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. 

[Wuli]

The GMO-seed sector of Big-AG is really in the fertilzer, herbicide & pesticde business, and the GMO-seed is merely the means for increasing and monopolizing those businesses, and the tradeoff is massively decreasing varieties of the seed-base of the world’s biggest crops.

The Irish potatoe famine did not happen just because most of Europe experienced a large and broadly spread potatoe blight at the time. The Irish potatoe famine happened because under control of the British colonial system in Ireland, Ireland had become a vast potatoe field for Britain, with more acreage in potatoes than anything else AND under that system they were growing mostly ONE variety-strain of potatoe. Europe was hit with the same potatoe blight, but with diversity of potatoes that Europe outside of Ireland was growing, Europe did not have the famine that Ireland did.

The tyranny of the experts comes from their convincing everyone that with their technology and expert opinion, they can prevent all our problems from happening again, and as they do they always and arrogantly ignore the conjoining throughout history of the certainty of unforseen circumstances and “murphy’s law”.

GMO - “the ‘perfect seed/crop’ “ IS about decreasing and monopolizing food crop-seed varieties and the so-called “humanitarian” benefits of GMO are a smokescreen, which will in time, via nature, prodoce food crop calamities never seen before.

Yes, Conservatives, we believe in “free enterprise”, however only fools believe that the adage “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” applies ONLY to the political sphere, and no where else, and the great moral philosopher who championed capitalism, Adam Smith, was no lover of monopolies.

[Mase]

Patrick Moore, co-founder and former President of Greenpeace, on Golden Rice:

Greenpeace has blood on its hands and is committing a crime against humanity by actively opposing the introduction of a genetically modified rice crop that could prevent the deaths of more than two million children a year.

There are 250 million children living in the tropics who are vitamin A deficient and they need this vitamin. Golden rice can deliver it to them because they eat rice every day and because that’s all that they can afford

The fact is vitamin A deficiency is the biggest killer of children in the world today. Unicef estimates that a little over eight million children die prematurely each year from all causes such as diseases like malaria, TB and HIV-Aids. But more than 25 per cent of them die from vitamin A deficiency, which is essential for eyesight and the immune system

Two million children a year are dying, and every year it is delayed, another two million kids are dying. The blood of that is on the hands of the people who have made it impossible to make an exception for golden rice.

Bears repeating: The blood of that is on the hands of the people who have made it impossible to make an exception for golden rice.

It is abhorrent that any FReeper would side with Greenpeace on anything, much less Golden Rice. Whose side are you on, anyway? Do you also consider Rachel Carson a hero?

Allowing millions of children to die from something that is absolutely preventable, whether it's vitamin A deficiency or malaria, is the apex of evil. Why anyone would stand with these sorry assed excuses for humanity is mind-boggling.

[riri]

Thank you for saying what I was thinking.

Gates is a sick $%^$# too.

[driftdiver]

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

Unless they allow their “patents” to blow into the neighbors field. Then they sue the neighbor for patent infringement and win large settlements.

They also push laws through that require govt approval for all seeds purchased. Of course the only people who can afford to comply with the process to gain govt approval are the big multinationals.

Then they push laws to require permits for backyard gardens. Requiring inspections, permits, and registration of gardens, the backyard kind.

Then they push regulation of the farmers market. Preventing farmers from selling their produce at roadside markets.

All for safety of course.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“
“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.”

It has not reached 100%.

Still, distribution has been elk mated and channeled toward their expensive seeds.

[driftdiver]

The “rights” of Monsato and similar organizations are whatever the govt says they are. Ironically the laws and regulations pushed through all benefit these big multi-ational corporations. Corporations which are not run for the benefit of America or Americans.

Its called crony capitalism and eliminates local control at the city, county, and state levels of our Republic.

Sheesh, this is free Republic, Why does that require explanation?

[driftdiver]

” But there are still many small independent seed companies, and farmers have choices. “

For now, once the laws which require registration and govt approval of all seeds get fully implemented the small companies will be not be economically viable.

[jjotto]

Yep. In big corn producing areas, for example, seed from up to 30 different companies are readily available.

