Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors
Gristmill

Please, sir, I want some GMOs

Worldwide resistance to GMOs dwindle as food bills rise

Posted by Tom Philpott at 9:58 AM on 22 Apr 2008

Read more about: GMOs | agriculture | food | economy | Big Ag | biofuels | energy

For a while now, I've been cautioning people that surging prices for industrial food don't necessarily "level the playing field" for sustainably produced fare.

In fact, the few giant companies that dominate the global food system are fattening themselves on higher prices, consolidating their grip over the world's palate. Last week, new Gristmill blogger Anna Lappe showed that Cargill -- a major producer of everything from fertilizer to biofuel to meat -- recently reported an 86 percent jump in quarterly earnings.

And Monday, Andrew Pollack of The New York Times reported that sky-high prices are breaking down global resistance to GMO crops. Writes Pollack:

Soaring food prices and global grain shortages are bringing new pressures on governments, food companies, and consumers to relax their longstanding resistance to genetically engineered crops.

That's mainly because the countries that now dominate world grain production -- the United States, Brazil, and Argentina -- have all completely thrown their lots with GMOs. The United States alone produces 44 percent of the world's corn -- and 70 percent of global corn exports originate from here.

Thus, if you're going to buy corn and soy on world markets, you're either going to buy GMOs, or pony up a hefty premium to avoid them. One South Korean food processor told Pollack that "non-engineered corn cost Korean millers about $450 a metric ton, up from $143 in 2006. Genetically engineered corn costs about $350 a ton." That makes a nearly 30 percent markup for non-GMO corn, with GMO corn already trading at record highs.

Not surprisingly, with prices surging, fewer countries are willing to pay that premium. Pollack reports that food processors in Japan and South Korea, which have until now rejected GMOs for fear of consumer backlash, are now quietly phasing them in.

In Europe, consumers remain highly skeptical of the alleged benefits of GMOs. Here is Pollack:

Polls in Europe do not yet show a decisive shift in consumer sentiment, and the industry has had some recent setbacks. Since the beginning of the year, France has banned the planting of genetically modified corn while Germany has enacted a law allowing for foods to be labeled as "G.M. free."

Yet as prices rise, that may change:

The chairman of the European Parliament's agriculture committee, Neil Parish, said that as prices rise, Europeans "may be more realistic" about genetically modified crops: "Their hearts may be on the left, but their pockets are on the right."

Thus, the allegedly free market -- shamelessly rigged by U.S. and European biofuel mandates, which are jacking up the price of corn and soy -- overwhelms consumer desire.

fyi

Published on Sunday, April 20, 2008 by The Independent/UK  
Exposed: The Great GM Crops Myth

By Geoffrey Lean

Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.

ethanol...the usual suspect

lets be fair....oil prices are to blame far more than ethanol for recent price increases...you want to pick on someone, how about the top 10% of ag subsidy recipients who received the majority of the billions of these pork dollars in the last decade....how about NAFTA, CAFTA, etc?....how about the fact the aid we supply to countries in food crisis has to be bought from our pork barrel?

The ethics of GMO refusal

If it is immoral to divert food to biofuels as many are saying, is it not also immoral to block a perfectly safe technology that could make Europe a less voracious competitor for food and feed?  And how is it that companies that are helping to get the world fed are somehow wrong for doing that?  Are you feeding anyone?


Steven Savage, Ph.D.
Cody

Why is it any more immoral to divert food to ethanol production than it is to divert food to animals which are so energy intensive?  I can spout statistics or whatever, but I can assure you that we'd have a much easier time with food prices and helping those in need of food if we didn't eat so much meat.  

Ok, I can't resist a couple statistics (with sources):

Over 60% of all grains grown in the United States are fed to animals.  How many people could that amount grain feed?  (Prof. V. Smil, 'Rationalizing Animal Food Production,' in Feeding the World: A Challenge for the 21st Century, MIT Press, London, 2000.)  

The European Parliament stated: "Europe can feed its people but not its animals."  (European Parliament, Europe's Deficit in Compound Feedingstuffs and Agenda 2000, Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development Series, Working Document, AGRI-110, 1999. Cited in J. Turner, Factory Farming and the Environment, CIWF, 1999)

Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer estimates that reducing U.S. meat production by just 10 percent would free enough grain to feed 60 million people.  (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0109-10.htm)

Greenfire8,

I agree with you to an extent. Biofuel is probably responsible for between just a quarter and a third of the rise on food prices.
What's to blame for foisting GMOs on consumers who don't want them is that the industry managed to conquer the globe's bread basket--the US and Brazil/Argentina.
As GMOs gobble market share in corn and soy in the bread basket nations, it gets more and more expensive to separate out non-GMO goods. When prices rise -- for whatever reason -- buyers have less and less leverage to choose non-GMOs. You might pay a 30 percent premium for non-GMO corn when the GMO stuff is going for $150 a metric ton. But when GMO corn is going for $350 -- as it is now -- then buyers starrt to throw their hands up.

Victual Reality
Feeding the world

GMO companies are not helping to feed the world. The world was doing a better job of feeding itself before GMOs, before the introduction of chemical agriculture. Most of the world's farms exist on less than 5 acres, not suitable for any large-scale monocultures, GMOs or otherwise.

Environmental Associate Kingston, NY
I wish people would stop referring to ...

... "the free market" in agricultural products. There is an international market, and there are domestic markets, and there is a varying degree of price transmission between them. But the world is far from having a free market in food or any other agriculture-derived products.

So why repeat the phrase, "the allegedly free market", Tom? Alleged by whom? Certainly not by any economists I know! If the market were already free (which does NOT mean without environmental, health and safety standards and safeguards), the Doha multilateral trade negotiations would have finished a long time ago!

These are only my personal opinions.

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks