GM Seeds

That's the hand of an organic farmer holding GM soybeans. We pulled them off some plants, still standing, on a walk this afternoon. Funny, isn't it - it's almost December, the ground is too wet to drive any machinery on, and if this were two fields over, it would just be a crop loss. But if you're planting patenteted seed, and it isn't the terminator variety, do you then not only lose whatever money you had invested in that year's crop, but have to play a licensing fee the next year if the soybeans you didn't harvest reseed themselves - even in a haphazard way, even if you didn't want soybeans?

But the sale of the seed is not the biggest joy. The chief point of much of the engineering is to make the crop compatible with the company's own herbicide. Let's not forget that almost half of Monsanto's revenue comes from sales of RoundUp (NY Times, 2 Aug. 01). Let's not forget that they're not devoting their considerable research dollar clout to better crop rotations, or tillage for weed control. No, instead, we are fed the line that they care about us because glyphosate is less toxic than Atrazine. And perhaps I can feel all moral about driving my emissions spewing car everywhere for no reason at all, because hey, I'm actually doing the atmosphere a favour - think of all the emissions I'd be spewing out if it was an SUV! Much the same logic as carbon credits, but that would be a whole other rant.

But all of this must be a good thing, now, mustn't it? It's not like we haven't been directly subsidizing the development of this sort of stuff. I can't begin to tell you the warm fuzzy feeling I get when I see investment to the tune of $4M in a product that I would argue is in the best interest of an agrichemical company above all else. No shit we're talking conflict of interest here.

But putting money into supporting organic certification, *that* would be an unfair advantage, wouldn't it?

--

I am not an environmentalist. I don't deserve that title. I don't make enough sacrifices in my life to warrant it. I tend to fall back on the, oh, but it's not as bad as it could be logic I just trashed.

Here's how I see it: we use too much energy. But simply raising the price of energy, that leaves those who are marginal literally in the cold and dark. But why do we not have graduated energy prices - up to x KWH per month is at base rate, beyond that we are looking at a series of ever-increasing rates. x is to be determined by type of dwelling and occupants (yes, I realize it gets more complicated once we start to consider commercial users). Make it so that I can maintain 20 degrees and run the fridge and the like with ease - but so that I would seriously have to consider whether I am in fact too lazy to line dry my clothing.

But then, rising gas prices haven't exactly put a damper on the gas guzzler craze, now have they? I guess income disparity is too great these days - in order to use price as an appropriate motivator to get one element of the population to cooperate, it is either too low to be meaningful for another - or, alternately, so high that it effectively shuts some people out of the game altogether.

Our mentality, however, is still at letting the bottom line determine, and relying on economic costs and benefits as a motivator for behaviour. We've been trying this for years... why is that the only avenue we can even begin to consider? The potential of a solution is limited by the scope of the thinking of its creator.

Ah, but I sound like an idealist tonight.

Posted by Johanna at November 30, 2003 11:50 PM