A quick look at anti-GMO and pro-GMO views
Recently a mail correspondent passed me this article link, Seeds of Doubt - An activist’s controversial crusade against genetically modified crops, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/seeds-of-doubt. The article is a longish one and is about Vandana Shiva's, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva, crusade against GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms)/GM crops/food.
I had not really looked at this topic, though I used to browse through some mainstream media articles on it. I had not known about Vandana Shiva and how famous she is as an anti-GMO activist throughout the world. The mail from the correspondent acted as a trigger for me to do some reading/viewing up on the topic. I thought of sharing my views after this small study.
My initial view prior to the small study was as follows:
In the wake of India's recent WTO issues, I have been doing some very limited reading/viewing on how global/regional trade agreements impact small farmers worldwide. There is a lot of criticism about NAFTA's impact on Mexican (and other South American) small farmers. Some of that criticism goes to the extent that these South American small farmers who were made kind-of redundant by grain imports from USA, contributed significantly to the wave of illegal immigration into the USA! As their livelihood got destroyed they had nowhere else to turn except to make dangerous efforts to get into the US itself (and then work as illegal farm labour there, I guess). [Illegal farm labour seems to be a thriving black market industry in the USA as most US citizens find farm labour work to be too hard and the wages & living conditions not good enough.] But then I have not viewed/read up enough of both sides of the matter to have a balanced view.
But what I have learned is that it is not just science & technology as applied to farming that is the issue. Perhaps the main issue is the business organizations, motivated by profit, who use science & technology simply as tools for their business. I am not saying that the business organizations are devils. But then neither would they be angels. They, like in the software companies that I worked with and earned a living as an employee/contractor/consultant, will work within the law, against usually stiff competition, to maximize profit through goods & services. Having a larger picture of negative impact of their goods & services on some communities is simply not part of their function. That has to be done by the governments, which unfortunately, in many cases, simply fails to protect the interests of the almost voiceless and marginalized communities who get impacted, sometimes devastated, by these waves of large-scale change.
--- end initial views ---
My views on the Vandana Shiva New Yorker article (mentioned above):
The picture the article paints of Vandana Shiva is not a great one. Having had some exposure to how some gifted scientists & intellectuals become dictatorial treating rest of humanity as lesser endowed people who should simply follow their instructions, I would not be surprised if Vandana Shiva has become one of these dictators of the scientific world, as the article portrays her.
I can empathize with her follower-turned-rebel Mark Lynas' words:
“When you call somebody a fraud, that suggests the person knows she is lying,” ... “I don’t think Vandana Shiva necessarily knows that. But she is blinded by her ideology and her political beliefs. That is why she is so effective and so dangerous.”
I find the words of Anne Glover, European commission chief scientific advisor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Glover_(biologist). below to be a lot more balanced than what is reported of Vandana Shiva's views in this article:
"When G.M. technology was in its infancy, many people were concerned” ... “People are still concerned about G.M.” ... “Most of them are uneasy not with the technology per se but, rather, with the business practices in the agrifood sector, which is dominated by multinational companies.”
I also find Suman Sahai's, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suman_Sahai, words below to be more feet-on-the-ground type:
“I am at serious odds with my colleagues who argue that these suicides are about Bt cotton” ... “If you revoked the permit to plant Bt cotton tomorrow, would that stop suicides on farms?” ... “It wouldn’t make much difference. Studies have shown that unbearable credit and a lack of financial support for agriculture is the killer. It’s hardly a secret.”
Perhaps the author of the article is saying the plain truth about Maharashtra's Bt cotton farmers here:
“Bt cotton is the only positive part of farming,” ... “It has changed our lives. Without it, we would have no crops. Nothing.”
Give the farmer the choice, I say, unless you have strong evidence backed by top agri-scientists in the country like M.S. Swaminathan that new technology is going to hurt the farmers in the medium or long term. The sickness faced by farmers and their family (wife) due to excessive use of pesticides in non-Bt-cotton farming is a very strong point in favour of Bt cotton, IMHO.
The article mentions how India has been ravaged by famines in the past, with the 1943 famine under the British killing more than 2 million people. At the time of independence Indian grain output was way below what the country needed and India was dependent on grain imported from other countries. It was the Green Revolution in India which changed the picture. "In 1966, India imported eleven million tons of grain. Today, it produces more than two hundred million tons, much of it for export."
It seems to me that but for chemical fertilizers which seem to have played a vital part in the Green revolution, India may still have had a begging bowl for foodgrains from other countries to save its people from starvation! From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution_in_India, "The introduction of high-yielding varieties of seeds and the increased use of chemical fertilizers and irrigation are known collectively as the Green Revolution, which provided the increase in production needed to make India self-sufficient in food grains, thus improving agriculture in India." So the idea of doing away with chemical fertilizers seems to be a very risky one unless organic green revolution is as good as chemical green revolution.
