Non-GMO sugar plays major role in "Reeking, Oozing Algae (Which) Closes South Florida Beaches"

[HuckleB]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/reeking-oozing-algae-closes-south-florida-beaches.html?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad&_r=1

And the pressure companies put on farmers to grow more of the stuff won't help.

[Ghost Dog]

1. The article makes no reference to GMO nor to non-GMO.

The immediate cause of the algae bloom is described as:

discharges (from Lake Okeechobee), which carry pollutants from agricultural lands

And the article informs us that:

...the state’s inability to close a deal to purchase thousands of acres of land south of Lake Okeechobee — to create a natural runoff from the lake into the Florida Everglades, where the diverse ecosystem could naturally filter toxins from the north — has been to blame for the problems But the area south of the lake has been controlled by sugar farmers for decades, and environmentalists like Mr. Perry say state legislators in Tallahassee kowtow to agricultural lobbyists who fund their re-election campaigns.

“The flow used to go south to the Everglades, and now this is a man-made, criminal disaster,” Mr. Perry said. “They, as in the state and federal government, say they can’t send the water south, but they can. This is an absolute atrocity that they are allowed to continue this in the name of agriculture. This is the worst I’ve ever seen it.”

The 2016 sugar harvest was the longest on record because of rain delays, making it also one of the most profitable on record, resulting in 2.15 million tons of sugar. Under Mr. Scott, the board of the South Florida Water Management District failed in 2015 to carry out a plan to buy roughly 47,000 acres of land from U.S. Sugar south of Lake Okeechobee that would have acted as a reservoir for the lake’s runoff.

“The political leadership has not been putting the demand on the agencies to fix the problem,” Mr. Perry said. “This water was never meant to go east and west — it was meant to go south.”...

which doesn't well fit your agenda here?

[HuckleB]

2. It doesn't need to do so.

There is no GMO sugar cane. It is already known that sugar cane, which is a very non-environmentally friendly way to get sugar, is where most of the non-GMO sugar will be derived.

It's not about an agenda, other than the agenda of the anti-GMO con artists. It's about reality. Can you live with reality? Or do you want to continue to pretend that anti-GMO nonsense has no negative consequences for the planet?

http://fafdl.org/blog/2016/04/12/another-not-so-sweet-victory-for-the-anti-gmo-movement/

[NickB79]

3. As Big Candy Ditches GMOs, Sugar Beet Farmers Hit A Sour Patch

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/05/12/477793556/as-big-candy-ditches-gmos-sugar-beet-farmers-hit-sour-patch

About half of all sugar in the U.S. comes from sugar beets, and the other half comes from sugar cane. Now, for the first time, sugar traders are treating these as two different commodities, with two different prices.

It's all because about eight years ago, nearly all the farmers who grow sugar beets in the United States decided to start growing genetically modified versions of their crop. The GMO beets, which can tolerate the weedkiller glyphosate, otherwise known as Roundup, made it easier for them to get rid of weeds.

Just in the past two years, though, that's changed. Many food companies have decided to label their products as non-GMO. And because practically all sugar beets in the U.S. are genetically modified, those food products are now using sugar derived from sugar cane grown in Florida, Louisiana or outside the U.S. There isn't any genetically modified sugar cane.

Hence, more demand for Florida's sugar cane.

The movement away from GM sugar beets is also contributing to child labor abuses in tropical sugar cane fields overseas: http://www.fairfood.org/new-report-on-child-labour-in-nicaraguan-sugarcane-industry/