The ongoing battle: how to feed the hungry

The genetic engineering world claims that it will feed our ever-growing population; that with their pesticides and insecticides it will create the higher yields necessary to feed the some 6 billion people that live on this planet. Yet, an article in The Atlantic (showed to me by Mr. Coffee) refutes this claim. Adding another dimension to the ongoing battle between those for genetic engineering and those for organic/conventional methods.

Farmers in third world countries, according to Monsanto’s website, couldn’t be happier about the new era of technology allowing them to produce higher yields with less costs for fertilizers, as discussed in my earlier post “The good, the bad, and the ugly“. An interview I listened to on National Public Radio (Npr) confirmed this belief as they spoke to a farmer in Honduras.

Rodolfo Rubio, “who grows corn and vegetables on about 50 acres near the city of Comayagua” is a firm believer in the power of genetic engineering. With the help of Monsanto, Rubio is able to produce corn without and pesticides and without any evidence of silk worms, an ever-present problem in his region of Honduras. Monsanto was able to take a gene from the worm and transplant it into the seed. Therefore, when the worm would eat the corn, the worm would die.

Although Rubio spends an extra $1,000 for the seeds, it “saves him so much time and money, he says, he can’t imagine not using it”. A possibility when you consider that much of Central America is against the production and use of genetic engineering. Believing that “bringing in unnatural genes threatens the integrity of [the corn’s] natural biodiversity”. Although, with the onset of a major food crisis in Honduras, farmers are being pushed “to plant more corn, including genetically modified corn”. So as of late, a ban of GMO’s is still in the distance.

But, why all the fuss? It saves time. It saves money. It should be the answer to our prayers. Yet, many people refute these claims believing that organic methods work just as well without all the risks a new technology brings.

A study at the University of Michigan found food production “could double or triple using organic methods” not only equal that of genetically engineered crops. When done properly, it could “potentially produce more than enough food”. Good news for farmers in developing countries, unlike Rubio, who can’t afford to shell out $1,000 all at once just for seeds every year. Their research concluded that “planting green manures between growing seasons provided enough nitrogen to replace synthetic fertilizers”.

Yet, no one is aware of the seemingly easier idea of organic farming. Shannon Dipietro of The Atlantic believes that it’s a difference in budgets. While company’s like Monsanto can constantly be in the consumer’s face about the looming danger of overpopulation, organic farmers do not have a big guy out front rooting for them. Monsanto’s “ads use facts related to fears that are unrelated to the product they produce” to grab our attention.

So. like the rest of the controversies, this too is unresolved. There is and always will be two sides. Who are you rooting for?

To listen to the full NPR story, follow this link:

Honduras Embraces Genetically Modified Crops by Dan Charles