Why I Still Oppose
Genetically Modified Crops

Print Email Tweet Facebook Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Mixx

COMMENTS

This is a very well written piece, and I respect your opinions. However, many of the arguments you make would apply equally to hybrids and to non-biotech seed that is protected under other forms of patents (such as PVP, Plant Variety Protection). I would like to hear your thoughts about these types of crops in relation to your arguments here.


I would still be against it if it weren't for "intellectual property." But now farmers are having this huge problem with GMO crops contaminating their fields. Monsanto sues hundreds of US farmers each year and thousands internationally. These are people whose properties are illegally raided. The only way to determine if these crops are in fact Monsanto's is to spray everything with pesticides. What survives belongs to Monsanto. These companies are fully aware that seeds spread in nature and now even organic farmers are trying to fight off Monsanto's greed. Where will it stop? I think we need to pass tougher laws. I would ban them all together or limit it to greenhouse raised crops. It's too dangerous.


Your article is very well written and speaks the truth about the take over of our food supply. People need to educate themselves and not allow Monsanto and the like to interrupt what nature has been doing for hundreds of years to make a buck.


I heartily support this idea. Genetically modified crops producing system is inhuman as it maybe making us seedless, endangering human species in the long run. And, the way how seed companies are controlling seed in the name of patent-ship can create monopoly in the most important element of the world-THE SEED.


The question must be added, what will happen if they gained full market control of a species and their parent seeds farms failed?
With the decline in bees and soil carbon, annual rainfall and now governments will vote to leave climate change reversal to the kids and grand kids in 2020-50, don't expect much support from governments to stop GM companies from adding to the demise of mankind.
Robert Vincin in China


Thank you, it is especially nice to see a
reasoned summary of the gmo crops, on the
heels of the Borlaug tributes singing the praises
of agribusiness and their Green Revolutions.

I would disagree that the world's objections to
gmo crops seems Quixotic to Americans, when a
decade of proliferation in the food supply has
failed to inform most American consumers of
their existence. We have no public debate.

Americans have no labeling requirements for
gmo foods and no tools to exercise any free
market choices to show there is objection or
acceptance.

Ignorance of gmo ingredients is the cornerstone
of their success and like the deregulated
financial markets, operating free from oversight
or public awareness, the motive for short term
profits come with huge, long term social costs.

"These crops close the circle on
the farmer’s knowledge, finally eliminating, after
10,000 years, the farmer’s role in the genetics
of agriculture. Genetically modified crops are
rigorously licensed forms of intellectual
property. Every seed is a binding contract with
stiff penalties attached. This represents the final
transfer of the collective farming wisdom of the
human race into corporate hands."

Whose Green Revolution is that?



Here in Turkey, as the Parliament prepares to debate a proposed new biosecurity law this fall, many forums and platforms at all levels of society are standing up in opposition to allowing the use of GMO seeds or the use in prepared foods or clothing of ingredients from GMO seeds, and in keeping with the European Union, in support of clear labeling on all imported products containing GMOs in the ingredients.


Appalling! The threat that small farmers in the Third World might rise above their station by having "grown [crops] for cash, in place of subsistence crops" that currently only allow them to grow enough to barely feed their families thus keeping them in their place, is truly frightening.

Thank you for protecting us Mr. Klinkenborg.





Thoroughly agree with everything you say.

Moreover, crops genetically engineered to withstand pesticides wind up fed to livestock and humans who are NOT geneticially engineered to withstand pesticides. Every day it seems new connections are being drawn between pesticides and illness, such as Parkinson's disease, lymphoma, etc.


Thank you for a well reasoned article. You have clearly expressed the reasons for the acute discomfort I feel about GM seeds and crops. You are not a voice in the wilderness and you have inspired me to keep speaking out against this kind of industrial agriculture.


Do you feel the same about crops derived from mutagenesis? Most of the arguments you use against GM crops also apply to those derived from this older, more crude methodology. There are thousands of mutagenesis derived crops throughout the world, yet I do not hear any complaints about these crops, which are often used in organic, non industrial agriculture, even though in many cases they share many of the traits (patents, resistance to herbicides, etc.) that you criticize in GM crops.

So tell us, what is your position on whether we should be growing varieties derived from
mutagenesis?


The piece is revealing and I now appreciate the way my own countrymen in India have been resisting introduction of GM crops. In agriculture science does play a significant role but that perhaps cannot beat the traditional wisdom of the farmers and their inherent genius to choose their own seeds for the soil that they are intimately in tune with. In any case, the risks with GM crops seem to far outweigh their advantage. I feel this piece should be widely circulated for fullest appreciation of the implications of farming of genetically modified crops


These GMO crops have accompanying deleterious effects on the environment that are documented and ignored! GMO crops, for one, reduce the amount of Jimson weed to zero - the major food source for Monarch butterflies. THe 100% disappearance of Monarch butterflies when GMO crops are introduced is documented. There are others..It is a huge con game by Monsanto, to conceal these studies..


Klinkenborg’s arguments are crystallised in the following paragraph.

