Playing Devil's Advocate: Busting Monsanto Myths

   




     Before I even start off, let me assure you that, despite what I'm about to say, I am not a shill for Monsanto.  Now,  people that know me may laugh at that and say that's pretty obvious, but for that rare person that does visit this blog and doesn't know me, I just wanted to make that clear.  I put this disclaimer here because I've been researching Monsanto, particularly its business practices and the media surrounding the company, and I believe my findings are necessary to put forth into the digital ether.
      These days, when anyone even utters that name, a shiver runs down our collective spine, and we scoff in disgust at the image of such a company, what with their desire to spread genetically modified seeds and ideas across the globe.  However, after spending more time than I originally thought I would on research into court cases and the actual nitty gritty details of this company without the political and social spin that is usually attached to that name, I compiled a sort of highlight reel of some of the common misconceptions about Monsanto, particularly regarding their seeds and the food grown from them .
     By no means am I justifying their company as a whole, but instead am trying to paint a not so black and white image so that you can make an educated judgement for yourself.  With that said, let's talk GMO's.

   

     Let's Talk GMO's

     Although the debate regarding Monsanto and genetic manipulation is a hotly contested topic, I feel that it's imperative that I restrict the focus on a particular aspect of that discussion, and that is the seeds themselves that are being produced and distributed by Monsanto.  By now, I've been pounded over the head with all sorts of horror stories concerning lawsuits against local farmers and the ill affects of such seeds, and honestly it's a bit suffocating with such a one sided barrage.
      As I mentioned earlier, viewing things as black and white can be a dangerous catalyst for any particular side, leading to spreading of false statistics and facts that are in actuality just fibs.  "Fear mongering" is what comes to mind, but at the same time even that stems from a very understandable concern for the human race's well being, and our country's track record for looking out for our health and best interests is less than stellar.  Still, it'd be only right to squash the rumors and misinformation so that we can all be on relatively the same page.

MISCONCEPTION #1:  GMO SEEDS ARE ALL STERILE/ CANNOT REPRODUCE

Subtle...

     This pops up very typically in many rants and discussions regarding GMO crops.  And, like any myth, there is a grain(no pun intended) of truth to pick from the mess.  The riot inducing named "Terminator Gene" is a genetic modification to a seed that would eliminate the ability to reproduce.  Obviously, this is just a clear cut evil thing to try to spread around the world, which is why this modification was, and still is, never commercialized.  It never even made it out of its respective patent office.
     Admittedly, it's a bit unnerving to think that this actually exist, however I am not qualified to say whether or not certain properties of such a modification, (for instance switching off certain genetic hindrances to crops to produce better yield and increase fertility,) without the ability to test such a thing over many life times.
   

MISCONCEPTION #2:  THE "SEEDS BLOWING OFF A TRUCK" DEFENSE

     Percy Schmieser was a canola breeder and grower in Canada, and his name came into the spotlight when a lawsuit was filed by Monsanto regarding the presence of Round Up Ready seeds that had grown accidentally in a select section of his own crops.  Initially, Percy was approached by Monsanto in order to remove the seeds from his crops, the alternative being that he would pay for the licensing fees.  Percy refused, stating that because the seeds were on his land that he shouldn't have to pay for the fee.  Lawyer hand wringing ensued, and the lawsuit was born.
     A rallying cry of sorts from countless people stems from the idea that if seeds blow off of a truck containing Monsanto seeds, or that pollen from said seeds crosses from a neighboring crop and contaminates a non Monsanto seed crop, then Monsanto will swoop down and steal the rug out from under you and leave you penniless because of a freak accident.  In actuality, Monsanto will replace the crops that are of their seeds on their own dime, as long as you weren't purposefully violating their right to their seeds, because of that licensing fee. To this day, lawsuits have not been filed for any accidental cross pollination, but have been filed for deliberate use of the seeds without paying the licensing fee.
     In Percy's case, although the initial seeds were indeed a genuine accident, those weren't what made Monsanto sue.  It is widely believed and generally accepted that in the following season, Percy planted with those found Monsanto seeds, yielding a much more than "accidental" output; more than 60% of his canola crops containing the Round Up gene, from multiple independent tests.  If logic is of any relevance these days, it should go without saying that seeds falling off a truck or pollen from neighboring Monsanto crops cannot in the realm of reality produce such a yield.   It is through the deliberate planting of such seeds that would result in such a high percentage.
     Lawsuits are always a nasty business, but it needs to be said that, although the patenting of seeds seems irksome, it is Monsanto property, and they are entitled to the profits that fund further research into creating higher yield and robust seeds.  However, if it'll make you feel better, the patent on the seeds has an expiration date of 20 years, which will end in 2015.

