|
Farmers and consumers in many countries throughout the global north and the global south have rejected both the ecological risks and the economic/legal terms posed by transgenic (GMO) seeds. How does this reality affect U.S. farmers' decisions on what types of seeds to plant? Author: Yi Wang:Topic: Biotech Seeds: |
28Vote |
Farmers who traditionally saved seed to plant the next year's crop are being forced to buy genetically altered seed because of Monsanto's policy of throwing the book at farmers whose crops have been contaminated with pollen blown in from GMO crops. This is happening worldwide and is especially egregious where subsistence farmers cannot possibly afford to buy GMO seed.
I am from a farm family and do not know of many farmers that "reject" GMO seeds. In my opinion, GMOs are positive additions to ag for several reasons, two being: GMOs allow farmers to use less chemical because the seed can be made resistant to many insects. They also allow farmers to more effectively control weeds therefore producing a higher yield, placing more food, etc, into the market, thus lowering prices for consumers.
Monsanto is not the only BR&D company that produces GMO seeds; Syngenta and others do too. Monsanto has just been more aggressive in defending their patent (and rightfully so. They have spent millions of dollars in research to produce the seed and only have a window of time to turn profit before the patent is lifted.) Many farmers that have been prosecuted KNOW they are in the wrong, granted some instances are excessive, but many and most are legit.
If you are referring to "subsistence farmers" as those who sustain themselves/their families with the food they produce, they wouldn't be buying bulk seed from Monsanto or any other BR&D company. These companies mainly supply farms that are on a large scale. They could, but GMO seeds seem most beneficial (in price and yield) to career farmers.
Since the first biotech seeds were introduced commercially in the U.S. in the mid-1990's, U.S. farmers have recognized the value and potential in using that technology. Whether we accept it or not, there is risk associated with everything we do in our everyday lives. Biotech seeds have been scrutinized for their safety far beyond any other seed technology in history. The vast majority of U.S. farmers, (demonstrated by the high percentage of U.S. acres planted to biotech crops,) have concluded after 15 years the benefits to their farms and to society far outweigh the potential or imagined risks. I believe U.S. farmers will continue to support and promote biotechnology.
Ashlee, transgenic seeds are being pushed onto farmers in developing countries not just directly by seed companies but also through private sector aid and development organizations with the financial backing of philanthro-capital (i.e., Gates and Rockefeller Foundations, both of which have investments in agricultural biotech). Adoption is incentivized by providing credit.
Even still, indigenous farmers such as those in Uganda have rejected transgenic seeds because of the risks they pose to the genetic agrobiodiversity crucial to maintaining ecological resilience.
The global food security challenge is not technical but rather political-economic in nature. Sustainable, agroecological, organic small-scale agriculture feeds most of the world and is capable of continuing to do so into the future.
More to the point, the primary function of proprietary seeds is not to provide improved agronomic or ecological efficiency but consolidated economic returns for seed manufacturers and distributors--by capturing more of the surplus value produced in agriculture via seed premia.
Yi, it sounds as though you have already made up your mind about this topic. Of course businesses like Monsanto want to turn a profit. Farms are small business and they also want to turn a profit. If they weren't profiting from GM seeds they wouldn't be using them. I can't speak to the specific situation in the developing world; I am not involved in those areas. Ashlee was only speaking to her own experiences here in the U.S. and what has benefitted her family and the other farmers she knows. GM crops have helped their businesses grow and become more profitable, and this in turn has helped the comapnies providing the seed grow and become more profitable. I see nothing wrong with that.
Norman Borlaug introduced something new, different, and most likely not readily accepted by local farmers, too.
Yi - most of the world is not fed with traditional agriculture techniques. It is impossible. We have a world population of 7 billion and by 2050 we will have a population of 9.3 billion. We need to focus on using the incredible productivity of modern agriculture to avoid calamity on a mass global scale. America produces 18% of the worlds food on 10% of its land. We need to keep the issue focused on what is so very important. Providing food. We have the safest, most effective food supply in the world. The reason is that we have smart and committed people in our industry. It is in these people best interest to protect the land on which they live (and their families health). Our country was founded on being a leader in industry. Agriculture is an industry. It is a good thing when industries become more efficient and less wasteful of natural resources.