A Truce in the Crop Wars

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/08/2009 9:17:24 AM

    Grow all the food that you can for your table. Persevere and just see how much it can replace what you have been buying. You get better at it in a couple of years. Work leaves and grass clippings into the soil. Find someone who raises cattle, sheep, goats, hogs or fowl. Get rotted manure from them that they don't need and work it into composted material from your yard. Never throw a leaf away. Pile them up, mix with manure, and put into your garden soil. Lettuce, spinach and other greens will grow all winter in much of the country. Even some ice will not kill them. You'll be surprised. And well nourished.

    • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/08/2009 9:22:46 AM

      It's the tomatoes. That's what makes it all worth while. Learn the tomato and you will never quit gardening the rest of your life. Space limitation is no excuse. They will grow in pots, and even hanging up in a basket. Even hydroponically. If you grow too many, then dry them or make a knockout tomato paste for homemade pasta dishes.

      • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/08/2009 9:28:38 AM

        We have entered the debate about whether the science of vegetables has become harmful because people abandoned the art of growing their own, making it necessary to mass produce them. They lose something nourishing every day after harvest and the more that they are produced in mass, the less you get when you eat them. The further we go down that road, the more vulnerable we are to mass crop failure, and the more poisons it takes to keep the pests away as weakened soil takes away the plants' defenses.

  • Posted By: j8nell @ 07/07/2009 1:42:49 PM

    For the love of God, mimic nature, DON'T re-arrange it. There is a perfect system created for growing and delivering food to our tables and that system was in place long before the food scientists and GM came along. Genetic manipulation produces short term results that seem positive, but we have no idea of the long term implications to our bodies, our culture, and to our environment considering that we've only been tinkering with this science for the last 150 years or so.

    I am a solid believer in research science and because of my faith in this I also understand its imperfections and fallibilities. It took millions of years for nature to develop foods the way we know them today (or at least before the 1960s when GM began to boom,) therefore why should we be so egotistical to think that our incomplete understanding of food science and the application of those understandings will be so much better than what has been in place for thousands of years?? In almost every example of the application of science to improve our lives something else has been sacrificed or compromised. This is because we are always trying to re-arrange and manipulate rather than mimic natural processes. Instead of rolling back our application of science we continue to use science to "fix" these new problems which lead to even more problems and on and on...

    If you can not understand what it is or where it came from, why would you put it into your body? And if it couldn't survive on its own, why waste money, and energy to force it to occur? Most of these GM plants can not re-produce because all of their energy is redirected into pest control or resisting harsh chemicals that are sprayed on them to prevent pests and to help them to grow in an (non natural) monolithic culture despite everything.

    Going beyond this, our inclination towards this type of food culture separates us from the essential interactions that occur when we visit a local food market or sit around the table with friends and family eating a home cooked meal. A GM food culture tells us that food is a commodity and not an all important part of life which is evidenced by the decreasing portion of our paychecks that go towards feeding ourselves. Do we value the experience surrounding food, or do we value money and the increase of money in our pocket books when we don't have to spend it on crazy things like food? What if cheap GM/ cheap food causes an energy war (fertilizers and pesticides are both made from refined petroleum.) What if GM food/ cheap food implicate our health in ways that we only barely understand? It is true that we are an adaptable species, but how much and over what period of time?

    Why can't science help us develop smart, sustainable local food economies that enable us to support our neighbors and establish lasting relationships that foster quality communities while effectively caring for the species and creatures that nourish our bodies?

    • Posted By: sickpuppy @ 07/07/2009 4:42:57 PM

      > If you can not understand what it is or where it came from, why would you put it into your body?
      Can you tell me where the genes for tomatoes came from? We know where artificial genes come from, it's the natural ones that have an unknown origin.

      > Most of these GM plants can not re-produce
      Actually they can. That's why GM companies patent them and then sue farmers who try to use seeds from last year's crop rather than buying new seeds from the corporation. That's why the GM companies want to add another gene which will prevent the crops from reproducing, but this is strongly opposed by advocates for farmers in developing countries.