MISCONCEPTION #3: GMO's Cause Cancer/Growths

     One case that comes to mind the most with people concerned about the health risks of GMO's is the Seralini study.  Gilles Eric Seralini is a professor of molecular biology in France, and he spear headed a group that conducted a two year study which involved feeding Sprague-Dawley rats a type of corn called NK603, a product that is produced by Monsanto.  In this study, 200 of this particular breed of rats was used, 100 being male and 100 being female.
     Ever since the release of this study, the parameters and guidelines surrounding this study have been heavily scrutinized and refuted on multiple occasions.  For one thing, the Sprague-Dawley breed of rats is highly susceptible to cancer by itself, so from the very start the testing was flawed.  Breast cancer is common in this breed, considering that there is a very troublesome type of fungus on the corn that makes them susceptible to such growths, and the study failed to factor that into account.  When you conduct a study that falls within the lifespan of an organism that is already highly prone to cancer growths, you are manipulating the outcome and perception of the results.  Secondly, the test groups for these rats were not large enough to factor out inconsistencies, and typical guidelines for conducting such a study were not followed or adhered to.
     However, since this was a report that was sensationalist in its publication and media outreach, it created a fervor amongst anti-GMO organizations and the public alike.  Interestingly, when this report was released, members of the press were forced to sign a confidentiality agreement of sorts to have access to the study, which stated that they could not contact outside sources of information from other professionals to cross check with the claims of the study.  At the same time, Seralini announced a joint release of an upcoming book along with a movie that stemmed from the study, which seems a bit pre mature, considering that the data wasn't even given time for duplication and analysis before his media outreach.

   
   

THE FUTURE OF AGRICULTURE

Left: Beta Carotene  "Golden Rice" enriched rice compared to regular white rice

      Now, with all that set aside, I feel I need to re assure those who are reading this that I am still skeptical about how prevalent GMO's are becoming in our country.  Quite simply, I believe studies have not been conducted long enough to track any potential adverse effects of such genetic manipulation, especially effects that could harm many future generations, despite the lengthy history humanity has had with genetic modification.  However, with the rapid increase in population throughout the world, the need for more food is a continuous burden, and companies like Monsanto, despite the fear stimulating surrounding them, are teaming with human beings; people with good intentions to bring more food into the world.
     Yet, like any business, they are in the business of making money, and that is an aspect that often overshadows the potential good they bring into this world.  Take the product "Golden Rice", for instance.  Golden Rice is a genetically modified strain of rice that is enriched with high levels of beta carotene, which is used to supplement the lack of Vitamin A in hundreds of thousands of diets in underdeveloped parts of the world.  Some argue that this is a ploy to take control by Monsanto to have a sort of corporate choke hold on agriculture, despite the number of lives this product has saved, and will further save in the future.  As long as their is no complete dependency on this product and there are efforts to keep biodiversity high, then a happy median will be reached by saving people's lives, while at the same time funding these companies that are continuously researching into these products they are creating.

     There are other fears, as well.  Inevitably, the bugs and weeds that are being eliminated from these crops will start to develop an immunity to such genetic tampering and use of herbicides, resulting in the potential dependence of more potent chemicals and unsavory methods.  There are ways to avoid such immunity in invasive species, but that requires methods that are time consuming and would result in not as much yield as this world requires.
      Ideally, more involved tests on individual GMO's should be conducted over a more satisfactory length of time in order to determine their safety before being commercially available.  Ultimately, with so many unknown factors and unintended consequences, I can not stress enough how important it is not to simply paint the other side as pure evil or good, but as someone who is part of the bigger solution, as long as we recognize our faults and utilize the best of our abilities and combine them to tackle this problem in unity.  

