Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"The Real GM Food Scandal"
The biggest biotech scandal of all? The enormous delays
in introducing new, beneficial crops to farmers worldwide, says the
current cover
story in British Prospect magazine.
The piece outlines the sad fate of Swiss biologist Ingo Potrykus' "golden rice"--the much-ballyhooed genetically engineered rice that was going to prevent "1-2m deaths a year, and...save up to 500,000 children a year from going blind." Bureaucratic delays and European bio-tech skepticism have kept the rice, which was announced on the cover of Time in 2000 as the next big thing, from being widely distributed. Current timelines still say it may be at least another 5 years before anyone starts benefiting from one of the coolest humanitarian innovations in recent memory.
The scientific way of ensuring that crops are safe is to test the product, not the process. Perversely, regulations in the US as well as Europe require the opposite. The result is that it takes much longer and costs at least ten times as much to bring a new GM crop to market as an equivalent conventionally bred crop. As Potrykus has pointed out, no scientist or scientific institution in the public domain has the funding or the motivation to go through such an expensive and drawn-out procedure. Only large companies or the most richly funded charities can and the only projects companies are likely to back are those that make big profits. Producing rice that saves the lives or the eyesight of millions of the poorest peasants offers no great financial rewards.
The kicker:
In delaying cultivation, the anti-GM lobbies have exacted a heavy price. Their opposition has undermined agrobusiness in Europe and has driven abroad much research into plant biotechnology—an area in which Britain formerly excelled. Over-regulation may well cause the costs of the technology to remain higher than they need be. Above all, delay has caused the needless loss of millions of lives in the developing world. These lobbies and their friends in the organic movement have much to answer for.
Check out a new study on the global health effects of biotech crops.
Guy Montag|10.24.07 @ 12:48PM|#
Ah, golden rice. I suspect this is really being blocked by the saffron lobby.
|10.24.07 @ 12:52PM|#
It's new and we don't understand it! Therefore, we'll outlaw it. Science be damned! Luddites.
Lurker Kurt|10.24.07 @ 12:53PM|#
...was going to prevent "1-2m deaths a year, and...save up
to 500,000 children a year from going blind."
By my back of the envelope calculations, 7 million people have died
because of the anti-GM lobbies.
Is this the first holocaust of the 21st Century?
|10.24.07 @ 12:54PM|#
Well, since people are the biggest threat to the planet, letting millions of them die can only be a good thing. I mean what if we let those kids grow up. First thing they'll all want cars and you know what that means. Right, All Al All the time GoreTV.
VM|10.24.07 @ 12:56PM|#
"First thing they'll all want cars and you know what that
means"
in their car, they're safest of all?
or CAR
WASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (surprisingly, that is not Highnumber
washing the car...)
Russ 2000|10.24.07 @ 1:00PM|#
If this guy was really doing something useful, he'd invent rice that prevents 1-2m births per year.
Surely someone has mis-spelled|10.24.07 @ 1:05PM|#
GM crops should now be growing in areas where no crops can
grow: drought-resistant crops in arid soil and salt-resistant crops
in soil of high salinity.
Which will force some farmers to switch crops. And God forbid they
switch to something that might make money - like marijuana.
|10.24.07 @ 1:11PM|#
Blood on their hands.
This should be Exhibit A next time you see some nanny spouting off
on the Precautionary Principle. Ask it why it hates poor brown
children and wants them to go blind and die.
|10.24.07 @ 1:16PM|#
If this rice is really going to save tens of millions of people, I would sure hope we're damn positive it's safe.
|10.24.07 @ 1:19PM|#
If GM foods are "bad, m'kay?", and GM (the auto manufacturer)
has a "famous mark", then can GM sue for tarnishment?
I agree with Mr. Dean--the bibertarian response on GM foods is
criminal. We're talking lives here and lots of 'em. And the
scaremongering on this issue has frightened countries that would
otherwise be first in line to benefit from GM crops. Due care is
one thing, Chicken Little is another.
Timothy|10.24.07 @ 1:39PM|#
From now on when I start to feel bad about myself I can say, "well, at least I didn't starve 7 million peasants" which will be a nice change of pace from, "Well, at least I didn't gas 6 million Jews."
|10.24.07 @ 1:47PM|#
It's rare when you can put a number on lost opportunity. No matter how many people they kill, regulators will never be held accountable. It will be the same when we remove profit incentives from healthcare. People will be standing on a mountain of bodies patting each other on the back.
