>Martin said that GMO crops have clear benefits for Asian nations concerned
>with food security. He highlighted two specific areas: lower food prices
>through lower production costs and reduced usage of pesticides, which are
>both expensive and can kill a lot of insects unnecessarily.
Cute. In practice this has indeed meant lower food prices, but through
surplus production rather than lower production costs. Production costs
(to the farmer) rise, while commodity prices decline. Inputs absorb an
even larger share of the food dollar than before.
Potentially good for the consumer (provided that marketers and
processors somehow have a change of heart and actually pass on the
savings arising from a commodity glut ...). Certainly *not* good for
75-90% of the farmers in a region. Certainly *not* good for the land,
as parcels are consolidated and shifted to industrial production
methods. Good for Monsanto (maybe), but not for anyone else, as far as
I can tell.
And how ironic that Monsanto is now promoting its biotech as the
solution for all the problems that just a few years ago they said their
chemicals *didn't* cause.
"By their fruit you will recognize them ... Every good tree bears good
fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. ... Every tree that does
not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." [Christ, J.
ca 30, Sermon on the Mount, cited in Matthew, ca 70, Ch 7:16-19]
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: