U.S. farmers planted 92.9 million acres of corn this spring, a 15 percent-plus jump from last year. If you lumped all that land together -- not too hard to imagine, given that corn ag is highly concentrated in the Midwest -- you'd have a monocropped land mass nearly equal in size to the state of California.
The jump in corn acreage is excellent news if you own shares in mega meat-processing firms like Tyson and Smithfield. These firms have been complaining bitterly that the price of corn, driven up by the government-induced ethanol boom, will eat into their profits. (Corn is the preferred feed of CAFO operators, if not of the animals they confine.)
The California-sized corn planting is expected to deliver the largest corn harvest in U.S. history, which will likely drive corn prices down a little.
But the corn boom absolutely sucks if you live in a fishing community along the Gulf Coast -- or if you happen to be a fish who makes a home in those troubled coastal waters.
Researchers projected [PDF] Monday that the Gulf of Mexico's Dead Zone, like this year's corn harvest, will likely be the largest ever recorded.
According to major ag policy-makers in D.C., farmers' decisions to plant as much corn as possible -- often on environmentally fragile land previously kept fallow for conservation purposes -- was a farsighted and rational move.
The explosion in corn plantings "further confirms that production and usage of biofuels can boost farm income, economic growth and jobs in rural communities while enhancing America's energy security," enthused Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chair of the Senate ag committee.
The news drew similar raves at USDA headquarters. "It's just incredible," gushed the agency's chief economist Keith Collins. He added hopefully that the huge corn crop should "give livestock feeders some relief."
But while Tyson and Smithfield execs breathe easier, fishing communities along the Gulf Coast are bracing for disaster.
That's because growing corn in vast monocultured fields requires heavy doses of synthetic nitrogen, but all of that fertilizer doesn't end up in corn plants. A good bit of it washes into streams which feed into the Mississippi River, then to be carried clear down to the Gulf.
In a process known as hypoxia, all of that free nitrogen feeds a giant algae bloom, which ties up oxygen and destroys most life underneath: hence the "Dead Zone."
According to a report (linked above) by researchers R. Eugene Turner of LSU and Nancy Rabalais of the Louisiana University Marine Consortium, preliminary measures of nitrogen passing into the Gulf through the Mississippi, taken in May, augur the biggest Dead Zone ever recorded.
"Hypoxia as a large-scale phenomena was unlikely to have occurred before the 1970s," the researchers write. The Dead Zone's emergence roughly coincides with the age when Earl "Rusty" Butz, Nixon's ag czar, ruled the USDA with an iron fist. Butz famously used the power of his office to prod farmers to plant "fencerow to fencerow," with as much fertilizer as required to produce bumper crops. That policy has been in place ever since.
Thirty odd years later, we're still allowing our government to sacrifice the Gulf's biodiversity, along with the livelihoods of surrounding fishing communities, to produce dubious fuel and ghastly meat.
The mind reels.
New book looks at economic devastation in an Iowa meat-packing town
Et tu, Al? Franken gulps the ethanol-spiked Kool-Aid
Comments View as Flat
Rune Posted 5:50 am
17 Jul 2007
Excellent article
Thanks, Tom. As depressing as the subject matter is, you have done a fine job of laying it out quite succinctly.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 5:54 am
17 Jul 2007
Good article
Very well done and I saw some news releases on it this morning. Thanks for including this story-line in Grist.
If I can quibble about one thing it is "In a process known as hypoxia, all of that free nitrogen feeds a giant algae bloom, which ties up oxygen and destroys most life underneath: hence the 'Dead Zone.'"
Nutrients and not just nitrogen are very effective at increasing blooms of blue-green algae and other flora. What happens is that as the bloom increases in the top of the water column, dead cells from the flora fall down to the sediments. Bacteria then consumes the dead algae cells and takes up all the oxygen by respiration (takes in oxygen and puts out CO2 and waste). The algae itself does not cause hypoxia although it is of course causally linked.
Anyway, the dead zone is especially bad for bottom dwellers such as crabs, shrimp, worms, and bottom feeders. My understanding is that there are many hypoxic waters of the US now, including a bad one in western Long Island Sound and off Tampa, Florida, and many other places too numerous to list. The Mississippi dead zone if by far the largest, however. By September we should have a better picture of this year's monitoring there.
/Sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
naturescene Posted 7:03 am
17 Jul 2007
here's an interesting story
Can market mechanisms revive dead zones?
Permalink
Liz Borkowski Posted 7:10 am
17 Jul 2007
It's bad for the Chesapeake Bay, too
The USDA forecasts that corn harvests will increase 12% in Maryland and 8% in Virginia, to the tune of 8 - 16 million more pounds of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007 ...
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:24 am
17 Jul 2007
Speaking of...
Speaking of carbon sequestration, farming practices, biodiversity, and the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone, the following are a few of the organizations operating in Wisconsin and trying to preserve, restore, and expand natural areas around streams leading into the Mississippi River. Their efforts should reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, help farmers become better stewards of the land, preserve biodiversity, and reduce the amount of nutrients flowing into the Gulf of Mexico. Win win win win. I'm sure there are similar organizations in other states along the Mississippi River. I'll leave it to residents of those states to promote their own efforts. Next time you want to relieve the guilt of burning too much fossil fuel, consider helping one of these organizations by providing publicity, financial assistance, or volunteering your time.
Blue Mounds Area Project
http://bluemounds.org/
Southwest Badger Resource Conservation & Development Council
http://www.swbadger.com/index.html
The Prairie Enthusiasts
http://www.theprairieenthusiasts.org/
The Nature Conservancy (national, but very important in WI)
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/wis ...
Driftless Area Land Conservancy
http://www.driftlesslandtrust.org/
Blufflands Alliance
http://www.jdcf.org/blufflands.htm
If you don't live in the Midwest look for or start a similar organization in your own state.
Peace.
Forward!
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 7:56 am
17 Jul 2007
visuals?
I think the dead zone is a little-known (outside of these circles) consequence of industrial agriculture. One way to make it more accessible to people would be through visual aids. How about a map or image showing the projected size of the dead zone and/or the size of previous years' zones?
Pictures like this one are powerful.
Permalink
jscorse Posted 8:42 am
17 Jul 2007
Without subsidies the dead zone would be....
much smaller. That's the root of the problem.
J.S. htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 9:01 am
17 Jul 2007
Ditto to what Rune says
I saw the article last month, and thought of posting it, but never did. Thanks, Tom, for doing that, and summarizing it so well.
And welcome back, J.S.!
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 10:11 am
17 Jul 2007
A Plea For the Larger Picture
Hey, all:
Yep, this is a good thread, since it chains cause and effect together a little and helps us to see the larger picture, the cascading effects of deleterious behavior.
This stood out in the PDF report:
"The prediction last year was 99% of the measured size."
To those who might say 'Modeling is not science'? BITE me!
Let's get better organized and work to achieve some real turnover in Congress in November 2008. I keep inquiring about a single voice that will make us stronger, but I hear nothing. There are two larger pictures here.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 10:14 am
17 Jul 2007
Long history of dead zones
I agree that maps of the dead zone would be good, including water-based monitoring as well as satellite stuff. People love maps and you can even show how the Mississippi dead zone can be larger than some entire states (well, at least the little ones).
Contrary to what most folks surmise, guess, or think, many of these dead zones have been known for over a century. Sediment core samples and historical records indicate dead hypoxic zones near New York in the 1830's or before. It is well known that when the Mississippi River floods in a major event, millions of tons of soil are moved into the Gulf - and these soils have natural nutrients that cause the same dead zones.
What happened in the 1970's was we started to see dead zones even without a major flood event or other cause. Not only that, the dead zones recurred every year and despite a whole bunch of variability, seemed to trend larger and larger every year. This was rather baffling because if you trust the Ag data, fertilizer and soil erosion rates had actually been going DOWN because of best management practices, fallow lands, and whatnot.
Non-point pollution such as subdivision development, loss of wetlands, consumer lawncare products, and even dog poop were thought to be culprits, as mentioned in the EPA's Chesapeake Study. In Long Island, wastewater treatment was tagged as being the priority. However, scientists are still puzzled because the eutrofication, hypoxia, and dead zones don't seem to be responding linearly to any regulatory controls.
Therefore, the hypothesis that growing 12 million acres of extra corn should be viewed with caution and skepticism, as we have no proof and the monitoring is only getting started for this year's episodes. Like you, I have a feeling this could be a bad year - or I guess if you were a dead zone, a good one. /Sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:09 pm
17 Jul 2007
Depressing
"further confirms that production and usage of biofuels can boost farm income, economic growth and jobs in rural communities while enhancing America's energy security,"
Funneling tens of billions of taxdollars into farmer's pockets would be a more accruate way to describe what has happened. And our energy security has not been enhanced, especially if you accetpt the latest study from MIT, which found that corn ethanol probably uses as much energy as it produces.