Joshua Holmes|10.24.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Golden rice does not contain Vitamin A. Only animal products
contain Vitamin A. Vegetable and fruit products contain
beta-carotene, a precursor to Vitamin A. However, the body can only
manufacture Vitamin A from beta-carotene if there is sufficient
dietary fat. The people who are supposed to be saved by golden rice
eat very low dietary fat anyway, because of its expense. Hence the
golden rice isn't likely to do much for them anyway.
The solution to malnutrition isn't state-backed agribusiness, it's
liberty. In many cases, this means reversing the abuses of
the "Green" Revolution, by returning to people the millions of
acres stolen by governments to turn into monoculture farms. In
other countries, it means long-overdue land reform, taking the land
from the governing class that they do not justly own, which is most
or all of it.
carrick|10.24.07 @ 2:07PM|#
. . . by returning to people the millions of acres stolen by governments to turn into monoculture farms
carrick|10.24.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Gee, part of my post disappeared into the ether.
You started out interesting Joshua. Too bad you turned off into
oblivion.
Paul|10.24.07 @ 2:09PM|#
If this guy was really doing something useful, he'd invent
rice that prevents 1-2m births per year.
Starvation already takes care of that. Mr. Ehrlich is quite pleased
about that.
BIG TREE|10.24.07 @ 2:32PM|#
AND BALLOON MAKER IS GETTING
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGEEEEERRRRR!
[HOPS OFF]
Guy Montag|10.24.07 @ 2:47PM|#
hay guyz - not to worry. the GM rice is a hybrid.
You would think GM has a monopoly on hybrids or something!
I only drive MOPAR hybrids and I don't rice 'em either.
harry|10.24.07 @ 2:53PM|#
I hate hyperbolic statements like these.
If absolutely everyone completely switched from white rice to
golden rice that could happen, then again it might not. Especially
when obvious stuff that has been proven safe, like iodized salt
have not reached all corners.
If everyone bought a Thighmaster, 2 million people lives would be
saved from deaths associated with heart disease, falls, and
suicide.
Guy Montag|10.24.07 @ 3:08PM|#
If everyone bought a Thighmaster, 2 million people lives
would be saved from deaths associated with heart disease, falls,
and suicide.
And that chick from "Three's Company" could get another round of
hotness surgery.
Ellie|10.24.07 @ 3:26PM|#
If everyone bought a Thighmaster, 2 million people lives
would be saved from deaths associated with heart disease, falls,
and suicide.
Because fat people hate life! Oh, the lols! Please. I love my meaty
thighs. I would kill myself if I woke up one day and realized I
owned a Thighmaster, though.
Joshua Holmes|10.24.07 @ 3:32PM|#
You started out interesting Joshua. Too bad you turned off
into oblivion.
What part was wrong?
Syloson of Samos|10.24.07 @ 3:41PM|#
The scientific way of ensuring that crops are safe is to
test the product, not the process.
Can you explain why the latter approach is wrong?
|10.24.07 @ 3:42PM|#
Joshua Holmes, I suspect this part is where many people around
here believe you went off the rails:
In other countries, it means long-overdue land reform, taking
the land from the governing class that they do not justly own,
which is most or all of it.
Sounds an awful lot like socialist land/wealth redistribution
programs (think Mugabe or Chavez)
Brian White|10.24.07 @ 3:50PM|#
It ought to tell you something that Reason is using TIME
magazine (!!) as an authority here. And for what? Rice that
contains Beta-Carotene? Maybe all those deaths supposedly resulting
from Vitamin A shortage could be prevented by distributing some
One-A-Days.
Joshua, you "turned off into oblivion" when you suggested (gasp)
"land reform" and distributed property instead of slavish
propagandization for large corporations. That's what Reason
prefers...
adrian|10.24.07 @ 3:50PM|#
Zimbabwe's Head of Agriculture now posts on reason.com! Welcome
Jo ShuaHol Mes
who will we hear from next?!
Syloson of Samos|10.24.07 @ 3:53PM|#
KMW, etc.,
I will note that the author of the article also lays part of the
blame with large agribusiness outfits.
Brian White|10.24.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Is the notion that Government taken land off-limits for a return
to privatization a particularly Libertarian one, ChicagoTom?
But - hey, throw out "socialist", "Mugabe", and "Chavez" and call
it a day.
|10.24.07 @ 3:55PM|#
OK, I take it back. There appear to be quite a few non-gullible
people, with actual critical reasoning skills, on this
thread.
