Kindly point to where Monsanto references a survey in this blog. If you could be more specific, it would help to respond. I can’t find any such uses of surveys.

Somewhere on this (and every Monsanto blog) page is a “Topic Suggestions” link, but for ease of use here is a link to where it takes you:

http://blog.monsantoblog.com/monsanto-according-to-monsanto/suggestion-box/

Another reason to do so is I think Monsanto is implementing a 10-day limit to author’s responses to existing blogs. It is VERY possible “Brad” is no longer reading (or at least responding) to this thread.

I would like to suggest that Monsanto start a sustainability thread–why they believe their products are sustainable for the future of OUR planet, OUR people, and OUR biodiversity.

Why should governments and their people–ourselves included–invest in Monsanto’s “promises in the pipeline” when we have proven methods of sustainable farming today that increase yields, decrease inputs, conserve and improve soil, and actually get food to hungry people? And do not require such expensive research and operating expenses?

The Global Food Security Act of 2009, S384, which mandates biotech research (and its financing one would assume) as part of US aid is being debated right now in Congress. So many here at Monsanto do not want to pay for gmo labeling, yet Monsanto and the government want us, the American people, to pay for more biotech research? Who will really benefit from this scheme? And how effective have gmo’s proven in reducing world hunger? Why should we expect that to change in the future?

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17603.cfm

The funding the Lugar-Casey bill mandates is essentially a subsidy to private research and development goals: it has nothing to do with reducing hunger. Public money will go to U.S. corporations to produce patented products, essentially subsidizing risky projects and privatizing gain in the name of charity.

Viewer discretion is advised due to violence.

Let Wangari Maathai tell in her own words what went wrong and what was done to correct it. We see this similar cash crop system, resource grab going on all over the developing world. What does it leave the people and the country with? Who really benefits?

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/takingroot/film.html

Thanks your for the very well worded and reasoned response. I agree with most of it. I’m not sure it is realistic to expect Dr. Federoff to provide her data to the BBC, or the BBC to present it to us, however.

The few differences I had were:

1. Monsanto cannot affect all of the changes you request, even though I agree most of them will be necessary. But Monsanto is doing what it can to address them. Some may not agree with Monsanto’s actions, but at least Monsanto is taking action.

2. My (oversimplified) understanding is most of the situations where food is sitting in warehouses while people are starving are because their governments (or the individuals in power) won’t disemminate the food to them. I’m not sure what Monsanto, or even the US Govt. or the UN can legally do about that.

3. You present GM crops and sustainability as an either/or situation. I don’t think that is the case. In fact, Monsanto has a big initiative going for improving yield while decreasing the inputs required. I thought Monsanto had a Blog here about sustainability, but the best I could find is
http://blog.monsantoblog.com/page/11/

More information can be found at
http://www.monsanto.com/investors/financial_reports/annual_report/2008/sustainability.asp

April 6, 2009 at 10:10 am

Deborah – I’m going to go ahead and say last year (28th of Feb), here in St Louis [is when the corn genome was sequenced]. But what the date of sequencing of the corn genome has to do with genetically modifying corn is not exactly clear -it is however clear that with this knowledge both GM driven research in corn and molecular breeding have gained a spectacularly useful tool for further work.

————————-

Ewan, this is the first time I have ever agreed with you that I can recall. It is not at all clear what the sequencing of the corn genome 15 years or so after the introduction of genetically engineered corn really means. It is not clear.

In 2050, you say we will feed more people than we can actually feed now, people we have the food for, but choose not to feed, or can not/WILL not get food to–but at the same time, we can invade distant countries, bail out Wall Street with a trillion plus dollars, launch satellites, genetically engineer food crops and burn them up for fuel while people are starving to death right now…And Monsanto is pushing South Africa and other nations to grow biofuels.

How will things be any different in 2050, John–unless things change in the direction of a sustainable future; the land and seas will be more degraded, the climate is unpredictable, the population is unpredictable, social unrest is unpredictable. I will wager that poverty will still be around. Can the hungry and starving wait until 2050 to see if the GM plan works? The time is up for some already. How will things change if we continue on this unsustainable path of industrial farming, trade imbalances, the overall type of industrialization we in developed nations practice and overconsume?

From Environmental Science: Toward a Sustainable Future, 2008, Richard T. Wright:

“Although India has been self-sufficient in food since 1990, one-fifth of the population suffers from malnutrition because they can’t afford to purchase the food they need, and there is no safety net….
No new science or technology is needed to alleviate hunger and at the same time promote sustainability as we grow our food. The solutions lie in the realm of political and social action at all levels of responsibility… If we respect human dignity and have a sense of social justice, we must agree that hunger is an affront to both. The right to food must be considered a basic human right.”
++++++++++++++

Devinder Sharma said, “In 2000, India had record food surplus of 44 million tons. By 2002, the surplus had grown to 65 million tons, not due to excess production, but because more and more people [at least 1/5] are unable to buy the grain that lies stockpiled.” [contrast, 1/4 or 25% in the US are Clinically Obese--there is a problem other than a shortage of food!]
++++++++++++++++
According to Miguel A. Altieri, “In 1999, enough grain was produced globally to feed a population of Eight Billion People [and that is just grain, not fruits, and vegetables, etc]…By channeling one-third of the grain produced world-wide to needy people, hunger would cease instantly.
*******************
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/129727/u.n._seeks_a_green_revolution_in_food/

“Changing the ways in which food is produced, handled and disposed of across the globe — from farm to store and from fridge to landfill — can both feed the world’s rising population and help the environmental services that are the foundation of agricultural productivity in the first place,” says a new study titled ‘The Environmental Food Crisis’ released by the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP).

