell, and actually produce the substances which cause the tight junctions between these cells to open up. In some cases the cells actually come off and just leave these bare nerves exposed. Once you have the bare nerves exposed, low levels of chemicals that we all experience every day are enough to produce inflammation which in turn keeps the epithelium damaged.”
These were the exact symptoms Sappho was experiencing, but NO ONE would listen and treat the problem, even though they had no viable explanation and we were giving them one.
Instead the gave us pills and no answers, but that is a whole other issue.
The bigger problem was the denial of the danger in Roundup, it is much more dangerous than just glyphosate. We need to change these ideas!
Although its active ingredient is glyphosate, an organic phosphate, this is combined with other ingredients including a surfactant called polyethoxylated tallowamine that helps the product penetrate plant surfaces. Glyphosate has been used as an herbicide since the 1970s and is hailed as non-toxic and environmentally safe. But recent studies show glyphosate herbicides and Roundup in particular are more dangerous for people, animals, and the environment than previously believed, especially the combination of glyphosate and polyethoxylated tallowamin.
Critics have argued for decades that glyphosate, Roundup and other herbicides used around the globe, pose a serious threat to public health. Industry regulators, however, appear to have consistently overlooked their concerns with the help of lobbyists.
The government of El Salvador in Central America has banned the use of Glyphosate (Roundup) and 52 other dangerous chemicals. The Dutch city Rotterdam, the second largest city in the Netherlands, has also banned it. Someday Roundup will be seen as out generations DDt.
On Saturday October the 12th all over America there will be March Against Monsanto events. I strongly suggest you go if you care about food security, animals, kids or the environment. You never know when your neighbor may go crazy and spray this all over a driveway, you can get it in an department store.
There are studies over 30 years old that show how dangerous this is, the effects on the environment, people, animals and the entire planet. If we dont stop this now, there wont be a planet. Please dont let another dog, another person or even another frog die because of Monsanto Roundup and their lobbyists.
RESOURCES and STUDIES on ROUNDUP
(and other herbicides).
Glyphosate (Roundup) is one of the most toxic herbicides, and is the third most commonly reported cause of pesticide related illness among agricultural workers. Products containing glyphosate also contain other compounds, which can be toxic. Glyphosate is technically extremely difficult to measure in environmental samples, which means that data is often lacking on residue levels in food and the environment, and existent data may not be reliable. (“Greenpeace Report – Not ready for Roundup: Glyphosate Fact Sheet,” greenpeace.org – April 1997)
Glyphosate is found in weed killers and may cause cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, nerve, and respiratory damage. (“Special Report: what you need to know about pest control,” Natural Health Magazine, May/June 2001)
“RoundUp was found to cause significant DNA damage to erythrocytes (red blood cells) in a study done in 1997 by Clements, Ralph and Petras. RoundUp’s surfactant, POEA, is known to cause haemolysis.” (In haemolysis, hemoglobin leaks from the red blood cells, leaving them unable to transport sufficient supplies of oxygen to the body’s tissues.)
(Clements C, Ralph S, Pertas M, 1997. Genotoxicity of select herbicides in Rana catesbeiana tadpoles using the alkaline single-cell gel DNA electrophoresis (comet) assay. Environ Mol Mutagen 1997; 29(3):277-288.)
One of the older studies I mentioned.
(Sawada Y, Nagai Y, Ueyama M, Yamamoto I, 1988. Probable toxicity of surface-active agent in commercial herbicide containing glyphosate. Lancet. 1988 Feb 6;1(8580):299.)
These are just a sample of HUNDREDS I have, if you need more feel free to write us on our contact page. Sappho 2004 – 2013
Though the title claims it’s shocking, I feel a sad lack of shock. I’m still very disturbed, however, and as more studies are conducted, perhaps all of us will start to take the threat more seriously. We NEED to know what is in our food, and we need to start protecting our water supply!
We, unfortunately, live in a world where the dollar is king. It takes priority over everything, and everyone — well, except for those few who possess a lot of them. Any attempt to regulate profit-centric industry is proclaimed as ‘communism’ and deemed an injustice and an obstacle to everything from economic prosperity to world peace. This thinking somehow concludes that market forces and self-interest are always working in our best interest. But they are not.
When the U.S. Constitution was formed, the U.S. government’s role was to protect the rights of its populace, and little else. Today the goverment’s role is to protect the interests of Big Business, and little else. For us, the little people on the ground, the government, Big Business and the media — their PR department — have all the appearances of being on an extractive offensive against us all.
When it comes to GMOs, industry has been allowed to call its own shots. In the World According to Monsanto documentary we saw footage of George Bush senior on an early 1990s tour of a Monsanto laboratory, where Monsanto executives complained to him that they couldn’t sell their exciting new products due to onerous regulatory requirements. The ecologically inept Mr. Bush then essentially told them that this would no longer be a problem, as “we’re now in the deregulation business”. Today, in countries like the U.S. of A., the GMO industry simply regulates itself. If the biotech industry deems its wares safe for people and place, they are placed on shelves ready for purchase. Worse, instead of a situation where discerning buyers can, at the very least, choose to take or leave these items, the industry has managed to get GMO ingredients into most of the nation’s edible, drinkable products, and unlabelled, so consumers don’t have a choice.
Currently, up to 85 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered as are 91 percent of soybeans and 88 percent of cotton (cottonseed oil is often used in food products). According to industry, up to 95% of sugar beets are now GE. It has been estimated that upwards of 70 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves–from soda to soup, crackers to condiments–contain genetically engineered ingredients. —centreforfoodsafety.org
Big Biotech has even fought and made it illegal for other industries to market their goods as being without GMOs. The hypocrisy here is difficult to overstate. In order for a seed to be patented and sold under license, it needs to be shown to be substantially ‘different‘ from the non-GMO version. And yet, a Ma & Pa corner store cannot market their organically produced food as ‘non GMO’, due to the law of ‘substantial equivalence‘, which states that GMO and non-GMO ingredients are essentially the same, and thus to use ‘GMO-free’ labels is biological discrimination. (It should be noted that the person who initially coined the term ’substantial equivalence’ and pressed it into law in order to ensure the speedy approval of GMO strains, is non other than Michael Taylor, the Obama administration’s senior advisor to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for “protecting and promoting public health“. These are the same people who are conducting armed raids on organic farms, and this Michael Taylor also happens to have spent the last few decades in the revolving door between either working for the biotech industry, or legally representing/defending it, or working at government level to oversee the regulations (or lack of) for it. Talk about a conflict of interests….)
New Long Term Study Throws Cat Amongst the Pigeons
Until now, most studies on the possible health implications of GMOs for us captive customers have been organised and monitored by the very same industries that make those GMOs. And, normally those studies have lasted no longer than 90 days. When an industry has spent billions on researching new GMO strains, it’s not hard to imagine there might be at least just a tad of bias about their products involved… but this is exactly how it works.
Now we have a new study at hand, one that has been independently financed and researched. And, unlike the industry-led studies, this one has been run over a much longer period — two full years. It’s the world’s first long term study of Monsanto’s widely used Roundup herbicide and Roundup Ready Maize — unless you want to count the decade of experimentation on the human race itself…. (But, that can’t count, of course, as there has been no proper research or control groups in this area….)
In the first ever study to examine the long-term effects of Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, or the NK603 Roundup-resistant GM maize also developed by Monsanto, scientists found that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, developed mammary tumours and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females, compared with 23 and 14 months respectively for a control group.
“This research shows an extraordinary number of tumours developing earlier and more aggressively – particularly in female animals. I am shocked by the extreme negative health impacts,” said Dr Michael Antoniou, molecular biologist at King’s College London, and a member of CRIIGEN, the independent scientific council which supported the research.
GM crops have been approved for human consumption on the basis of 90-day animal feeding trials. But three months is the equivalent of late adolescence in rats, who can live for almost two years (700 days), and there have long been calls to study the effects over the course of a lifetime.
The peer-reviewed study, conducted by a team of researchers at the University of Caen, found that rats fed on a diet containing NK603 Roundup resistant GM maize, or given water containing Roundup at levels permitted in drinking water, over a two-year period, died significantly earlier than rats fed on a standard diet.
