It’s amazing how much you can misrepresent a misrepresentation and contradict yourself at the same time.

First off, you’re absolutely correct in saying that wheat is a human produced crop and that genes spread all the time. However, see if you can follow this logic.

Roundup-genes have been found in all sorts of places where they’ve never been intentionally planted. The genes “contaminate” supposedly conventional varieties. Once these varieties have the roundup-ready gene in it, Monsanto is 100% justified in pursuing patent infringement lawsuits, which they’ve done. So in some cases, farmers are “forced”, not with a gun pointed at their head, but by the logic of the law and the market, to purchase GM seeds in order to avoid a more expensive law suit.

Also, in many parts of the world grain distributed as part of food aid is reused as seed (seeds are grains, grains are seeds) and thus farmers often unknowingly use GM varieties, which because they tend to produce more when used with the “right” combination of fertilizers and pesticides (often manufactured and sold by the company who sells the seed), leads the farmer to hop on the GM treadmill with both seed and inputs required to be purchased together in order to achieve the supposedly magical high yields. There is ample evidence that in many parts of the developing world farmers frequently do not apply pesticides as directed / required in order to maximize benefits. Either because they cannot afford the amount and thus try to spread out what they can afford, or because the directions aren’t printed in languages they can read or because they are given poor direction by sales agents. In all these cases the result is that they fail to achieve targeted yields which often leads to debt. Farmers in many parts of the world often depend on credit in order to purchase inputs. The more inputs they need the more credit they need. The more credit they need the more they need to be able to establish that they can pay it back. The supposed magic formula of Round-up ready seed + Monsanto Round-up looks attractive to lenders who often steer farmers towards using what they perceive to be a more reliable crop. But if yields don’t match targets the farmer is in more debt and thus more likely to try to cut costs by doing things like messing with input application, which, you guessed it, replicates the cycle. So yeah, farmers aren’t “forced” but boy the system sure seems pretty rigged, especially when gene flows undermine the legality of “conventional crops”

I do agree, that pt. 2 is a bit misleading in that the logic beyond yield and round-up ready is that yields will increase because weeding is more effective. So yes the yield is higher, but again only when the right cocktail of inputs is deployed.

So let’s review my evaluation of your rebuttal.

Pt. 1. yup, a red herring, contaminate is perhaps a bit political as you say, but gene transfer of the roundup-ready gene is very much a problem

Pt. 2. Farmers aren’t stupid, but the system isn’t set up in order to get them on the treadmill. Once they are on, it’s hard to get off and if the companies mess with prices, well…guess who looses…not Monsanto (how’s there stock doing in this crisis? that’s what I thought).

Pt. 3. If higher costs are matched by higher productivity why are so many farmers world wide in such debt? Does it have anything to do with one of the impacts of higher productivity, which is systematic overproduction? Perhaps? So productivity is a red herring. It is the relationship between costs, productivity, and market price which we need to pay attention to.

Pt. 4 Um, when companies like Monsanto lobby against labeling how can consumers make informed choices? Isn’t information essential?

Pt. 5 Nice redirect there…but maybe we can put some citations on the table and get a better idea of how valid this critique is.

Pt. 6 Well see what I wrote above.

Nice try…

1. All wheat crops “contaminate” other wheats. The movement of genes from GM-wheat would be no different from any other; the word “contaminate” is used deliberately to provoke concern. Don’t forget that wheat is wholly a human construct and does not exist in the wild.

2. No more production but more spent on herbicide? Then what would be the point? Are farmers that stupid, spending their time and effort primarily to make the seed companies richer – or is the author trying to wind people up?

3. Higher seed costs are more than balanced by higher productivity. That is why 13 million farmers around the world use GM seeds, with more joining them every year. Or are they, too, motivated simply to fill the coffers of the seed companies?

4. Good – so let them compete; farmers and consumers can make up their own minds what to use and what to buy.

5. Except for cotton, all the major GM crops currently in use serve as food both for humans an animals. Contrary to the claims of the author, research in the European Union at any rate shows that consumers, whatever they may tell pollsters, are actually largely indifferent to a GM label. What governs the purchases of GM crops is mostly whether the retailers put them on the shelves. If they are not there, people cannot buy them. If they are on sale, people do buy.

6. GM or not, farmers in many countries buy certified seeds afresh each year for the benefits in yield they offer. Nobody forces them to buy GM seeds if they don’t want to; they can stick to the older conventional varieties and save their seeds if they want to; another red herring.