WHEN BEING "in control of our destinies" MEANS GETTING LEFT OFF THE KREBS' INVITATION LIST!
"While we in the Northern Hemisphere can afford to pick and choose how our food is produced and may for the moment eschew GM, there are many people -- perhaps a billion worldwide -- who are in a different position. The overwhelming message from developing countries at [an OECD conference - read propaganda exercise - on GM food safety in Edinburgh, Scotland chaired by Krebs] can be paraphrased as: 'We would like to be like you, with plenty of food for our people. We need every tool at our disposal to achieve this, including biotechnology, which will allow us to grow things without costly chemicals and irrigation systems that we cannot afford. We do not want to be dependent on aid or redistribution, we want to be in control of our destinies.'"
--Sir John Krebs, chairman of Britain's Food Standards Agency Quote used to support voting YES to GM crops - see below
---
Online polling and debate have followed the recent showing of the 'Harvest of Fear' documentary on US TV.
You can poll on whether we should grow GM crops: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/
This takes you through a series of arguments for and against with some interesting quotes. You should be able to see all the arguments at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/arguments.html
Of the 16348 readers who have responded so far:
36% said we should grow GM crops
61% said we should not grow GM crops
1% are undecided
Thoughts on whether or not we should grow genetically modified crops can also be sent to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Please put "GM Crops" in the subject header.
Here's Prakash's AgBioView selection from the debate at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/talk/
---
Public Response and Debate on PBS: 'Harvest of Fear'
from AgBioView - http://www.agbioworld.org; Archived at
http://agbioview.listbot.com
Visit http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/talk/ to see a raging debate and diverse viewpoints on this PBS Documentary. A few of them appear below:
---
Dear FRONTLINE: As a race, human beings are so ridiculously arrogant and incredibly lazy . Instead of correcting the cause of these problems at the source, ie. not planting thousands of acres in monocultures and giving back to the earth what we take, we decide to treat nature with a dangerous amount of disrespect . There is so much we don't know. Is it worth risking our future on this planet for cheap cereal? I don't think we have the choice anymore. - Nancy LaRowe, norwich, vermont
---------
There is a lot of criticism about uneven reporting, missed topic matter, the evils of Monsanto, the failure of the USDA/FDA/EPA, and how Frontline misreported the whole problem. All of this criticism is ridiculous and simply biased whining by people withe huge chips on their shoulders about the government, big business, or other random, phantom evil. I thought I'd put in my two cents as I feel that I am at least somewhat even handed.
1.) The complaints about the "evils" of Monsanto, Adventis, and other firms and their pursuance of the dollar using GMOs are ridiculous. We live in a capitalist society, companies create to make money, plain and simple.
The techniques of sterilizing their GMOs to force repeat customers, although bad for the consumer, is good for the companies who spend the money and time to MAKE the product. It is how our R&D based how our economy works. Monsanto is not developing things out of the kindness of their heart, they to it for profit. Except it, if you don't like the capitalist foundation, China is still a communist society, feel free to defect.
2.) GMOs are not evil. Taking advantage of technology to improve products (whether that be to sell more or to irridicate combatants) is how we have improved our society for years. More resilient fruit is an improvement. TV is a form of genetically alter communication. Don't watch PBS if you think its too biased. Don't type on your computer if you are too concerned about the long term effects of technological improvement.
3.) Labeling of GMOs on food products is the one thing that I think is a legitimate complaint. Labels probably should be on products that contain GMOs. The Monsanto COO mentioned that labeling products would be like putting a poison sign on products. I disagree and in fact think that one of two things would occur both would not harm any big business. #1 - people would notice that almost everything has GMOs in them so the shock effect would be completely dilluted by the comonal existience of the label. More importantly though #2, General Mills, Kellogs, Kraft, etc. could actually use the labelling to their advantage. Think about the idea, Frosted Flakes with GMOs costs $3.99, Frosted Flakes without costs $39.95. The choice could be used to stick it to the complainers.
