In Response to Lorne Hepworth’s article in Farmer’s Forum – GM opposition ignores benefits, relies on old scare tactics
The newspaper does a pretty good job of getting both sides of the GMO story, however this article in particular really boiled my blood. This section as indicated from the editor is for "highly researched fact based information". Well you'll see here that its pretty much just mud slinging and zero facts.
Lorne Hepworth wrote an article in the opinion section of the Farmers Forum. I’d like to take a few moments to completely discredit his attempt at discrediting anyone who opposes GM crops.
He states “strong and science based regulatory systems ensure that such innovations are safe for human health and the environment”
This is clearly not true because we have GM crops and we ALSO have scientists speaking out about the harmful effects of such crops, we also have evidence of them being put under extreme gag orders, only to be able to speak after 10 years (which now may be too late). It is clear in science that the foods that these crops produce are significantly lower in nutritional content, that it is when it is combined with gut bacteria and gut environments that it then becomes harmful. Reference Genetic Roulette. Pg 120 “Genetic engineering ignores and disrupts complex relationships in the DNA” Robert Mann Biochemist University of Auckland, NZ
He states “Tangible benefits to consumers by way of lower food costs”.
Given that we already have determined that there is significantly less nutrients in the plant that is a GM variety, and that the consumer will now have to purchase MORE of a product to receive the SAME amount of nutrients. Yes it will fill you up, and it will also create less micro-nutrients in ones food, therefore leading to illness when our bodies don’t get the building blocks to life they start to break down. This is especially problematic for those having to pay for healthcare in the states. Your healthcare bill will sky rocket because your food is cheaper. This relates to the glyphosate that is in the round up used to keep weeds down on GM crop varieties. The glyphosate works such that it reduces nutrient uptake for up to 30 years from the soil (what has been studied so far). Reference Dr. Huber “Mineral Nutrition and Plant Disease”. This also relates to a comment Mr. Hepworth makes later in his article that by not having to plow we’ll keep soil nutrients. He states “these genetically enhanced crops can also reduce or eliminate the need for farmers to plow the land to control weeds, which significantly enriches soil and reduces erosion. “ Well Mr. Hepworth it is proven that this lovely glyphosate is making for super weeds, weeds developing faster than they can create new technologies. Nature is a wonderful thing isn't it!
He states “…Canadian farmers continue to choose to plant GM crops because of the benefits they see in terms of improved yields and quality and environmental sustainability”
I would caution him to so easily throw around the word sustainable. As mentioned before if the process of growing these crops reduces the ability for any plant to uptake nutrients from the soil, first it is definitely NOT environmentally sustainable, secondly it is TRUE that farmers must buy seeds every year and are not permitted to save the seeds, and must pay a patent fee of 15 dollars per acre in many cases, this is also not in the category of what makes practices environmentally sustainable. What is also true according to Dr. Huber in his book (mentioned above) is that those so called high yields are not entirely true, sure they maybe one year, but what about next year when there are no nutrients left, and what about the year after that when now the seeds cost a lot more (as we’ve seen with GM crops the introductory rates are so low its hard to beat, but they get increased and then you pay licensing and patent fees of 15.00 per acre) add in the fact that you’re now going to be adding in minerals and soil nutrients so that the plant will grow, plus the chemicals and weed control. At this point the profit margins are completely destroyed and a farmer no longer is able to grow crops in his soil and must pay an arm and a leg for the seed and the rights to grow it if he wants to. Explain to me what about that is sustainable?
He states: “protests that took place across the country recently were orchestrated by special interest groups more interested in getting attention to support their fundraising efforts than in addressing any real health concerns”
This may be reference to one organization perhaps, however the ones that I attended had ZERO interest in raising money, no hat was passed around, no requests made. However EVEN if there were fundraising efforts put forth, it is somewhat hypocritical to state that they are in it for the money, given that Mr. Hepworth’s position is in a company that supports manufacturers of such biotechnologies, however that one doesn't hold much water because I guess I farm organically so support organic agriculture, not really the same thing, but lets just say it is....It is also somewhat hypocritical given that the industry itself is based entirely on profit, proven only by the patents that are now being put on nature, and the requirement of farmers to pay fees per acre for the technology. If groups were to raise money it would only be in effort to continue doing unbiased research and to continue to educate, should we all not be permitted to raise money? Making a largely incorrect assumption suggesting that these groups were only trying to push their fundraising initiatives is possibly the most hypocritical statement in the article.