Get your rubber glove kit while they last.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 12:53 pm
17 Jul 2007
Harken in the Corn Fields of Iowa
Hey, all:
Yeah, Harken can't help but suck up to Mega-Agri-Bidness--I wonder how we would find out how much he has received in campaign funds from all of them? Probably has high-fructose corn syrup...or ethanol...for blood.
This is part of the Corporate Oligarchy. This is why we need to kick them all the Hell out of office and elect responsible legislative leadership. This is another part of the larger picture.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:35 pm
17 Jul 2007
I wish ...
I wish you would tell some of the Democrats that, since they seem to be stampeding to the same Ethanol Subsidy thing. The most worrisome thing about the new power play from the Democrats is that they don't even have a coherent energy policy. Shame, but should we have expected government to do otherwise? Oh boy, need them Ohio early votes, I'm telling ya!
Onward through the fog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:05 pm
17 Jul 2007
fertilizer application practices
Tom wrote:
"That's because growing corn in vast monocultured fields requires heavy doses of synthetic nitrogen, but all of that fertilizer doesn't end up in corn plants. A good bit of it washes into streams which feed into the Mississippi River, then to be carried clear down to the Gulf."
Is this a necessary result of using chemical fertilizer or a reflection of poor practices?
It seems like a waste of money to put so much nitrogen on one's field that huge amounts end up in ground and suface water. There should be a way to apply close to what the plants need. Either some sort of slow-release product or frequent but lighter applications.
It seems like only a fool or an ill-informed person would pour money down the drain.
Forward!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:53 pm
17 Jul 2007
Yes it is
Yes, it IS a necessary effect of chemical agriculture.
It kills the soil ecosystem. Then it is essentially hydroponics using the soil as the growinmg media. But the problem is that in regular hydroponics a container holds the chemicals (they still flush them down the drain though, yikes). In chemical agriculture, no container.
They are draining the used hydroponic fluids into groundwater and rivers. Try to take a shower with groundwater in your area wisci. Untrested groundwater. You can't rinse off the soap and dirt, all that ag chemical run off has ruined the water.
That's what happened to the whole Mississippi and lower Wisconsin river basins.
Only one way to clean it up now. Filter the algae overgrowth from the rivers and turn it into clean energy and organic fertilizer.
Use the organic fertilizer to build the soil ecosystem. All farming must go organic. The carbon sink created can turn GHG disaster around, along with a switch to renewable energy, energy conservation, and plugin vehicles.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:07 pm
17 Jul 2007
local groundwater
This is a bit off topic... in response to DrX...
While poor agricultural practices have contaminated groundwater and this is a VERY serious problem, it is important to evaluate your water and identify the real hazards, not assume the worst and unnecessarily scare people. We have had our water tested for various agricultural chemicals -- as well as natural hazards -- and it is fine... actually better than Madison's city water. Probably because of the extent of pasture land in our area? It also tastes much bette than any bottled water I've ever consumed. The reason it might be difficult to rinse soap off yourself after bathing is, I'm pretty sure, due to the water's high mineral content, which has nothing to do with agriculture.
Focus on the real problems, not imaginary ones, please.
Peace.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:25 pm
17 Jul 2007
dead zones and biofuel
The Dead Zone is a VERY serious problem. I want to say this before I'm accused of being some sort of denier guy. It has been around longer than the spike in interest in corn ethanol. And there have been organizations working to reduce the harm to the Gulf of Mexico for years... by restoring natural buffers between agricultural land and the water flowing into the Mississippi, all along the Mississippi from Minnesota and Wisconsin all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico. We need more of this.
Once again, I fear a potentially useful technology is going to be demonized for the wrong reasons. Pretty soon, everyone will be up in arms saying biofuels are killing the Gulf of Mexico, killing the fishing industry... say no biofuels, save the Gulf of Mexico! But eliminating biofuels will not eliminate the Dead Zone. The situation is far more complex. There must be more effort to restore grassland and wetlands in the Mississippi River watershed. There must be more effort to stop the flow of excess nutrients from urban development along the rivers. There must be more effort to restore the wetlands along the Gulf coast... I'm pretty sure they'e essential to preserving fish populations... no point in cleaning up the water if you continue to destroy other essential element of the habitat.
Forward!
