4 ms·

I'm not patently opposed to GMOs, but without reasonable disclosure on what's been spliced into your food and limitations on patentability of these organisms we

I'm not patently opposed to GMOs, but without reasonable disclosure on what's been spliced into your food and limitations on patentability of these organisms we could be heading into a disaster zone. Today corn is corn. What if in the future it's more fish than corn? What if you can't grow it without a license from the "manufacturer"? What if it cross-breeds with traditional corn and you can't even grow that because of patent implications? That's the fuss.

vvanders 10y ago
Yes, for a lot of people it's not GMOs which are the issue but the way companies that use GMOs behave. As a consumer I want to the right to patronize companies that don't purchase seeds from these companies, however under the current state of things there's no way to distinguish which produce/companies these are.
- VLM 10y ago
  Its the classic "I'm not opposed to the tech, just opposed to the management". Likewise I'm pretty chill with nuclear power. From a tech side its a total win. Nuclear power plants managed by mega corporations, oh not so happy about that idea. But nuke plants in general, without American style management, sure, they're cool.
Avshalom 10y ago
That's two different fusses. One is a legal issue. The other is... piscaphobia?
nostrademons 10y ago
Here's what wild corn looks like: http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/23/corn_domesticated_8700_years_ago/ http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/23/corn_domesti... The difference between teosinte and maize is about 5 genes. We've been genetically modifying corn for nearly 10,000 years, but we've just done so really inefficiently. If you want to eat raw, non-GMO corn, here's what's for dinner: http://www.silae.it/files/imgs/maiz2.jpg http://www.silae.it/files/imgs/maiz2.jpg If you want to eat this, it took a few thousand years of hybridization, selective breeding, and culling: http://pngimg.com/upload/corn_PNG5273.png http://pngimg.com/upload/corn_PNG5273.png (Patents expire after 17 years, anyway; it's likely that 17 years after the first teosinte plants were cross-bred to make maize, the breeder had a complete monopoly on them anyway.)
- coldtea 10y ago
  >The difference between teosinte and maize is about 5 genes. We've been genetically modifying corn for nearly 10,000 years, but we've just done so really inefficiently. I'm all for inefficiency when too much efficiency can cause a problem.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Decentralization is inherently inefficient because redundancy is inefficient. Sometimes inefficient is not really a problem because you have bigger priorities, like genetic diversity and avoiding a single point of failure.
- vvanders 10y ago
  > We've been genetically modifying corn for nearly 10,000 years, but we've just done so really inefficiently. We've also been doing it massively distributed which means it can adapt and change independent of a single/couple organizations. Yes, it's inefficient but that's also somewhat of a feature in that we don't have a single point of failure.
  - nostrademons 10y ago
    If the history of both tech and biotech is any indication, GMOs will be massively distributed on timescales much shorter than 10,000 years. Patents last for 17 years, and if drugs like penicillin or acetaminophen are any indication, generic competition springs up almost as soon as the patent is expired. It's pretty unlikely that the original development of agriculture was decentralized. In fact, we have pretty good evidence that it was intensely centralized in a few places, and that tribes that had this technology then outcompeted, conquered, and killed all the hunter/gatherer bands that resisted using it.
- brlewis 10y ago
  We've been traveling from point A to point B for more than 10,000 years, but we've just done so really inefficiently compared to planes and automobiles. People have a right to be wary of newer technologies; more powerful generally means more dangerous.
keepper 10y ago
Today, corn is corn That's because many see domesticated crops as a different thing than GMO crops... and of course, use the assumed bad behavior of one company, as a detriment to the science behind crop enhancement.
maxerickson 10y ago
Just make the entity that plants the IP responsible for replacing any seed it contaminates. That doesn't protect against global seed contamination, but we aren't teetering on that precipice.
- astrodust 10y ago
  The problem with the "teetering" moment is these things have a way of sneaking up on you. Exponential growth in GMO crops would push this from an "in fifty years" thing to "in ten years" which is basically tomorrow. I also doubt Monsanto and other big GMO organizations are going to give away anything ever unless they're forced to. Their answer to everything is "sue me" because they know they'll bury you.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    I'm basically proposing a principle that could be cast into law. Plant a crop with IP attached to it, then you better clean up after yourself. Monsanto would probably lobby against such a law, but so what, screw them and pass it anyway. I'm pretty sanguine about the teetering. Among other things, companies like Monsanto (and thus their competitors) like to do things like maintain big seed banks. So do academics and hobbyists.

vvanders 10y ago

Yes, for a lot of people it's not GMOs which are the issue but the way companies that use GMOs behave. As a consumer I want to the right to patronize companies that don't purchase seeds from these companies, however under the current state of things there's no way to distinguish which produce/companies these are.

