6 ms·

The reason why GMO is bad is probably not because of the "Modified" part. It's because they're optimised to withstand heavy pesticide use. Pesticides are bad.

The reason why GMO is bad is probably not because of the "Modified" part. It's because they're optimised to withstand heavy pesticide use. Pesticides are bad. Also, that freedom thing: GMO are generally sterile, so you have to buy seeds every year from Monsanto. Great business model for Monsanto, not so much for the farmer.

7sigma 10y ago
"It's because they're optimised to withstand heavy pesticide use" Actually, GMOs need less pesticides than non GMO crop. Some of them produce their own pesticide (BT corn and BT cotton). "Pesticides are bad." Thats kind of the point, they are bad to pests that try to eat the crop "GMO are generally sterile" You are confusing GMO with hybrids and no they are not sterile, the just lose vigour after a few generations, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid ", so you have to buy seeds every year from Monsanto. Great business model for Monsanto, not so much for the farmer." Most farmers in the developed world buy new seed every year because of the hybrid thing, and do so because its convenient. At the end of the day its a choice the farmer makes: they could re use their own seeds and hybridise them, but for most its not worth the hassle.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > > "GMO are generally sterile" > You are confusing GMO with hybrids and no they are not sterile Monsanto did have the (terribly named) "terminator gene". They said this was to protect the environment from spilled seed.
  - 7sigma 10y ago
    Terminator gene was never commercialised
- lolive 10y ago
  What happens when you eat this BT corn?
  - XorNot 10y ago
    The extremely acidic and enzyme rich system in your stomach demolishes the chemical structure, DNA, and proteins into constituant amino acids.
    - tomp 10y ago
      You say this as if there was no organic poison that could kill you if you eat it...
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        You didn't ask about poisons. You asked about the corn. It does what corn does.
        tomp 10y ago
        If the corn produces pesticides, which are poisons, it's a reasonable question to ask "what happens when you eat the corn" - are the ears/kernels covered with it as well, or could they even contain it?
        XorNot 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_maize#Insecticide-producing_corn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_maize#Ins... Short answer: it's not a pesticide which affects humans. Discussions about poisons fundamentally have to include a discussion about mechanism of action, because plenty of poisonous things to one species are completely harmless to another - i.e. chocolate is toxic to dogs, but harmless to humans in fairly massive quantities. Debate over GMOs is in no way helped by attempts to broad-brush, and in fact reveals some rather startling and unfounded biases - i.e. the idea that "natural" is healthy is completely absurd - the vast majority of plants, and animal meats, are toxic for humans to eat. If you ever go ocean fishing, you'd be incredibly stupid to eat a fish you couldn't identify.
        deleted 10y ago
- ansible 10y ago
  Thats kind of the point, they are bad to pests that try to eat the crop And pesticides are also bad for other insects that don't eat the crops, and are necessary for our ecosystem to function. And pesticides are bad for people and animals in the longer term too.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    >And pesticides are bad for people and animals in the longer term too. Can you source that claim?
    - ansible 10y ago
      I'm surprised I need to. Here's one I found in ten seconds of searching. http://extension.psu.edu/pests/pesticide-education/applicators/fact-sheets/pesticide-safety/potential-health-effects-of-pesticides http://extension.psu.edu/pests/pesticide-education/applicato...
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        That says large doses are potentially harmful to humans. It mostly speaks of harm potentinally coming to those who apply them. I'm looking more for a peer reviewed study that states pesticides used in GMO farming are more harmful that pesticides used in organic farming.
  - 7sigma 10y ago
