Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Will Misinformation Scare Ghana's Farmers Away From Genetically-Modified Crops? (cornell.edu) 155

Posted by EditorDavid from the out-of-Africa dept.
The Cornell Alliance for Science seeks to build "a significant international alliance of partners" to "correct misinformation and counter conspiracy theories" slowing progress on climate change, synthetic biology, agricultural innovations, and other issues.

This week Slashdot reader wooloohoo shared their report from Slyvia Tetteh, who works with Ghana's chamber of Agribusiness and serves as an intermediary to farmers: The advent of climate change, coupled with new plant pests and diseases, has worsened the plight of Ghanaian farmers, relegating them to remain in poverty as their crop yields and incomes plunge. Modern, climate-smart agricultural technologies, such as genetically modified crops (GMOs), can help combat these threats. However, scare-mongering and misinformation, which Ghanaians term "scarecrow," make farmers perceive such technology as white man's witchcraft. Since they see it unnatural, they are stuck with crude, unproductive farming methods — the "hoe."

The adoption of GM insect-resistant cowpea and nitrogen use-efficient rice could help farmers in Ghana to improve their yields, their incomes and their lives. These crops have been vetted and recommended by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research of Ghana. But regulatory delays that prevent farmers from accessing these improved seeds, and lingering fears about technology, may erode these benefits in both Ghana and Africa at large...

Achieving a hunger-free continent involves lots of education about available technology, training and efforts to change societal beliefs and mindsets regarding GM crops. There is still a lot of work to be done, and everyone's help is needed if Ghana and the rest of the continent are to embrace these breakthrough discoveries and contribute to making Africa the food basket of the world.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will Misinformation Scare Ghana's Farmers Away From Genetically-Modified Crops? More

Will Misinformation Scare Ghana's Farmers Away From Genetically-Modified Crops?

Comments Filter:

  • Full Synthetic (Score:3)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Sunday February 07, 2021 @11:44AM (#61037192)

    GMOs are great, but farming is not the future we need to be at. We need total synthesis of proteins and other nutrients. Why even have a rice plant? We should chemically or enzymatically synthesize rice tissue or any other plant tissue or animal meat. We are a higher species ok, why should we farm like weâ(TM)re ants or something? Taking over vast swaths of land for farming is stupid.

    Our food evolution must be like this:
    Foraging->farming->domestication of plants and animals via cross species hybridization, mutagenesis, and artificial selection->precision engineering->in vitro tissue/fruit culture->total synthesis

    At each step our food becomes more and more tailored to what we need, we need less area of land, and less physical labor to get it.

    • Re:Full Synthetic (Score:4, Insightful)

      by HiThere ( 15173 ) <charleshixsn@@@earthlink...net> on Sunday February 07, 2021 @12:44PM (#61037364)

      GMOs have their points, but not if you aren't allowed to replant the seeds. Even in that case I worry about monoculture, but that exists with ordinary hybrids, too. (And also hybrids are often to be avoided, because replanting the seeds results in a huge wasted effort.)

      • GMOs have their points, but not if you aren't allowed to replant the seeds.

        Yeah, these agribusiness PR stories often use phrases such as “lingering fear of technology” as a more PR-friendly code for “the farmers don’t want to be legally required to buy the seed from our company every year”.

        • Umm, if it's not financially viable then they _won't_ buy the seeds from the company every year. That's sort of how business works, if their product's benefits didn't outweigh the costs then the farmers shouldn't use them.

          However, they usually do. What people want is to have their cake and eat it too - all the benefits of the GMO crop but only buying the seeds once. That's going to be a big old nope. If you want to do that, use your own fucking seeds.

          • If your yields are poor, you can't borrow, margins are slim in a good year, then the temptation to buy GMO seeds (and subsequently getting "hooked" on them) is very tempting.

            IF your seed vendor, like a drug dealer, is waving a better yield and margins in front of you, it's pretty difficult to resist.

            When you tell people to "use your own fucking seeds", your logic doesn't speak to the desperation and mercurial yields, distribution, and efforts that actually go in to the crop life cycles. Financial viability

          • They are using their own seed. The farmers made the business decision that GMO crops are not worth the cost. That's why Monsanto isn't selling millions of tons of GMO's in the third world.
      • It's a hard situation. The natural varities often can't supply enough food, but you don't want a viable GMO stock to drive out the natural varients. But then you end up with sterile GMO stock which can't be propegated so you're stuck buying seeds every crop cycle.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Strider- ( 39683 )

        While the IP restrictions of many of the big suppliers are abhorrent, the reality is that most farmers beyond the subsistence level do not retain/replant their own seeds. It's far more cost effective to purchase seed every year from your seed provider.

        A) This allows for easier crop rotation, as you no longer have to maintain seed for multiple different crops (alternate between, say, rape, soy, corn, wheat, whatever..)
        B) The seed you purchase is typically guaranteed to be weed free, which your own seed is no

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HiThere ( 15173 )

          We're talking about places like Ghana and India. The farmers there can't afford to buy seed every year. GMO goes in and farmer suicides go up.

          • If you are referring to the Indian farmer suicides they have nothing to do with GMO:s, that is just anti-gmo propaganda.

            In another 2014 review, Ian Plewis states, "the available data does not support the view that farmer suicides have increased following the introduction of Bt cotton. Taking all states together, there is evidence to support the hypothesis that the reverse is true: male farmer suicide rates have actually declined after 2005 having been increasing before then"

    • "We are a higher species ok, why should we farm like weâ(TM)re ants or something? "

      You must be joking?

      "At each step our food becomes more and more tailored to what we need, we need less area of land, and less physical labor to get it."

      Those are hardly priorities, sustainability, food safety and quality nutrients need a lot more attention.

    • monsanto.
      enough said.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 )
      Yes, yes, let's have even the most basic needs for life to continue to rely on only the highest levels of technology we have to offer, so when (not if but when) something fails, everyone can starve to death! Great idea! Also: more artificial stuff! Great idea! What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
      More technology is NOT always the answer to problems.

      • When something fails? Like a global catastrophe destroying all the food synthesis machines? That would be a war or some kind of crazy geological event or meteor strike. Farming isnâ(TM)t exactly going to work out then either. Or do you mean devastating locusts and plant diseases? Cause thatâ(TM)s what used to happen before GMOs. When was the last time humans had a famine unrelated to war?

        • How about hackers sabotaging your food synthesis machines? How about some coding bug? How about greedy corporations knowing they have everyone by the short hairs making their synthetic crap that everyone then relies on more and more expensive?
          How about it's just fucking stupid to have to have million dollar machines making synthetic crap that's probably not healthy for humans instead of putting seeds in the ground or raising chickens for their eggs and meat? How about we keep making simple things more and

          • Hacking machines globally worldwide? That's like claiming hackers can launch nukes at anytime. Probably would be easier too. How do you know synthetic can be made healthier than natural? Did Jesus tell you that? Saying that synthetic can never be better than natural is religion not science. There are plenty of plants that are poisonous and cause long term side effects like cancer.

          • The "greedy corporations" argument can be true for farming too. One company or entity can own all the wheat farms, for example. For synthetic, that might actually be a lot harder since once the design of the machines leak there'll be open source versions operating in people's basements everywhere.

            If you say the law can stop one person from owning all the farms. Well why can't the law mandate a per-company maximum output from the synthetic machines -- they do that for bank accounts ... no one bank can have m

            • Blah blah blah.
              Unless you come up with 24th centure Federation-style replicators, I'm not interested in your lab-grown synthetic stuff.

    • You sound like one of those "futurists" in the 70's. You know, the ones who came up with Tang.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Whibla ( 210729 )

        You sound like one of those "futurists" in the 70's. You know, the ones who came up with Tang.

        Tang was lush! That was one of my favourite drinks as a kid in the US.

        It does(?) / did not compare to the products [soylent.com] available on the market today.

        (Sorry, this might come across as a bit of an advert. I have never bought or tried a Soylent shake, and I am not an investor. I like proper, tasty, food!)

  • What about intellectual property? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BytePusher ( 209961 ) on Sunday February 07, 2021 @11:45AM (#61037194) Homepage
    Who owns the seeds? This could very well be yet another neocolonial attempt at subjugating African people.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by F.Ultra ( 1673484 )
      That is a completely separate issue since patents on seeds happened long before GMO was invented.

    • The company that made them fucking owns them. I never understood this point. So they create these whiz-bang seeds everyone wants. Catch - you have to buy them each year. And you and your ilk somehow turn this into some sort of huge human rights issue. I tell you what, if you don't like it don't buy the fucking seeds and use the ones you get for a cheaper price. Your whole silly "I'm for the peeps!" shtick would only make sense if there was no other choice but to buy these GMO seeds.

      If they just sold the see

  • And best of all (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Halo1 ( 136547 )

    It will ensure they have to buy their seeds every year from the companies that developed them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by F.Ultra ( 1673484 )
      The non-GMO seeds are patented too so this does not change anyting in that regard.

      • "The non-GMO seeds are patented too so this does not change anyting in that regard."

        Of course it does. First, most seeds aren't patented, and second plant patents have evolved, seed patents today are very different from those just a few decades ago.

        • The amount does not matter, as long as you can patent non-GMO seeds (and you can) then the issue of patents on seeds is not a GMO vs non-GMO issue but a patent issue. If you want to remove patents on seeds you ban patents on seed, not the existence of GMO:s. Should not be a hard concept to understand but yet here we are.

  • Nobody knows what GM will do to wild organisms.
    It is a risk to permit them.
    Well done Ghana's farmers.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

      You know people have been modifying plant genetics for centuries right?

      • "You know people have been modifying plant genetics for centuries right?"

        I'm not supporting the parent but plant breeding and recombinant DNA technology are very different things.

        • You ARE supporting the parent.
          Because the facts do.

          • "You ARE supporting the parent. Because the facts do."

            Not sure what you mean. I was also not providing evidence against your comment.

            My point was that ArchieBunker's insinuations were only that, baseless insinuations.

            "Nobody knows what GM will do to wild organisms. It is a risk to permit them. Well done Ghana's farmers."

            I agree with your that by the way. The only objection I can find is that we do have some ideas on how GMs affect wild organisms (it's mostly all bad).

        • Selective breeding is a slow process, you have plenty of time to look for hazards. You don't wake up one morning and find your goldfish have turned into flying pirana's.
        • They are different in that one is far more precise than the other in which genes you alter.

    • Probably the same thing as any wild plant that mutated on its own.

      Seriously these aren't alien lifeforms, they're just slightly mutated plants like the ones nature produces 24/7/365.

      • Yes, and Covid is just Bat Flu.

        Nothing can possibly go wrong with artificially mutated organisms in the wild, we can predict every possible outcome.

        LIES.

        • I'm not saying nothing can go wrong, I'm saying nothing unusual can go wrong, or that things won't go significantly worse than usual. SARS-CoV-2 being a good example, nature produced that all on its own while we were worried about terrorists producing an engineered virus.

        • Yes, and Covid is just Bat Flu.

          Yep. And the Plague (Bubonic or Pneumonic) was purely natural. And killed in the vicinity of 1/3 of Europe's population, with similar (but mostly undocumented) effects in the rest of the major landmass. And the Spanish Flu (also purely natural) killed more people than Covid too....

  • Ghana has a vampire problem (Score:3)

    by FeltLion ( 1289024 ) on Sunday February 07, 2021 @12:12PM (#61037280) Journal
    If you drop leaflets stating that genetically modified crops ward away vampires... I'm pretty sure they will go for it
  • GM crops contributed to a suicide spike in India because the farmers were encouraged to go into debt to buy GM seeds: https://www.economist.com/feas... [economist.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Whibla ( 210729 )

      GM crops contributed to a suicide spike in India because the farmers were encouraged to go into debt to buy GM seeds: https://www.economist.com/feas... [economist.com]

      It's possible that in your hurry to make us all aware of this 'damning fact' you picked the wrong source.

      I say this because the article you linked to said exactly the opposite: "There is only one trouble: there has been no spate of suicides. <snip> The idea that GM cotton drives farmers to suicide has become received wisdom. But it is wrong."

      Thanks for the link though, it (well the analysis it's based on) will come in handy...

    • That idea came from a very early report that have since been superseded by several other studies that come to the exact reverse opinion;

      In another 2014 review, Ian Plewis states, "the available data does not support the view that farmer suicides have increased following the introduction of Bt cotton. Taking all states together, there is evidence to support the hypothesis that the reverse is true: male farmer suicide rates have actually declined after 2005 having been increasing before then"

  • Just say no to GM stuff (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zkiwi34 ( 974563 ) on Sunday February 07, 2021 @12:21PM (#61037296)

    It is and will be a problem.

    It will mess with the ecosystem and not in a good way.
    It will, as a primary goal, mean that farmers will have to pay for seed from one source. A monopoly with no way of opting out.
    It will lead to dependence on a single crop, which history has shown always ends badly.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Whibla ( 210729 )

      When has "Just say no" ever been successful when used as a campaign slogan?

      But, just to be clear:

      Are we saying no to GM crops created by crossbreeding?
      Are we saying no to GM crops created by mutagenesis?
      Are we saying no to GM crops created by CRISPR single gene alterations?
      Are we saying no to GM crops with transgenic genes inserted?

      Can you quantify the difference in risk between these four options?

      The subject is complicated, and as such simple slogans are ... unhelpful.

    • Mod up - but Add 1) Nothing is free. More efficient seeds deplete soil and need more water and a temperature range 2) Capital. Need to buy fertilizer, pesticides, irrigation etc. And buy seeds upfront. 3) Farmers are price takers. In the UK, hedgerows are coming back, avoiding capital equipment traps 4) In short, traditional farming is making a comeback. Debt free, sustainable.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Whibla ( 210729 )

        1) Nothing is free. More efficient seeds deplete soil and need more water and a temperature range

        As if a major push within GM products is not to create heat tolerant and drought resistant crops - something you'd think would actually be beneficial to the farmers we're talking about.

        2) Capital. Need to buy fertilizer, pesticides, irrigation etc. And buy seeds upfront.

        Are you suggesting the GM crops require the farmer to buy more fertiliser and / pesticides? That would seen to be exactly the opposite of the reality.

        3) Farmers are price takers. In the UK, hedgerows are coming back, avoiding capital equipment traps

        I'm not sure what being a 'price taker' even means. It's also not clear what the use of GM crops has to do with how a farmer manages their land, wrt field size. Conflating unrel

  • GM plants would be OK if not done the Monsanto way (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DollyTheSheep ( 576243 ) on Sunday February 07, 2021 @12:24PM (#61037304)

    I think, the willingness to use genetic engineering and technology would be greater among farmers and ultimately among consumers, if it hadn't been given a bad rap by companies the likes of Monsanto (now part of Bayer) for a longer time.
    I mean, we use genetic engineering and technology already in a wide variety of uses like growing human insulin, testing, creating vaccines (the development of COVID-19 vaccines this rapid was impossible in the past), forensics etc.
    So why the reluctance for GMOs? Is it just some fear of unforeseen dissemination of "Frankensteinian monsters"? I think, farmers are reluctant, because they are already held hostage regarding seeds and re-planting those seeds by patents. In addition Monsanto forced farmers to buy certain herbicides because only they would work in conjunction with the company provided genetically modified seeds and crops, deepening thus the dependency on one company.

    • In addition Monsanto forced farmers to buy certain herbicides because only they would work in conjunction with the company provided genetically modified seeds and crops, deepening thus the dependency on one company.

      The patent on glyphosate expired before the patent on glyphosate resistance. While Monsanto continues (AFAIK) to be the world's largest supplier, anyone with the means can make and sell it.

  • Modern farming doesn't require buying GM. (Score:3)

    by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Sunday February 07, 2021 @12:38PM (#61037342)

    Nice Slashvertisement tho....

    Mention of "the hoe" (the grub hoe is the fundamental agricultural tool) in the parent is intended to paint people who don't use GM as backward. I see what they're doing there. :-)

  • Are seeds from the GMO plants viable? If so, does a farmer have the right to plant seeds from the first generation without compensating the original provider over and over again, every time he produces a new crop?

    Usually, the answer to one of those questions about GMO crops is a resounding "No!" GMO seed providers are a lot like crack dealers: the first hit is always cheap or free.

    • Are seeds from the GMO plants viable? If so, does a farmer have the right to plant seeds from the first generation without compensating the original provider over and over again, every time he produces a new crop?

      Yes and no, respectively.

      Nobody has ever shipped plants using the terminator gene. And you couldn't ship seed, the whole point is that the seed is sterile. It would have to be clones.

  • GM crops are a solution to a non-existing problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by orzetto ( 545509 ) on Sunday February 07, 2021 @12:54PM (#61037402)

    There is no need for GM crops whatsover. The planet already produces more than enough food. Starvation occurs because of poverty and war, and GM crops will do nothing for that. The only motivation for GM crops is increased profit for who produces their sterile seeds.

    If you really want to help farmers in Africa, abolish agricultural subsidies in the West. We are literally paying taxes to strangle poor countries' agricultural sector by flooding their markets.

    If you really want to have more food production capacity, abolish subsidies to the meat sector and tax meat consumption as a luxury item. Any calorie from meat costs a lot more calories in feeding the animals.

    • The only motivation for GM crops is increased profit for who produces their sterile seeds.

      No one is producing sterile seeds with GM. They are not using the so-called "Terminator Gene". The only thing they use to prevent people from replanting is the law.

      I think that law is bad, but they're still not producing sterile seeds.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Whibla ( 210729 )

      There is no need for GM crops whatsover.

      There is no need for cars, international travel, the internet, and so on. There are however benefits to all these things, just as there are benefits to GM crops. Are there potential downsides? Sure, just as there are downsides to all the other things I mentioned - but if you're happy to do without them, because you don't 'need' them feel free to never post again. (<- Please note, this is a hyperbolic suggestion. Please do post again!)

      The planet already produces more than enough food.

      Indeed, although land use and land degradation, and over-exploitation o

  • "correct misinformation and counter conspiracy theories" Aren't they BOTH marketing?

    And haven't lies been disseminated via marketeers for so long and so well, it's become impossible to readily tell truth from lies?

    Any wonder we have this situation now?

    Is there another story you want to tell?

  • There is a serious blind spot about our faith in science when it comes to food. People happily ridicule those who fall for conspiracy theories and not checking facts and echo chambers, but that's exactly what happens when we start talking about chemicals or GMO.

    Foods and restaurants are scorned for using chemicals that have the barest associations with non-food items, as though it makes the two items the same thing. Your X contains hydrogen dioxide, you know what else contains hydrogen dioxide? Snake venom!

    • But you ignore the main problem of GMO foods, the corporate control that makes it illegal for a poor person to plant a GMO seed without permission, that makes their crops targeted for destruction if a GMO plant has been found.

      An evil control and hold over the food supply for greedy powerful needs to be eliminated.

      As for safety, peer reviewed science is backing some valid concerns and it is definitely open question:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • Lol, then don't use GMO seeds. Problem solved. Oddly, farmers do often use them because the value proposition is still there even with this big evil you imagine "charging for a product" to be. GP is right - you guys are mostly nuts like Q. I mean, even some Qtards can weave bits and pieces of reasonable points into their larger scheme of absolute fucking kookiness. But most of these horrible cases you imagine of poor farmers being sued by Monsanto were people trying to rip them off.

      • Many crops are hybrids which can not breed by themselves, so you are forced to buy seeds from whomever created that hybrid. What exactly is the difference between this long standing practice and GMO?

        Secondly, the so called terminator genes which can exist in GMO plants are often illegal and have never been implemented. They can also be added to hybrids or, in a case of bio-blackmail, some basement lab geneticist could hack them onto native varieties for blackmail purposes. GMOs are not unique here, but wh

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Whibla ( 210729 )

        But you ignore the main problem of GMO foods, the corporate control that makes it illegal for a poor person to plant a GMO seed without permission, that makes their crops targeted for destruction if a GMO plant has been found.

        That is certainly one of the main arguments used by opponents of GMO's. It might even be partially true, but it's by no means the whole story.

        If you read the history of golden rice, [wikipedia.org] you'll see that pretty much the only reason its distribution and use was held up was because of public fears, fears that were based on the exact argument you're using now.

        Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not a family friendly policy.

  • A GMO plant is found on a farmer's property, he is accused of theft and his crops destroyed. A hungry poor person can't plant a seed he came across, because it is GMO and he need permission and to pay royalties. This evil control of the food supply must stop, the back of the megacorporations like Monsanto must be broken.

    And there ARE potential health issues with some GMO foods and studies are ongoing:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cyberax ( 705495 )

      A GMO plant is found on a farmer's property, he is accused of theft and his crops destroyed.

      That has never happened. Monsanto pays (at about twice the market rate) to buy out any crop accidentally pollinated with RoundUp-ready seeds. The only case where Monsanto sued the farmer involved the farmer purposefully breeding RoundUp-ready seeds using crops pollinated by a neighbor's field.

  • No worries Ghana you'll have GMO anyway (Score:3)

    by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Sunday February 07, 2021 @02:44PM (#61037690) Journal
    Just give it time, Ghana, eventually the GMO will be brought to you on the wind, and delivered by the bees pollinating your crops. Nothing can stop that now, the proverbial horse has left the proverbial barn many years ago now, which is why I don't even stress over whether GMO is actually long-term safe, there's nothing we can do about it anymore.

  • "Will Misinformation Scare Ghana's Farmers Away From Genetically-Modified Crops?"

    Probably.

    Although, given what companies like Monsanto have been up to for decades, namely fucking over farmers, it may not all be misinformation.

    • Those marketing propagandists don't miss a beat. They'll have everybody opposing their corporate agenda labeled a Luddite conspiracy nut spreading disinfo while they continue their spin. They may even be clever enough to fuel some actual nutcases and then highlight those in the media so then your reasonable objections are easily lumped in with jewish space laser lady etc.

      GMO is a cancer. Not only economically as it enslaves farmers and 3rd world nations into ownership of nature itself as they infect DNA in

      • GMO is a cancer.

        The way it's used now is a cancer, but it could be used for a million beneficial purposes if not for the greed of companies like Monsanto.

    • "given what companies like Monsanto have been up to for decades, namely fucking over farmers" - citation needed. So far all court cases that the anti-gmo movement have tried to blame on Monsanto have turned out to be either false or the single case where a farmer deliberately grew patented crops without a license (he admitted to it in court as well) only to then claim that his field had been contaminated.

      Farmers bought seeds from Monsanto because they liked their products. Monsanto had (since Monsanto no lo

      • Yes, you are right, everyone should love Monsanto or whatever corporate name they're doing business under now.

        Your argument totally 100% convinced me and I feel silly that I ever doubted the loving and altruistic nature of a international mega-corporation.

  • If agribusiness insists on pulling the same crap they do in the US, that farmers cannot save seed for next year, and that any neighbors whose crops were pollinated by the genegineered crops needs to pay, and can't save seed, it does worse than nothing for the Ghanians.

Slashdot Top Deals

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Close