--- end views on Vandana Shiva related New Yorker article ---
I then viewed some videos on anti-GMO:
* Anti-GMO activist has change of heart, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu018hlyH1Y, 6 min. 47 secs., published Jan 2013
* Health Ranger speaks at the Anti-GMO rally in Austin, Texas - 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgQ4wnfiNbc, 3 min. 07 secs
* Seeds of Death: Unveiling The Lies of GMO's - Full Movie, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6OxbpLwEjQ, 1 hr 19 min 34 secs, published May 2013
The Seeds of Death video is a propaganda type video of the anti-GMO chaps, and seems to have the major anti-GMO persons voicing their views, including Vandana Shiva. I searched for any critique of it and, to my surprise, saw this detailed claimed refutation of many (maybe all) of video's claims here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Seeds_of_Death
I guess this is a huge political fight and so there is one heck of a lot of noise from both the anti-GMO group and the pro-GMO groups. Some of the anti-GMO voices seem rather shrill with seemingly sweeping statements being made against GMO. However, some anti-GMO voices do come across as rather truthful voices. Whether their views are actually truthful will need far deeper investigation into the matter than I can spare time for, given my lack of exposure to the field. But, it seems to me, that it is good we have some strong anti-GMO voices, even if shrill, to ensure that super-powerful mega companies like Monsanto, BASF, DuPont, BAYER etc. who surely will have huge political lobbying force, behave in a responsible and accountable manner with their GMO products and marketing strategies.
I am reminded of how, in the 90s, Microsoft became a hugely dominant force in the software world and was able to use ruthless marketing and business practices to simply hammer many competitors into submission/extinction. People like me whose work involved a significant amount of Microsoft software related work, just saw the effects of that dominance and were powerless to do anything about it. Frankly, we just went along with the wave, and felt bad as we saw events like the famous Netscape Navigator browser (& Netscape company) get swamped out by Internet Explorer due to the ruthless trade practices of Microsoft, http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/browserwars.html
Some of the anti-Microsoft voices then were perhaps as shrill as some of the anti-GMO voices. But their resistance and movement ensured that some brakes were put on Microsoft's ruthless business practices. Maybe the anti-GMO chaps, when viewed from that perspective, are a good balancing force to the super-power that GMO companies have.
Perhaps never before in history did businesses have so much power & influence over countries and the world like today's mega corporations have. Yes, financiers had some power over kings & princes of past centuries. But I don't think that kind of power of the past centuries comes anywhere close to the power that mega corporation owners/controlling-shareholders have today. I don't mind progress in GMO science being slowed down if that's the only way the mega power of companies like Monsanto can be kept in check. So much super-power over a vital field like agriculture being held by a few mega companies is a very, very scary proposition to me.
I had not really looked at this topic, though I used to browse through some mainstream media articles on it. I had not known about Vandana Shiva and how famous she is as an anti-GMO activist throughout the world. The mail from the correspondent acted as a trigger for me to do some reading/viewing up on the topic. I thought of sharing my views after this small study.
My initial view prior to the small study was as follows:
In the wake of India's recent WTO issues, I have been doing some very limited reading/viewing on how global/regional trade agreements impact small farmers worldwide. There is a lot of criticism about NAFTA's impact on Mexican (and other South American) small farmers. Some of that criticism goes to the extent that these South American small farmers who were made kind-of redundant by grain imports from USA, contributed significantly to the wave of illegal immigration into the USA! As their livelihood got destroyed they had nowhere else to turn except to make dangerous efforts to get into the US itself (and then work as illegal farm labour there, I guess). [Illegal farm labour seems to be a thriving black market industry in the USA as most US citizens find farm labour work to be too hard and the wages & living conditions not good enough.] But then I have not viewed/read up enough of both sides of the matter to have a balanced view.
But what I have learned is that it is not just science & technology as applied to farming that is the issue. Perhaps the main issue is the business organizations, motivated by profit, who use science & technology simply as tools for their business. I am not saying that the business organizations are devils. But then neither would they be angels. They, like in the software companies that I worked with and earned a living as an employee/contractor/consultant, will work within the law, against usually stiff competition, to maximize profit through goods & services. Having a larger picture of negative impact of their goods & services on some communities is simply not part of their function. That has to be done by the governments, which unfortunately, in many cases, simply fails to protect the interests of the almost voiceless and marginalized communities who get impacted, sometimes devastated, by these waves of large-scale change.
--- end initial views ---
My views on the Vandana Shiva New Yorker article (mentioned above):
The picture the article paints of Vandana Shiva is not a great one. Having had some exposure to how some gifted scientists & intellectuals become dictatorial treating rest of humanity as lesser endowed people who should simply follow their instructions, I would not be surprised if Vandana Shiva has become one of these dictators of the scientific world, as the article portrays her.
I can empathize with her follower-turned-rebel Mark Lynas' words:
“When you call somebody a fraud, that suggests the person knows she is lying,” ... “I don’t think Vandana Shiva necessarily knows that. But she is blinded by her ideology and her political beliefs. That is why she is so effective and so dangerous.”
