On the surface, GMO, or Genetically modified organisms, appear to be a benign attempt to increase food output but creating food that is resistant to pests and blight.

However, as this Infomatic films animated short playfully presents, there are a number of concerns with GMOs.  Beyond the obvious health and biodiversity concerns is the question of private property.

While simple labeling requirements, which in theory would give them the power to choose whether or not to purchase GMO tainted foods, would satisfy most consumers health fears, the patent and biodiversity concerns rise to a level that should concern all of humanity.

The root of the problem is the argument that the genetic codes developed for use in the creation of GMOs are the property of the creator of that code.  As such, once a crop is planted with GMOs, nature’s natural cross pollinators, namely wind and bees, will carry the genetic code to all of the surrounding crop.

Once the neighboring crop has become tainted with the genetic code, the code creator demands remuneration from the farmer or grower of the untainted crop for use of the genetic code, even though that use was incidental.

This is perhaps the most insidious example of Empire, whose final goal is to demand the food production of its populations and force that same population to come begging it for the food that the same people produced.

Generally, the courts have ruled in favor of the GMO genetic code creators at the expense of farmers and, by extension, all of humanity.  In the process, the justices who think they are upholding private property by virtue of these rulings are in practice destroying it.

There is an inherent conflict between intellectual property and tangible property.  As long as intellectual property rights are allowed to trample tangible property rights, all of humanity will suffer and become further enslaved.

The situation, seen through a different lens, would have a different outcome if the farmer or grower would begin to mount defenses based on tangible property rights, for in practice what is occurring is that the GMO creators are polluting the private property of the non GMO farmers.

The arguments for the GMO creators generally hinges on the fact that neighboring farmers have enjoyed greater yields by virtue of their “enhancements.”  If the battle over imposed intellectual property is to be won, farmers must reject the increased yield arguments by presenting the fact that their crops have not been enhanced, but tainted by the spread of GMO through natural pollination processes, which do not know property borders.

The involuntary spread of GMO genetic code to neighboring crops is pollution.  Until the farmers and justices begin to see it as such, the natural biodiversity of the world’s food supply, which is its true protector from pests, drought, and blight, will be irreparably harmed.

Enjoy the video and let us know what you think!