Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Europe's Anti-GMO Stance Is Killing Africans

The cost of Africa’s refusal to grow GMO crops are incredible in human health and economic terms.

Fifteen years ago, The Economist ran an article headlined "Better dead than GM-fed?" It focused on the refusal of some African countries to allow imports of American food aid, because it contained genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This was when extreme hunger threatened some 15 million people, before Africa's decade of economic growth spurred by high commodity prices as well as some economic reforms.

Some of the reasons for the refusal of U.S. food aid, such as Zambia's then-president Levy Mwanawasa's statement that GMOs were "poison," were just silly. American's have been eating GMO foods for decades and there is not an iota of evidence that GMOs are detrimental to health. Other reasons were more serious.

Much of Africa's agricultural produce is still destined for Europe and the European Union has been waging a war on GMO foods for decades. The reasons for the EU's anti-GMO stance, ostensibly, are health concerns. In reality, the EU is trying to protect its farmers against their more productive American competitors. Thus, were the U.S. food aid inadvertently to "contaminate" Africa's crops, Africans would be in trouble.

While imports of GMOs are not barred from Europe by law, the EU food labelling system obliges companies to indicate if the food or feed they produce contains GMOs. This labelling applies when GMOs account for at least 0.9 percent of the food or the feed. Since Europeans have been brainwashed into believing that GMO foods are unsafe, scary labelling could dampen European demand for African agricultural produce. As such, much of Africa has not only refused to grow GMOs, but also refused U.S. food aid.

Today, scholars can estimate the cost of Africa's refusal to grow GMO crops. According to a recent study in the journal PLoS One, delays in the introduction of disease-resistant cooking banana (matoke), insect-resistant cow pea, and corn (maize) "have resulted in significant economic and human health costs, including malnutrition and stunting."

"If Kenya had adopted GE [genetically engineered] corn in 2006," the study estimates, "between 440 and 4,000 lives could theoretically have been saved. Similarly, Uganda had the possibility in 2007 to introduce the black sigatoka resistant banana, thereby potentially saving between 500 and 5,500 lives over the past decade."

Each year of delay in the introduction of GMO crops to Africa increases the death count as well as revenue loss for African farmers. For example, insect-resistant Bt cowpea was supposed to become available to farmers in Benin, Niger and Nigeria this year. The authors of the study worry that anti-biotech activists could delay its introduction or postpone it indefinitely.

"A one-year delay in approval [of the insect-resistant Bt cowpea]," they estimate, "would especially harm Nigeria, as malnourishment is widespread there... [and] cost Nigeria about 33 million USD to 46 million USD and between 100 and 3,000 lives."

European restrictions on GMOs, the study argues, have serious costs. The same, however, goes for EU and U.S. agricultural subsidies, which undermine their African competitors and cost European and American taxpayers billions of dollars each year. I have a better idea. Let's keep our money and let African compete with us on an even playing field.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Adans smith||

    Europe can't have them darkies pollute their food and hurt their farmers. I blame the Dutch and Belgians.

  • gaoxiaen||

    I won't eat GM Doritos or Cheetohs, said no stoner ever.

  • DrZ||

    "I blame the Dutch and Belgians"

    Are you sure it isn't George W. Bush's fault?

  • DJF||

    First you start out with a story about Africans starving and then you morph it into a story about Africans not being able to export food to the EU. How about cutting out the middle man and have starving Africans eat African food

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Food exports are one way for Africans to earn money to buy imports. If they grow GMO food, the EU won't import it. Ergo, African despots won't let Africans grow GMO food. Ergo, Africans are worse off.

    How about cutting out the government meddlers and let people follow their own guidance?

  • gaoxiaen||

    Include US government meddlers, they're the worst of all.

  • JFree||

    Africa is never going to be exporting cowpeas or matoke bananas to Europe whether they are GMO or not. And the production of corn (GMO or not) in Africa - for export or not - is about as irrelevant as you can possibly get (the entire continents exports - 1230 MT - US/BRZ/ARG/UKR - 131,000 MT).

