#and engineers focused on agro-ecology and native techniques

[lairofsentinel]

I love how this post forgets entirely that a lot of ppl are against GMO because they are deeply related to modifying food in order to resist certain pesticides that then end up in our food. It’s not because “contains genes”, it’s because contains non-biodegradable substances that pollute our lands and, by now, our clouds and rain. It’s about the chemicals that have tons and tons of studies showing they increase the development of allergies in the population, cause unusual hormone alterations, and even affect fetus in pregnant ppl. In the towns around the fields where they are spread, you have 3 times more cancer cases than the national mean, specially in kids. So, no, it’s not “mere genes”. It’s a lot more and deeper, related to sustainability and public health, which is also science that corporations ignore completely. What I found so curious is that most ppl from first world countries does not know that the majority of the GMO is not related to “make crops flood resistant”, but resistant to pesticides. Monsanto loves spreading that concept that GMO is just used to make “food have more vit A”. And ppl just repeat. Countries where we truly endure the use of GMO in our lands, we know exactly that GMO means.

GMO has existed forever, natives such as the incas practised it, it’s not “new”, it’s not “modern science”. Mexicas developed a hundred corn types over centuries with this technique. Again, it’s not new. Now we can accelerate the genetic modifications and be more accurate with the modern techniques, but it’s mostly to make them resistant to pesticides. Why do you think Monsanto was bought by Bayer years ago? The same corporation that sells you pesticides, that are, most of the time, non-controlled in their manipulations, is the same one that sells you food and then medicines because the illnesses related to the constant ingest of these [non-regulated] pesticides. And this is one of the many negatives effects. Another one that happens with GMO [even though nobody in this fucking place wants to acknowledge it] is the mono-cultive practices [non-rotation of the crops] that destroy the health of the soil, and if you don’t have a soil with rich minerals, the plants you put to grow there won’t develop properly or will be poor in minerals and vits. So, we have poorer food and erosion. Because, yes... GMO used in this way causes it. A big problem that, again, nobody speaking about GMO seems to know. We are not speaking about the erosion of the soils and how these practices are destroying entire countries’ biodiversity. 

Another great danger that specialists have been repeating over and over is that GMO usually forces similar modifications in different crops so different plants can resist the same pesticides that are sold in a big “bio-package”. This causes that weed and some plagues became resistant or stronger to this pesticide, so every few years we need higher doses or stronger pesticides that end up in our food and in our body [because so far, a lot of them are not biodegradable]. All the problems listed above become more concentrated. 

The other important danger is that it may happen a plague or a fungus that may be particularly prone to develop, associated with a similar modification that was used on different crops. This can endanger a lot of different crops with one single plague, causing potential destruction of big quantities of different kinds of food [this is also a very old concern known by natives since centuries ago, reason why they always tried to use rudimentary GMO techniques to favour a diversification of the crops, not the other way around like corporations do now]. So far we know, scientists have talked about this a lot, but one thing is a scientist talking about this issue, and another is a food-monopolised-corporation doing it, especially when corporations see more profit by just reducing the diversification in our food [less different bio-packages to develop]. 

And we can continue with the silly argument that “corporations are different to the GMO technique”, and even though that’s true “technically”, the reality shows otherwise. We live in a world where GMO has been monopolised. Hell, food industry is already monopolised, so don’t be so naive to think that we still can keep things separated. 

“Mere genes”. I would love so much this place to learn the topic properly before dismissing entire populations in this way. GMO, as it’s now, controlled and monopolised by corporations, is a big no-no. And dismissing the entire population whose children have 3 times more cancer cases than the national mean [northern provinces of Argentina, for example] because these pesticides, annoys me a lot. Never ever I've seen an integral post of GMO in this place. The topic is a looot more complex than the religious adoration of science or feeling superior because “I know science” or “I _believe_ in science”. Not all science is good, not all science is well tested before being used, corporation science is always a big question mark in many, many contexts, and science is always founded and moved by interests [unfortunately, more and more corporate interests by now]. Science is good, but don’t turn it into the new religion. It has limits and flaws, and it’s dirty to the neck with interests that few want to acknowledge. 

Funny how that works