3 ms·

They are synonymous because that's the current situation: GMOs are the product of billion of dollars of R&D, on which the owners fully expect a return on invest

by etatoby 10y ago

They are synonymous because that's the current situation: GMOs are the product of billion of dollars of R&D, on which the owners fully expect a return on investment. Which means protecting the IP of GMOs, aka. sterilizing / privatizing / patenting seeds, and usually selling additional chemical products related to the GMOs, as in RoundUp resistant seeds, with their own set of problems when deployed on a massive scale. The Laureates are effectively saying: "GMOs are OK to eat. This scientific / statistical fact has no direct link to how they are developed and sold in practice and what consequences that will have on society, the economy, and the environment. That's a different problem. Stop bashing GMOs." They are not only missing the point: they are behaving in a very irresponsible way.

sverige 10y ago
I still remember a statement by Armand Hammer or one of his lackeys at Occidental Petroleum in the '80s when asked why they bought IBP, then the largest meat-packing company in the US: "We think food is going to be the oil of the '90s."
CuriouslyC 10y ago
Patents have a very limited lifetime. All those GMO crops will enter the public domain and be freely available.
- randomdata 10y ago
  Yup. Roundup Ready 1, the trait that started all of this GMO talk in the first place, is already out of patent.
eivarv 10y ago
Sure - it is the current situation to some extent. But I think would be solvable via regulation, not to mention that this is a different discussion entirely. I don't think they are necessarily behaving in an irresponsible way, though. They are evaluating G.M.O.s with regard to health, safety, nutrition, poverty/famine and so on - not with regards to social and economical consequences (which I think would fall more within the purview of policy and regulation). Ultimately, this issue is highly politicized, and the debate (including the comments here on HN) is often fraught with personal opinion.
- tomp 10y ago
  It's not different discussion. It's like someone saying "Don't buy iPhones!" and you answering "But they're totally safe, they won't kill you." while ignoring they're produced using child labour. (Probably iPhones aren't, but almost surely some other products are.)
  - eivarv 10y ago
    It is. I see it more like someone saying (to stick with your example): "Don't buy iPhones - they'll kill you!", and scientists answering "But they're totally safe, they won't kill you." Meanwhile, they may be products of child-labour (or whatever other horrible circumstance we may imagine), but that's a different issue from what we are discussing. Anyway, we're getting off track here:P
Kiro 10y ago
> GMOs are the product of billion of dollars of R&D, on which the owners fully expect a return on investment Why is that a bad thing? Would you rather they invested the billion of dollars on marketing?
TeMPOraL 10y ago
> They are not only missing the point: they are behaving in a very irresponsible way. It's actually the opposite. It's them who advocate responsible and reasonable behaviour. Discouraging GMOs because of "current situation" is the same thing anti-nuclear proponents do with nuclear energy. They'll scare you with Chernobyl and Fukushima in order to discourage all work on nuclear energy, no matter how safe, no matter how different from the things that caused (few, very scope-limited) disasters. Bashing GMO and genetic engineering in general just because some companies behave somewhat irresponsibly only makes it harder for responsible people to enter this market. Not to mention the very idea that bullshiting people is good for them is kind of stretched.
blockross 10y ago
A hundred times this. I couldn't agree more. GMO is a very vague term, we can engineer plants to make them toxic in which case no, eating GMO would not be OK. We are also most probably able to engineer interesting new kinds of crop that would have a very positive impact on humanity and our natural resource consumption. There are several issues here that are not addressed by these Nobel Laureates which makes their letter dangerous and irresponsible: - as of now, Monsanto and co. are engineering their seeds so that it's impossible to keep part of the harvest and use it to grow the next one (as peoples have done for thousands of years), essentially forcing farmers to come back next year and buy new seeds. This is a very efficient way to keep farmers poor and under control. It is also very unethical, but of course the optimal choice economically speaking... - Monsanto is also engineering seeds to resist RoundUp in order to shove said RoundUp down the throats of farmers. At this point I don't think I need to debate the negative impact of roundup on human beings and nature, it's known well enough. The main point though is that it's important to remember that the goal of these companies is to maximize profit, not benefit the world. Pushing RoundUp like this is a good example: there is no incentive for them to improve the resistance of seeds to diseases as it would bring down sales of their main product. - GMO is not all good or all bad, but it is complex and a powerful tool, thus requiring caution and thorough TESTING. Testing that GMO lobbies are not exactly diligent to run. - Speaking of lobbying, most of the problems mentioned in this thread could be solved with a better regulation as they're due to bad actors. they're not intrinsic to GMO. But Monsanto being a very powerful lobby, I'm personally not too confident about the outcome.
- randomdata 10y ago
  Farmer here, > Monsanto and co. are engineering their seeds so that it's impossible to keep part of the harvest and use it to grow the next one Are you referring to hybrid crops? While it is true that we wouldn't want to save such seed, they are not necessarily lumped under the GMO umbrella. The whole patent debate doesn't affect us with such crops because we wouldn't consider saving the seeds in the first place, GMO or not, patent or not. On my farm, non-hybrid wheat is one crop we might save, but there are no GMO varieties of wheat on the market to begin with so again it is a complete non-issue. That said, rarely do we have the cleaning and treating equipment necessary to reuse the seed on the farm, so by the time you contract out that work, it's easier to just buy new seed from a dealer anyway. > Monsanto is also engineering seeds to resist RoundUp in order to shove said RoundUp down the throats of farmers. What do you mean by shove? We willing use glyphosate (not necessary Roundup™ since it is off patent and anyone can produce it) even on our non-roundup ready crops, just as farmers have done since the 1970s when glyphosate was invented. What Roundup Ready crops do allow is the use of only glyphosate, as opposed to a crazy cocktail of chemicals necessary on the non-RR crops, reducing input and application costs. I will also add that Roundup Ready 1 is also off patent now. Anyone can use the technology that was invented by Monsanto that spearheaded this whole GMO debate in the first place. > there is no incentive for them to improve the resistance of seeds to diseases as it would bring down sales of their main product. Well, ultimately, we buy what works. If, hypothetically, someone creates a viable seed that is immune to pests by itself, negating the need to apply any chemicals at all, we'd be quite willing to pay more for it. That would be a huge cost savings. Chemical applicators alone can run into half a million dollars pretty quickly, let alone the product being applied and labour costs. There are many companies (and governments) working on GMOs – it's not just Monsanto. There is a lot of incentive to come up with such a seed to become a more dominant player in the game.

by etatoby 10y ago

sverige 10y ago

I still remember a statement by Armand Hammer or one of his lackeys at Occidental Petroleum in the '80s when asked why they bought IBP, then the largest meat-packing company in the US: "We think food is going to be the oil of the '90s."

CuriouslyC 10y ago

Patents have a very limited lifetime. All those GMO crops will enter the public domain and be freely available.

randomdata 10y ago
Yup. Roundup Ready 1, the trait that started all of this GMO talk in the first place, is already out of patent.

eivarv 10y ago

Sure - it is the current situation to some extent. But I think would be solvable via regulation, not to mention that this is a different discussion entirely. I don't think they are necessarily behaving in an irresponsible way, though. They are evaluating G.M.O.s with regard to health, safety, nutrition, poverty/famine and so on - not with regards to social and economical consequences (which I think would fall more within the purview of policy and regulation). Ultimately, this issue is highly politicized, and the debate (including the comments here on HN) is often fraught with personal opinion.

tomp 10y ago
It's not different discussion. It's like someone saying "Don't buy iPhones!" and you answering "But they're totally safe, they won't kill you." while ignoring they're produced using child labour. (Probably iPhones aren't, but almost surely some other products are.)
- eivarv 10y ago
  It is. I see it more like someone saying (to stick with your example): "Don't buy iPhones - they'll kill you!", and scientists answering "But they're totally safe, they won't kill you." Meanwhile, they may be products of child-labour (or whatever other horrible circumstance we may imagine), but that's a different issue from what we are discussing. Anyway, we're getting off track here:P

Kiro 10y ago

> GMOs are the product of billion of dollars of R&D, on which the owners fully expect a return on investment Why is that a bad thing? Would you rather they invested the billion of dollars on marketing?