    This has nothing to do with Europe. It has everything to do with whether:
    1. 'cash crop' conversion is even a remotely good idea (prob not)

    2. forcing the land into dependence on imported (GMO) seeds and thus eliminating domestic foodstocks as a source of growable seeds is a good idea (better for Africans themselves to decide not Reason's usual shilling for proprietary seed companies)

  • ||

    First you start out with a story about Africans starving and then you morph it into a story about Africans not being able to export food to the EU. How about cutting out the middle man and have starving Africans eat African food

    See, here's your problem; you came to Reason to read an Africa policy piece. Maybe you skipped the first sentence that should've clued you in: where the article starts off referencing an economist story "Better dead than GM-fed?" The fact that the article is about Africa is rather coincidental. Given the juxtaposition of starvation, food production, and GMO crops, foreign and domestic powers shouldn't be erring on the side of starvation, regardless of whether it's in Africa, Mexico, Guatemala, Venezuela, etc., etc.

  • Longtobefree||

    Bunch of science deniers.
    I am still waiting for a reasonable explanation of how a little gene edit differs from the longer cross breeding of hybrids.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Don't hold your breath; there isn't one. And if there was, the Progressive food fetishists who drive the anti-GMO movement wouldn't understand it.

  • Conchfritters||

    Norman Borlaug was credited with saving millions of lives in Central and South America when he developed a drought resistant strain of wheat. They even gave him a Nobel Peace Prize. Today it looks like the Euros and Africans have decided to say "fuck it", if you can produce enough heirloom tomatoes to go around, you don't deserve to live.

  • Zeb||

    The funny thing is that even the crops developed in the 20th century by exposing seeds to radiation to induce mutations are usually considered "non-GMO" as well.

    So it seems to come down to people preferring random genetic changes to deliberate ones. Which seems a bit backwards, if anything. Inserting a well understood gene into an organism doesn't seem any more dangerous than random artificial mutation.

  • GILMORE™||

    it seems to come down to people preferring random genetic changes to deliberate ones

    Yes. there's that.

    there's also this bizarre misconception that DNA from one species and DNA from another are somehow entirely different and never find their way into one another in nature.

    e.g. "they put fish DNA in mah tomato!"

    the idea being that DNA from one thing and DNA from another are made up of inherently different materials and simply don't belong together. .

  • gaoxiaen||

    Please put chimpanzee DNA in my muscles.

  • gaoxiaen||

    And shark cancer-resistant DNA in my immune system.

  • GILMORE™||

    DNA in my muscles.

    its not like a protein-shake, unfortunately.

  • DarrenM||

    OK, but don't be surprised if you get a craving for bananas.

  • JFree||

    It doesn't really. But the reality is that both GMO's and hybrids are being simultaneously introduced now into areas where there has been long-standing practices of farmers saving seed and where stockpiles thus have dual-use-value (as both seed and food) and into areas that are simply not well suited for growing the temperate climate crops that have been the focus of almost all hybridization.

    These are two huge permanent irreversible changes to the land and to those who live off that land - and bluntly the foreigners (seed cos, banks and govt debt financiers, and land/portfolio investors) who want to do this without any questions being asked also have a vested interest in both lying and in buying off anyone who might ask tetchy questions.

  • GILMORE™||

    I'm not sure i understand your point.- "Europeans are strong arming Africans into doing what they would be doing anyway?"

    Given that africa is.... well, africa, and covers an enormous landmass with a wide variety of growing conditions and different local economies, i don't really think sweeping generalizations about "long standing practices" means anything. What might be accurately-characterizing one country/crop/market might have little bearing at all on any others.

    I've seen a few case studies of different african countries adoption of GMO and none of them reflected the dynamic you describe. e.g.

