Ebony's Pearls

Golden Globe Tomatoes
Originally uploaded by nodigio

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSHKG27996420080424

GMO Coupled with Organic Farming best for environment –

So long as GMO = terminator technology coupled with gene ownership of organic matter, I will oppose GMO. However, if by GMO, they mean plants modified to produce higher yields, be more resistant to diseases, and to have better nutrition and taste, then I’m all for GMO. Our ancestors have been genetically modifying plants for centuries. Have you seen the plants our modern day corn, wheat, strawberries, etc came from?

It sounds as if, in this article, they equate genetic engineering with terminator technology. They never use the term “terminator technology” but they describe it quite well – “genetic engineering is a way to make seeds”. Anyone with even a moderate exposure to biology can tell you plants make seeds. Farmers collect seeds from plants to grow more plants. Scientists may alter the seeds for better yields, better disease resistance, better color or flavor. Amateurs can accomplish many of the same things scientists can, maybe not as reliably or as quickly. Most farmers are amateur plant geneticists because they will save their best seed to plant for the coming year.

I agree that continuing the genetic modification of plants to make the more productive and hardier (and more nutritious and tastier, too!) will certainly ease some of the food strain we are facing as our population continues to escalate. If plants are hardier and more productive, then certainly less fertilizer and pesticides will be needed, so organic farming coupled with good genetic engineering is a viable future for crops.

May I suggest the solution has more parts than these two? We also need greater crop diversity. Soy, wheat, and corn will not sustain us, let alone allow us to thrive. There are over 500 varieties of potatoes, but I bet most of us only know 2 or 3: russets, red new potatoes, and white new potatoes. The Yukon Gold variety has made some headway in gaining public notice, but how about the Purple Viking, the Cowhorn, the Prince Hairy, the Quaggy Joe, and so many more? Ditto for foods that we rarely eat – I can name over a hundred fruits, grains, and vegetables you won’t find in most supermarkets that could easily be grown by small to mid-sized farmers and marketed locally.

I don’t think large scale commercial farming has enough of a future because it limits crop diversity, which in turn is harmful to the environment on many levels. I’m almost afraid the genetic engineers will strive for the “perfect” seed in each crop and allow all the other varieties to disappear. That’s – awesomely disastrous. Genetic diversity is just as important as all the other factors scientists look at. We don’t need one perfect type of pear, or carrot, or bean. We have over 5000 pear varieties, more than 4000 varieties of potatoes, several hundred varieties of carrots (more if you count parsnips and skirrets as part of the carrot family), and so on. We may only have a limited number in our local markets, but globally speaking, different varieties are better suited to different climates and locations.

And I’m really dead set against corporations owning varieties of seeds. I agree their research should be profitable and can even agree to allowing them the profits from first, second, and possibly even third generation seeds. I am very much against making seeds deliberately sterile in order to force farmers to buy all their seed each year – it reduces the sustainability and profitability of farming. Farmers have always had to buy some seeds, but they’ve depended upon their profit margin coming from saving seeds their plants produced.

Anything which takes profit away from the farmer ultimately hurts all of us. They are our primary food source, unless we all want to return to the days of wildcrafting our foods exclusively.

I didn’t think so. Not even I am that dedicated an environmentalist. I wildcraft foods as a supplement and an enhancement, not as the mainstay of my diet. We need greater variety, not less, and we certainly don’t need terminator technology and corporations owning the rights to seeds and their subsequent plants.

What we need to do is stabilize or reduce our population so we don't outgrow our ability to produce and distribute food. We need to increase food productivity - by the genetic engineering we've done for centuries modernized, by advocating diversity, by supporting the mid-sized farmers, by encouraging urban and home food gardening, and by introducing a wider range of foods into our diets. We need to increase our ability to distribute food across the globe as cheaply as possible - both for the envirnoment nad in terms of cost. If ever we needed transporter beams, now's the time, folks.

Changing all of this will make some unpleasant changes for large corporate mono-culture farming - they'll have to change their business plan and methods. The grocery stores will also change, become far more local and regional in the products they carry, and there will be either a great deal more processed foods, or a great deal less. It hangs on the balance right now, and I'm pushing for less food processing and more fresh diversity.

And it will change our shopping and eating habits - we'll attend neighborhood farmer's markets to trade produce, we'll buy real food from the grocery stores, butchers will reappear and we'll know the ranchers who raised our meats. We'll change the way we cook and store our foods, and we'll learn new ways of making home food preparation convenient.

I find this all interesting and potentially very good for us and for the environment.