Permalink
JMG Posted 1:25 am
18 Jul 2007
Groundwater in the Midwest
Some years ago, a PhD ecologist & poet named Sandra Steingraber wrote a powerful, powerful book about the effects of chemical agriculture; it was called "Living Downstream."
She was propelled to look into it when, as a young woman, she got a nasty bladder cancer from which she was not expected to survive. Even scarier, the medical industry response was to ask her about family history and cancer, and when she replied that there was lots, the medicos would nod, as if to say "well, there you go." Which is when she would note that she was adopted.
Turns out Illinois groundwater in the corn-growing areas is pretty much chock full of things like atrazine.
She is a gifted writer, and her book deserves to be much more widely read. It's not a "Sand County Almanac" but it's definitely in my top 10 environmental books list.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:28 am
18 Jul 2007
soybeans
Someone please clarify this for me...
Aren't soybeans legumes? Do they fix nitrogen?
Can one grow soybeans where they might grow corn? Similar needs as far as water, soil, et cetera?
Would there be a substantial reduction in nitrogen flowing into the Mississippi if farmers grew soybeans for biofuel rather than corn for biofuel?
Forward!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:31 am
18 Jul 2007
Not that simple, Wiscidea
It takes five acres of soybeans to produce the same gas mileage as an acre of corn.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:36 am
18 Jul 2007
soybeans
A quick search in the internet...
"Soybean Yield Responds Minimally to Nitrogen Applications in Missouri"
http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/research/200 ...
I looks like applying nitrogen actually inhibits nitrogen fixation!
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:16 am
18 Jul 2007
willows
How about planting strips of willow as a buffer between corn fields and streams? The willows are easy to plant, soak up excess nitrogen, stabilize the soil, reduce run-off, shelter wildlife, don't require additional chemical inputs, and can be harvested for lignocellulosic ethanol every three years or so. Extra income for the famers... perhaps even more profitable than the corn they grow in drier areas. Process locally.
Forward!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:48 am
18 Jul 2007
Sorry
I think you maybe wrong on the mineral thing wisci. I've tasted untreated well water in the southern Wis ag zone. Blech!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:54 am
18 Jul 2007
Willows?
How about switching sides wisci. Back organic farming and come on in on the big win with the rest of us.
Would that conflict with your GMO job? Hmmm...do we have desperation at work here? Trying to integrate a world view that includes environmental concern and making a living from the status quo GMO, chemical ag system of farming.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:58 am
18 Jul 2007
Sorry
I think you maybe wrong on the mineral thing amazing. I've tasted untreated well water in the southern Wis ag zone. Good stuff!
It really depends on exactly where your well is. We had it checked for contaminants when we first moved into the house, again about two years ago, and it is safe to drink. Better than water from the municiple taps, safer than bottled water from some urban source and packed in plastic bottles.
I'm not at all suggesting that there is no problem. THERE IS AN ENORMOUS PROBLEM OF CHEMICALS RUNNING OFF AG FIELDS. I'm just saying we should make sure we know exactly what the problem is, where it is, and focus efforts there.
Forward!
Permalink
GulfAaron Posted 3:34 am
18 Jul 2007
gulf dead zone demands action
Last month, my group and others attended a meeting of the Dead Zone Task Force (made up of state and federal agencies) and asked why more than six years after an action plan was released, little action has taken place to reduce the size of the dead zone.
We also sounded off about this issue, as it's clear that current policy driving the ethanol boom represents yet another instance of Louisiana and the Gulf paying the price for the nation's energy economy (oil and gas drilling and our wetlands anyone? Murphy refinery's massive oil spill in the wake of Katrina ring a bell? As Tom eloquently points out, subsidized corn production in the Midwest will lead to increased Dead Zone-causing fertilizer pollution in the Mississippi River. At the same time, there has been no significant federal funding or action to reduce the Dead Zone.
There are solutions to this problem that we can begin to implement right away. The first step is for the Environmental Protection Agency and states to set standards for how much nutrient pollution we allow in streams that eventually flow into the Gulf. We should also be installing technology on our sewage treatment plants to remove pollution and offering more incentives to farmers to reduce fertilizer runoff from fields.
Gulf Restoration Network United for a Healthy Gulf
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:13 am
18 Jul 2007
Switching sides?
I already back organic farming. I just think it could be even better if included a few GMOs designed to protect the plants from pests. I'm not interested in raising input costs for farmers. I'm intersted in higher productivity, fewer chemical, fewers costs. No rotenone. No copper compounds. Complete freedom from chemicals.