“These crops close the circle on the farmer's knowledge, … over all those thousands of years.”

In other words, the biotechs have selected a handful of the best varieties developed by farmers over generations, and modified them to their own corporate purposes. Once their patent protected soy, canola, etc. is grown in the field, every other freely used and native variety is contaminated and thus protected by the same ruthlessly enforced patent law.

With GM canola now on Australian farms, within five years, on-farm hybridisation to suit ‘the back paddock’ or ‘the other side of the hill’ will risk financial ruin for the farmer struggling to earn an honest living off the land.

How have we let the ‘powers that be’ and a few farmers with dollar signs in their short-sighted eyes, trade our heritage and breeding ingenuity for eternal obligation to the likes of Monsanto?



I would like to join the "thanks" about putting into words part of my disconfort about GM crops.
I think that the problem already existed with "conventionnal" breeding, but it intensified with the introduction of the GM version of the crops. 2008 figures show that 70% of the soybean grown worldwide is GM (source: GMO Compas). Could it already be too late?


For those people that think hybrids are the same as GM life forms please go back to school or get some fundamental understanding of genetics. I do not want to eat crops that are expressing compounds that kill or injure insects. If you put poison ivy gene's in sweet corn to keep corn borer off I do not want to eat it. Not an accurate example but the point is made. Remember DDT was safe cigarettes were safe, agent orange was safe,PCB's were safe. All top notch scientists and government telling us all these past things were safe. Now we are being told everything corporations do to enhance profits are safe please at least lie with more clever method.


Great Article! I have been thinking a lot about this very issue lately. I have attached the url to my article that I wrote on opensalon.com.

Keep up the great work with all that you do! What is heartening is that people are starting to catch on about this. Let's hope that we can raise awareness enough to dramatically change this in the next few years.


Great article Verlyn. We are having similar problems here in the UK with eradicating the use of GM crops. We simply do not know enough about them to continue down this road with any degree of certainty or safety.

The very point that "Scientists are still discovering" the consequences of GM growing should throw up massive warning flags. It is another classic case of greed vs common sense.



Many of the arguments you make would apply equally to hybrids and to non-biotech seed that is protected under other forms of patents. Every day it seems new connections are being drawn between pesticides and illness, such as Parkinson's disease, lymphoma, etc.



Thanks for article! I've thought a lot about this very points lately.

Today, just four countries account for 99% of the world's commercially grown transgenic crops. Many others have been stalling over whether to embrace transgenic agriculture, but won't be able to put off the decision for much longer.



The real problem about modified crops it will be when when we will outgrow the ability to feed ourselves, in that moment we will be forced to accept modified crops for food. If people will be informed well I think they will accept modified crops but only after we will not be able to feed ourselves. In future global warming will influence our food cultures, the desert is extending and we need to find cultures to be able to resit to global warming. Unfortunately I think that modified crops will be introduced on huge scale over 10-20 years.



You have forgoten several things about genetically modified grain, They have cause bad results in livestock feed for meat production. They are harmful to humans. The are not to be used for livestock feed or human consumption as mandated by the FDA. But they are in fact in our livestock feed and in our daily diet. I also believe that they are the reason for bees lose. My friend and his neighbors lost livestock because of the modified grain. They are now trying to get the seed company's who developed these grain to pay fore their lose. But all we have come up with is a cover up so that these company's can get rich without taking responseabilty for their action.



Personally, I agree and encourage this idea. I don't believe technology is that close to make SAFE genetically modified crops. Just imagine, a terrorist plan to get into the crop line, and that will spread like wildfire, or even a chemical bug.



Genetically manipulated food crops are not fit for human consumption and should not be classified as food. No legitimate study has ever proven them to be safe or nutritious. The burden of proof is on the producers of such crops to verify their safety and, to date, all data has revealed that they are unsafe.

Claims that GM foods will end world hunger are baseless, propagated only by those that have a
financial interest in converting the world's food supply to their own patented varieties in order to control it.

That`s why i Still Oppose!



Comments have been closed on this feature.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Verlyn Klinkenborg is a member of the editorial board at the New York Times, where he regularly writes editorial opinions about rural life. His most recent book is Timothy; Or, Notes of an Abject Reptile. In a previous article for Yale Environment 360, Klinkenborg reflected on the bicentennial of Charles Darwin’s birth.
MORE BY THIS AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES

The Folly of Big Agriculture:
Why Nature Always Wins
Large-scale industrial agriculture depends on engineering the land to ensure the absence of natural diversity. But as the recent emergence of herbicide-tolerant weeds on U.S. farms has shown, nature ultimately finds a way to subvert uniformity and assert itself.
READ MORE

Can Reforming the Farm Bill
Help Change U.S. Agriculture?
For decades, farm bills in the U.S. Congress have supported large-scale agriculture. But with the 2012 Farm Bill now up for debate, advocates say seismic shifts in the way the nation views food production may lead to new policies that tilt more toward local, sustainable agriculture.
READ MORE

In Fast-Track Technology, Hope
For a Second Green Revolution
With advances in a technique known as fast-track breeding, researchers are developing crops that can produce more and healthier food and can adapt and thrive as the climate shifts.
READ MORE

A Development Expert Relies
On the Resilience of Villagers
Geographer Edward Carr has worked extensively in sub-Saharan Africa, where climate change and other environmental threats present a growing challenge. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, Carr talks about why any outside aid to the developing world must build on the inherent capability of the local residents.
READ MORE

What Rising Temperatures May
Mean for World’s Wine Industry
Warming temperatures associated with climate change are already affecting vineyards from France to Chile, often in beneficial ways. But as the world continues to warm, some traditional winemaking regions are scrambling to adapt, while other areas see themselves as new wine frontiers.
READ MORE

MORE IN Opinion

The Clean Water Act at 40:
There’s Still Much Left to Do
by paul greenberg
The Clean Water Act of 1972, one of the boldest environmental laws ever enacted, turns 40 this year, with an impressive record of cleaning up America's waterways. But from New York Harbor to Alaska’s Bristol Bay, key challenges remain.
READ MORE

Besieged by Climate Deniers,
A Scientist Decides to Fight Back
by michael e. mann
Climate scientist Michael Mann, who has faced years of attacks from climate-change skeptics, explains why he believes bad-faith assaults on science have no place in a functioning democracy and why the truth about global warming will inevitably gain wide acceptance.
READ MORE

The Folly of Big Agriculture:
Why Nature Always Wins
by verlyn klinkenborg
Large-scale industrial agriculture depends on engineering the land to ensure the absence of natural diversity. But as the recent emergence of herbicide-tolerant weeds on U.S. farms has shown, nature ultimately finds a way to subvert uniformity and assert itself.
READ MORE

Shunning Nuclear Power
Will Lead to a Warmer World
by spencer r. weart
A physicist argues that if we allow our overblown and often irrational fears of nuclear energy to block the building of a significant number of new nuclear plants, we will be choosing a far more perilous option: the intensified burning of planet-warming fossil fuels.
READ MORE

Innovation is Not Enough:
Why Polluters Must Pay
by gernot wagner
Innovative energy technologies are certainly essential if the world is to curb carbon emissions. But in response to a recent e360 article by the co-founders of the Breakthrough Institute, an economist argues we must also cap emissions or put a price on carbon in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
READ MORE

Beyond Cap and Trade,
A New Path to Clean Energy
by ted nordhaus and michael shellenberger
Putting a price and a binding cap on carbon is not the panacea that many thought it to be. The real road to cutting U.S. emissions, two iconoclastic environmentalists argue, is for the government to help fund the development of cleaner alternatives that are better and cheaper than natural gas.
READ MORE

On the Road Back to Rio,
Green Direction Has Been Lost
by fred pearce
Twenty years ago, an historic environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro produced groundbreaking treaties and high hopes that pressing issues would be addressed. But as organizers prepare for the Rio+20 conference in June, there is little on the agenda to suggest any substantive action will be taken.
READ MORE

As Roads Spread in Rainforests,
The Environmental Toll Grows
by william laurance
From Brazil to Borneo, new roads are being built into tropical forests at a dizzying pace, putting previously intact wilderness at risk. If we hope to preserve rainforests, a leading researcher says, new strategies must be adopted to limit the number of roads and reduce their impacts.
READ MORE

Solar Power Off the Grid:
Energy Access for World’s Poor
by carl pope
More than a billion people worldwide lack access to electricity. The best way to bring it to them — while reducing greenhouse gas emissions — is to launch a global initiative to provide solar panels and other forms of distributed renewable power to poor villages and neighborhoods.
READ MORE

In Australia’s New Carbon Tax,
A Host of Missed Opportunities
by richard denniss
The Australian government will begin imposing a tax on carbon emissions in mid-2012. But large giveaways to industry mean Australia’s scheme doesn’t go nearly far enough in reducing the nation’s CO2 emissions or providing economic stimulus.
READ MORE

RELATED e360 DIGEST ITEMS

21 May 2012: Pebble Mine Could Devastate
Critical Alaskan Salmon Habitat, EPA Warns

21 May 2012: Methane Sources Found
Bubbling Up from Melting Ice Caps

18 May 2012: Apple’s Main Data Center
Will Use Only Green Power by 2013

17 May 2012: Human-made Pollutants May Be
Expanding Tropical Zone, Study Says

17 May 2012: Retreat of Columbia Glacier
Vividly Captured in NASA Satellite Images

16 May 2012: Wildlife in Tropical Regions
Has Declined 60 Percent Since 1970

16 May 2012: State Oversight Helps Reduce
Effects of Fracking, Study Says

15 May 2012: U.S. Companies Use Steel Linked
To Amazon Destruction, Greenpeace Finds

14 May 2012: Various Uses of Wood
Determine Emissions from Deforestation

14 May 2012: Americans Willing to Pay
Slightly More For Clean Energy, Study Says