Golden Rice: GMO "Super Gruel" for the Masses

Land Destroyer ^ | 7-16-2014

[Renfield]

July 16, 2014 (LocalOrg) - Corporate biotechnology monopolies like Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, and others have met increasing resistance to their attempts to patent and control global agriculture. They have spent untold fortunes attempting to sway the public but to no avail. Local, organic agriculture is growing in popularity and proliferating across all social-strata. The introduction of technology to automate and augment organic farming is making it as competitive and accessible or more so than the capital-intensive models of monopoly employed by big-ag. 

In response, big-ag has attempted several distasteful public relation stunts, including "super bananas for Africa" and "Golden Rice" to allegedly feed Asia's poor.

They claim these initiatives are purely altruistic. Business Insider in its article, "A Miracle Rice Could Save Millions Of Lives," claims: 

Golden Rice, once it is widely released, will be much more cost-effective, as agricultural economist Alexander Stein has shown. Despite common misconceptions, no one stands to get rich when poor farmers start growing Golden Rice. Instead, it will represent a fundamentally different approach, an embodiment of the old "teach a man to fish" adage.

Business Insider's source? Big-ag giant Syngenta and the "Golden Rice Humanitarian Board." The board, of course, is stacked with big-ag-funded "NGOs," USAID representatives, and representatives of big-ag itself. The board represents the revolving door between corporate monopolies and big-government - and their combined efforts to use every means necessary to advance their collective self-interests.  

Contrary to their claims of altruism, the initial profit of selling the rice to farmers will be immense. Posing as an act of charity will secure taxpayer subsidized funding from governments around the world to "feed the children." 

Once the genetically engineered rice is being grown, big-ag herbicide, pesticide, and chemical fertilizer regiments will reap billions more, all likely to be subsidized as well - diverting state resources away from traditional, localized, and more effective nutritional and agricultural development programs.  

There is also another profit to be made, one not of money directly, but in terms of public perception. Using the Trojan Horse of  "charity" to proliferate genetically modified crops that are otherwise wholly rejected around the world, will constitute big-ag's "foot in the door" in gaining wider acceptance for their monopolizing and destructive business model. 

The very name, "Golden Rice Humanitarian Board" reflects the frequent ploy of inserting "humanitarian" anywhere exploitation and human rights are being violated the most. The "humanitarian war" for instance, is a term used to sell unpopular extraterritorial military aggression. For big-ag, "humanitarian crops" are used to push unpopular and dangerous biotech products on the planet's most vulnerable people.  

Don't You Want to Save the Children?
The paid-for narrative of big-ag's lobbying efforts to push Golden Rice revolves around portraying anti-GMO activists opposing the scheme as wanting to "starve children." The simplistic propaganda ploy is as dishonest as it is insulting. The very concept of relieving suffering throughout the developing world with a monoculture of genetically altered "super gruel" at face value is both undignified and untenable.

In Thailand for instance, one of the world's leading producers of rice, those who grow rice - and would potentially grow Golden Rice - do so for the sole purpose of selling it. They do indeed consume part of their annual harvest - but the species they grow are determined by market demand.  Not only is there no demand for genetically modified rice species, nor will there ever be, Golden Rice contaminating the thousands of varieties of native, organic rice species Asia's rice farmers do depend on for their livelihood would be an immeasurable catastrophe. 

Tainting native species, however, will be a boom for big-ag - opening a door that cannot be closed again and inviting the rest of its business model into markets it was previously restricted from. Consumers unable to avoid genetically modified rice would have no choice but to accept it, along with other genetically modified products. This is the truth behind the tangibly desperate drive to push Golden Rice through. 

Additionally, encouraging people to sustain themselves on a single crop is irresponsibly dangerous - with the practice of monoculture farming already responsible for miring thousands in debt when their single crop fails or market fluctuations make their single crop unprofitable. For farmers already existing along the edge of poverty and debt, depending on a single crop multiplies, not hedges the potential for disaster.

At every juncture big-ag claims its products are for the benefit of the impoverished, starving, and those who till the land. But today, most farmers still scratch a living at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum - particularly those who regularly buy into big-ag's various monopolies over seeds, fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides.

How to Really Feed the Poor 

As Greenpeace and Grain.org have noted, the solution to malnutrition can be as simple as having farmers diversity their crops and for rural populations to grow their own personal or community gardens.

Greenpeace stated in a statement on Golden Rice that:

...a range of projects, such as ecologically farmed home and community gardens, that increase access to healthy and varied diets can eradicate not only VAD, but simultaneously tackle other nutrient deficiencies. Ecological farming can in fact better contribute to healthy and diverse diets by empowering people to access and produce their own healthy and varied food, which is the real long-lasting solution populations affected by VAD need.