The newspaper does a pretty good job of getting both sides of the GMO story, however this article in particular really boiled my blood. This section as indicated from the editor is for "highly researched fact based information". Well you'll see here that its pretty much just mud slinging and zero facts.
Lorne Hepworth wrote an article in the opinion section of the Farmers Forum. I’d like to take a few moments to completely discredit his attempt at discrediting anyone who opposes GM crops.
He states “strong and science based regulatory systems ensure that such innovations are safe for human health and the environment”
This is clearly not true because we have GM crops and we ALSO have scientists speaking out about the harmful effects of such crops, we also have evidence of them being put under extreme gag orders, only to be able to speak after 10 years (which now may be too late). It is clear in science that the foods that these crops produce are significantly lower in nutritional content, that it is when it is combined with gut bacteria and gut environments that it then becomes harmful. Reference Genetic Roulette. Pg 120 “Genetic engineering ignores and disrupts complex relationships in the DNA” Robert Mann Biochemist University of Auckland, NZ
He states “Tangible benefits to consumers by way of lower food costs”.
Given that we already have determined that there is significantly less nutrients in the plant that is a GM variety, and that the consumer will now have to purchase MORE of a product to receive the SAME amount of nutrients. Yes it will fill you up, and it will also create less micro-nutrients in ones food, therefore leading to illness when our bodies don’t get the building blocks to life they start to break down. This is especially problematic for those having to pay for healthcare in the states. Your healthcare bill will sky rocket because your food is cheaper. This relates to the glyphosate that is in the round up used to keep weeds down on GM crop varieties. The glyphosate works such that it reduces nutrient uptake for up to 30 years from the soil (what has been studied so far). Reference Dr. Huber “Mineral Nutrition and Plant Disease”. This also relates to a comment Mr. Hepworth makes later in his article that by not having to plow we’ll keep soil nutrients. He states “these genetically enhanced crops can also reduce or eliminate the need for farmers to plow the land to control weeds, which significantly enriches soil and reduces erosion. “ Well Mr. Hepworth it is proven that this lovely glyphosate is making for super weeds, weeds developing faster than they can create new technologies. Nature is a wonderful thing isn't it!
He states “…Canadian farmers continue to choose to plant GM crops because of the benefits they see in terms of improved yields and quality and environmental sustainability”
I would caution him to so easily throw around the word sustainable. As mentioned before if the process of growing these crops reduces the ability for any plant to uptake nutrients from the soil, first it is definitely NOT environmentally sustainable, secondly it is TRUE that farmers must buy seeds every year and are not permitted to save the seeds, and must pay a patent fee of 15 dollars per acre in many cases, this is also not in the category of what makes practices environmentally sustainable. What is also true according to Dr. Huber in his book (mentioned above) is that those so called high yields are not entirely true, sure they maybe one year, but what about next year when there are no nutrients left, and what about the year after that when now the seeds cost a lot more (as we’ve seen with GM crops the introductory rates are so low its hard to beat, but they get increased and then you pay licensing and patent fees of 15.00 per acre) add in the fact that you’re now going to be adding in minerals and soil nutrients so that the plant will grow, plus the chemicals and weed control. At this point the profit margins are completely destroyed and a farmer no longer is able to grow crops in his soil and must pay an arm and a leg for the seed and the rights to grow it if he wants to. Explain to me what about that is sustainable?
He states: “protests that took place across the country recently were orchestrated by special interest groups more interested in getting attention to support their fundraising efforts than in addressing any real health concerns”
This may be reference to one organization perhaps, however the ones that I attended had ZERO interest in raising money, no hat was passed around, no requests made. However EVEN if there were fundraising efforts put forth, it is somewhat hypocritical to state that they are in it for the money, given that Mr. Hepworth’s position is in a company that supports manufacturers of such biotechnologies, however that one doesn't hold much water because I guess I farm organically so support organic agriculture, not really the same thing, but lets just say it is....It is also somewhat hypocritical given that the industry itself is based entirely on profit, proven only by the patents that are now being put on nature, and the requirement of farmers to pay fees per acre for the technology. If groups were to raise money it would only be in effort to continue doing unbiased research and to continue to educate, should we all not be permitted to raise money? Making a largely incorrect assumption suggesting that these groups were only trying to push their fundraising initiatives is possibly the most hypocritical statement in the article.
RSS Feed