    This article presents empirical evidence of how Bt cotton impacted rural households in Burkina Faso following its 2009 commercial release. Based on surveys of 160 cotton producers, Bt cotton significantly increased cotton yields by an average of 18.2% over conventional cotton. There was no significant difference in production costs since the increased cost of Bt cotton seed was offset by the reduction in insecticide costs, and labor savings from growing Bt cotton were offset by slightly higher harvest costs. Hence, producers were able to capture virtually all of the benefits from higher cotton yields. Bt cotton producers earned a profit of $39.00 per ha, a $61.88 per ha increase in cotton income over conventional cotton...

    etc.

  • JFree||

    That study is about a follow-on to a previous irreversible conversion to an international cash crop (cotton) - that was almost entirely initiated by the local govt (to get a cash crop to service their debt) and foreigners (to finance the debt - and they now own the land in question). The very act of converting land to even regular cotton took away land that used to be used for livestock. It almost certainly also changed water usage - the cost of which isnt paid by cotton/govt. That water diversion made food crops there less stable - compounded by flooding the market there with 'food aid' that can't be grown there. So food farmers go out of business, non-righted 'sustenance/homesteaders' get driven off the land. The country is now dependent on free food aid - and if that ever disappears now, there will be mass famine.

    Honestly a 'case study' showing how btcotton is more profitable than cotton (excluding all the 'free' crony stuff) to a tiny elite of plantation landowners/cronies is exactly how the entire continent of everyone else is getting screwed. Burkina Faso would have been much better off focusing on making a global market for its traditional crops/foods (sorghum, millet, sesame, shea, peanuts, fonio, yams, beans, sheep, goats, etc) than trying to turn itself into a plantation for western cash-crops. At minimum, a local food market that can be made a real free market provides the basis for building other free markets on top of that.

  • Sevo||

    "Burkina Faso would have been much better off focusing on making a global market for its traditional crops/foods (sorghum, millet, sesame, shea, peanuts, fonio, yams, beans, sheep, goats, etc) than trying to turn itself into a plantation for western cash-crops."

    I'm sure, like the last time I asked you for a cite, you've got bupkis.

  • JFree||

    Cite for what? What its traditional crops are (look in an old paper encyclopedia - I've got a 1976 Brittanica that's where I got that list when it was still called Upper Volta)? That its a plantation economy now? Yeesh - that's not unique to there at all. There's plenty of stuff online about development problems/distortions in Africa and they are all linked - foreign-aid and NGO's, dollar-denominated-debt, periodic default/crises, leading to foreign agcommodity/land cronyism.

  • Dan S.||

    One possible way is that cross-breeding can affect both the protein-coding genes and the "epigenes" that control their expression, whereas genetic engineering affects only the actual protein-coding genes, and the epigenes are left alone. Whether this really makes a practical difference seems unclear at this point, but it certainly doesn't seem impossible that it does.

  • Wizard4169||

    Don't hold your breath, unless you actually want to turn blue. (Maybe you have a Smurf fetish. NTTAWWT.) I've actually accomplished more arguing with Trump cultists over at Breitbart than I ever did trying to talk to the monkey Luddite GMO-bashers. The closest they ever come to an explanation of their opposition is "Corpurashunz!", and most of them aren't even that coherent.

  • ||

    Pish posh! Impossible!

    I have it on good authority Europeans do everything because they care harder for the children.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Except for Muslim child molesters.

  • PlaystoomuchHALO||

    They should all just grow only GMO crops and leave only those on the international market. That will put and end to the stupidity soon enough.

  • mccati||

    I live in usa and life is worth living comfortably for me and my family now and really have never seen goodness shown to me this much in my life as I am a mother who struggles with three children and I have been going through a problem as seriously as my husband found a terrible accident last two weeks, and the doctors states that he needs to undergo a delicate surgery for him to be able to walk again and I could not pay the bills, then your surgery went to the bank to borrow and reject me saying that I have no credit card, from there i run to my father and he was not able to help, then when I was browsing through yahoo answers and i came across a loan lender MR TONY HARTON, offering loans at affordable interest rate and i have been hearing about so many scams on the internet but at this my desperate situation, I had no choice but to give it an attempt and surprisingly it was all like a dream, I got a loan of $ 50,000 and I paid for my husband surgery and thank God today is good and you can walk and is working and the burden is longer so much on me more and we can feed well and my family is happy today and i said to myself that I will mourn aloud in the world of the wonders of God to me through this lender GOD fearing MR TONY HARTON and I would advise anyone in genuine and serious need of loan to contact this God-fearing man on financialhome34@outlook.com through .. and I want you all to pray for this man for me
    Thanks