Grain.org reported in a paper titled, "Grains of delusion: Golden rice seen from the ground," that: 

IRRI says that the Green Revolution may have actually increased malnutrition among the poor. Consumption of vegetables in most Asian countries has remained stagnant since the Green Revolution and vegetable prices have increased in both real and relative terms. In India, annual rice and wheat production has more than tripled from pre-Green Revolution levels. On the other hand, household consumption of vegetables has dropped 12 percent over the last two decades. Pulse and legume consumption is down even more and is becoming more and more costly, and malnutrition remains high.

Monoculture farming for a globalized economy renders entire nations as producers for markets beyond their borders leaving less room and resources to cultivate what is needed for local populations. Net exporters are generally so because they work and sell for far less than nations that import goods. 

Not only do community gardens and diversifying crops give farmers and the impoverished access to a more varied and dignified diet, it opens the door to polyculture - the growing of more than one crop for both personal consumption and for additional income. Organic polyculture is promoted in Thailand by the head of state as part of a national self-sufficiency program and those that practice both self-sufficiency and sustainable economic growth, avoid both the pitfalls of debt and the dangers of monoculture farming. 

Education is also key. Raising awareness as to what causes malnutrition and how to prevent it will raise the demand for a variety of fruits and vegetables giving farmers added incentives to diversify their crops. It will also produce the political impetus to pursue other pragmatic solutions, such as community gardens and networks of local farmers' markets.  

Ultimately, if immense amounts of government funding must be spent to solve global malnutrition, why not spend it on initiatives that will give the poor access to the same variety and dignity in diet that the rest of the world enjoys? Why insist on an expensive, risky, and proven dangerous genetically modified monoculture model that will essentially feed the poor "GMO super gruel" instead? The benefits for big-ag and perpetuating their immense and unwarranted power over global agriculture is clear - so are the dangers and exploitation faced by the impoverished poor these monolithic corporations are pretending to help. 

[driftdiver]

Why are they restrictions seeds in Europe and trying to regulate back yard gardens here in the us.

[Mamzelle]

I have some friends who have gone off the deep end with this GMO and an unhealthy and hypochondriacal obsession with what goes in their mouths.

First of all, they never accept (because they're so high on the emotionalism of GMO cookery) that wheat is not GMO--at least no wheat that is made into flour in the US. Flour may not be the best thing for you as a big part of your diet, but not because it's GMO.

[Georgia Girl 2]

“I grow a garden, I eat local, I am a foodie who loves to cook and eat. I try to limit processed food”

So in other words you avoid GMO like the plague. :-)

[Mamzelle]

I’ll eat untested food, as *you* categorize it, if I’m starving to death. It is part of the idiocy of the GMO kooks that they cannot distinguish between the food snobbery of the West and the starvation that used to be much more prevalent in the Third World.

[Mamzelle]

Melinda also bought out the Rotary Club's decades-long foray into preventing polio so she could take credit for eradicating polio. It's all about advanced pathological narcissism and Melinda is crazy as a bedbug and thinks she's some kind of Empress of the World. It doesn't mean preventing polio is a bad thing, but she has also sworn to reduce the population by a billion people--and she has 45 Billion dollars--

Golden Rice is better than no Golden Rice, GMO or not. People will not go blind who would otherwise have gone blind. People will live who will otherwise have died. Maybe they'll be subject to a wheat belly or a cancer risk when they hit their sixties---but they'll have lived to their sixties. Next problem--Gates Foundation promotes abortion while pretending that they are not promoting abortion…

[Mamzelle]

It happens to be easy when you cook. The meat I eat is probably fed on GMO corn. I do use canola oil when I want to use canola oil.

Interestingly, most of the GMO kooks I know can't cook, or won't learn. Too much work. I've tried to explain that if they prepare their own food instead of whining and wailing when they insist on eating all the time in restaurants, they'd avoid this "poison" they're so afraid of. I won't eat salads at restaurants very often because I know that salads are raw, and vulnerable to poor hygiene. But my GMO nut acquaintances won't eat anything but salads.

I also cannot persuade them that sweet corn is not GMO.

It's my personal theory that our present obesity, particularly among young people, has to do with the widespread use of birth control pills, and the consequent exposure of people to estrogens not present in the environment fifty years ago. It's as good a theory as any.

[Black Agnes]

Look up recent research into something called mRNAi.

