Great comments. Read these after the article below.
I started my adult career as an avid genetic engineering student. I am now an organic farmer. So I ask just a few questions –
In 2015, after 20 years of Biotech-based agriculture, have we –
1. decreased the tonnage of pesticides applied?
2. decreased the toxicity of pesticides applied?
3. increased reliable weed and insect control?
4. protected bees, butterflies and other beneficial organisms?
5. increased farm/rural viability and profitability?
6. increased regional food security and sovereignty?
7. increased food nutritional value?
8. increased soil health and decreased soil loss / degradation?
9. increased water quality and reduced water use?
10. decreased dependence on purchased finite off-farm resources?
11. reduced agriculture’s impact on climate change?
12. reduced the amount of petroleum-based energy used on farm?
13. increased biological and genetic diversity on farms?
Never ever forget that it is the entire package of this style agriculture – the pesticides, fertilizers, neonics, ethanol-driven markets, monopolization of the farm supply chain, rural social impacts, unintended environmental and health consequences, plus the genetic event – that is the ‘proof of the pudding’. It is that entire ‘pudding’ that we must honestly evaluate.
In fact, glyphosate has been known to have very serious health consequences for some time, even to Monsanto. Further, it has been found in the urine samples of virtually everyone ever tested for it in random trials.
What we need is old-fashioned farming, involving crop rotation and variety, beneficial insects to eat the crop-killing ones, and a tax system that penalizes low-yield high-acreage farms, instead of labor-intensive, high-yield, low acreage farms.
See also here on the last point: http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Tax-on-Land-and-the-Na-by-Scott-Bak…
– Scott Baker, president of Common Ground-NYC