Up to half the male rats and 70% of females died prematurely, compared with only 30% and 20% in the control group. Across both sexes the researchers found that rats fed Roundup in their water or NK603 developed two to three times more large tumours than the control group. By the beginning of the 24th month, 50-80% of females in all treated groups had developed large tumours, with up to three per animal.
By contrast, only 30% of the control group were affected. Scientists reported the tumours “were deleterious to health due to [their] very large size,” making it difficult for the rats to breathe, [and] causing problems with their digestion which resulted in haemorrhaging.
The paper, published in the scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology today, concluded that NK603 and Roundup caused similar damage to the rats’ health, whether they were consumed together or on their own. The team also found that even the lowest doses of Roundup, which fall well within authorised limits in drinking tap water, were associated with severe health problems.
“The rat has long been used as a surrogate for human toxicity. All new pharmaceutical, agricultural and household substances are, prior to their approval, tested on rats. This is as good an indicator as we can expect that the consumption of GM maize and the herbicide Roundup, impacts seriously on human health,” Antoniou added. — TheGrocer.co.uk
Monsanto is already in active denial over this study. And this is perhaps the saddest part for me — as Monsanto and their ilk can turn the whole issue over whether GMOs are bad for us or not into an extended sideshow distraction that can be argued for years, or even decades. Just like the current U.S. election fiasco, where the critically important issues of climate change, peak oil and transition away from the perpetual growth paradigm are totally sidelined to instead focus on far more trivial campaign nonsense, the argument over the health implications of GMOs, as important as that is (don’t get me wrong on that point), still distracts us from far more profound root issues about them.
My point here is that the era of large scale, globalised industrial agriculture is coming to an end. We no longer have the energy to maintain it, and nature cannot take its abuse any longer. This ‘end’ will occur by one of the following means: 1) rapid human transition to smaller scale, biodiverse, low-carbon systems that actually pull carbon out of the atmosphere and put it back to work in our soils, or 2) it will happen by necessity as fossil fuels wane and starve the system to death, or 3) it will occur via the destructive forces of a biosphere out of balance.
In reality, all GMOs are is an attempt to deal with, and capitalise on, the symptoms created by reductionist industrial agriculture. Battling symptoms is a process that can never be won. The only real cure is prevention.
It’s clear that Big Biotech will ignore and/or work to undermine any study that contradicts their own. To be able to actually prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ the health implications for humans themselves, in a way that would satisfy them completely, I think, we’d have to have an island set aside just for a 20 year experiment, where half the population ate imported GMO products, and the other half ate island-grown organics. This would be the only way to ensure that all other conditions were at least similar. But even then I’m sure the industry would find ‘discrepancies’ in lifestyle between individuals in the groups, and the argument would go on, and on, and on….
In short, if the outcome of a study is negative towards GMOs, then that study will never be regarded as truly scientific by Big Biotech. You will never hear a Monsanto CEO —who has a legal obligation to make profit for shareholders — come out and say, “Oh, hell, I learned something new. You’re absolutely right — we’ll close up shop right now!”
As far as the consumer side of this goes, the base issue is the freedom to choose. Even though the cigarette industry denied its harmful effects for decades, at least people were not forced to smoke. Yes, through stealth advertising you were made to feel you were very uncool unless you partook, but at least it was not ground up and included, unlabelled, in almost every product available for purchase.
I hope this new study provides impetus to Proposition 37. Gaining critical mass in public desire to see GMOs labelled will do wonders towards seeing supermarket chains boycott them. This could spell the death knell for GMOs. But, as mentioned above, I’d like to see the ‘critical mass’ evolve even further, to include an holistic understanding of soil science, peak oil, climate change, industrial agriculture, perpetual growth economics, an unravelling ecology and society, and their interconnectness with each other. Unless this happens, we’ll always be dealing with symptoms and isolated ‘issues’, and will never create a permanent culture.
Sappho was only 9 years old and perfectly healthy last summer. Early in the fall of 2012 a nearby farmer made a HUGE “mistake” and sprayed many acres of our land. Sappho then was exposed to the Monsanto product Roundup.
These were the exact symptoms Sappho was experiencing, but NO ONE would listen and treat the problem, even though they had no viable explanation and we were giving them one.
Sappho 2004 – 2013