  • John's broseph||

    "Let's keep our money and let African compete with us on an even playing field."

    I thought trading partners subsidising industries didn't have any ramifications for free trade.

  • Zeb||

    The voices in your head are misinformed.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I'm guessing that's a snarky jab at the "free trade" folks who ignore that most of our prospective trade partners would not stop subsidizing buisnesses within their own borders, thus skewing the desired/expected results of "free trade".

    Or to put it another way... unilateral disarmament only works if it's unilateral.

  • Sevo||

    "Or to put it another way... unilateral disarmament only works if it's unilateral."

    Except that there is absolutely no analogy between trade restrictions and disarmament. Fail.

  • BYODB||

    Escher actually does have a point, in that subsidy inherently skew markets so even if trade restrictions between countries didn't exist the market would still be skewed because of those internal subsidy.

    That's fairly straight forward economics.

  • Sevo||

    BYODB|9.5.17 @ 12:51PM|#
    "Escher actually does have a point, in that subsidy inherently skew markets so even if trade restrictions between countries didn't exist the market would still be skewed because of those internal subsidy."

    True enough, but any free trade is better than none, so the faulty analogy to 'disarament' is still faulty.
    I'm not at all upset if the Chinese government wants to pay their companies to make my clothes cheaper.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I think the panic over GMO food is not very reasonable but there is also information being left out of the pro-GMO food side of the argument. I do not want to eat/support GMO food that undermines traditional crops that can be grown by average people. In other words, GMO foods are crops that can be patented by companies and therefore the seed distribution can be restricted by the company, effectively trying to starve people into submission.

    Food companies have expressed frustration that they cannot control food production like other products being manufactured. Some GMO crops are designed to produce no seeds that can be replanted by farmers. You must buy new seeds from the company each season.

    So, it comes down to a personal choice that if I want to grow food on my land and then take those seeded crops and plant those seeds, I can. I don't think farming should be subsidized like it is but farming is not like any "product" market. You cannot just throw up a factory, get some raw materials, and produce food. Even after having the land, seeds, and a water supply you need to have some luck that pests or some other cause does not destroy a whole season's worth of crops.

  • Zeb||

    One thing that a lot of people seem unaware of is that conventionally bred crops also can have IP protections. It's not a new thing for GMOs. The sterile plants are largely a new thing with GMOs, but not being allowed to grow from seed you grow is not.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The GMO crop can omly push out traditional crops if it objectively yields a better harvest. And GMO's are sterile partly because of the anti-GMO pearl-clutching about GMO plants cross fertilizing related crops and non-domesticated plants.

  • JFree||

    No. GMO/hybrid crops will push out traditional crops regardless. GMO/hybrids can only produce stocks/storage usable for food - ie consumption. Traditional crops can produce stocks/storage usable for both seeds and food - both future production and consumption. From a pure stockpile value (and famine prevention) perspective, those traditional crops are more valuable because the potential seed/production value in a stockpile serves to arbitrage current prices and future production.

    The second that stockpile is 'polluted' with a mix of sterile seeds, then it really immediately loses all its value as a source of seeds. It's only food - and prices will immediately get more volatile too. That's what happened in the US when commodity contracts started accepting hybrid crops without distinguishing those contracts from non-hybrid contracts.

  • DarrenM||

    GMO/hybrids can only produce stocks/storage usable for food

    This may be true, but I don't see why it necessarily is apart from government regulations possibly mandating that it be so and banning any GMOs that are able to produce seeds.