The Answer To Life And Everything Is Not, In Fact 42

    Scores of people persistently keep reminding me that we only have a fraction of time left before we pull into Maine, so I'll put my faith in those numbers.  Yet, despite what seems like a lifetime ago since we set out onto the paved ice of January, I do recollect a moment after about a couple of months into this trip where I was contemplating our mission while walking on a random sidewalk.  I realized that the task of trying to eliminate the epidemic of hunger couldn't be simply boiled down to one solid universal answer to treat the ill effects.  To tackle such a mind fumblingly monstrous problem, all avenues like affordable housing, efficient energy, job security, and many other factors have to be attacked with the same fervor and commitment as is being afforded to hunger.  That's good, I say to myself.
   
     An hour later, though, I'm still meandering down the street aimless, still brainstorming for something that is festering.  What is it?  For what seems like countless days I've wrestled with this thought process as we trudged on through the states, meeting wonderful people with fantastic ideas that could certainly be utilized back in Maine, yet that thought continued to nag at me.  I continually fought with how to word it in a way that didn't de value the work being put into ending hunger, yet at the same time highlighting the reality of tackling only one aspect of the big picture.  Then, in a laughably cliche chain of events,  this all came to a head in a combination of picking up a copy of the Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy, a gauging of a food bank associate's views on the futility of the work he is doing, and an enlightened discussion with a food pantry operator who understood the intricate issue of tackling more than just hunger to help bring his clientele out of their poverty slump.

     If you've ever read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, you'll no doubt remember the sensational punch line of the big question that is asked in that book which is, "What is the answer to life and everything?" The odd answer to this wholly broad question is the number 42, and after reading that segment something clicked in my brain.  For those who constantly ask that question of what is the definitive solution to ending hunger, I'd like to refer them to this part of the book, because it highlights the single minded track that people tend to follow down, as if everything in life is clear cut and part of a formula.  In reality, when combating something like hunger, it's important to realize that regarding the problem as something that is paint by numbers is ultimately not only disheartening when it doesn't turn out positively, but also unrealistic in its lack of acknowledgment of the complexities of the world in which we live in.
   
     When we visited the 2nd Harvest in Portland, we ran across a situation that was all too familiar.  This food distribution center is headed by Drew Meuer and is pulling off a staggering job of providing food for the numerous counties in and around the state.  The range that they travel is a record in itself, and the facility is in a league of its own.  We talk for a bit and are given a tour, and we see the fruits of their labor.  And yet, with all this going on, there is this lingering question that keeps jabbing away in my mind, and eventually I turn to our Drew and ask him if he thinks if there is an air of futility around the whole affair, what with the still increasing food insecurity problem and decreasing resources.  In response, his exacerbation comes forth as he vents about the constant struggle and how even to this day he struggles to come up with a definitive answer. For me, it's a sobering sight to see that wall come down and see a compassionate person like Drew become sort of disenchanted by the whole affair.  It takes a toll on him, and he doesn't see any definitive solution.  It's a reaction that comes to mind as we make our way to Idaho.
   
     Mark Haberman of the Community Action Partnership in Idaho is a man with realistic ambitions. Per usual with people we meet for the first time, we exchange stories about what we've seen and experienced.  Once the formalities were out of the way, however, Mark treated us with a spilling of his thoughts and his experiences in the field of helping out the impoverished.

     "Our charge from the very beginning was to work on the causes, and conditions of poverty," he started out.

     "We serve people that will probably always have some need of us; people who are either elderly and have lived beyond their ability to really create more income, don't have family, disabled, and folks who are just really deeply caught in generational poverty, who just really don't see a way out, haven't found a way out."

     After saying this, perhaps the most important quote that I've come across from someone working in this field came to light.

     "...We recognize that direct service, whether it be food, help with home heating, home weatherization, all of that, in and of itself, does not have the capacity to move a person out of poverty."

   
Mark's words from the start further emphasize how there needs to be a more sound foundation in understanding the plight of the impoverished.  A priceless resource for Mark stems from an author named Ruby Payne, a woman who married a man from generational poverty, and her insight leaves a lasting impression.