    Well in the case of BT (bacillus thurigensis) cotton and corn, for example, the GM plant produces the Cry toxin which is bad for the insects that eat the crop, so better than spraying it (Also BT is used in organic agriculture via spraying btw). Herbicides like roundup affect a certain pathway in plants, not humans in animals. "And pesticides are bad for people and animals in the longer term too." Not at the concentrations that are used. The amount of residue is minuscule and modern pesticides have far less toxicity than older ones that have been phased out. IIRC, the BT toxin only affects insects that have an alkaline digestive system. Animals and humans are unaffected as its acidic.
- michaelt 10y ago
  Actually, GMOs need less pesticides than non GMO crop. Depends what you compare it to. Roundup-resistant crops allow roundup-intensive farming [1] which does less* environmental harm than some more harmful pesticides (if you ignore the development of roundup-resistant weeds). But lower intensity, less productive organic techniques use fewer pesticides and do even less environmental harm. [1] http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/ http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/
  - 7sigma 10y ago
    Where in that link does it say that organic techniques use fewer pesticides? Organic farming is restricted to naturally occurring pesticides which are often less effective than synthetic ones and so they need to be applied more often. Also, organic yields are often lower than conventional ones, so more land may be needed to compensate. Clearing land is way more environmentally unfriendly than using pesticide, so any gains from organic techniques are nullified. But i guess it depends on crop/climate and exact techniques [0]http://www.science20.com/agricultural_realism/example_how_much_pesticides_have_changed-127931 http://www.science20.com/agricultural_realism/example_how_mu...
randomdata 10y ago
Farmer here. > It's because they're optimised to withstand heavy pesticide use. Pesticides are bad. The use of roundup on crops predates the roundup ready gene by a couple of decades. What certain GMO traits allows is reducing the pesticides down to pretty much only roundup, instead of the cocktail – including roundup – that ends up on the non-GMO crops. Other GMO traits help eliminate the need for certain pesticides completely. If pesticides are bad, GMOs pave the path to reducing and maybe one day eliminating them. > GMO are generally sterile There was a theoretical terminator gene in the news, but it has never been made available on the market. The law dissuades replanting patented seeds, if that is what you had in mind? It's not the big deal that you might think it is though. There are a number of reasons why we would not opt to replant the seeds even without GMOs being a thing. > Great business model for Monsanto, not so much for the farmer. Why single out Monsanto? There are many different companies that have GMO varieties on the market. In fact, the original roundup ready patent that started this whole hubbub has already expired. You are free to replant it now.
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  > The law dissuades of from replanting patented seeds, if that is what you had in mind? That works too, though I also thought of F1 hybrids (made so second generation crops are crap), an idea GMO can copy. Here in France, there's a law forbidding to grow any food outside a pre-approved list of crops —most of which seems to be F1 hybrids. Fortunately it doesn't appear to be enforced right now, so some farmers grow old local species anyway. > Why single out Monsanto? They're a symbol, often recognised as "most evil". I'm sure others have similar practices, I'm just not aware of them.
  - randomdata 10y ago
    > made so second generation crops are crap To be clear, they're not specifically made so that second generation crops are crap. That's just the natural process of nature. If you selected the two most ideal humans to breed, by the time their children have children, it's easy to see that there is no guarantee that the original traits in the parents that were selected for are carried down the line. The best traits are soon lost. It's much the same story here. > I'm just not aware of them. That surprises me. Bayer, BASF, DOW? I would have figured these are household names, and in some cases are much larger businesses than Monsanto.
ptaipale 10y ago
> GMO are generally sterile, so you have to buy seeds every year from Monsanto It's incredible how these myths are able to multiply. I suppose it's because they grow organically? To the point: No, GMOs are not generally sterile. Also "conventional" seeds or mostly bought from a seed company, because that is most efficient. And, the subject of seed IPRs is not related to GMO technology at all; it has been there in the U.S. since 1930's and throughout the developed world by 1990's.