I personally no longer trust GMO foods. Yes, the population may be fed today, who knows what sort of epigenetic changes are being induced that might well affect the fertility of subsequent generations.

My distrust of GMO stems directly from those who are promoting it so rabidly. And that they are pretty much all equally rabidly promoting population control by any means possible.

[Cinnamontea]

I'm so sick and tired of GMO KOOKS.

I used to be of that opinion. After doing a lot of research, I'm not anymore. I avoid GMO foods. I also don't like the fact that because companies like Monsanto now OWN their GMO seed as a new kind of seed, they can charge farmers for it every year. Farmers no longer own the seeds they plant, and they can't harvest seed from their own crops. Don't let the fact that some nutty leftist groups oppose GMO food sway you, as it did me at first.

[sphinx]

Why are the big as companies seeking total control over the food supply and production?

The big seed tech companies don't control anything except their own patents. They develop new varieties using a variety of methods, including but not limited to gene splicing. They then commercialize and sell what farmers want to buy. Farmers, in turn, want to plant what their customers wish to buy. Most corn and soybeans are destined for animal feed, and feed manufacturers and animal feeders want high quality inputs at the lowest possible cost. GMO's boost productivity and lower costs. This is what drives GMO's.

At what point in this straightforward process does the evil conspiracy come in?

I have nothing against organic producers as long as they don't make false claims. Unfortunately, there is a radical fringe that poisons the discussion. Organics are generally significantly more expensive than their conventional counterparts. This is why "organic" still only commands 1-2% of the U.S. market, despite endless hype. This frustrates the activists, who respond by trying to demonize conventional agriculture. This is a form of consumer fraud; it is intended to gull people into paying much higher prices for a product that is no better, and is in some respects inferior, based on dishonest scare stories about the competition. I hope some future administration unleashes the FTC consumer fraud unit against the professional liars.

As for myself, I vote with my wallet, as should you. When I see "organic" on the label, I immediately check the unit price, and then compare. I prefer not to be fleeced by hucksters. YMMV.

[Mamzelle]

I am glad to hear of genuine, authentic philanthropy coming from the Gates Foundation. Unfortunately, they are up to a lot of pernicious behavior as well, and still need to be observed. They are tied very closely to Warren Buffett, who has been exposed as a pro-abortion extremist with his “charities.”

[Mamzelle]

Monsanto is a business, not a charity. They are very much like Big Pharm, or Apple in that they need to protect their intellectual property rights. These rights/patents have limits, a "shelf life." In that window of the shelf life, they must make back what they have invested to make a profit.

Sheesh. This is Free Republic. Why does this require explanation?

[vbmoneyspender]

It’s the broken clock effect. Even left-wingers can do good and we should applaud them for that - while continuing to vigorously criticize them for all the bad that they do.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I said not a word about the green revolution.

From your article...

“He spent countless hours hunched over in the blazing Mexican sun as he manipulated tiny wheat blossoms to cross different strains.”

Oh how things have changed.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“I’ll eat untested food, as *you* categorize it, if I’m starving to death.”

Have at it.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“The big seed tech companies don’t control anything except their own patents”

I’ve watched these companies systematically buy up all the independent seed house and remove the varieties of seed from availability, substituting only their expensive patented varieties.

[The_Reader_David]

Actually, patents on seeds, as currently constituted, are different from software patents and from music copyright. Neither software patents nor copyrights claim monopoly rights over the results of natural processes — the generation of seeds by plants grown from patented seed — simply on the basis that the natural process might have produced a copy of the patented product. (Not being in agriculture, but having a flower garden with some reseeding annuals, I find it improbable that the patented gene-insertions will breed true.)

[AllAmericanGirl44]

bfl

[sphinx]

I’ve watched these companies systematically buy up all the independent seed house and remove the varieties of seed from availability, substituting only their expensive patented varieties

"All" is an overstatement. There has been consolidation in this as in most other industries. But there are still many small independent seed companies, and farmers have choices. And if someone wants to sell heirloom seeds, the door is wide open. Those aren't on patent.

Of course, one would have to find a farmer willing to settle for much lower yields. Outside of the organic cult, that's hard to do.

[JimRed]

Comfortable, well fed people should not be making decisions for less fortunate countries.

Those comfortable, well fed people at the UN are pushing implementation of Agenda 21, which includes a reduction of world population by 85%. They're just working on it when they lie about GMO foods.

[JimRed]

Of course, the liberals hate for people to live. They like better to decide who gets to live, and who gets to die. Reduces the stress on the planet. I think that's the real MO--reducing the population.

Yes, Agenda 21, as above.