   
     "She married a man who was from generational poverty, and she pretty quickly came to understand that they view the world in very different ways, and they functioned in the world in very different ways; not because she was better than her husband, or he was less than she...there is a kind of non biological DNA, that we are kinda wired with.  Whether it's issues around culture, or economics, we talk a lot about economic diversity, that just wires us with a certain way of understanding and living in the world."

     "If I want to get to another economic sort of experience, from being under resourced, (in poverty), to middle class... that maybe just beyond my reach, and so if I want to get there, I'm going to want to work to shift kinda the way that I am a part of the world, or all of my piece meal efforts, in and of itself, will not get me there."

     "Some people have never had the opportunity to dream about tomorrow, because it's always today's flat tire, today's sick kids...if someone is well resourced, those resources help us remove barriers...and we realize that that's just not true for a lot of folks...poverty removes the capacity for a future story."

So what happens when a person in such a situation makes it into the job market, and yet is not prepared for such an alienating environment?  It's really a mind numbing shift for a lot of people who are struggling with employers who do not understand their constant daily battle, and especially for those trying to find out that secret formula that will bring them out into progress.

     "One of the big, big things is the knowledge of hidden rules...and that's essentially the set of constructs: this is the life I want, here's what that life looks like, and here are ways that it will be helpful for me to re path my thinking to get to that life I want."

So, with that knowledge in mind, now it's a matter of reaching the employers.  It's absolutely imperative that they are incorporated into the dialogue to engross them in their employees' situations.

     "This is what some of your employees are experiencing.  What's the outcome of that?  It doesn't mean that they change their standards, and it doesn't mean that they change their expectations for their employees, who are maybe under resourced, BUT, rather than a 'You're written up, you're written up, you're fired', maybe it's a, 'how does that become a coachable moment?"

Eventually, the conversation turned towards the typical things one is used to hearing from more well off people, who question the choices and actions of the impoverished.  Even I have had moments where I judge the intentions and material purchases of the impoverished, and yet what Mark said next was spot on with a gut feeling of mine for a while.

     "Here's why someone who is under resourced would have a big screen TV; a primary value in middle class, a primary value is achievement...Where are you going to college? What's your career track going to be? Where are you gonna retire? Where's your kid going to go to college? Achievement is just woven into the very fiber of who most middle class people are. And, in poverty, it's relationship and entertainment.  That's the primary driving force.  And why? At the end of the day, it's just one day of struggle one after the next after the next after the next, and personality is a big thing, connecting personally with one another, entertaining one another...just plain entertainment, you know?  ' I'm just gonna kick back.' at the end of the day."

With so much information swirling around my head at this point, I can't even manage the struggle Mark has endured for most of his career, and yet with each word I can tell that his enthusiasm and fervor for making a difference is unwavering.

     "Integrity and trust: we can work to build that.  That doesn't cost a nickel."

     "Will we end poverty in Cour Da alene, before I retire in 12 years?  Probably not.  Can we bring about change at the community level, at the family level? I think we can.  We can, and we need to want to do it."

Since the start of this journey I've always held the belief that this nationwide epidemic can only be potentially remedied when it is attacked at a political level, where all the bureaucratic red tape and beating around the bush is blocking any sort of permanent progress.

     "We need to develop some political backbone, too.  You know, we can't lobby, because we receive federal funds, but public policy does not support the under resourced person, it just doesn't.  The tax code, in my opinion, doesn't...we can educate, we can't lobby."

  But, most importantly, at the root of the problem, the very core of this inflamed turmoil, is the complacency of those who are without struggle of this magnitude, and especially those who have the means to permanently mend the lives of their fellow impoverished man.  Across the nation there is unified cry for equality and prosperity that is being stifled through the gag that is the disfigured American Values.

     "We need to change the mindset of the community. We need to help people find a voice; those who struggle are without voice, usually.  And that voice needs to be a voice that's unified, that has people of all income levels saying that this just isn't right."

There's a duality to everything we struggle with in life, and this is no different.  Where will that spark come forth?  Who knows, really?  Maybe in Mark Haberman's lifetime, or perhaps in mine.  All I know is that I am changed because of his words, and that allows me to spread that word across the digital ether, in hopes that it will reach somebody who genuinely cares.