Any Merit?
A few weeks ago I watched a documentary about the current state of the food industry. As I've said here before, I'm generally skeptical about the whole organic food movement and view it largely as motivated by an anti-science sentiment. As one can easily tell by the picture, this film was pro organic food. I'm not sure why I watched it (it was definitely painful at times), but I guess I was curious if I would find any merit to their anti genetic engineering campaign.I haven't done any fact checking on what they had to say, and when they start out by saying how pesticides were derived from poisonous chemicals developed for war you know their bias runs deep. Yet I'll assume that the entire show wasn't a work of fiction and discuss some of their claims that I found interesting.
The film claims that Monsanto has patented many gene sequences and that they are suing anyone found in possession of their genes without having paid for them. They do a sketch on a farmer in Canada in whose field of canola is found Monsanto's proprietary Roudup resistant strain of canola. Apparently the farmer didn't plant it (some blew off a seed truck driving by), but was still found culpable and forced to pay a hefty fine. And thousands of farmers have suffered a similar fate. If this is true, it would be disturbing. Seems rather absurd to place the burden on the farmer to keep the Monsanto seed out (it can also be spread by cross pollination).
The film also discusses how plants grown from Monsanto seeds produce seeds that are sterile. Thus the farmer has to purchase new seed each year rather than collecting some seeds from his own crop. On the one hand that does seem to conflict with Monsanto's claim of wanting to help alleviate world hunger, but on the other hand spending millions to engineer a superior plant that people would only have to buy once and then could perpetuate on their own seems like a quick way to go out of business.
They also claim that corporate food production encourages a reduction in biological diversity which makes the food supply more vulnerable to catastrophe. Again, I'm not sure about the accuracy of the claim, but the idea of only a handful of companies controlling something as important as food does strike me as a little monopolistic.
From here on out in the film I didn't find much anything compelling:
- claim - new plants created by engineering are inherently more dangerous than new plants created by old fashioned hybridization
- my response - millions of people have been eating genetically engineered plants for years. A gene sequence put there by "nature" and one put there by a gene gun will behave identically.
- claim - engineered plants don't produce higher crop yields
- my response - What? Are you crazy?
- claim - big food conglomerates are using more and more chemicals
- my response - first, not all chemicals are bad. Water is a chemical. Sure other chemicals are more dangerous, but many of these are quite safe if used properly. Plus plants can be engineered to be resistant to pests and therefore need fewer pesticides
The story ends with a quaint little mom and pop farm that has gone to all organic. This is the way to salvation they insinuate. Yet who are the largest producers of organic food today...the same corporations who produced (in?)organic food more efficiently than the small farms.
So check it out on Hulu or Netflix and tell me what you think.
Comments
Corporations always pretend to have the public at heart, but No doubt Monsanto's goal is to make money. The great thing about markets is that it doesn't matter. Corporations pursuing profits will alleviate world hunger regardless of their intentions.
"They also claim that corporate food production encourages a reduction in biological diversity which makes the food supply more vulnerable to catastrophe. Again, I'm not sure about the accuracy of the claim, but the idea of only a handful of companies controlling something as important as food does strike me as a little monopolistic."
Is the fear that some disease will strike and wipe out all the genetically identical crops? I guess this concerns me a little bit. But aren't these corporations going to have back up plans? If not they will lose a lot of money and get sued a lot. Also I saw a story on 60 minutes about some guy collecting all the seeds he can find from different grains and preserving them in his modern-day ark (some cave in Greenland, think). We can always ask that guy for help.
I know people have made this point before better than I have, but doesn't all this concern about diminishing biodiversity run contrary to the theory of evolution? We have a panic when africanized honey bees replace normal bees, or some kind of fire ant displaces our normal peaceful ants. Of course, it turned out the bee thing wasn't a big deal after all and the normal bees are going to be fine. But, even if they are going extinct we shouldn't be worried. The theory of evolution is about survival of the fittest. So we should rejoice that the evolutionary superior afircanized bees are beating out their sissy relatives and helping beekind progress.
I can't say I'm that worried about eating non-organic foods, I figure you can just wash your fruits and vegetables. People have told me you should avoid non-organic soft things like strawberries, because the pesticides soak inside, and milk, which you can't wash. Perhaps they have a point. There are some fairly harmful chemicals used in agriculture, varying state to state.
However, the biggest risk is to the people who work in the fields, not the consumers. Particularly pregnant women when it's too early to know that they're pregnant and then they the embryo to toxins when it is at it's most vulnerable earliest stage. I would support more bans on toxic pesticides for the sake of field workers, similar to banning smoking in bars and restaurants for worker health. You can claim those people could always look for other jobs, but I doubt most of the people who go out and harvest the fields have many options.
-Theresa
The part that bothers me most about chemicals used on our foods (whether it concerns risks to consumers or to agricultural workers) is the synthetic/non-synthetic line that the USDA is employing. To me this line is incredibly arbitrary and misleading. Additionally the USDA has a list of "approved synthetic substances" and another list of "prohibited non-synthetic substances". And check out some of the petition forms on the USDA's website. They appear ridiculously simplistic to me.
If there are substances that are unsafe, let's prohibit them, but the organic/non-organic divide is a pretty wavy line that has been drawn and I find it rather deceptive.
Turns out I did more research into the Monsanto v. Canola Farmer case and the documentary was incredibly misleading. The reason Monsanto brought the case wasn't because the farmer has some stray patches of their proprietary canola in his field, but because he intentionally collected seeds from the Monsanto plants and planted a large crop with them the next year. Has there ever been a documentary that wasn't a propaganda piece?