VLM 10y ago
Its the classic "I'm not opposed to the tech, just opposed to the management". Likewise I'm pretty chill with nuclear power. From a tech side its a total win. Nuclear power plants managed by mega corporations, oh not so happy about that idea. But nuke plants in general, without American style management, sure, they're cool.

Avshalom 10y ago

That's two different fusses. One is a legal issue. The other is... piscaphobia?

nostrademons 10y ago

Here's what wild corn looks like: http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/23/corn_domesticated_8700_years_ago/ http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/23/corn_domesti... The difference between teosinte and maize is about 5 genes. We've been genetically modifying corn for nearly 10,000 years, but we've just done so really inefficiently. If you want to eat raw, non-GMO corn, here's what's for dinner: http://www.silae.it/files/imgs/maiz2.jpg http://www.silae.it/files/imgs/maiz2.jpg If you want to eat this, it took a few thousand years of hybridization, selective breeding, and culling: http://pngimg.com/upload/corn_PNG5273.png http://pngimg.com/upload/corn_PNG5273.png (Patents expire after 17 years, anyway; it's likely that 17 years after the first teosinte plants were cross-bred to make maize, the breeder had a complete monopoly on them anyway.)

coldtea 10y ago
>The difference between teosinte and maize is about 5 genes. We've been genetically modifying corn for nearly 10,000 years, but we've just done so really inefficiently. I'm all for inefficiency when too much efficiency can cause a problem.
- astrodust 10y ago
  Decentralization is inherently inefficient because redundancy is inefficient. Sometimes inefficient is not really a problem because you have bigger priorities, like genetic diversity and avoiding a single point of failure.
vvanders 10y ago
> We've been genetically modifying corn for nearly 10,000 years, but we've just done so really inefficiently. We've also been doing it massively distributed which means it can adapt and change independent of a single/couple organizations. Yes, it's inefficient but that's also somewhat of a feature in that we don't have a single point of failure.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  If the history of both tech and biotech is any indication, GMOs will be massively distributed on timescales much shorter than 10,000 years. Patents last for 17 years, and if drugs like penicillin or acetaminophen are any indication, generic competition springs up almost as soon as the patent is expired. It's pretty unlikely that the original development of agriculture was decentralized. In fact, we have pretty good evidence that it was intensely centralized in a few places, and that tribes that had this technology then outcompeted, conquered, and killed all the hunter/gatherer bands that resisted using it.
brlewis 10y ago
We've been traveling from point A to point B for more than 10,000 years, but we've just done so really inefficiently compared to planes and automobiles. People have a right to be wary of newer technologies; more powerful generally means more dangerous.

keepper 10y ago

Today, corn is corn That's because many see domesticated crops as a different thing than GMO crops... and of course, use the assumed bad behavior of one company, as a detriment to the science behind crop enhancement.

maxerickson 10y ago

Just make the entity that plants the IP responsible for replacing any seed it contaminates. That doesn't protect against global seed contamination, but we aren't teetering on that precipice.

astrodust 10y ago
The problem with the "teetering" moment is these things have a way of sneaking up on you. Exponential growth in GMO crops would push this from an "in fifty years" thing to "in ten years" which is basically tomorrow. I also doubt Monsanto and other big GMO organizations are going to give away anything ever unless they're forced to. Their answer to everything is "sue me" because they know they'll bury you.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  I'm basically proposing a principle that could be cast into law. Plant a crop with IP attached to it, then you better clean up after yourself. Monsanto would probably lobby against such a law, but so what, screw them and pass it anyway. I'm pretty sanguine about the teetering. Among other things, companies like Monsanto (and thus their competitors) like to do things like maintain big seed banks. So do academics and hobbyists.