Monsanto: GM Foods and Materials Sector

Monsanto produces genetically modified seeds for farmers. This has led to a great deal of controversy in Europe while in America genetically modified foods are more accepted. With the emerging economies, the only the way to feed all the world’s people at an efficient cost seems to be genetically modified foods. So what is the problem? I think it goes to the issue with diets. People for example have been eating bread for thousands of years but then suddenly it became unhealthy to eat gluten. So if diets require us to consume natural foods, we can’t consume genetically modified foods, but how are these diets made up? Off the top of my head, I can think of the China Diet which is anti-cancer and involves eating all sorts of different things and flavors in overall low fat portions, the Atkins diet which focuses on the relationship of protein and food to energy, and the Pritikin diet which focused on eating a high carb and low protein that focused on the consumption of healthy foods since most vegetables and fruits are high carb and low protein compared to animal products which are less healthy. What do all these diets tell us about genetically modified foods? The key is the most important thing about making a diet work is affordability if you can add the principles of these diets on top of each other to create a combination that works for you as discipline becomes less important if you can mix and match the principles of three diets: trying something new, energy, and healthy choices. So of course genetically modified products are acceptable. The point of a diet isn’t to screen out all the unnatural products but to understand relationships between food and how the body works.

Genetics when it comes to vegetable products has parallels in human relationships. Some people don’t have resources to go through the expensive courtship process but are compelled to anyway by a partner who demands it. Such a partner who demands courtship only to reject the courting partner after a while is seeking to increase her own status at the expense of the partner’s. We call such a relationship a fallback, as no one wants to be in such a relationship but sometimes we get forced into a courtship relationship because our initial attempt failed and to save face we work with anyone to try to restore the normalcy that was lost. Well, in the perspective of genetically modified foods, there are genes that descend from fallback relationships and genes that descend from love relationships, and we would estimate the ones that descend from love relationships are more effective because it is a better match. The scientists have it all figured out in the back end I am sure as to what constitutes two vegetables that would normally get together or two that wouldn’t. What I’m trying to illustrate here however is how to think about genetics in general in a safe and more pleasant way than the usual clinical way which isn’t that colorful anyway. The person who takes fallback to its most logical reaches will lose everything because he is not honoring his own family in how he constructs relationships as a family in some sense expects and demands that things make sense when he finds a partner and he isn’t respecting that as he is doing anything that works.

With genes there are not necessarily really good ones or really bad ones but each is a story of how it came about. So there is nothing scary about genetically modified foods assuming research has been done to see they are safe for humans to consume. Some genes may cause illness and they may be overtly bad but there are stories in them too and if we remove all of them forcibly we lose a lot. In that way, when we remove the bad genes from plants we are removing stories of droughts and famines and in the end what decides whether it was worth it? It depends if these genes originally came from love or fallback. If the genes came from love the story is there and can’t be terrible, and there is just a clinical decision of cost benefit analysis. If the genes came down from fallback there is no story to preserve but a bad one and then it truly is just a clinical decision of cost benefit while if there is a good story we can find a way for example to love a bipolar child.

So all this is to say, don’t choose fallback but choose love. And the genetics will take care of themselves. What you may have thought was love was actually fallback and that for example seemed to work for so long for me because it involved me taking status and reputation from my family. Love doesn’t take. Love is patient. Love endures. Love’s pride is suffering.


No comments

Other posts

Deep Dive Fundamental Series: CASA Systems
CASA is an “emerging growth” business that sells software-centric solutions for broadband service providers to allow them to expand their bandwidth, speed, and services offered, over cable, and wireless, as these structures and architectures are all combining, with increasing density demanded of service access with time. The company started with cable work, but their Axyom software they have expanded to wireless and is 5G compatible, and that’s where growth is...
Read more
Fundamentals – HRB, JWN, KMX, KORS, KSS
HRB — H&R Block talks about the risk that governments will prepopulate the tax forms with a change in paperwork JWN – Nordstrom’s has underperformed the stock market and there is talk about taking it private, but the general idea is a company can have a great balance sheet (which is usually priced in), and a great corporate strategy and business, but if it underperforms earnings expectations each quarter and...
Read more
Fundamental Coverage – HAS, HBI, HD, HLT, HOG
Hasbro has had a stock price that has taken off last couple of years and a very good model of storytelling combined with games to make toys, which is sort of what we do here in Lucas Orchard (toy models or simple models) when we aren’t discussing serious topics of importance. It is important to understand where the boundary of storytelling lie or you would be generating fake news, and...
Read more
More posts