  • Sevo||

    JFree|9.5.17 @ 12:11PM|#
    "...Traditional crops can produce stocks/storage usable for both seeds and food - both future production and consumption. From a pure stockpile value (and famine prevention) perspective, those traditional crops are more valuable because the potential seed/production value in a stockpile serves to arbitrage current prices and future production."
    Do you ever post without lying?
    If that is true, than Mikey's point is correct. The only way you could be correct is in the case of massive market failure; that fantasy of the left.

    "The second that stockpile is 'polluted' with a mix of sterile seeds, then it really immediately loses all its value as a source of seeds."
    Uh, that is really a pile of bullshit. Plant it; the sterile 'pollutants' won't grow, the others will.
    Do you spend long hours coming up with this crap?

  • gaoxiaen||

    Or a herd of elephants that consume or destroy your income. Or a lion that consumes your animals and children

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Like any risk those things can be managed. In the USA, we don't really have the elephant and lion destruction or eating family member problem, but whatever.

    As a managed risk, GMO is not worth it for me and my family.

  • Sevo||

    "I do not want to eat/support GMO food that undermines traditional crops that can be grown by average people"

    Bull
    .
    .
    .
    shit.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I guess it keeps that relationship exactly the same or makes it better then? No it does not.

    I don't think GMO food should be banned or anything like that but the food companies have been mismanaged for decades. These companies are literally charging more for cheap non-GMO crops to subsidize more processed food.

    I see it at the grocery store when you look at a product like frozen peas that you have to cook yourself and there are far more frozen pea products in more convenient packaging like steam-in-bag types. One would think that this "convenient" packaging is more popular but it is not always the case. You would think would be cheaper the traditional cook your own peas but sometimes I am surprised at how close in price these two types of products are.

    In other words, GMO foods are being pushed not by consumer demand but by food companies wanting higher profit margins. Normally, the market would punish these stupid companies for charging more for products that you can get somewhere else but I see less and less competition. Some of the causes are farm subsidies, crony capitalism, and food companies pushing for higher profit margin products.

    As I said, its more a personal choice but one that with non-GMO foods, you could say F*it and grow your own tomatoes or avocados.

  • Sevo||

    loveconstitution1789|9.5.17 @ 2:00PM|#
    "I guess it keeps that relationship exactly the same or makes it better then? No it does not."

    Got a cite for that bullshit?

  • ||

    Even after having the land, seeds, and a water supply you need to have some luck that pests or some other cause does not destroy a whole season's worth of crops.

    If by 'luck' you mean active prevention then, yes, you can't just toss some seeds on the ground and hope for the best. It's been quite awhile since people just woke up and discovered their crops reduced to mush because of locusts or fungus.

    IME, with regard to the whole GMO pearl-clutching and farming debate the overwhelming amount of ignorance is with regard to noxious weeds. You could still selectively control for weeds before roundup, but it was not at all an uncommon sight to see (e.g.) bean fields with inedible, if not toxic (to both humans and livestock), plants contaminating/shading out the beans.

    Even with GMOs, detectable (and even deleterious/dangerous) levels of varying toxins find their way into our food supply from molds, bacteria, etc.

  • H. Farnham||

    Your post here is basically the same argument used to justify most every government intervention into the marketplace... 'this industry/product/market is different than others and requires correction.'

    "can be patented by companies and therefore the seed distribution can be restricted"
    Same as almost all other new products in any industry.

    "You must buy new seeds from the company each season"
    No, you are free to buy a different seed variety, different crop seed, or no seed at all.

    "You cannot just throw up a factory, get some raw materials, and produce food."
    You cannot 'just produce' anything (as if magically), and each industry has its own unique challenges in competing for viability.

    I've worked in agriculture since I was 17 years old, in a variety of different capacities: small producer, regulatory, large-scale grain logistics, research, etc. In my experience, there is no justification whatsoever for the amount of government interference present in the agricultural industry.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I am not advocating massive government intervention or even the current level of regulation in food and farming.

