"patently insane"

A particularly apt term in this case.

“Reasonable suspicion of posing a threat to the environment should be enough to ban any product.

The idea that this could be argued is patently insane.”

OK, I’ll bite. I think I can argue Monsanto’s right to challenge and still hold on to some degree of sanity. That doesn’t mean that I like ‘GM’ seed or even approve of its use. I am also no fan of Monsanto, but I also feel the individual farmers should be allowed to choose, just like I choose not to eat the ‘GM’ stuff and grow a lot of my own produce, eggs, rabbits, and fruit in orchard and garden.

To give a brief ‘GM’ overview in addition to the referenced article, I would suggest everyone do a quick internet search on Bt cotton and the controversy there. Also see these couple articles:

www.victoryseeds.com/news/te...ene.html

www.banterminator.org/

www.grain.org/articles/

www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/l..._2/05_FMS.htm

Now the question I have is why shouldn’t Monsanto have the ‘right’ to challenge something that will cause financial loss to their shareholders? I don’t say that they will win a suit, but they should be allowed the right to challenge to determine what is a “reasonable suspicion”. I would pose that most of the products we use everyday from plastics, cars, airplanes, bleached paper, clothing, deodorant, tampons, roads, housing, shampoo, medicine, and even computers (to read fun forums like this one) all caused or contributed to some degradation of the environment somewhere in their manufacturing processes. Even the power we use to power our lives had to be produced somewhere and that required a trade-off in resources and pollution. Ultimately, every thing you use, own, or eat had it’s origins from one of two possible sources: you either grew it or dug it up out of the ground.

Now hopefully, as you are in a permaculture forum, your goal is to minimize your damage to the environment, but I have a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that just your very existence can be shown to have a ‘threat to the environment’. At which point we need to ask ourselves what we embrace and what trade-offs or compromises can we live with. I do not advocate that we drop everyone’s standard of living to a Middle Ages peasant, but I also don’t advocate that everyone live in a 10,000 square foot house with 6 cars and a boat.

Once we determine what level off trade-offs we can live with, then comes the issue of science. In my opinion as a scientist, this is where the term ‘reasonable suspicion’ falls on its butt, unless you are very careful. We need to then determine if the ‘reasonable damage’ is what we expected, less than we expected, or more than we expected. I am also reasonably sure many of the things we use result in more damage than we expect, but that our preconceived prejudices blind us to seeing those damages. A great book I ran into a year ago was written by an environmentalist who is a statistics professor who set out to prove environmentalist claims based on reported data. The results were eye opening and shows how our prejudices color how we perceive data. The trouble is when the data was examined mathematically, most could not support the extravagant claims. The title is “The Skeptical Environmentalist” by Bjorn Lomborg and is a fun, sobering read that is readily understandable. Another example would be the Western view of slash and burn farming techniques in rain forested areas, about which the popular permaculture book, “Gaia’s Garden” author, Toby Hemenway, wrote this fun little piece:

www.patternliteracy.com/beyond...ss.html

Now we also need to address what we mean by ‘genetically modified’ food. Just about everything we put in our mouths is ‘genetically modified’ whether by design as a result from development in a lab or by generations (and in some cases thousands of years) of selective breeding by our ancestors for certain characteristics. Genetically (and by species), brussel sprouts=cabbage=kale, but the expression of genes is vastly different in each case. They have been ‘modified’. I would suggest that we say that by ‘GM’ that we mean plants or seed modified by design using artificial means in a lab environment. The question is whether there is harm caused or not; and how much. For a brief discussion on this topic see the April 1991 issue of National Geographic, article “Genetic Erosion: World Food Supply at Risk”. And for a longer discourse on crop origins see Reay Tannahill’s “Food in History”. I got my copy for around $4 on ebay.

Which leads me to what I see as the major point in disfavor of what we probably refer to as ‘GM’ seeds and probably the strongest (in my mind at least) argument against them. That is if certain genes, like a ‘terminator gene’, can be incorporated in non-modified seed stocks through pollination resulting in pecuniary losses to growers who did not purchase or desire to use the ‘GM’ modified crops, or in extreme cases resulting in region and nation wide crop loss potentials. I should be clear here that I haven’t seen any hard numbers on this yet, so that possible claim against ‘GM’ crops is based on my own preconceptions, concerns, and prejudices. Probably the most public example of this in recent years was the rape seed grower in Canada, Percy Schmeiser. His fields were planted with his own stuff and then his fields were contaminated with the genetically modified rapeseed. Even though he never planted the stuff, he found himself in court. The Monsanto sued him when their gene was found in his crops, even though he grew his own seed and his was contaminated.

www.percyschmeiser.com/

So as I see it, deciding whether ‘GM’ crops should be used or not should be based on science with reproducible results, not on what is a ‘reasonable suspicion’ based on what is politically fashionable this decade. I also believe Monsanto has the ‘right’ to file suit to determine if what is a ‘reasonable suspicion’ is real and based in fact and even if eating ‘GM’ foods is a health risk, or conversely if there are quantifiable risks. This needs to be unbiased and as objective as possible.

So yes, Monsanto has the ‘right’ to challenge. They probably have the right to sell their ‘GM’ products and their products may even cause some environmental damage, since most farming and most products do.

BUT their right to sell their products should NOT REMOTELY BE VIEWED by us, or anyone, as an obligation to use them. The best way you can fight against ‘GM’ foods is to refuse to purchase or use them. IF we can create a market that will support the use and production of non-GM food, it would be better and more lasting than some politically fashionable legislation that can be modified or overturned later as what is politically fashionable often changes over time.

A final thought, few things are more politically radical and extreme as growing your food and collecting your own non-GM or non-hybrid seed. It makes you and hopefully your community more self sufficient. You don’t require an outside source or government entity to provide you with life’s necessities. The effects of calamities and tragedies are often reduced when people, communities, regions, and nations are largely self reliant. As one minor example, just think of how much of a positive effect could possibly result if everyone who lives in an area at risk for something like a hurricane or earthquake kept a couple weeks’ supply of non-perishable food and water on hand. Suddenly something like 2005 Katrina in New Orleans would not have been so dire, people would not have been so fearful (and hopefully more peaceable), and it would have given emergency relief agencies a big logistic help. People spend thousands of dollars every year on insurance of various types; yet they look at you like you had snakes growing out of your head if you suggest not using credit cards to save on interest payments, grow a garden to have fresh and nutritious food, instead of ‘shade trees’ plant nut and fruit trees to provide both food and shade, and to have a minimum amount of food and emergency supplies in case you ever need them. Use and growing of open pollinated crops ourselves are just another way to be more self reliant and to provide a buffer against a rainy day…..