Argentina's Soaring Birth Defect Rate, Gmo, And Monsanto

[expatinowncountry]

Excellent! Someone who is in this industry!

My understanding is that GM seeds do indeed increase crop yields My concern is the cost of those crop yields with regard to:

1. Rapid expansion of farmland without good planning for nutrient cycles and soil erosion. It was cited that Argentina has lost 50% of it's remaining forest to the soy boom.

2. The long-term effects of GM food on humans.

3. The unrestrained use of pesticides/herbicides and the effects upon peoples located near these farms.

4. The obvious collusion between governments and Monsanto (at the expense of good oversight and control?).

We'd be very appreciative of your thoughts on these given your expertise.

Thanks!

I am actually not in the industry per se as I am an academician... so I do research on the issue of agriculture productivity. On your questions, I will only tell you what I know for sure:

1) This is true and the figures may be even higher. Here there is a phenomenon called "desmonte". Basically they remove the original vegetation to plant soy. Because of GM, soybean can now we harvested with high yield in places like La Pampa or Chaco where before was technically impossible. Because of the increase in the production of soy, cattle was displaced further north and south what implies that the beef we are eating now does not correspond to the traditional "Argentine" races.

2) Officially we do not know. What is long term? GM was introduced in the 1970s but only massively in the late 1980s-1990s so we do not have robust evidence of long term effect. If there is secret information held by governments and companies, I cannot tell you. In any case, I am not an expert on the issue.

3) Negative for sure (remember the pictures of people burned with napalm in Vietnam...). In Argentina it should be a minor issue because of the large extension of land and the low density in rural areas. However, rains and rivers remove the nitrates from the soil and can get any where, including your drinking water. I remember that in my country (France), two summers ago in the north they found a beach full of algae and many dead pigs... they were killed by the gas from the algae that was created by the nitrates from the farms around.

4) I really do not know about this so any answer would be highly speculative. Monsanto is indeed a powerful corporation (with historical links with the Department of Defense)

I personally try to buy local and try to track my food. But again, I can do that because I have a good economic situation. If you are in Africa or any other poor region, your first priority is to eat to live until tomorrow so you really care about food access and security of supply.

 

[arlean]

Expatinargentina, you won´t start a fight with me. The whole idea of discussing a subject is different ideas and information contributed. I´m a safe place to bring counter information.You will find plenty of evidence to refute mine and most of it is produced in Monsanto laboratories. That´s what is wrong with most research, it is done by the culprits--not only in this subject but in both pharmaceuticals and vaccines. To my thinking, as long as there are experiments like the rat and hamster ones that cast doubt on this stuff I say it is not fit for human consumption. We need to protect our people, not experiment with their health. What say you?

GS-Dirtboy, at home I have information about how, in time, the Monsanto methods ruin the soil. I´ll see if I can find it. Having internet problems so my "stuff" isn´t at my fingertips. The good thing for us is that, as Sarahthebarber points out, at least we have a choice. Sadly many people do not. Thanks, Sarah, for the info.

 

[Raymond]

Thank you GSDirtboy for this most enlightening topic and one that is plainly evident when one travels through Argentina and sees the amount of deformed and autistic children prevalent in the north when once this was a complete rarity .

There is a huge correlation with genetically modified foods and disease and gm soy is the worst of them all .

Argentina is now leading the world in this technology and its affects are now becoming obvious with the obesity epidemic prevalent in the country and the huge increases of autism that are destroying small communites all through Argentina

 

[expatinowncountry]

Expatinargentina, you won´t start a fight with me. The whole idea of discussing a subject is different ideas and information contributed. I´m a safe place to bring counter information.You will find plenty of evidence to refute mine and most of it is produced in Monsanto laboratories. That´s what is wrong with most research, it is done by the culprits--not only in this subject but in both pharmaceuticals and vaccines. To my thinking, as long as there are experiments like the rat and hamster ones that cast doubt on this stuff I say it is not fit for human consumption. We need to protect our people, not experiment with their health. What say you?

GS-Dirtboy, at home I have information about how, in time, the Monsanto methods ruin the soil. I´ll see if I can find it. Having internet problems so my "stuff" isn´t at my fingertips. The good thing for us is that, as Sarahthebarber points out, at least we have a choice. Sadly many people do not. Thanks, Sarah, for the info.

Good that we are not fighting ;-)

I cannot really comment on the lab experiments and long term health effects of GM food as my knowledge only comes from reading magazines and general literature. My comment was in the area I know well, that is, agricultural productivity and I am 100% sure of my evidence that GMO increases yields. Of course this does not say anything about health or ethical concerns you may rightly have. My point is that Camboriu was right than in developing countries you do not have the luxury of long term view when you have to put something in your plate to eat.

Also, all agriculture if not properly done ruins the soil.

 

[sleslie23]

..... GM seeds increase yields quite a lot and allow the agro frontier to be expanded to areas were before the climate conditions did not allow some crops.

An example of this is Argentina (from 40 million tons to 100 million in ten years because of GM).

Can you clarify what you mean by "increased yield?" Do GM seeds increase the yield per acre? Or do they merely increase the number of hectares that can be planted because they can be grown in different types of soil than a non-GMO seed.

A large part of the increase from 40 million tons to 100 million tons is in the amount of hectares planted. It's not clear to me that increase is a direct result of GMO.

 

[arlean]

This might provide an answer that is a possibility. Many U. S. farmers are considering going back to non'GMO seeds. My internet is down and I´m leaving the Internet place but throwing this in for good measure.

http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/06/02/2013/137518/us-farmers-may-stop-planting-gms-after-poor-global-yields.htm

 

[expatinowncountry]

Can you clarify what you mean by "increased yield?" Do GM seeds increase the yield per acre? Or do they merely increase the number of hectares that can be planted because they can be grown in different types of soil than a non-GMO seed.

A large part of the increase from 40 million tons to 100 million tons is in the amount of hectares planted. It's not clear to me that increase is a direct result of GMO.

It increased both the yield per hectare and extend the number of hectares that can be planted.

For more information on Argentine "second green revolution" please look at INTA (Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuara). Sorry I am running now but basically GMO allowed both to increase the yield per hectare (to the same level you can find nowadays in Kansas) and to significantly extend the frontier. You cannot increase the production 150% in ten years without using both the extensive and intensive margin.

 

[expatinowncountry]

This might provide an answer that is a possibility. Many U. S. farmers are considering going back to non'GMO seeds. My internet is down and I´m leaving the Internet place but throwing this in for good measure.

http://www.fwi.co.uk...obal-yields.htm

Do you realize that your source is not reliable? You need to look to the US Department of Agriculture and not to anecdotal evidence.

As of September 2012, 89% of conventional soy in the US was GM, against 99% in Argentina.
Ten years ago, it was 60% in the US and 88% in Argentina.
Twenty years ago, it was around 0% in both countries.

 

[Raymond]

Look around Buenos Aires today and see the results of the poison that they are feeding us . This city was famous once for its elegant and svelte people . Not any more due to Monsanto and Co who goal is to rule all food production by design .

 

[WilliamA]

In general, soy is bad news in anyway. I spoke with a woman who said her mother's joints would swell up when she consumed soy. Only certain forms of ferminated (non-GMO/organic) can be consumed i.e., nattokinase --a soy derived enzyme.