3 ms·
> That's not an argument against transgenetic modification, it's an argument about intellectual property and economic practices. That's not a refutation, that'
by gohrt 10y ago
> That's not an argument against transgenetic modification, it's an argument about intellectual property and economic practices.
That's not a refutation, that's a goalpost shift.
In the real world today, you can't separate transgenetic modification from intellectual property and economic practices, when the intellectual property is technologically enforced in the transgenetic modification.
- jmde 10y agoYeah, all these arguments against non-GMO products, painting non-GMO proponents as antiscientific, seem to me to be strawman arguments that ironically miss the point. It's a thinly veiled means of asserting intellectual superiority that backfires to me because it overlooks the real arguments against GMO products. Great, you're parents and scientists. I'm a parent and a scientist too. But I understand that many of the arguments against GMOs have nothing to do with science (at least biological science) and everything to do with economics and human rights. Just because something involves biology doesn't mean that arguments about it can be reduced to that.
- sampo 10y ago> the intellectual property is technologically enforced in the transgenetic modification You seem to hold the false belief that only GMO plants are patentable. In reality, the US Plant Patent Act is from 1930. The First plant patent (in US) was granted in 1931. Everyday examples: Honeycrisp apple was patented in 1988 (so expired in 2008). 20 different mutant cultivars of Fuji apples are patented. Over 1000 plant patents are granted every year, and these don't go to only GMO plants.