    I am pointing out some of the pros and cons and people need to make the choice.

    I have also been growing things and around farming my whole life. There has been massive government intervention since the Great Depression but never before has a certain industry tried to exert complete control over a basic need- food. That at least deserves people to ask the question do you want the ability to grow your own food or not. I could build my own house if I wanted to and would never have to get a company's permission to do so. You cannot do that with sterile GMO crops.

    GMO crops should be sold side by side with traditional crops but I think its foolish to consider GMO crops some great invention. Traditional food is cheap and healthy all by itself.

  • DarrenM||

    No justification? How about more profits for the established food producers? How about reducing competition?

  • GILMORE™||

    Europe's Anti-GMO Stance Is Killing Africans

    Maybe that's the point?

    It used to be that 'mass 3rd-world-die-offs' - as a consequence of mankind's irresponsible capitalist development, natch - was a sad, but unavoidable fact-of-the-future predicted by environmentalist-types.

    Now they talk about that sort of thing as though its *desirable and necessary*, because "too many people on the planet" means climate-change happens faster.

    iow, they used to think mass-deaths was a bad thing, a consequence of bad behavior. Now they see it as more of a means to an end... something that, well, even if its not directly encouraged, we at least shouldn't complain about it, because its necessary

    a good (short) article further fleshing-out the nature of "Death Cult" Environmentalism

  • Bob Mitchell||

    I thought Libertarians liked choice?
    http://responsibletechnology.o.....void-GMOs/

  • Sevo||

    I prefer choice minus a heaping helping of luddite bullshit.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Well, that's the dilemma of Freedom of Speech. When you let folks say whatever they want, they'll say things you don't want.

    The only real answer to "choice minus a heaping helping of luddite bullshit" is to limit what people can say.

  • Sevo||

    "Well, that's the dilemma of Freedom of Speech. When you let folks say whatever they want, they'll say things you don't want."

    No, not at all. Idiots like Bob Mitchell are welcome to their luddite bullshit; they thrive on it.
    I prefer to laugh at them.

  • Cletus||

    What makes him Luddite? How would a chronic fear of computers be an arguement?

  • Sevo||

    Cletus|9.5.17 @ 1:05PM|#
    "What makes him Luddite?

    Your sophistry gives you away, Luddite.

  • I can't even||

    I thought everyone in Africa was moving to Europe?

  • Cletus||

    Science is:
    Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
    Evidence-
    Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
    Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
    Repetition
    Critical analysis
    Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment.

    These are what we ask of the GM industry. This is all we ask. Use science and keep it out in the open. The GM industry has never used science well. They use the parts they want and call others that call them on it names. Usually stupid names like Luddite.

    Also, please take a few years to prove your products are safe instead of hiding data and ghostwriting articles and studies. We just want to know that we aren't being killed for profit.

    I have to assume that everyone wants this. That no one really will defend the fake studies or the hidden data or the lack of long term testing on humans. We all agree on that...right? No equivocation or deflection...right?

  • Sevo||

    "Luddite"
    [...]
    " a person opposed to increased industrialization or new technology:
    "a small-minded Luddite resisting progress"

    IOWs, Cletus and his bullshit redherrings.
    YOU are a luddite,

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Who's we? You and the pile of turds in your pocket?

  • Sevo||

    BTW:

    "I have to assume that everyone wants this. That no one really will defend the fake studies or the hidden data or the lack of long term testing on humans. We all agree on that...right? No equivocation or deflection...right?"

    You are one slimy piece of work besides being an imbecilic Luddite.

  • DarrenM||

    between 500 and 5,500 lives over the past decade

    I thought it would be more than this. This is a drop in the bucket and can't compare to the sense of self-righteousness engendered by denying GMOs.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Europe's Anti-GMO Stance Is Killing Africans

    Europeans don't care if their stance on GMO is killing Africans as long as it isn't killing Europeans.

  • Tionico||

    YOU are the one needing to change the contents of your wash sink..... GOM foods being dangerous is "brainwashing"?

