mala fide

Congratulations go to Bill Gates for placing himself squarely back on my hit list. Those who have known me at least for several years know that I used to think of Microsoft as the antichrist of technology. Then as I started trying to be healthier I realized that Microsoft was just small change compared to agribusiness. At that point I stopped caring about Microsoft. It was not that Microsoft got any better; rather I picked different battles.

How did Bill Gates earn this distinction in my mind? Last month at the World Food Prize 2009 symposium, Bill Gates spoke on behalf of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on the topic of "Support for the World's Poorest Farmers" (http://208.109.245.191/assets/Symposium/2009/transcripts/2009-Borlaug-Dialogue-Gates-brief.pdf). In his comments he states "This global effort to help small farmers is endangered by an ideological wedge that threatens to split the movement in two." Mr. Gates also says there is a need to "develop crops that can grow in a drought; that can survive in a flood; that can resist pests and disease. We need higher yields on the same land in harsher weather. And we will never get it without a continuous and urgent science-based search to increase productivity...." And the part of his speech that worries me most: "In some of our grants, we include transgenic approaches because we believe they can help address farmers’ challenges faster and more efficiently than conventional breeding alone."

It is that last point I want to discuss. Despite what many agricultural biotechnology companies like to advertise, such as Monsanto's "Produce More, Conserve More" campaign, the results of genetic modification have not lived up to the promises. The actual results have been no increased yields over conventional counterparts, increased costs to farmers, increased pesticide use, increased harm to wildlife, and increased death and sickness in human consumers.

The Union of Concerned Scientists in its publication "Failure to Yield" has stated that after a record of "more than 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization in the United States...", "we conclude that GE [genetic engineering] has done little to increase overall crop yields." The report further states "Most of the gains are due to traditional breeding or improvements of other agricultural practices." Also, scientists are warning that transgenic foods may be a cause of cancer and chronic illness (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18515.cfm, http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/GettheFacts/HealthDangers/index.cfm).

Finally, there is the case that transgenic crops have performed so poorly in India that an estimated 180,000 farmers have taken their own lives in the decade between 1997 and 2007 (http://www.sustainlane.com/reviews/1-500-indian-farmers-commit-mass-suicide-why-we-are-complicit-in-these-deaths/USSXPLOHQPR98XCSAKFUPUI4MO3A,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av6dx9yNiCA&feature=player_embedded).

This post could be far longer if I continued citing examples. It all makes me wonder if Mr. Gates actually researched the facts rather than the corporate propaganda. Hopefully he puts more effort into this than into his software. This is more than a potential inconvenience; this affects lives.

Attempting to remain free of genetically modified organisms is getting more and more difficult. First, there is the problem that there is no labeling requirement for foods containing GMOs. The prime way to avoid GMOs is to buy local. However, for those that do not have that opportunity organic is the next option. However, be careful because the USDA standard only requires that food bearing the certified organic seal to contain only 95% organic ingredients. But to assist there are the following non-GMO food guides:

http://www.geaction.org/truefood/shoppersguide/
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/BuyNon-GMO/index.cfm