Props to you, because knowing you as I do, you are very much on
board with the political agenda being pushed here, and you called
bullshit anyway.
|10.24.07 @ 3:57PM|#
ChicagoTom,
In other countries, it means long-overdue land reform, taking
the land from the governing class that they do not justly own,
which is most or all of it.
Sounds an awful lot like Hernando de Soto, too.
Joshua Holmes|10.24.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Sounds an awful lot like socialist land/wealth
redistribution programs (think Mugabe or Chavez)
They're right on land/wealth redistributions. Think back to Locke:
how do you come to justly acquire property? You mix your labor with
it. How did the landed gentry in many Third World countries come to
own their land? By conquest and state privilege. I hope none of the
libertarians here seriously thinks that the land distribution in,
say, Bolivia was the result of anything resembling Second
Treatise on Government. And if it wasn't, shouldn't it be?
Isn't that what "right" means?
Syloson of Samos|10.24.07 @ 4:05PM|#
BTW, it is a fairly interesting article. Folks should read it if they get a chance.
carrick|10.24.07 @ 4:06PM|#
. . . by returning to people the millions of acres stolen by
governments to turn into monoculture farms
Joshua, I'm sorry you couldn't put two consective posts together to
find the complete thought that I failed to get into a single
post.
|10.24.07 @ 4:09PM|#
this means reversing the abuses of the "Green" Revolution,
by returning to people the millions of acres stolen by governments
to turn into monoculture farms.
I'm a little unclear how reversing dramatic increases in
productivity by returning to stoop labor is going to solve
hunger.
I thought it was pretty much accepted that hunger isn't a
production problem, its a distribution problem. That seems to mean
that monkeying around with how production is organized isn't going
to solve the problem.
Russ 2000|10.24.07 @ 4:27PM|#
How did the landed gentry in many Third World countries come
to own their land? By conquest and state privilege.
I'm no expert, but even if the former landed gentry in Zimbabwe
acquired the land by conquest and state privelege, they put their
own labor into it once it was acquired. Mugabe isn't doing that -
he re-acquired the land by state privelege and no (useful) labor is
going into it.
|10.24.07 @ 4:32PM|#
Russ2000,
Sure. Now, compare that to El Salvador. When do you think the last
time a member of the 9 Families got soil under his nails?
Russ 2000|10.24.07 @ 4:46PM|#
joe,
I'm not disagreeing with you, merely pointing out that Mugabe did
the same thing his predecessors did only worse.
Joshua Holmes|10.24.07 @ 4:46PM|#
I'm a little unclear how reversing dramatic increases in
productivity by returning to stoop labor is going to solve
hunger.
You don't solve hunger by stuffing a bit of basically unusuable
Vitamin A precursor in rice, that's for sure.
Moreover, the "dramatic increases in productivity" have come at the
expense of the liberty of millions. It has destroyed much food
variety by replacing combinations of crops with grains. It has
introduced substantially more pollution to many areas by increasing
fertilizer and pesticide run-off, poisoning water tables and
wrecking the health of other industries (e.g., fishing).
Also, while calories consumed increased, they're junk calories -
grains - and not vegetable or animal calories, which are actual
human food. As a result, junk calories replaced nutritious
ones.
But, you know, if the trains are running on time...
Episiarch|10.24.07 @ 4:50PM|#
Also, while calories consumed increased, they're junk
calories - grains - and not vegetable or animal calories, which are
actual human food. As a result, junk calories replaced nutritious
ones.
This is fucking priceless. Joshua, please go to some third world
hellhole and smack a bowl of rice out of some starving guy's hand
and explain to him that they are only "junk" calories.
Channeling Jello Biafra|10.24.07 @ 4:58PM|#
you'll work harder with a gun in your back
for a bowl of rice a day...
|10.24.07 @ 5:01PM|#
Serves you right for trying to make subtle point.
Only libertarians care about hungry people, Mr. Holmes. And on the
right kind of libertarians.
Everyone else wants to starve people.
Brian White|10.24.07 @ 5:05PM|#
Back in the day, the "Sagebrush Revolution" got lots of
favorable Reason coverage - you could look it up. Central to the
complaints of those "revolutionaries" was that the ownership of
large tracts of land by the Federal Government (upwards of 80% of
the total area of several western states) inhibits the efficient
and effective economic development by the state residents.
James Watt - Land Reformer!!