Intergrating a world view that includes environmental concerns and GMOs? Yes. And chemicals? No. No. No. No. Maybe should add that to the brief italics message that appears below comments.
Desperation? No.
I have to wonder about some of organic-only people, however. They appear so desperate to cling to their vision of organic agriculture that they won't even consider the possibility that someone might create a useful GMO. I still see a lot of misinformation floating around. If that's what they are concerned about then GMOs are not at all hazardous as they imagine.
Regarding willows, there is no need to engineer them. There is plenty of genetic diversity available for standard breeding programs. They are good biofuel crop.
Forward!
Permalink
swan Posted 7:52 am
18 Jul 2007
What a dead zone feels and smells and tastes like
I grew up in South Texas near the gulf. The joy of my life was spending time on the beach and in the water off Padre Island. I grew up, moved away, lived up north for a long time. I always had a little place in my heart for palm trees and gulf breezes and swimming in the warm gulf waters.
I had some bad experiences. I got sick from the toxins in my environment and became seriously disabled with chemical sensitivities. After collapsing from respiratory failure and spending 2 months in a hospital I was told I would have to live the rest of my life on supplemental oxygen. My partner asked me where I would like to live. We were in cold, damp Oregon at the time and had decided to move. I said - oh, the warm Gulf of Mexico would be perfect.
So we went to the central gulf coast of Florida and indeed it was beautiful there. The climate was perfect, the beaches just like a postcard. I got to walk on the beach and wiggle my toes in the warm gulf waters exactly once before the "red tide" started. Everyone said - oh, it just lasts a couple of weeks. It lasted months. It's still not over. It's now part of the permanent dead zone.
When you have a dead zone, it's not just that there are not fish. The beach was littered with dead fish, crabs, everything living thing that had been in the water washed up dead. Boy, did it stink. Not only that, the warm gulf breezes become highly toxic and there were warning signs everywhere that it was dangerous to breathe THE AIR. And it is. People who have no respiratory problems sneeze and cough from the wind over these algae blooms.
It is scarey. It is not a tragic natural phenomenon like a big hurricane. It feels like some evil force has sucked all the life out of huge area, as far as you can see. If you loved the gulf as I do, if you came home to find that someone had killed her when you needed her most - what would you do?
I just read about a study that showed that organic farming could produce more than enough food to take care of everyone on this planet and then some. Support your local farmers and buy organic. I am writing about some things we can do to make a difference in my blog: http://goodwordswan.wildflowerstew.com
"Us nature mystics got to stick together." Edward Abbey
Permalink
7river Posted 8:37 am
18 Jul 2007
subject should be sustainable farming or lack of
I am disappointed Tom did not point out unsustainable farming practices are the cause here, not increased corn production. More Fertilizers are not a result of increased production! Jeez.
What else are you willing to accept as the norm?
Permalink
JMG Posted 11:08 am
18 Jul 2007
Gene Tampering
Wiscidea,
A little off-topic, but what's the appropriate bond that society should demand from a gene-tampering firm before permitting them to risk transmission of genetically novel plant outside the lab? How do we even begin to calculate the risk that genetic tampering imposes?
When a university researcher even intends to conduct a simple survey research project she has to get approval to conduct human subjects research to check for risks and ethical problems. What's the equivalent for Monsanto - Monsanto examines itself closely and finds that, yes, yes, this seems like a profitable experiment?
Given our totally crappy track record of dealing with intentionally or accidentally imported species (see Emerald Ash Borer, Kudzu, English Ivy, etc. etc.) why should people entrust any faith in corporations' novel creations?
Say what you will about nuclear power, it's far less complicated than life and a far easier risk to contain than genotypes.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:46 pm
19 Jul 2007
False dilemna
We don't need your radiation, we don't need your GMOs.
Thanks Al, great concert. The lines from the songs keep echoing through the debate.
It's not my job to push nukes or franken-chem farming, so I tend to look at all the possibilities and choose the technologies that go along with nature. And I am seeing no need for sacrificing quality of life by going with organic ag and renewable energy.
In fact I think that conversion to the more natural path will increase quality of life for humans everywhere and avert disasters related to GHG and war over oil, water, and nuclear proliferation.
But leadership, governmental and corporate, is needed. "Free" market is a bumpersticker talking point for the bottomline status quo.
What we have here most of the time is a debate hinging on "free" market versus government control. Carbon offsets versus carbon taxes. Carbon trading versus tax incentives.
Right now the only thing working is government incentives. Incentives in the form of corporate welfare for fossil, nuclear, and ethanol power.
