> i'm trying to understand why the Left is so against GM food. GM and the
> more antiquated inbreeding (pollination, grafting, etc.) have resulted in
> far more nutritious food produced at much lower costs. much of the third
> world now uses the more nutritious food produced by older inbreeding methods
> developed by scientists in many countries under different types of
> governments, but primarily under Western capitalism. hopefully, these
> people will enjoy the GM food with even more nutrition and less cost.
Carl pointed out one of the better reasons in his response to your question. Unfortunately, your argument that the Third World enjoys better nutrition as a result of methods imported by Western capitalism just doesn't hold up when subjected to the facts. More and more people around the third world are seeing their nutrition go bye bye because Western agriculture is being imported to help meet the demand to grow export crops to pay back IMF loans. Many farmers have been dispossessed of their family and community farms, in order that big farms favorable to American farming methods be created. What works for Lamoni, Iowa isn't going to work in India or Central Africa. American agribusiness is guilty of the same hubris in their central planning as the old Soviet Union was with their collectivization fo agriculture.
There's a good article by Vandana Shiva which I should send to this list which explains the changes that Third World famers have had to endure because Western Capitalism has stolen their lands from them. The biggest joke is this propaganda about new strains of GM rice which will correct vitamin deficiencies in Third World children. Problem with this is that if these farmers had been left to farm in their traditional methods, these nutritional problems wouldn't exist.
The problem is not that the Third World lacks the right foodstuffs to plant, it's that traditonal famers have had their land taken from them. There is enough to food to feed Third World people, but not if they are forced to adopt IMF loan payment punishments or the decisions made by scientific managers in American agribusiness corporations.
Less cost? That's funny, because it costs less for Third World farmers to save seeds from year to year, than to have to buy new stuff every year from Monsanto.
> Left can't be against GM for technical reasons since all bio-scientists
> agree that direct manipulation of genes is far more efficient and reliable
> than the old-fashioned inbreeding for desired traits. they agree, too, that
> there are absolutely NO differences in nutritive value of GM food over any
> other agricultural methods.
Wrong. There are plenty of scientists who speak out against GM technology. The problem is that the scientific establishment is in bed with the corporations who stand to profit from this new technology. These dissident voices are rarely heard in the scientific literature and they don't seem to be welcome at the scientific conferences. When major biotech companies are sponsoring your genome seminars, don't expect to see any dissidents on the panel.
More efficient and reliable? That's an ideological statement, not something based on science. The problem with direct manipulation of genes is that the results can't take into account the thousands, if not millions, of factors found in the wild. A lab dish hooked up to a computer is far different than the back 40 of Farmer Jones's half section.
> true, whenever one selects genes for the desirable traits, whether directly
> (GM) or indirectly (inbreeding), one unavoidably selects undesirable traits
> too. however, so far, the GM undesirable traits appear to be fewer than
> those produced under inbreeding.
>
> on balance, GM foods offer the third world better food sources than
> formerly, if the GM providers can get the food to the people who need it.
Sorry, there just isn't any evidence to support this claim.
> so what's the beef? because GM undermines traditional farming methods and
> its "workers"? because successful GM food might favor capitalist production
> methods that might undermine the interests of its adversaries?
There are many factors, which is why you hear so many different criticisms. Most of the anti-GM food movement focuses on food safety and potential harm to humans, as well as the environment. I agree with them, but disgagree with their focus. I think the sociopolitical issues are a far bigger reason to worry about GM food. If Westerners like yourself fervently believe this doggeral about GM foods being a boon to Third World people, then you can't possibly understand the realities of those people's lives.
The farmers in India burned down the local offices of Monsanto. Do you think they are on to something you don't know about?
Chuck0