[Mase]

Unless they allow their “patents” to blow into the neighbors field. Then they sue the neighbor for patent infringement and win large settlements.

Uh, that's not how it works. You got an example of where that happened?

[driftdiver]

There have been numerous suits already settled and farmers put out of business. Your ignorance is not my problem, go look it up yourself. There have been many threads on FR.

It is how it works.

[Mase]

Its called crony capitalism and eliminates local control at the city, county, and state levels of our Republic.

Do you have a specific example of Monsanto eliminating local control? Are you saying that local, county, and state governments should control private enterprise? What do your comments even mean?

[driftdiver]

What does it do when teh federal govt requires farmers markets to be registered and obtain a license?

hmmmm?

It gives the federal govt control. They get to say who can and who cannot have a farmers market, or sell their produce. If you can’t figure that out then you are in the wrong place.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

I'm so sick and tired of GMO KOOKS.

I'm not a KOOK - rather a convert to non-GMO foods. And I was able to prove this scientifically.

For me, personally, I can eat pretty much anything - and there is very little effect on my blood sugars. I am not diabetic. Mr. Peel, is NOT overweight and is VERY diabetic. (He's been needing up to 5 injections of insulin a day). The moment we dropped the synthetic food stuffs - the High Fructose Corn syrup, the spenda, the GMO-soy, the canola oil, etc, etc, his blood sugar numbers corrected themselves and he drifted toward normal.

You can give me a piece of Pepperidge Farm Rye bread, and my blood sugars numbers will moderately rise (as to be expected). I will start about 101 - go to 120, then an hour later, I'm back to 105 or so. Mr. Peel would start about 138 jump to 198-205, and stay that way for at least four hours later. The added junk in processed foods causes his body to panic - its as if he is having an allergic reaction.

What started us on this tact was a massive stroke he had 8 years ago. We never knew he was diabetic; it was undiagnosed diabetes that caused the stroke, and it is the junk in the foods that affects him terribly.

[Mamzelle]

Your reaction to bread does not have anything to do with GMOs. No wheat flour is from GMO wheat, at least not any in the US. As far as I know, there is no such thing as GMO wheat.

[Mamzelle]

So a scientist has no claim on what his research produces? If a pharmaceutical company invests hundreds of millions for an effective cure, they cannot retain rights to that medicine, ever?

[Mamzelle]

Well, I'm watching my mail box fill up every spring and summer from all kinds of seed companies producing a dizzying number of options every year.

You're thinking of one case in Canada where a farmer took advantage of a patented seed, and managed to turn it into a "cause celebrate" for the kook crowd. He lost the case. The courts found that he owed the patent holder royalties.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

Take a look at the artificial additives (B group of vitamins) that have been mandated by Congress and must appear in bread, next time you see a label. My point was, my body can handle that stuff. Mr Peel’s cannot handle syntethic additives (the vitamins, the sugar, etc). His diet needs to be as pure as possible. He can have grain, he can have sugar — providing they are pure. Genetically modified foods (grains, legumes, etc) are not pure and affect him terribly.

[Mamzelle]

If there are no protections for the production of intellectual property, whether it is a movie or novel or medicine or software or an engine design or a hybridized seed, there will not be investment in innovation.

Patents aren't forever. For medicines, they are barely seven years.

Most unique new seed varieties are not GMOs. That's another difficulty in arguing with the anti-GMO crowd; they won't understand that hybrids and GMOs are very different things.

[Mamzelle]

If you cook, it is so very easy to avoid GMOs.

No wheat, therefore, no flour, is GMO. Don't buy any corn meal, although most is not GMO. Don't buy anything with soy oil, although not every soy product is GMO. I use canola oil, but it is easy to avoid. Some sugar beet sugars are GMO.

However, non-GMO products still have gluten, still can be processed carbohydrate, can have treated fats (hydrogenation)--things I avoid.

The bread you describe is likely *not* GMO. It may have too many additives to add to its shelf life and texture, but that has nothing to do with being genetically modified.

[jjotto]

Well said.

Even GMOs have stark differences. Given the variety of natural items that go into a human diet, we’re crunching up all manner of DNA. Transgenic from plant to plant hardly seems like gambling.