I say shifting those incentives to renewable energy, conservation, organic farming, and plugin vehicles is the right choice. And it has to be made. No amount of wrangling over "free" market offsets and carbon trading is going to do it.
These things are think tank talking point diversions designed to continue the status quo.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:23 am
20 Jul 2007
DrX's and JMG's Concerns
Hi.
I apologize to Grist readers for traveling down this little tangent again. I'll try to avoid it in the future. But I have to try one more time to communicate one of my concerns. DrX mentioned GMOs first in this thread. I did not at all suggest they should be used to reduce the flow of excess nutrients to the Gulf of Mexico.
I'm actually trying to avoid bringing up GMOs whenever I see an opportunity. My mentioning them in this thread was only in response to DrX's suggestion that I might be "[t]rying to integrate a world view that includes environmental concern and making a living from the status quo GMO, chemical ag system of farming."
He raises a very good point... that I might be trying to integrate environmental concerns and my means of earning a living. If its true, it's largely subconcious. I don't try to integrate other concerns and earning a living. I do not want to be involved in genetically engineering animals and will not work in that area. I do not want to help create plants that support abuse of animals and avoid working in that area. I'm pretty focused on the sort of GMOs I'm interested in seeing produced by our laboratory and others.
What bothers me -- and why I feel compelled to respond to DrX and JMG -- is the ongoing assumption that GMOs and "chemical ag system of farming" are necessarily linked. They are not. Yes, the most heard about GMOs demand the use of additional chemical inputs. But not all of them demand additional chemical inputs. Yes, the most heard about GMOs are the products of corporations. But not all of them are the products of corporations.
All of the GMOs I've been involved in making either add value to a crop by using it to produce useful enzymes or reduce the use of chemicals. Furthermore, I don't work for a corporation. One of my past employers was primarily motivated to accomplish his work before a corporation accomplished the same task. Why? He wanted to patent the plant and GIVE IT AWAY... he wanted to give it to farmers in the U.S. and Mexico and elsewhere to grow and propagate so they could stop using toxic chemicals.
I believe, rather than condemn GMOs as corporate products designed to fill corporate coffers with gold and allow them to control food production around the world, we should be finding ways to use GMOs to help people, solve environmental problems, reduce the use of chemicals, ensure reliable food and fiber supply WHERE OTHER METHODS FAIL. For example, I've read about organic potato production and organic cotton production, and have learned that organic methods just don't work. And there is enormouse harm inflicted on people in the developing world not just from application of chemicals, but the production of those chemicals. I realize this is not true for all crops. It also looks like organic growers still use some hazardous materials like copper compounds and rotenone... or aggressive invasive species like crown vetch and sweet clover.
Organic has its place. More research should definitely be supported by federal and state government. I want to combine the best GMOs and the most valuable organic methods, and eliminate chemicals completely.
Regarding release of GMOs... all novel combinations of genes should be subject to the same regulations. There are products of conventional breeding that are hazardous. For example, crossing varieties of celery or potatoes, or crossing dometicated plants with wild relatives to introduce new pest resistance genes can result in turning on genes that make the plant toxic. How are they evaluated before release for public consumption? There was an incident last year, I think, were labor harvesting celery was exposed to a phototoxic compound that should have been identified before the plant was even grown on a large scale! Why aren't environmentalist upset about conventional breeding and ITS hazards?! And there's the canola story I've mentioned previously. How do we really know canola oil is safe?
I admit that I don't know exactly how to evaluate the GMOs or products of conventional breeding for safety. But rather than reject the technology, I would like to see environmentalist and those making GMOs work together to identify the real risks and solve those problems.
So...
Not all GMOs increase use of chemicals.
Not all GMOs are owned by corporations.
My support for GMOs is not linked to an interest in supporting "chemical ag" or corporations.
finally, I promise I will not mention GMOs in threads not specifically covering GMOs again on this website, even if someone else brings it up first. The Grist community is welcome to remind me about this promise if I ever do so. If the thread is about GMOs, that's another matter. But even then... you've worn me down... several of you have raised very serious issues, not regarding all GMOs, but regarding very specifc uses of GMOs. They are not the silver bullet that will eliminate environmental problems. They are simply one useful tool.
Have a pleasant weekend! I'll be trying to eliminate some more sweet clover from my little ecological restoration project. Thank God I haven't had to deal with any aggressive FrankenCorn invading my prairie remnant, yet!
Forward!
Permalink