For the effects of more "monkeying around" with production you
might review the Irish famine. Irish peasants were forced to grow
the high-energy/high-yield potatoes on their tiny plots while the
large agricultural tracts raised grain and animals for export. No
doubt a TIME magazine cover could have been scored by an inventor
of "Golden Potatoes", and no doubt a sensible suggestion to
distribute more land to the starving peasants instead would have
been ridiculed in Reason as well.
|10.24.07 @ 5:09PM|#
"They're (Magube and Chavez) right on land/wealth
redistributions"
Joshua,
Are you serious? I can tell you that Chavez has expropriated, er,
"redistributed" agricultural land here in Venezuela and set price
controls on basic dietary products. Since then, agricultural
production in VZ has dramatically dropped, national food
manufacturers are shutting down, imports are (naturally) at an all
time high, and there are massive food shortages.
I havent found milk in the grocery store for the last month!
|10.24.07 @ 5:12PM|#
Is the notion that Government taken land off-limits for a
return to privatization a particularly Libertarian one,
ChicagoTom?
Brian White,
why exactly is this addressed to me? All I did was answer Joshua
Holmes question about why some people around here consider what he
said took a turn toward oblivian -- as did you.
I neither endorsed or attacked a point of view.
Maybe you can master the art of reading comprehension before
spouting off next time?
Brian White|10.24.07 @ 5:24PM|#
ChicagoTom, you characterized "taking the land from the
governing class that they do not justly own" , as sounding like a
"socialist land/wealth redistribution program". So my question was
well-based in reading comprehension.
Your claim that you "neither endorsed or attacked a point of view"
is believable only if it is possible you hold Hugo Chavez or Robert
Mugabe as positive examples. If that is so, then sorry.
Russ 2000|10.24.07 @ 5:40PM|#
only if it is possible you hold Hugo Chavez or Robert Mugabe
as positive examples.
I don't know what Tom thought, but Joshua said "they had it right"
so it was Joshua who considered those two "positive
examples".
And I don't see how one could call this favorable coverage of the
Sagebrush Rebellion:
http://www.reason.com/news/printer/29700.html
Joshua Holmes|10.24.07 @ 5:52PM|#
Are you serious? I can tell you that Chavez has
expropriated, er, "redistributed" agricultural land here in
Venezuela and set price controls on basic dietary
products.
I said he was right on land/wealth distribution. I didn't say he
was right on anything else. Did you goofs forget how to read?
No one should be surprised Chavez is screwing up: that's what
governments do, by and large. But it applies to state-funded
agricultural revolutions as much as it does screwball Latin
American dictators.
Joshua Holmes|10.24.07 @ 5:54PM|#
This is fucking priceless. Joshua, please go to some third
world hellhole and smack a bowl of rice out of some starving guy's
hand and explain to him that they are only "junk"
calories.
False dichotomy. Why don't we serve him some of the vegetables and
meats he got to eat when he had his own land, and see whether he
prefers a varied diet or a rice diet?
Fucktard.
|10.24.07 @ 5:57PM|#
ChicagoTom, you characterized "taking the land from the
governing class that they do not justly own" , as sounding like a
"socialist land/wealth redistribution program".
Well it does in fact sound like that. And it is exactly the
association many commenters on this blog will make when reading
words like "taking land from the governing class ...".
Pointing out that fact is neither an endorsement nor an critique.
It is a depiction of the line of thought of most the libertarian
commenters around here. The whole point of my comment was to inform
Joshua what he said that was offensive to some around here (since
he asked) -- it was not to confirm or deny the validity of his or
anyone else's beliefs.
Your claim that you "neither endorsed or attacked a point of
view" is believable only if it is possible you hold Hugo Chavez or
Robert Mugabe as positive examples. If that is so, then
sorry.
It's believable because a plain reading of the words I typed
contained neither an endorsement nor an attack of a particular
point of view. There was no judgment being passed.
But - hey, throw out "socialist", "Mugabe", and "Chavez" and
call it a day.
This snark indicates that you are reading more into my comment then
what was there, hence your reading comprehension is failing you.
You seem to be seeing agendas and political opinions where none
exist.
Brian White|10.24.07 @ 6:18PM|#
What I know is that a sensible libertarian suggestion - that
private ownership of wealth-producing property is good and likely
to result in less starvation got treated like a commie conspiracy
by Reasonoids more eager to defend Monsanto's marketing campaigns
than the widespread ownership of private property.
Next, they can defend the Dutch Patroons, and curse America for
dishonored Spanish Land Grants.
|10.24.07 @ 6:48PM|#
Everyone else wants to starve people.
I wouldn't say "everyone else" or "wants".
