A sustainable system would produce an adequate supply of food, safeguard the environment, and protect farmers’ bottom lines at the same time. Monsanto, UCS says, fails this three-pronged test.
“Monsanto talks about ‘producing more, conserving more, improving lives,’ but its products are largely not living up to those aspirations,” said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with UCS’s Food and Environment Program. “In reality, the company is producing more engineered seeds and herbicide and improving its bottom line, but at the expense of conservation and long-term sustainability.”
Monsanto’s public relations campaigns trumpet that its products, such as its genetically engineered Roundup Ready seed and herbicide system, will lead to an agricultural future that minimizes environmental pollution, addresses global warming, and feeds the world. The truth is decidedly less impressive, according to UCS.
UCS explores eight ways that Monsanto has failed to deliver on its sustainability claims. The company is undermining efforts to promote sustainability by:
1. Fostering weed and insect resistance. Monsanto’s RoundupReady and Bt technologies lead to resistant weeds and insects that can make farming more difficult and reduce sustainability.
2. Increasing herbicide use. Roundup resistance has led farmers to use more herbicides, which threatens biodiversity, sustainability and human health.
3. Spreading gene contamination. Engineered genes have a bad habit of turning up in non-genetically engineered crops. When that happens, sustainable farmers—and their customers—pay a high price.
4. Expanding monocultures. Monsanto’s focus on a few commodity crops contributes to reduced biodiversity and, as a consequence, to more pesticide use and fertilizer pollution.
5. Marginalizing alternatives. Monsanto single-minded focus on genetic engineering fixes may come at the expense of cheaper, more effective solutions, such as classical crop breeding and ecological farming methods.
6. Lobbying and advertising: Monsanto spends more than other agribusiness companies to persuade Congress and the general public to support the industrial agriculture status quo.
7. Suppressing research. Monsanto thwarts independent research on its products, making it more difficult for farmers and policymakers to make informed decisions that could foster more sustainable agriculture.
8. Falling short on feeding the world. Monsanto’s genetically engineered crops have done little to increase crop yields. Regardless, the company stands in the way of proven, scientifically defensible solutions.
“Crop breeding is cheaper and more productive than the genetic engineering that Monsanto aggressively pushes. And proven ecological farming methods, ignored by Monsanto, rely on fewer pesticides and fossil-fuel-based fertilizers,” noted Gurian-Sherman. “But some of these practices conflict with the agricultural model that generates the company’s profits.”
How has Monsanto been able to burnish its undeserved reputation as a sustainability leader? In large part, by spending tens of millions of dollars annually to influence the public and policymakers.
Monsanto spent $8 million lobbying members of Congress and federal officials in 2010, for example, and more than $400,000 more in political contributions in that year’s election cycle. At the same time, it spent $120 million in advertising.
“The undue influence of companies like Monsanto result in food policies that encourage less diversity, and an over-reliance on herbicides and insecticides,” said Karen Perry Stillerman, senior analyst with the UCS Food and Environment Program. “As the farm bill is currently being debated in Congress, now is the time to prioritize sustainable agriculture alternatives to genetically engineered crops in our food policies.”
------------
The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.
On November 6, in the wake of one of the most expensive and scurrilous smear campaigns in history, six million voters scared the hell out of Monsanto and Big Food Inc. by coming within a razor's edge of passing the first statewide mandatory labeling law for genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Prop 37, a citizens' ballot initiative that would have required the mandatory labeling of billions of dollars of genetically engineered (GE) foods and put an end to the routine industry practice of fraudulently marketing GE-tainted foods as "natural" or "all natural", lost by a narrow margin of 48.6% to 51.4%. Opponents couldn't claim anything close to a landslide, even though they outspent the pro-labeling campaign almost six to one.
* Monsanto Continues to Refuse Compensation to Veterans and Families for Exposure to Agent Orange
* Taxpayers Forced to Fund Monsanto's Poisoning of Third World
* Monsanto's Roundup Pesticide Killing Wheat
*Monsanto Takes Ownership of Public Water Resources
Polluted Farm Water Over the past century, global water supplies have been contaminated with the full gamut of Monsanto's chemicals, including PCBs, dioxin and glyophosate (Roundup). So now the company, seeing a profitable market niche, is taking control of the public water resources they polluted, filtering it, and selling it back to the people. In short, Monsanto is making a double profit by polluting the world's scarce freshwater resources, privately taking ownership of that water, filtering it, and selling it back to those who can afford to pay for it.
* Monsanto's GE Seeds Pushing US Agriculture into Bankruptcy
Genetically engineered crops are causing an economic disaster for farmers in the U.S. So says a new report released by Britain's Soil Association. The report is a massive compilation of data showing GE crops have cost American taxpayers $12 billion in farm subsidies in the past three years. "Within a few years of the introduction of GM crops, almost the entire $300 million annual US maize exports to the EU had disappeared, and the US share of the soya market had decreased," the report said. In addition, the study says that GE crops have lead to an increased use of pesticides, while resulting in overall lower crop yields. (Read more...)
* Cotton Farmers Going Bankrupt from Monsanto's GE Cotton
Indian Cotton FarmersiaIn India the financial figures for the recent cotton growing season have finally been crunched. Although Monsanto convinced many of India's farmers that buying the more expensive GE cotton seeds would result in higher yields and better cotton, the reverse is actually true. Crop yields for GE cotton were 5 TIMES LESS than traditional Indian cotton and the income from GE cotton was 7 TIMES LESS than conventional cotton, due to Monsanto's cotton having lower quality short fibers. As a result of the insurmountable deluge of debt accrued from paying more for the GE seeds and having a weak crop, more than 100 Indian farmers committed suicide in the last year. (Read more...)
* Monsanto's RoundUp "May Have Dire Consequences for Agriculture" RoundUp
* Animals Raised on Genetically Engineered Feed Are Different
Posted by admin in Agriculture, Community, Environment, Food on 28 May, 2013 12:59 pm / 3 comments
Many thousands of people gathered in 436 cities around the world on the weekend to protest against Monsanto’s anti-social practices, but this was barely noticed by Australia’s media. Beekeeper Matthew Mitchell reports.
MarchAgainstMOnsanto
On SATURDAY 25 May, around 5,000 people protested in Melbourne as part of the global March Against Monsanto. According to a statement by an organiser in The Guardian .. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/26/millions-march-against-monsanto .. newspaper, protests were organised in 436 cities in over 50 countries.
Has anyone seen this in Australian newspapers? I was unable to find it with a search in The Age. If it was there, it certainly wasn’t prominent.
‘…strip federal courts of the authority to immediately halt the planting and sale of genetically modified (GMO) seed crop regardless of any consumer health concerns.’
[ if you haven't seen this one .. lol .. John Stewart at his best ]
The new law has the effect of
‘…protecting genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks.’
“The fact that the act instructs seed producers to ignore a ruling of the court is equally troubling. It raises profound questions about the constitutional separation of powers and the ability of the courts to hold agencies accountable to the law and their responsibilities.”
[ this is a troubling video in more than one way ]
World renowned environmental toxicologist Dr Pierre Mineau produced a 100 page report on this problem. His co-author Cynthia Palmer was quotes as follows in an American Bird Conservatory media release .. http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/130319.html :
“A single corn kernel coated with a neonicotinoid can kill a songbird .… Even a tiny grain of wheat or canola treated with the oldest neonicotinoid ? called imidacloprid ? can fatally poison a bird. And as little as 1/10th of a neonicotinoid-coated corn seed per day during egg-laying season is all that is needed to affect reproduction.”
Certainly Australia’s mainstream media should not be downplaying large scale efforts to draw attention to these issues, as they seem to have done with last weekend’s large-scale March Against Monsanto.
Precisely why last year’s deaths were so great is unclear. Some blame drought in the Midwest, though Mr. Dahle lost nearly 80 percent of his bees despite excellent summer conditions. Others cite bee mites that have become increasingly resistant to pesticides. Still others blame viruses. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=86248250
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