    NO bias here, move right along.

    American's have been eating GMO foods for decades and there is not an iota of evidence that GMOs are detrimental to health.

    then you have either wilfully or negligently been asleep. LOTS of GMO issues..... what, do you also collect a periodic cash infusion from Monsanto?

    WHY is it that so many foreign nations refuse to allow GMO foods to be produced or sold within their countries? Could it possibly be because there is some solid basis for the banishment of GMO crops from those countries?

    And WHY are Monsanto and their ilk spending SO MUCH money attempting to defeat anybbefforts toeven LABEL any foods containing GMO foods

  • Richard Stallman||

    Most GMOs are patented. Are they patented in these African countries?
    If they signed up to the WTO, they probably have no way to prevent that.

    Once the patented modified genes get into a country's crop gene pool
    they wind up in the crops of farmers who never wanted them. In the
    US, such farmers are forced to pay money to Monsanto or some other
    patentholder. As for growing crops that are not GMO, it may be
    impossible to find any; that occurred many years ago with corn in the
    US.

  • Sevo||

    Richard Stallman|9.6.17 @ 5:43AM|#
    "Once the patented modified genes get into a country's crop gene pool
    they wind up in the crops of farmers who never wanted them."

    So? The don't reproduce.
    Try another red herring.

  • Joe Clave||

    this is nothing compared the millions who die because the WHO will cut off aid to countries who dare to use DDT to save their populations from malaria.

  • DickW||

    > In reality, the EU is trying to protect its farmers against their more productive American competitors.

    Not sure they need protection. I am again summering in Italy. We eat a Mediterranean diet + fish. Much fruit. Peaches & nectarines here are priced at €0.98/kg or less. The euro is currently around$1.20 but 2.2lb.kg so around $0.55/lb - about half USA. Tomatoes usually less than that. I doubt that EU nor Italy are subsidizing the small truck farmers. We shop the covered markets where if we don't like this vendor's produce or prices we just walk on to the next stall. I see nothing broken here. Even in supermarkets, we buy passata for < €1/liter. Oh, and the produce here has actual taste - even better than what I grow in California. Short shelf lives just as they should.

    My objections to GMOs are not that they might be poisonous but rather that they entail buying more and more glyphosate or, even worse, as the weeds evolve resistance. The herbicides don't stay where they are put:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/
    business/economy/
    this-miracle-weed-killer-was-
    supposed-to-save-farms-
    instead-its-devastating-them/2017/08/29/
    33a21a56-88e3-11e7-961d-2f373b3977
    ee_story.html?undefined=_term=
    .2a9c9324e383&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

    I am certainly not a fan of Monsanto (4 tour Nam), nor Bayer and I favor farmers keeping the seed so I don't mind labeling laws and regret we did not get one passed in California. I want to know what I am eating.

  • Sevo||

    "I want to know what I am eating."

    Bull
    .
    .
    .
    .
    shit.
    You can find that out now.
    You're a virtue-signalling twit who wants the government to force other to live like you.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    The last leftist counterargument I heard about was a sad tale about some peasant farmer in India who got faulty GMO'd seeds, his crop failed, and he committed suicide. So watch out, GMO seeds will cause you to commit hara-kiri.

  • Sevo||

    I'm not going to look it up again, but the local rag ran a positive article on CA's proposed new 'protein price increase'; build condos for animals before you kill them for food.
    Anyhow, one of the comments by a lefty twit claimed the cost not remodeling the animals' homes included the "fact that farm hands commit suicide and kill each other at alarming rates".
    No, I did not make that up.

  • Reverend Draco||

    Does that "not an iota" include the studies showing infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, or are those separate from the not an iota?
    Does the not an iota include the massive increase in food allergies, or is that also separate?

    Shilling for Monsanto does nothing for your credibility, Reason. . .

  • m.EK||

    Your second paragraph invalidated your article. "not an iota", no effect?
    Look around

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online