At the end of last week, the USDA deregulated a new genetically modified, RoundUp resistant grass created by Scotts Miracle Gro. Over the past 6 months, it has deregulated several genetically modified crops, so this isn’t really shocking or surprising. However, the real alarm comes when you read the USDA’s reasoning behind deregulation. Turns out, the same logic can be used to deregulate just about every new genetically modified crop out there.
Supreme Court Rules In Monsanto vs. Geerston Seed Farms
Remember how the Supreme Court heard it’s first case involving genetically-engineered crops in April? Today they announced their decision. It is a mixed victory for us Real Foodies.
The high court left the ban on the planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa in place, so for all practical purposes the “good guys” are celebrating today. The court did say, however, that the lower-court judge had overstepped his authority.
Roundup Resistant Weeds Not A Surprise
Monsanto, the developer of the herbicide Roundup, should have seen it coming. All across the country, weeds are quickly mutating to become resistant to Roundup. Many scientists did see it coming, including Jane Rissler and Margaret Mellon of the Union for Concerned Scientists. They even wrote a book on The Ecological Risks of Engineered Crops in 1996 in which they warned of just such a thing.
But now the New York Times has posted a nearly hysterical article about the End of Roundup. Think: Oh NO, America! Without Roundup and the benefit of genetically-engineered monocultures, agriculture will totally fall apart, get even more expensive, require us to use even more toxic chemicals just to keep our plants alive, and contribute to extensive erosion!! The impact on the environment will be terrible.
It would be laughable if it weren’t all such a bunch of marketing spin. It reminds me of the marketing campaign Monsanto launched last year. You know the one. The one where they declared their total dedication to “sustainable agriculture.”
PLU Codes Don’t Indicate GMO Produce
A while back, I stumbled onto a little known fact. The PLU codes on produce at your supermarket actually mean things (besides what kind of fruit or veggie it is)! For example, organic produce has a 5-digit PLU code beginning with the number 9. Conventionally raised produce has a 4-digit PLU code, and (wonder of wonders!) genetically modified produce has a 5-digit PLU code beginning with the number 8.
When getting fresh vegetables from local farmers, PLU codes don’t seem all that important. After all, I can just ask the farmer about his growing practices and where he gets his seed from. So, I tucked away this handy bit of knowledge about supermarket produce, thinking I might use it some day.
Then this week, I read an eye-opening article by Jeffrey Smith (the founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology). He says PLU codes don’t reveal the GMO origins of produce. Why? Because they’re optional.
Just Say No To GMOs — Join the No-GMO Challenge
If you had to name the largest single threat to the environment that you could think of, what would it be? Climate change? Global warming? Deforestation? Overpopulation? Wars? Pollution? A Global Pandemic?
My answer is easy: The single greatest threat to Earth as we know it is the presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food supply. Decimate our food supply, and the rest won’t matter.
But are GMOs really that dangerous?
Bad News For Big Ag — GMO Crops Don’t Increase Yields
You’ve heard of GMO crops, haven’t you? GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are crops which have been substantially altered using genetic engineering. They’re unnaturally modified foods whose safety is dubious at best. (Many European countries have banned their use completely.)
And unfortunately, they’re quite pervasive here in America. 90% of the soybeans grown in the U.S. are GMOs, as is 63% of the corn. These expensive crops were sold to farmers around the world by a handful of mammoth biotech corporations with promises of radical yield increases.
According to a recent report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, those were empty promises.