Economic Downside of GMO Seed Industry

People say if farmers don't want problems from Monsanto, just don't buy their GMO seeds.

Not so simple. Where are farmers supposed to get normal seed these days? How are they supposed to avoid contamination of their fields from GM-crops? How are they supposed to stop Monsanto detectives from trespassing or Monsanto from using helicopters to fly over spying on them?

Monsanto contaminates the fields, trespasses onto the land taking samples and if they find any GMO plants growing there (or say they have), they then sue, saying they own the crop. It's a way to make money since farmers can't fight back and court and they settle because they have no choice.

And they have done and are doing a bucket load of things to keep farmers and everyone else from having any access at all to buying, collecting, and saving of NORMAL seeds.

[...]

The Multiple Ways Monsanto is Putting Normal Seeds Out of Reach ...

THE BAD SEED

For decades, the Monsanto Corporation of St. Louis has been slowly dominating the world's supply of seed for staple crops (corn, soybeans, potatoes) -- a business plan that Monsanto's critics say is nothing short of diabolical. Monsanto says it is just devilishly good business.

Monsanto has spent over $30 billion in recent years buying numerous U.S. seed companies. As a result, two firms, Monsanto and Pioneer (recently purchased by DuPont), now control the U.S. seed business. Monsanto specializes in genetically modified seeds -- seeds having particular properties that Monsanto has patented.

The U.S. government is very enthusiastic about these new technologies. From the viewpoint of U.S. foreign policy, genetically modified seeds offer a key advantage over traditional seeds: because genetically modified seeds are patented, it is illegal for a farmer to retain seed from this year's crop to plant next year. 

To use these patented seeds, farmers must buy new seeds from Monsanto every year. Thus, a farmer who adopts genetically modified seeds and fails to retain a stock of traditional seeds could become dependent upon a transnational corporation. 

Nations, whose farmers are dependent upon corporations for seed, might forfeit considerable political independence. The Clinton/Gore administration has been aggressively helping Monsanto promote new, untested gene-altered products, by-passing U.S. health and safety regulations.

[...]

Monsanto: THE BAD SEED

Genetically modified seed giant Monsanto is notorious for suing farmers [PDF] in defense of its patent claims. But now, a group of dozens of organic farmers and food activists have, with the help of the not-for-profit law center The Public Patent Foundation, sued Monsanto in a case that could forever alter the way genetically modified crops are grown in this country. But before you can understand why, it's worth reviewing an important, but underreported aspect of the fight over GMOs. 

One of the many downsides to genetically engineered food is the fact that modified genes are patented by the companies that isolate them. This is not typically part of the story that gets much attention when you read about all those great (but nonexistent) magic seeds that will grow faster, better, cheaper, etc. and seem to forever remain "just around the corner."

As any music or movie lover knows from experience, patent and copyright law in this country is a mess. You only need to look at the music industry's successful campaign to sue random consumers over file-sharing to know that. Fun fact: no fiction copyright granted after 1929 -- whether a movie, television show, or book -- will ever be allowed to expire because that was the year of Mickey Mouse's "birth" and Disney has convinced Congress that Mickey should never fall into the public domain. That's one screwed up way to go about protecting the interests of authors. And forget about the folks over at the U.S. Patent Office -- it's clear that they have no idea what they're doing anymore.

[...]

Reversing roles, farmers sue Monsanto over GMO seeds | Grist

Better living through chemistry? Hardly. Mnosanto is strongarming the agriculture industry in America. Industrialized agriculture has decreased the labor need for food, but what Monsanto is doing is an effort to control the food supply through economics. Companies like Monsanto are impervious to government regulation, mostly due to the industry stocking the regulatory agencies with industry leaders. The future of food looks bleak without a movement to localize agriculture again.

Home Rainwater Collection System: First Rain

Last night's rainfall filled up both of our 200 gallon tanks, with the overflow of one going to a 1,500 gallon tank. Wunderground lists total rainfall as 0.59 inches for this area. Not bad for the first collection, though we still want to add a couple more 1,500 gallon tanks to the system.

This got me wondering how much rain we can actually collect. Here is the formula:

Rainwater collection from roofs can be calculated using the following formulas:

• 1 inch of rain on a 1000 square feet roof yields 623 gallons of water; or

Helpful Rainwater Collection Formula


We added on a 700 sq ft addition, making the total near 1,500 sq ft of roof that collects into this system. So, the math on that would be 1,500 X 623 / 1,000 = 934 gallons collected from 1 inch of rainfall for our system. Eventually the front of the house will be added to the system. We are too close to the Austin metro to drill a well, so this is the next best thing.

Since last night's rainfall was only 0.59, the math would be 0.59 X 934 = 551 gallons. Not bad at all. Even with the cost of a couple more 1,500 gallon tanks, this is still very practical, with the current setup saving enough money to pay for itself in a couple of years.

Home Rainwater Collection System

We have been wanting to do rainwater collection since moving in to our home. After adding on another 900 sq ft to the house, we increased our collection potential significantly. After doing the math, we found that the volume collected will have the potential to exceed half of what we draw from the municipal supply for watering the lawn and gardens. The double-bonus is that the entire system including gutters will pay for itself in water savings in about two years.

We started with two 200 gallon Poly-Mart tanks at gutter downspouts, one on either side. They were made locally and sold by another local business, TanksForLess, which is a bonus in our permaculture efforts. Greg at Big Rain Seamless Gutters did a great job with the gutters and the downspouts into the tanks.

Here is the new design for the 200 gallon tank, with a fitting halfway up the side, good for adding a faucet for filling a bucket, etc. I believe the upper overflow is a 3.5" size, but haven't set that end up yet, since we don't have an overflow tank for storage at that end yet.

Each tank will also have a ball valve with a garden hose fitting for easy access, though getting down from 1.5" or 2" takes some creativity.

At the far end of the NW corner of the yard is a 1,500 gallon tank, with room next to it for another to match.

The composter will have to move when we get a second tank in this corner.

There is a good 2-3' drop from the house to the low end of the yard where we set the first of our 1,500 overflow tanks that will serve as the primary storage. We plan on adding another 1,500 next to it, with a pair at the other end of the yard near the gardens and future greenhouse.

Digging the trenches was fun. We had to rent a trencher for that part, since we have lots of limestone just under the surface. It still took the better part of a day to dig two trenches of about 200' total, so the trencher bucked like a wild mustang and wore me out as much as it would have dug by hand, but in less time.

Future plans might include a 2,500 gallon Poly-Mart tank at the other end where we have more open space near the gardens. We may even add gutters to the front of the house to collect for the front gardens, but the homeowner's association doesn't make sustainability project easy.

First Steps Toward Localized Sustainability

The first steps are the hardest. Moving away from using non-renewable resources is a difficult prospect when generations have become more and more reliant upon fossil fuels than the previous. It is like an addiction. The first step is admitting there is a problem. We have acknowledged that we need to move away from fossil fuels as a primary energy source, but global consumption continues to increase. It is like there is a fear of what will happen if one part of our culture cuts the cord on fossil fuels while another increases it's consumption to make up for it. Do all countries need to make the move together, all at once? I think that it comes down to an issue of localization. Each region needs to address it's energy requirements and usage independently, while working with the global community to reduce consumption of non-renewable resources, and the resulting pollution. Coastal areas can take advantage of tidal energy. Hot and sunny areas can take better advantage of solar energy. Some areas have great geothermal potential, while others can utilize wind energy. All of these sources can help supplement, and then replace, burning fossil fuels to create electric energy. We have to take advantage of what nature provides us with to make changes that we can rely upon, while working toward conservation efforts to reduce pollution and restore our environment to a level that can sustain our population and the rest of the species on the planet.

Population, Conservation, Natural Resources, and Sustainability

I don't see things getting better if population continues to increase generation after generation. With those increases, development to support population also increases. Nature gets destroyed to make room for homes, businesses, and industries. Natural resources get consumed to support the population at an increased rate over the previous generation. Without conservation efforts, this population increase leads to a risk of hitting environmental resistance limitations. The issue with hitting those limits in resources is that members of the population will begin to compete for ever-increasing resources for survival. Consider the famine in East Africa.

One good way to address these issues is by working toward goals similar to those of the Permaculture movement. Permaculture is an effort to create a sustainable culture through ecological programs. These efforts include living in harmony with the environment, using only the resources necessary for survival, minimizing waste, to create sustainable communities reliant on themselves, rather than larger networks that require massive amounts of energy and resources to provide us with our needs. By conserving our resources and using only what we need to survive, we can reduce the impact our lives collectively have on the environment, thereby reducing the negative impact we create, and preserving a healthy and sustainable world for subsequent generations. Unless we work toward those type of sustainable goals, subsequent generations will have a lower quality of life.

It was not long ago that Americans also tried to have large families for the same reason. Survival chances for children in this country were much lower a century or more ago. With a large number of children, parents could ensure that their family would continue to grow larger with each passing generation, resulting in higher birth rates. They hoped for a large number of children, but were not concerned with hitting the limits of the resources that could sustain that growth. It was not an issue when the population was a small fraction of what it is today. This country was a developing nation in those times, just as we observe about other countries today. As countries around the world develop, education regarding sustainability needs must be included so that those countries can manage their use of resources and avoid hitting environmental resistance limits. Once those limits are reached, life becomes difficult and competition over resources creates a culture working merely toward survival rather than conservation. By education the population on these issues, we can avoid issues like famine, overpopulation, resource depletion, and excessive pollution.