|
John M. wrote: without GM etc. increased crops the population of
the Earth cannot be fed-- unless substantially reduced.
I've heard that statement before, and I've done quite a bit of
research into that claim. It turns out to be untrue except when agricultural
methods are carried out in ways that nature doesn't like. That, unfortunately,
describes the entire factory farming trend which is what GM crops were designed
to facilitate. The fact that "nature abhors a monoculture", as my father used to
say, seems to be the impetus behind chemical-intensive agricultural methods,
which is what drives the GM science, currently. So, the "need" for GM
crops is actually a bottom line profit margin of a chemical company like
Dow Chemical, an applied science company like Monsanto, and a factory
farming outfit or international conglomeration like Cargill.
I think agriculture would be far better served if science were
studying the needs of the crops and the needs of the worst pests of such crops,
and then worked to develop ways to grow crops in ways that maximized the needs
of the crops themselves while making it much less convenient for the pests to
have a party. One of the simplest ways could be to interplant compatible crops
such that two or more species were growing in each field. There are also
non-food plants (such as marigolds) that discourage pest insects and pest weed
growth and which could easily be interplanted with crops to repel and
confuse pest insect populations. Furthermore, an organic soil-building approach
to fertilizer and an integrated pest management process to deal with problems as
they do occur would be far safer than what the current agricultural
paradigm is recommending. Chemical intensive agriculture kills everything,
including the soil. It's not sustainable, hence it's a huge moneymaker. I find
that disgusting, personally, which is why I've gone completely organic in my
grocery shopping.
Judith
|