The major findings of the study include:

The 100-year trend of falling food prices may be at an end, and food prices may increase by 30-50 percent within decades, with critical impacts for those living in extreme poverty who spend up to 90 percent of their income on food.

Up to 25 percent of the world’s food production may be lost due to ‘environmental breakdowns’ by 2050 unless action is taken. Already, cereal yields have stagnated worldwide and fish catches are declining.

Today, over one third of the world’s cereals are being used as animal feed, rising to 50 percent by 2050. Continuing to feed cereals to growing numbers of livestock will aggravate poverty and environmental degradation.

The amount of fish bycatch currently discarded at sea — estimated at 30 million tonnes annually — could alone sustain more than a 50 percent increase in fish farming and aquaculture production, which is needed to maintain per capita fish consumption at current levels by 2050 without increasing pressure on an already stressed marine environment.

Losses and food waste in the United States could be as high as 40-50 percent, according to some recent estimates. Up to one quarter of all fresh fruits and vegetables in the U.S. is lost between the field and the table.

In Australia, it is estimated that food waste makes up half of that country’s landfill. Almost one-third of all food purchased in Britain every year is not eaten.

Food losses in the developing world are also considerable, mainly due to spoilage and pests. For instance, in Africa, the total amount of fish lost through discards, post-harvest loss and spoilage may be around 30 percent of landings.
**********************
Please see the IAASTD report 2008 that I directed you to above, did you read it, John?

http://www.agassessment.org/

***********************
http://scidev.net/en/news/conservation-agriculture-boosts-yields-and-incom.html

Poor farmers in developing countries can substantially improve both their yields and livelihoods by adopting resource-conserving practices, says a large international study to be published next month.

The study reviewed 286 recent attempts to introduce such practices on more than 12 million farms in 57 countries, mostly in Africa.

It assessed how yields change when farmers using approaches such as less tilling to conserve soil, integrated pest management — which favours ecological pest control over pesticide spraying — and improved management of soil nutrients.

According to the study, adopting such approaches meant yields increased by an average of 79 per cent and harvests of some crops such as maize, potatoes and beans doubled.

As well as causing less damage to the environment, ‘conservation agriculture’ also improved farmers’ wealth by, for instance, reducing their reliance on costly pesticides.

Sustainable farming practices also demand less water, says lead researcher Jules Pretty of the University of Essex, United Kingdom, who points out that by 2025 most developing countries are predicted to face water shortages.

The study concludes that while it is not clear whether these techniques can meet future food needs in developing countries, poor households have most to gain from adopting them.
++++++++++++++++
So, John, I must honestly say I do not know in what condition our Earth will be in 2050–I can only hope we get on a more sustainable path immediately. I know many who are personally working toward that end and trying to adjust their lifestyles within the system. But the system has to change. It is not sustainable, Can you see that? I do not know what the population will be, if 9 billion people will exceed the Earth’s carrying capacity. How could I know–it will depend on the choices we made yesterday, the ones we make today, and those that we will make tomorrow. We have to be proactive with a comprehensive, sustainable plan across the board, and not just continue reacting from crisis to crisis with even more problematic techno fixes. I believe we must work diligently to make all of our systems–food, energy, consumption, industry, finance, trade, society, etc, sustainable. Otherwise, I fear 2050 may bring a world in which none of us will want to live. In that short of a time. We should have been transitioning decades ago; but we must start now.

In the only honest answer I can give you regarding how we will feed whatever the population of 2050 is, I will say that I hope we do not feed the people like we do today. We have to find a balance and redefine our values because our brothers and sisters and their children and parents are starving to death right now while food is rotting in the landfills of every nation. And our life-support system, this planet, its atmosphere, the intrinsically beautiful web of living creatures and systems are being severely degraded, if not destroyed. I do not believe GM is the answer, John. It may perpetuate itself, but it is not sustainable in my view and that of many others.

You asked:
“And finally, what evidence is there that we need GM to feed the world?”

Here it is, from a non-Monsanto source:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7974995.stm

“The world would be a much safer place if toxic products like round-up did not exist.”

[I hesitate to legitimize your post by responding, but here goes.]

Actually, one of the big selling points of Glyphosate (the main active ingredient in RoundUP) is it ISN’T all that toxic. Most herbicides exist for a LONG TIME in the environment, sometimes YEARS. Glyphosate is broken down by naturally occuring bacteria in DAYS.

Not to mention things like cyanide, arsenic, and botulin are naturally occuring toxins. Heck, WATER is toxic in large enough amounts. Search for “water intoxication” for more details.

I’ll let others adress your other “points”….