      > Going beyond this, our inclination towards this type of food culture separates
      > us from the essential interactions that occur when we visit a local food market
      > or sit around the table with friends and family eating a home cooked meal. A
      > GM food culture tells us that food is a commodity and not an all important part
      > of life which is evidenced by the decreasing portion of our paychecks that go
      > towards feeding ourselves. Do we value the experience surrounding food,
      > or do we value money and the increase of money in our pocket books when
      > we don't have to spend it on crazy things like food?
      If the food is cheaper, doesn't that make it possible to use the extra money on improving social interaction at home cooked meals? You could use the extra money to buy a bottle of wine, or buy more or better food. Perhaps you could buy a fancy table cloth or better furniture. I really don't understand why you think food needs to be expensive. If nothing else, there are a lot of people living on a few dollars a day who would appreciate cheaper food even if you prefer to pay extra.

      > Why can't science help us develop smart, sustainable local food economies that enable us
      > to support our neighbors and establish lasting relationships that foster quality communities
      > while effectively caring for the species and creatures that nourish our bodies?
      Well first of all science is providing access to cheaper food. "Growing food locally" is just code for saying that you think we shouldn't buy food that is out of season and shipped around the world. That's you decision. I rather like having fresh oranges in the winter. More to the point, I think most of what you are referring to are social problems. "Fostering quality communities" is done by people talking to each other, not by engineers working at their computer. Science can provide tools for solving some of them, but you have to convince people to use those tools. For example, science is providing tools in the form of GM crops to reduce the price poor people in developing countries pay for food. I would argue that this would help "support our neighbors". However, there are a lot of people like you who don't want to use that tool.

      • Posted By: hlgns763 @ 07/07/2009 5:14:56 PM

        fantastic post....

        great points...

        you paid attention in class...

  • Posted By: redfire1 @ 07/07/2009 5:14:41 PM

    As PeterPlant said, alot of the procedures mentioned in this article are products of biotechnology. Nothing traditional about it. Most of the food we eat is a result of carefully planned biology and chemistry over the past several decades. The day of your food coming from rosy cheeked peasants harvesting grain in homespun garb is long gone.

  • Posted By: cyfi @ 07/07/2009 2:53:16 PM

    This sounds like the way to go.

  • Posted By: PeterPlant @ 07/02/2009 7:54:31 PM

    It is a shame that GM/Biotech has become such taboo. The technology is a scapegoat for people's opinion about the way large Agricultural corporations do business. There should be no opposition to lifting a characterized gene from one species where a trait of interest exists, and adding it to the genome of an organism where the trait is needed. I am not sure why people are somehow more comfortable with the idea of introgressing large pieces of uncharacterized DNA from wild related species (some of which produce toxic compounds - e.g., tomatoes) into their food crops without the exhaustive testing and extreme regulatory costs required of GM crops. We have been messing around with the DNA of our food crops (and livestock) since we became an agrarian society. Anyone who thinks that "traditional breeding" is so different and safe vs. GM approaches really is just mis-informed. Just because something is "natural" doesn't also mean it is inherently benevolent. Also, it is great to talk about molecular marker-assisted breeding, but people should realize that that too is a product of biotechnology.

  • Posted By: Bob Roberts @ 06/29/2009 12:14:36 PM

    Hello Mac, good discussion on the issues, thanks for bringing it to the table. One point of clarification on Monsanto's Roundup Ready Soybeans is that the RR tolerance does not come from a naturally herbicide tolerant grass. The C4 strain of Agrobacterium sp. is a species of bacteria that was found growing in the waste-fed column at a factory that made glyphosate. A most profitable accident of Monsanto's toxic chemical operations.

  • Posted By: Mike Listman @ 06/29/2009 10:51:09 AM

    Dear Mac:

    Compliments on an engaging and informative article regarding the science of food production. Given the fact that humans are consuming significantly more of food grains than they produce---global grain stores have shrunk 9% yearly during the last decade---and that climate changes and water shortages will soon challenge farming capacity even more, it's time to get serious about supporting agricultural research for development in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Among other things, helping the rural poor attain food security and better livelihoods will go a long way toward stopping terrorism.

    For future reference, you may wish to note that Tom Lumpkin is the director general of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (known by its Spanish acronym, CIMMYT).

    Mike Listman
    Interim Head, Corporate Communications
    CIMMYT

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse