Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Monsanto-Bayer & the Jolly Green Giant makeover

Industrial Giant in EcoGreen Clothing 😕 ???
Well yeaterday the world was treated to a public relations makeover bit of news from Bloomberg, announcing that new Ag giatn of Monsanto-Bayer was going ecogreen. Suddenly they have a love affair wit mycorrhizal fungi and beneficial bacteria. This was strange, since for decades they have done nothing but push synthetics as to mankind's answer to a modern improved world which corrects Nature's flaws, imperfections and bad designs. For the past few years now, even Monsanto and Agro-Chemical technology defenders, under their coward cloaked avatars as well known professional Internet Trolls have been demonizing and spitting vitriol at anyone opposed to synthetics and assigning anti-science labels towards anyone who spoke about mycorrhizal fungi and beneficial bacteria as the sustainable answer for agriculture. But low and behold, we are told Monsanto in partner with a Danish company called, Novozymes, have created a Corn inoculant seed coating called, Acceleron B-300 SAT, which will be released in 2017. Supposedly this product will produce more roots which causes higher yields. I'm not going to elaborate on what the public relations piece has to say about their latest miracle being championed as brand new. Fact is, this has been found in nature for countless 1000s of years which has been pointed out by many good scientists, but only now are they finally getting on board. You wouldn't know this from reading the article as it is being spun as a completely brand new discovery.
Bloomberg News: Monsanto Says Next Breakthrough for Farmers Is a Friendly Fungus

Gallery Image by National Geographic

I'm all for mycorrhizal fungi and beneficial bacteria as I have an entire record of belief and practice within both of my Timeless Environments and my Earth's Internet blogs. But these fungal and bacterial tools have to also work in conjection with other natural ecosystem checks and balances found out in Nature to work effectively. This Monsanto-Bayer version is being promoted as more efficiently working microbiome that will work with the synthetics they still want to sell farmers at a hefty price, so we're not exactly talking true eco-green here. Remember, there are still fortunes to preserve here.

Back in 2017, National Geographic, published an article called, "The New Green Revolution," where they often extol the virtues of science in the general sense as what will save mankind. For example, they still champion the old 1950s Green Revolution as life saving to mankind. But was it really ? The article had a meme which in reality was more of a religious faith affirmation which said, "Science prevented the last food crisis. Can it save us again?" Seriously ? Science did this ? Nobody champions science as much as a scientist does. The problem with the words, 'Science' and 'Scientist' is that they are generally used in the most general and broadest sense which often renders them meaningless. Diehard "Culture of Science" followers have a terrible time differentiating between good and bad science or scientists. In their worldview, anything that makes them feel warm and fuzzy all over is considered good science (think anonymous internet trolls), while something they don't like is quickly labeled (without taking the time for true critical reflection) 'pseudoscience' or as the Washington State University Garden Professors would say, "Voodoo Science." But are scientists really all that realiable ? It depends on who they are, who they work for and what motivates and drives them. There is also the problem of the flaw of imperfection which drives personal bias and prejudice. This is why all Science Societies including Academia (those who champion GMO safety for no other reasons than the consensus says so) are just as much subject to group think herd mentality just as any other type of human institution whether they be political, business or religious. Science and Scientists are not above all this. How & Why you should understand and differentiate betweeen good and bad science:
I given an illustration of a court case being tried before. When a defendant loses his case and is sentenced, people on the outside (even some journalists) will often be heard to say, "The Defendant's Lawyers had no evidence." This flawed line of reasoning can often be found in various forum of debate around the internet, "They had no evidence." This is absolutely not true. In a court trial, both sides come to court case present their own version pf evidence, otherwise they would be unprepared and stupid if they did not. What actually happens if one side or another loses the case is that the evidence they presented wasn't compelling to the jury or judge. Same is true with Science or a group of consensus screaming scientists. Both sides of an issue (Industrial or Environmental or Ecological) claim to have "The Science" on their side to back them up. So science cannot and should not ever be generalized. Nevertheless people can and do generalize it. That's why when you confront conventional consensus science people, if you don't agree with their personal gut favourite lne of science, they proceed to lable you as ani-science. People need to develop the ability to differentiate between good and bad science or good and bad Scientists and not blindly follow something or someone merely because they claim that only they have the settled consensus science. 
Analyzing exactly what Industrial Science saved Mankind from in the Green Revolution
Prior to the so-called green revolution, all of mankind had just come out of a terrible World War II. Pestilence and famine are generally the natural consequences that follow wars, hence the symbolic biblical references to the ride of the four horsemen. Firey colored horse (war), pale horse (pestilence/famine) & black horse (death). But if we examine the evidence on what science saved us from, we find that the so-called science saved us from the consequences of the misuse and abuse of science. And it's tough to differentiate science here, because the very industrial science corporations who built the bombs and other munnitions which brought us famine and pestilence are also the same ones in the 1950s who said they could also save mankind. Unfortunately their remedy was synthetics, the very same synthetics which killed people during previous years. Monsanto & Bayer were at the forefront for both the Allies & Axis power's death machines. Fast forward through the bogus green revolution to the present with all it's secretive dirty history since and we are now told to put our faith and trust in them once again because they found out about Nature and only they are capable of harnessing Nature for the ultimate good of mankind. 

The Bloomberg public relations piece insisted this technology would bring greater yields, but frankly speaking, yields are truly meaningless. What good did bumper crop yields do for farmers and starving people last year ? Did anyone read this year's news on the 7 billion dollar payout in subsidies for grain farmers ? Once again, Bloomberg brought us the news back in April 2016 of the $7 Billion Farm Subsidy which would bailout farmers because of horribly low prices of corn and soy. Organic Farmers BTW do not qualify for participation in this program because they do not conventionally farm crops by investing heavily in synthetic inputs for which these very subsidies help reimburse these farmers who follow the industrial ideology. The reality is in fact that the subsidy is mainly a guarantee the Agro-Chemical and Biotech companies are paid monies owed to them. This US Government safety net has been a huge advantage for US Farmers over farmers from other countries. For example, remember the News of how hurt poor indigenous Maize/Corn farmers of southern Mexico were hit hard in their bank accounts when the dirt cheap American Corn flooded Mexican marketplaces after the NAFTA agreement ? It will be interesting to see if any subsidies will be forthcoming to these same American farmers who decide to purchase the new Novozyme fungal inoculated seeds. Although they will still use the conventional synthetic weed, insect and fungal pesticides, not to mention synthetic fertilizer inputs. Maybe it will be welfare as usual. Another interesting development will be how the fungi respond to synthetic inputs being used since the plant will shut down chemical signaling for biosymbiosis association. Many questions remain and will probably be unanswered. But you can count on more smokescreening as various marketing schemes are employed to keep the industrial status quo in power over the long haul even if the world wants to go completely organic.

There have been many legit companies and their scientists who have championed Mycorrhizal fungi as a number one option for all manner of plant health care and ecosystem management. Mike Amaranthus, Paul Stamets, Dr Donald Marx, Dr Gary Harman, Dr Kris Nichols, Dr Wendy Taheri, etc. Now in the mean time, if you want some legitimate mycorrhizal inoculum, there are several long time companies that have been totally immersed within the mycology field long before Monsanto and Bayer gave their phony blessing to officially make mycorrhizzas cool.

Professional Companies & their Scientists who have been doing this for years

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks for visiting and for your comments!

I will try to respond to each comment within a few days, though sometimes I take longer if I'm too busy which appears to be increasing.