GMOs improve overall life of the world. Being that one time I was very poor, when the only thing you have to eat for 3 days is a loaf of bread, the last thing you care about is whether that bread had GMOs or not! Perspective from most of the people who posted to this site would be a breath of fresh air. - Earl McAlear, scottsdale, az
----- -----
The main interest of the biotech industry is short term profit. The massive experiment they are conducting now will have lasting and irreversable consequences on the enviorment and our health. They are unwittingly leading us down a biotechnology treadmill that will be very difficult to get off and these experiments may so distort our natural world that in short order it will no longer be recognizable. The world they are bringing us is one in which all life is a commodity to be owned, bought and sold to the highest bidder. I for one would like to see a different world. - Peter Hines ogden, ut
-----
I doubt any of us, including the scientists at Monsanto, have enough data to predict accurately where this technology will lead. However, I noticed an uncanny resemblance to the plot of Jurassic Park. . . .Another point: one of the Monsanto scientists stated, "we must use this technology, because in less than 20 years there will be 9 billion people on the earth to feed." Does this send a little chill down anyone's spine but mine? - Laura Weisberg denison, texas
-----
I have been trained as a naturopathic physician and as a result have the philosophy that we are not separate from nature. In fact, it can be said, that the further we move from nature , the more sick and out of balance we will become as individuals. Clearly, crossing specie lines with GMO falls into the category of "moving away from nature". - Deborah Turvey panama city, fl
-------
I think it is wrong that these large corporations do not want to tell us which food has been modified. This makes me question the ethics and motives of these corporations, and for many reasons, I do not want to support them. The program has shown that these companies are trying to control not only what we see, believe, wear, think, etc. but also what we put into our bodies. Before we even consider the risk and benefits of biotech food, we should first look at who is behind it and the amount of power that these companies have. -Alissa Singletary tampa, florida
-----
I work in a food-related job, dealing with many of the fruit and vegetable companies that will be bringing GMO varieties to market. I wouldn't hesitate to feed these foods to my 5 children. There is little difference in the way these products come about and conventional breeding - just a lot faster and more efficient. We need to stop technophobes from shackeling the rest of us.
Organic Farming? Sure, I know the largest organic growers. They do it for the money. It's a marketing gimic for those who will pay more money for crops without pesticides. That's choice, but I feel sorry for those who are scared into paying more. Buy your food with confidence. The backyard grown stuff is what you should be afraid of. - Keith Christensen modesto, ca
-----
I believe you may have represented the activists in a reasonable manner, but you failed to include views from more credible opponents of biotechnology. For example, many scholars in the social sciences devote entire careers to the economical, sociological and philosophical aspects of this controversy without burning buildings or participating in theatrical performances. By including these views, you could have offered a story that was balanced in a credible manner. - Katherine Canada madison, wi
-----
I was quite disturbed by the lack of impartiality ‘Harvest of Fear’ displayed. As I watched more of the episode it became increasingly clear, through the continual use of such terms as "genetically modified organisms" and even through the programs title, this program was designed with the single purpose to scare and enflame the public against biotechnology.
In addition I felt it highly unprofessional that the editors of the program attempted to tie unrelated tragedies such Mad Cow disease to that of genetically engineered foods. I am eager to hear a discussion on the negative effects of biotechnology advances in foods, but this discussion must be based on data collected by scientists instead of fear perpetuated by journalists. - Daniel Nemiroff folsom, ca
-------
Thanks for airing a thoughtful, balanced and well researched show on an issue that has become so politicized that most lay people don't know who to believe. I especially appreciate your effort to bring in the perspective of the developing world where this issue is a matter of life and death.
We in the developed world can afford the luxury to demand near-zero risk in biotech crop introductions while delaying potential benefits indefinitely. After all, our stomachs are full to the point where many of us spend huge sums of our money on figuring out how to reduce, not increase, our caloric intake.
Let's not forget that the rest of the world has a fundamental right to feed themselves in the most efficient way possible. The idea that "organic" or "subsistence" agriculture is going to solve the world's hunger problem and is an alternative to technology innovations in farming is so ludicrous it doesn't even warrant discussion. On applying biotech, let's be safe, but let's get real! - laurel, md
------
What has got me worried most about GM soy beans is that the gene that Monsanto implanted in them gets them Roundup Ready. Which means that the farmer can soak the field of this Monsanto herbicide and the soy will not die. How much of that extra herbicide gets into my morning cereals ( I use soy milk ) is what's worrying me.
Not only did your program not say a word about that use of GM crops, but it said several times that Monsanto is doing GM to lower the world's dependance on chemicals. Which is not what is happening, it encourages it. I had hoped that Frontline/Nova would have helped me get more information about this. It was a disappointment. - alain martineau montreal, canada
------
It appears that those most militant against genetically altered foods appear to be white, middle/upper class with full bellies. Walk the walk before talking the talk and spend some time in a subsitance farmed region. PS I'm white, middle class with a full belly but don't suffer from tunnel vision. - scott martinez long beach, ca
-----
In teaching issues of technology and foreign affairs I have long sought a balanced report on the myriad of issues surrounding food. One of these, GMO, is an increasingly important foreign policy debate. As you point out, these are issues which divide not only the US from Europe, but also activists in the developed world and producers in the developing world. Congratulations of filling a major gap in fair, balanced reporting.
You handled a controversial subject with balance and good science. The issue is ultimately a political one. I am reminded that in the 1930s the United Kingdom took much the same attitude towards the issue of smallpox vaccination. In their opposition, UK scientists warned of the potenial risks of an "unproven" technology, a position which cost them dearly as thousands of British troops were exposed to smallpox during WW II. The UK reversed its position overnight.