TeMPOraL 10y ago

> They are not only missing the point: they are behaving in a very irresponsible way. It's actually the opposite. It's them who advocate responsible and reasonable behaviour. Discouraging GMOs because of "current situation" is the same thing anti-nuclear proponents do with nuclear energy. They'll scare you with Chernobyl and Fukushima in order to discourage all work on nuclear energy, no matter how safe, no matter how different from the things that caused (few, very scope-limited) disasters. Bashing GMO and genetic engineering in general just because some companies behave somewhat irresponsibly only makes it harder for responsible people to enter this market. Not to mention the very idea that bullshiting people is good for them is kind of stretched.

blockross 10y ago

A hundred times this. I couldn't agree more. GMO is a very vague term, we can engineer plants to make them toxic in which case no, eating GMO would not be OK. We are also most probably able to engineer interesting new kinds of crop that would have a very positive impact on humanity and our natural resource consumption. There are several issues here that are not addressed by these Nobel Laureates which makes their letter dangerous and irresponsible: - as of now, Monsanto and co. are engineering their seeds so that it's impossible to keep part of the harvest and use it to grow the next one (as peoples have done for thousands of years), essentially forcing farmers to come back next year and buy new seeds. This is a very efficient way to keep farmers poor and under control. It is also very unethical, but of course the optimal choice economically speaking... - Monsanto is also engineering seeds to resist RoundUp in order to shove said RoundUp down the throats of farmers. At this point I don't think I need to debate the negative impact of roundup on human beings and nature, it's known well enough. The main point though is that it's important to remember that the goal of these companies is to maximize profit, not benefit the world. Pushing RoundUp like this is a good example: there is no incentive for them to improve the resistance of seeds to diseases as it would bring down sales of their main product. - GMO is not all good or all bad, but it is complex and a powerful tool, thus requiring caution and thorough TESTING. Testing that GMO lobbies are not exactly diligent to run. - Speaking of lobbying, most of the problems mentioned in this thread could be solved with a better regulation as they're due to bad actors. they're not intrinsic to GMO. But Monsanto being a very powerful lobby, I'm personally not too confident about the outcome.

randomdata 10y ago
Farmer here, > Monsanto and co. are engineering their seeds so that it's impossible to keep part of the harvest and use it to grow the next one Are you referring to hybrid crops? While it is true that we wouldn't want to save such seed, they are not necessarily lumped under the GMO umbrella. The whole patent debate doesn't affect us with such crops because we wouldn't consider saving the seeds in the first place, GMO or not, patent or not. On my farm, non-hybrid wheat is one crop we might save, but there are no GMO varieties of wheat on the market to begin with so again it is a complete non-issue. That said, rarely do we have the cleaning and treating equipment necessary to reuse the seed on the farm, so by the time you contract out that work, it's easier to just buy new seed from a dealer anyway. > Monsanto is also engineering seeds to resist RoundUp in order to shove said RoundUp down the throats of farmers. What do you mean by shove? We willing use glyphosate (not necessary Roundup™ since it is off patent and anyone can produce it) even on our non-roundup ready crops, just as farmers have done since the 1970s when glyphosate was invented. What Roundup Ready crops do allow is the use of only glyphosate, as opposed to a crazy cocktail of chemicals necessary on the non-RR crops, reducing input and application costs. I will also add that Roundup Ready 1 is also off patent now. Anyone can use the technology that was invented by Monsanto that spearheaded this whole GMO debate in the first place. > there is no incentive for them to improve the resistance of seeds to diseases as it would bring down sales of their main product. Well, ultimately, we buy what works. If, hypothetically, someone creates a viable seed that is immune to pests by itself, negating the need to apply any chemicals at all, we'd be quite willing to pay more for it. That would be a huge cost savings. Chemical applicators alone can run into half a million dollars pretty quickly, let alone the product being applied and labour costs. There are many companies (and governments) working on GMOs – it's not just Monsanto. There is a lot of incentive to come up with such a seed to become a more dominant player in the game.