I find the words of Anne Glover, European commission chief scientific advisor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Glover_(biologist). below to be a lot more balanced than what is reported of Vandana Shiva's views in this article:
"When G.M. technology was in its infancy, many people were concerned” ... “People are still concerned about G.M.” ... “Most of them are uneasy not with the technology per se but, rather, with the business practices in the agrifood sector, which is dominated by multinational companies.”
I also find Suman Sahai's, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suman_Sahai, words below to be more feet-on-the-ground type:
“I am at serious odds with my colleagues who argue that these suicides are about Bt cotton” ... “If you revoked the permit to plant Bt cotton tomorrow, would that stop suicides on farms?” ... “It wouldn’t make much difference. Studies have shown that unbearable credit and a lack of financial support for agriculture is the killer. It’s hardly a secret.”
Perhaps the author of the article is saying the plain truth about Maharashtra's Bt cotton farmers here:
“Bt cotton is the only positive part of farming,” ... “It has changed our lives. Without it, we would have no crops. Nothing.”
Give the farmer the choice, I say, unless you have strong evidence backed by top agri-scientists in the country like M.S. Swaminathan that new technology is going to hurt the farmers in the medium or long term. The sickness faced by farmers and their family (wife) due to excessive use of pesticides in non-Bt-cotton farming is a very strong point in favour of Bt cotton, IMHO.
The article mentions how India has been ravaged by famines in the past, with the 1943 famine under the British killing more than 2 million people. At the time of independence Indian grain output was way below what the country needed and India was dependent on grain imported from other countries. It was the Green Revolution in India which changed the picture. "In 1966, India imported eleven million tons of grain. Today, it produces more than two hundred million tons, much of it for export."
It seems to me that but for chemical fertilizers which seem to have played a vital part in the Green revolution, India may still have had a begging bowl for foodgrains from other countries to save its people from starvation! From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution_in_India, "The introduction of high-yielding varieties of seeds and the increased use of chemical fertilizers and irrigation are known collectively as the Green Revolution, which provided the increase in production needed to make India self-sufficient in food grains, thus improving agriculture in India." So the idea of doing away with chemical fertilizers seems to be a very risky one unless organic green revolution is as good as chemical green revolution.
--- end views on Vandana Shiva related New Yorker article ---
I then viewed some videos on anti-GMO:
* Anti-GMO activist has change of heart, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu018hlyH1Y, 6 min. 47 secs., published Jan 2013
* Health Ranger speaks at the Anti-GMO rally in Austin, Texas - 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgQ4wnfiNbc, 3 min. 07 secs
* Seeds of Death: Unveiling The Lies of GMO's - Full Movie, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6OxbpLwEjQ, 1 hr 19 min 34 secs, published May 2013
The Seeds of Death video is a propaganda type video of the anti-GMO chaps, and seems to have the major anti-GMO persons voicing their views, including Vandana Shiva. I searched for any critique of it and, to my surprise, saw this detailed claimed refutation of many (maybe all) of video's claims here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Seeds_of_Death
I guess this is a huge political fight and so there is one heck of a lot of noise from both the anti-GMO group and the pro-GMO groups. Some of the anti-GMO voices seem rather shrill with seemingly sweeping statements being made against GMO. However, some anti-GMO voices do come across as rather truthful voices. Whether their views are actually truthful will need far deeper investigation into the matter than I can spare time for, given my lack of exposure to the field. But, it seems to me, that it is good we have some strong anti-GMO voices, even if shrill, to ensure that super-powerful mega companies like Monsanto, BASF, DuPont, BAYER etc. who surely will have huge political lobbying force, behave in a responsible and accountable manner with their GMO products and marketing strategies.
I am reminded of how, in the 90s, Microsoft became a hugely dominant force in the software world and was able to use ruthless marketing and business practices to simply hammer many competitors into submission/extinction. People like me whose work involved a significant amount of Microsoft software related work, just saw the effects of that dominance and were powerless to do anything about it. Frankly, we just went along with the wave, and felt bad as we saw events like the famous Netscape Navigator browser (& Netscape company) get swamped out by Internet Explorer due to the ruthless trade practices of Microsoft, http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/browserwars.html
Some of the anti-Microsoft voices then were perhaps as shrill as some of the anti-GMO voices. But their resistance and movement ensured that some brakes were put on Microsoft's ruthless business practices. Maybe the anti-GMO chaps, when viewed from that perspective, are a good balancing force to the super-power that GMO companies have.
Perhaps never before in history did businesses have so much power & influence over countries and the world like today's mega corporations have. Yes, financiers had some power over kings & princes of past centuries. But I don't think that kind of power of the past centuries comes anywhere close to the power that mega corporation owners/controlling-shareholders have today. I don't mind progress in GMO science being slowed down if that's the only way the mega power of companies like Monsanto can be kept in check. So much super-power over a vital field like agriculture being held by a few mega companies is a very, very scary proposition to me.
Comments
Post a Comment