I would say "the left" is "willing" to starve people to protect
their agenda.
|10.24.07 @ 6:53PM|#
GM crops have contributed to a significant reduction in the
global environmental impact of production agriculture (Table 5).
Since 1996, the use of pesticides was reduced by 224 million kg of
active ingredient (a 6.9% reduction) and the overall environmental
impact associated with pesticide use on these crops was reduced by
15.3%.
I can see why the left hates GM products...this is terrible
news.
|10.24.07 @ 6:56PM|#
GM technology has had a very positive impact on farm income
derived from a combination of enhanced productivity and efficiency
gains (Table 1). In 2005, the direct global farm income benefit
from GM crops was $5 billion. If the additional income arising from
second crop soybeans in Argentina is considered, this income gain
rises to $5.6 billion. This is equivalent to having added between
3.6% and 4.0% to the value of global production of the four main
crops of soybeans, maize, canola, and cotton, which is a
substantial impact. Since 1996, farm incomes have increased by
$24.2 billion, or $27 billion inclusive of second crop soybean
gains in Argentina.
Poor farmers are disappearing from the world (by getting
rich)...THIS IS HORRIBLE!!!! Capitalism must be stopped!
|10.24.07 @ 7:00PM|#
In addition to the reduction in the number of herbicide
applications, there has been a shift from conventional tillage to
reduced- or no-till. This has had a marked effect on tractor fuel
consumption due to energy-intensive cultivation methods being
replaced with no- or reduced-tillage and herbicide-based weed
control systems.
This is a travesty of epic proportions!!!...farmers are moving away
from their tried and true traditional methods of tilling (which
destroys the environment)....Culture is being lost to
technology!!
Brian White|10.24.07 @ 7:31PM|#
Joshua, no doubt productivity gains are also the result of
pesticide use - and I'm guessing you cite pesticide use as a good
thing when you're talking to Sierra Clubbers.
I love that 15.3% reduction in "overall environmental impact"
associated with less pesticide use. What sales brochure did this
stuff come out of, I wonder?
Les|10.24.07 @ 7:52PM|#
What I know is that a sensible libertarian suggestion - that
private ownership of wealth-producing property is good and likely
to result in less starvation got treated like a commie conspiracy
by Reasonoids more eager to defend Monsanto's marketing campaigns
than the widespread ownership of private property.
Could you provide a link for this? I can understand if the proposal
to have the government transfer ownership of private property from
one group to another would be frowned upon, but I'll understand
more once I know which suggestion you're talking about.
Syloson of Samos|10.24.07 @ 8:56PM|#
Brian White,
If I recall correctly a lot of public Western land was put up for
sale at the time (in the early 1980s) but there were few
buyers.
|10.25.07 @ 3:50AM|#
"Why don't we serve him some of the vegetables and meats he got
to eat when he had his own land, and see whether he prefers a
varied diet or a rice diet?"
That assumes that he 'had' his own land before and that when he did
he ate a varied diet. Both are often false.
Joe, a little ironic that you chastise people for lack of critical
thinking skills when all you do here on this thread is label others
as gullible.
|10.25.07 @ 9:48AM|#
"I said he was right on land/wealth distribution. I didn't say
he was right on anything else. Did you goofs forget how to
read?"
Joshua, Since You think I misunderstood what you meant, please
clarify what you meant by "right on land/wealth
distribution".
As I said, Chavez' land "redistribution" is failing. Expropriated
land that once provided tomatoes, cantaloupe, onions, corn, etc...
now lies idle. As for wealth distribution, Chavez social programs,
while have helped some, have opened the flood gates for corruption.
Venezuela is now the most corrupt country in Latin America.
I fail to see how you think any of this is right on.
fyodor|10.25.07 @ 11:40AM|#
I don't think there is any satisfactory solution, libertarian or
otherwise, for long stolen land (in private hands) other than to
let some dead dogs lie. Land reform, like affirmative action, seems
like a case of two wrongs trying to make a right. Maybe there just
has to be a statute of limitations on such matters.
So joe, I googled "9 families" + "el salvador" and came up with
nothing, but sounds like you're complaining about large land owners
who are not directly involved in the farming of the lands? What's
wrong with that, as long as they're hiring folks who make
productive use of the land?
|10.25.07 @ 1:23PM|#
fyodor,
The problem is two-fold: first, they are the heirs of the
plantation owners who were granted the land by the Spanish crown,
so their ownership claims are basically the same as the guy who
buys a stolen care radio.
Second, as predictably happens whenever wealth is so concentrated,
they run armies of death squads to keep the order in place.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245