The only element I would have added would have been a deeper analysis of the origin and subsequent funding of anti-GMO organizations in Europe, some of which (perhaps unknowingly) were used by farm lobbies who saw a largely American technology as posing a serious competitive threat to inefficient European farming practices. The EU ban on US beef which contains artificial growth hormone is an example of an artificial barrier to trade that originally had nothing to do with health and everything to do with maintaining protection for local producers. So, too, I believe with GM foods.
- Ambassador David Fischer san francisco, ca
----------------
As a citizen and a scientist from an Third-World country, it is scarry to realize that the people of the most influential nation in the world are so ignorant about this complex issue.
Increased food production will not solve hunger worldwide. Giving out food or money will not address the causes of hunger: unjust distribution of land and resources, huge unequal access to education, health services, corruption. And, yes, even though they might have more children than they can support, they still have their pride. Having many kids might mean that one will survive to take care of his parents. Such are "life stiles" out of your (narrow) world of internet and malls, you know? I cannot help to simphatize with the Kenyan scientist: certainly, these people don't know what they are talking about !! - Miguel Villegas oxford, ms
-----
After the anti-GMO advocates in Europe had just about ruined Monsanto's business and tanked its stock price, Monsanto had to be bought out by a European pharmaceutical company, Pharmacia. Almost immediately, the European Union changed its tune and began to support GMO.
It is obvious that a lot of the falderol was anti-US based and not really concern over the technology, because as soon as the Europeans got control of the biotechnology, they became proponents of it.
-----
This was the longest commercial I've ever seen. You posed what you tried to formulate as a "scientific" argument against a carefully-constructed view of your opponents as hysterical fear-mongerers. The worst half-truths were in the segment on third world food production. You chose to describe failed farm practices ignoring successful ones; you ignored the long history of colonialism and western invasion that altered the many sustainable cultures of the African, South American and Asian lands, destroying their forests and wetlands, depleting their soils and forcing the people to adopt unsustainable, depleting, western-influenced market-oriented farming displacing the family/community-based food production. You ignored the history of desertification and mass-displacement of populations. You ignored the deliberate overthrow of indigenous societies that have been replaced by corrupt regimes designed to feed the needs of our industrialized nations. Next most obnoxious was your attack on organic farming (not unconnected with the above discussion). You failed to present the viewpoints of the many organic growers' organizations which could have shown the economic and nutritional advantages of locally-grown and marketed foods. We, my husband and I, would like to know who funded this outrageously-biased commercial for the Monsanto Corporation and its ilk. Before viewing this program, we were commenting and laughing about the advertisements on this previously non-commercial station but this "Harvest of Fear" program proves that it is no laughing matter. Shame! - Mitzi Bowman new haven, ct
-------
What was particularly striking about your program is that it presented creators and destroyers. The Kenyan scientist got it exactly right: any hooligan can knock down a building. Rifkin and Greenpeace, THEY are the hooligans. When was the last time Rifkin was right about anything? Greenpeace needs to stir up fear to keep their donations coming in. If anyone in this story is prostituting themselves for money it is the opportunists who stoke up public fear for their own enrichment. - George Purcell Jr. austin, tx
--------
Why should we take the word of companies whose only goal is profit maximization that GM foods are safe. These companies would use slave labor if it wasn't illegal and against popular opinion. I think foods can be GMed but the testing required to make sure they are ok is nearly impossible. All possibilities cant be accounted for. Untill we know exactly what every gene we are using does and how it affects every other gene I don't want anything GMed. These large corporations are saying they are ending world hunger but how many farmers are selling their crops to the third world? Most of the profit is from the first world. Chemicals, pesticides and GMOs are all worse for the world than traditional methods of living. They cannot be fixed once they are released into the environment. There's no going back - Seth Borg worcester, ma
---------
The American Indians made their tribal decisions based on the effect it would have on the seventh generation. Monsanto makes global decisions based on the effect it will have on the next twenty years. The Kenyan scientist argues that Kenyans have the right to feed their children because it's a matter of pride. Where was the Kenyan pride when they decided to have children in an environment that they KNEW could not sustain them. It's argued that Genetically Manufactured food is necessary to sustain the growing population. I argue that the lack of food is evidence that the population should STOP GROWING. - ronda fulfer fort worth, texas
-----
Although I have mixed feelings about this topic, I do agree with the Kenyan scientist. Many Americans (including myself) can not understand the horror of people dying of hunger. The more I watch this program, the more it seems that the people fighting GMO development are not humane. - Mary Mataragas chicago, il
-----
Everything has risks and benefits. Without the modern farming used in the U.S., half the world would be starving. We now unquestioningly consider DDT to be harmful, but its use all but eliminated death from malaria. After DDT was eliminated, malaria deaths returned to the pre-DDT level of over 2 million per year. Much of the current environmental movement is more about fighting capitalism, with the side goal of collecting money for the environmental groups' employees, rather than helping the environment. - Steve Burns fernandina beach, fl