GM food
- This topic has 23 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I do possess a limited understanding of that science, DJP, but as i stated but perhaps not made it clear….it is the economic and political effect of those promoting GM within the current capitalist system which is why i seriously question the overall benefits of GM technology in its practical application in the real world of commerce. There are social consequences for small farmers and growers to adopting GM as it is being marketed now. My point was that the purpose of maize GM technology was not actually to benefit humanity but to benefit the coffers of Monsanto. If you wish to claim, as some do, that Monsanto's scientists are devoting themselves to advancing mankind as their priority and it is not the corporation's balance sheets that are driving them, i'm very happy to see the evidence.The article i cited talked of the continuing lack of nutrition in maize, decades after the first GM maize was developed and authorised and widely grown, and i merely pointed out it is not the white-coated technicians in Monsanto's laboratories who have concentrated attention to the food quality of maize but an African-based NGO using their traditional skills. Scientists are, of course, at the service of their pay-masters. I did suggest if anyone has reports of Monsanto's humanitarian research, please let us know. But i did argue that there research on GM is tied into their other iron in the fire – the pesticide industry…it is difficult to uncouple them.
You put it perfectly Alan.I know DJP does not support the likes of Monsanto. But sometimes the cold, clinical, scientific analytical approach can come across as support.It's similar to what Vin has pointed out regarding the party position on the likes of capitalist austerity and how it can come across as support for capitalism.The SPGB needs to be more cautious in such areas.
But we do "support" all technological and scientific advances as making a socialist world of abundance all that more feasible. We have never been part of the anti-technology brigade but see the libertory potential of technological and scientific advances. It's not these as such that are to blame but the misuse of them under capitalism. I'm sure GMO technology will have a widespread application in socialist society.
I fully agree that we are not anti-science and support the boundless potential of new technology. I'm all for drones surveying wilderness areas doing census counts on flora and fauna …unfortunately the primary purpose of their production was for the military… But i think we also have to be understand , as you say, that its implementation within the current times is not to make a world of abundance for all but more to make an abundance of wealth for the few stock-holders in Monsanto and that comes at a price for many unable to resist corporate power. The claims of GM food to being an actual improvement on other ways of food production does not go unchallenged. It is all a matter of horses for courses.We all recognise the importance of anti-biotics and insist upon more R and D but do we argue that it should be used in livestock as normal practice and not just only for treatment of infection. We, as you say, make a judgment on the customary mis-use of technology. Can we see evidence of this abuse of GM , i think we do. The proponents of GM keep repeating this mantra…it can feed the world, and totally ignore that we already can feed the world without it and it is done mostly not the vast Prairie farms but small farms. https://www.grain.org/article/entries/4929-hungry-for-land-small-farmers-feed-the-world-with-less-than-a-quarter-of-all-farmlandIt is the industrial sized farms that require intensive pesticide use which inevitably effect the crops so they develop GM products to counter the detrimental effects … and the pests adapt …so more GM engineering is required…and on and on it goes…. and those least able to afford it, are made to pay more and more and grow increasingly indebted. In India where only GM cotton is permitted a government appointed scientific panel concluded GM cotton had failed to deliver what they promised, exactly my point on the maize (and golden rice)…why should we believe the advertising…in everyday life we don't accept businesses outlandish claims such as that the fossil fuel industry is working for green energy. Why should we exempt Monsanto from criticism just because they spend some of their enormous revenue on a few projects that just might be of use.We have a few choices we can make. Accept as inevitable that Monsanto controls the food industry and stand by without comment as they exercise that power across the globe. Or voice support for those who resist the incursion of Monsanto who are determining the way they farm which will ruin both their economic welfare and their social communities, for the benefit of a relative few who are turned into proletarianised wage-workers (i wouldn't describe these people as 'peasants'…they are full participants in world capitalism…)We walk a tight-rope…understanding that science can be a benefit for humanity and not sounding if we are cheer-leading for our class-enemy's agenda of land-grab and dispossession, again part of the consequence of GM as it is practiced in the real world. It is a matter of who's side we are on when it comes to expressing an opinion and political view. I see everyday the solidarity and social cohesion of communities where each own just a few paddy-fields and i see Round-Up that shows how dependent they are on the big players…i wouldn't like to be complicit in facilitating small farmers being further controlled, even more than they are now, by Big Ag.And if our socialist movement grows in number and is to grow in strength, we have to resonate with a lot more diverse people than merely some urbanites in some Western countries with our message.
One argument put forward in favour of GM food is that this will allow more food to be produced so helping to reduce or eliminate world hunger. This will undoubtedly be the case in socialism where food will be grown to directly feed people. But it's not the case under capitalism where food is produced to be sold. There's a letter in the January/February issue of the Skeptical Enquirer from someone (who is not too keen on GM food) who inadvertently makes this point. He writes:
Quote:[T]he production of genetically modified foods is a business, not a work of charity. During most famines in modern times, people have not gone hungry and died because there wasn't enough food in the world; they died because either food wasn't available where those in need lived or because they did not have the money to pay for it. Why should foodstuffs be more available to people in this position if they are GM products than if they aren't?Good point. The benefits of GM crops will only be able to be fully realised in a socialist, production-for-use society.
There is one concern about GM foods.Africa is experiencing their worse drought in decades and crop harvests have failed across the continent. Imports of corn, the staple food of the poor, is now urgently required. However, many of the countries in Africa prohibit the importation of GM corn, which limits availability particularly from the USA for the aid NGOs to distribute.
http://www.ipsnews.net/2017/05/genetically-engineered-disappointments/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html?_r=1Some of us have argued that GM is no magic bullet and that the great hopes that GM foods would counter the prospect of food shortages in the coming growth in population were spin by the corporations who aim to control the food production industry for greater profits. Others have argued that the science shows the potential for GM to be a tool for better harvests of better crops and that the anti-GM case is driven by protectionist vested interest. Despite strawmen argumentsi don't think the health risks of actual GM foods (other than the pesticides) have featured in the anti-GM arguments on this forum, even if elsewhere people make outlandish claims of Frankenstein technologies.A report from the States National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found that US GE crop yield gains have slowed over the years, leaving no significant advantage in yield gains compared to non-GE plant varieties. Over two decades ago, Western Europe largely rejected GE crops while North America – the United States and then Canada – embraced them. More than twenty years later, US crop yield gains are not significantly higher than in Western Europe. Since the adoption of GE crops, US use of herbicides has increased. This is in contrast to France, which bans GE crop cultivation, where overall use of herbicides has been reduced.
Quote:"although there already is enough food being produced to feed everyone in the world, the real problem is one of access, as most of the hungry do not have the means to buy or produce the food they need. Therefore, while US agribusiness has long claimed that GMOs will “save the world”, there has been little compelling evidence to this effect after two decades."(not from the research paper but the IPS article.I can't cut and paste any of the NYT article unfortunately)
The most extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least about science but believe they know the most, researchers have found.
The finding has echoes of the Dunning-Kruger effect, the observation from social psychology that incompetence prevents the incompetent from recognising their incompetence.
Also involved two other traits of behaviour
The first is “active information avoidance”, where people reject information that would help them understand the world because it clashes with their existing beliefs.
The second is the “backfire effect”, which describes how people can become entrenched in their original positions after rejecting new information.
“This is often used to explain why many Americans refuse to believe in evolution and why so many Americans feel that vaccination is harmful to children,” O’Dwyer said. “It also figures into the debates on global warming and makes correcting erroneous beliefs highly challenging.”
But is there now a lesson for ourselves in politics
“Extremists think they understand this stuff already, so they are not going to be very receptive to education. You first need to get them to appreciate the gaps in their knowledge.”
How would socialists accomplish this?
Protectionism? Precautionary principle in the face of environmental risks? Opportunity knocks?
Who knows the secret of this capitalist ‘black magic’ box?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.