What is bad about trying to provide "drought-tolerant" seeds to Africa? It's not like GE seeds are gonna ruin Africa, they might very well help fight the hunger problem. I don't understand the general negativity against GE food - if it's tested well, I don't see any reason against it.
The problem with Monsanto is patents. If they didn't try to sue farmers that don't buy their GE seeds out of existence on unavoidable patent infringement claims (due to seed blowing into fields contaminating their non-GE crops), then fine, let them create whatever they want.
The documentary Food, Inc. (among others) has a segment about Monsanto's "business" practice, in particular seed saving for following year's planting. So the problem is not necessarily GM food but how they twist farmers arms through litigation. If software patents are bad, imagine patents over the constituents of life!
And not just seeds which are GM, but any seeds which might be contaminated by GM seeds. A major subtheme of the film was a long-time seed processor who would recover seed grain from farmers' crops. He was hounded out of business by Monsanto, despite the fact that his clients were not Monsanto farmers, because they might be recovering GM seed by virtue of his services.
I'm trying to remember the name of the seed harvester interviewed and for the life of me can't. The Food, Inc. website and a few searches haven't helped either.
Genetically engineered seed is sterile and patented. So the first hit is free, but you as a farmer is stuck buying seed for eternity. Handing out GMO seed is like giving Gilette razors to poor people.
You know what would help African farmers? Education about irrigation and scientific, low-moisture farming techniques. Provide non-hybrid seed and equipment than be used by locals to clean and store it.
>You know what would help African farmers? Education about irrigation and scientific, low-moisture farming techniques. Provide non-hybrid seed and equipment than be used by locals to clean and store it.
The solution is never so simple. I could just as easily and correctly (ignoring all human implications) say "You know what would help African farmers? Move them somewhere more conducive to human life." Sounds awesome in theory, but consider the implementation details and effects on life of both options. You always have to make a trade off in practice between what is an "ideal" solution scientifically and what can actually be implemented given the real humans involved.
Africa holds over a billion people, and is the second-most populated continent. I'd say the people there are already aware of what parts of it are conducive to human life.
>Genetically engineered seed is sterile and patented.
This is not accurate as a blanket statement. Not all genetically engineered seeds are sterile, only a limited subset (Monsanto only acquired the sterile technology in 2007 and I don't think they use it in all seeds)
>So the first hit is free, but you as a farmer is stuck buying seed for eternity.
The heroin analogy is idiotic. Nothing is stopping the farmers from switching back to conventional crops if they don't find GMO's more profitable then what they were doing before
actually there is, because when traditional crops are wholesale abandoned, the seed stock, and unique local climate adapted varieties disappear forever, leaving them dependent on GMO corps to get any kind of return at all.
This problem has already occurred in most western vegetable growing.[1] Locally adapted varieties and varieties with certain commercially undesirable characteristics are lost forever, this has a massive negative impact on biodiversity, and thus food supply security.[2]
WRONG. That's like saying all software is proprietary. While some prominent genetically modified organisms sold by Monsanto are sterile and patented, it doesn't mean all GMO's are or have to be.