7sigma 10y ago

"It's because they're optimised to withstand heavy pesticide use" Actually, GMOs need less pesticides than non GMO crop. Some of them produce their own pesticide (BT corn and BT cotton). "Pesticides are bad." Thats kind of the point, they are bad to pests that try to eat the crop "GMO are generally sterile" You are confusing GMO with hybrids and no they are not sterile, the just lose vigour after a few generations, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid ", so you have to buy seeds every year from Monsanto. Great business model for Monsanto, not so much for the farmer." Most farmers in the developed world buy new seed every year because of the hybrid thing, and do so because its convenient. At the end of the day its a choice the farmer makes: they could re use their own seeds and hybridise them, but for most its not worth the hassle.

DanBC 10y ago
> > "GMO are generally sterile" > You are confusing GMO with hybrids and no they are not sterile Monsanto did have the (terribly named) "terminator gene". They said this was to protect the environment from spilled seed.
- 7sigma 10y ago
  Terminator gene was never commercialised
lolive 10y ago
What happens when you eat this BT corn?
- XorNot 10y ago
  The extremely acidic and enzyme rich system in your stomach demolishes the chemical structure, DNA, and proteins into constituant amino acids.
  - tomp 10y ago
    You say this as if there was no organic poison that could kill you if you eat it...
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      You didn't ask about poisons. You asked about the corn. It does what corn does.
      - tomp 10y ago
        If the corn produces pesticides, which are poisons, it's a reasonable question to ask "what happens when you eat the corn" - are the ears/kernels covered with it as well, or could they even contain it?
        XorNot 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_maize#Insecticide-producing_corn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_maize#Ins... Short answer: it's not a pesticide which affects humans. Discussions about poisons fundamentally have to include a discussion about mechanism of action, because plenty of poisonous things to one species are completely harmless to another - i.e. chocolate is toxic to dogs, but harmless to humans in fairly massive quantities. Debate over GMOs is in no way helped by attempts to broad-brush, and in fact reveals some rather startling and unfounded biases - i.e. the idea that "natural" is healthy is completely absurd - the vast majority of plants, and animal meats, are toxic for humans to eat. If you ever go ocean fishing, you'd be incredibly stupid to eat a fish you couldn't identify.
        deleted 10y ago
ansible 10y ago
Thats kind of the point, they are bad to pests that try to eat the crop And pesticides are also bad for other insects that don't eat the crops, and are necessary for our ecosystem to function. And pesticides are bad for people and animals in the longer term too.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  >And pesticides are bad for people and animals in the longer term too. Can you source that claim?
  - ansible 10y ago
    I'm surprised I need to. Here's one I found in ten seconds of searching. http://extension.psu.edu/pests/pesticide-education/applicators/fact-sheets/pesticide-safety/potential-health-effects-of-pesticides http://extension.psu.edu/pests/pesticide-education/applicato...
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      That says large doses are potentially harmful to humans. It mostly speaks of harm potentinally coming to those who apply them. I'm looking more for a peer reviewed study that states pesticides used in GMO farming are more harmful that pesticides used in organic farming.
- 7sigma 10y ago
  Well in the case of BT (bacillus thurigensis) cotton and corn, for example, the GM plant produces the Cry toxin which is bad for the insects that eat the crop, so better than spraying it (Also BT is used in organic agriculture via spraying btw). Herbicides like roundup affect a certain pathway in plants, not humans in animals. "And pesticides are bad for people and animals in the longer term too." Not at the concentrations that are used. The amount of residue is minuscule and modern pesticides have far less toxicity than older ones that have been phased out. IIRC, the BT toxin only affects insects that have an alkaline digestive system. Animals and humans are unaffected as its acidic.
michaelt 10y ago
Actually, GMOs need less pesticides than non GMO crop. Depends what you compare it to. Roundup-resistant crops allow roundup-intensive farming [1] which does less* environmental harm than some more harmful pesticides (if you ignore the development of roundup-resistant weeds). But lower intensity, less productive organic techniques use fewer pesticides and do even less environmental harm. [1] http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/ http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/
- 7sigma 10y ago
  Where in that link does it say that organic techniques use fewer pesticides? Organic farming is restricted to naturally occurring pesticides which are often less effective than synthetic ones and so they need to be applied more often. Also, organic yields are often lower than conventional ones, so more land may be needed to compensate. Clearing land is way more environmentally unfriendly than using pesticide, so any gains from organic techniques are nullified. But i guess it depends on crop/climate and exact techniques [0]http://www.science20.com/agricultural_realism/example_how_much_pesticides_have_changed-127931 http://www.science20.com/agricultural_realism/example_how_mu...

randomdata 10y ago

Farmer here. > It's because they're optimised to withstand heavy pesticide use. Pesticides are bad. The use of roundup on crops predates the roundup ready gene by a couple of decades. What certain GMO traits allows is reducing the pesticides down to pretty much only roundup, instead of the cocktail – including roundup – that ends up on the non-GMO crops. Other GMO traits help eliminate the need for certain pesticides completely. If pesticides are bad, GMOs pave the path to reducing and maybe one day eliminating them. > GMO are generally sterile There was a theoretical terminator gene in the news, but it has never been made available on the market. The law dissuades replanting patented seeds, if that is what you had in mind? It's not the big deal that you might think it is though. There are a number of reasons why we would not opt to replant the seeds even without GMOs being a thing. > Great business model for Monsanto, not so much for the farmer. Why single out Monsanto? There are many different companies that have GMO varieties on the market. In fact, the original roundup ready patent that started this whole hubbub has already expired. You are free to replant it now.

loup-vaillant 10y ago
> The law dissuades of from replanting patented seeds, if that is what you had in mind? That works too, though I also thought of F1 hybrids (made so second generation crops are crap), an idea GMO can copy. Here in France, there's a law forbidding to grow any food outside a pre-approved list of crops —most of which seems to be F1 hybrids. Fortunately it doesn't appear to be enforced right now, so some farmers grow old local species anyway. > Why single out Monsanto? They're a symbol, often recognised as "most evil". I'm sure others have similar practices, I'm just not aware of them.
- randomdata 10y ago
  > made so second generation crops are crap To be clear, they're not specifically made so that second generation crops are crap. That's just the natural process of nature. If you selected the two most ideal humans to breed, by the time their children have children, it's easy to see that there is no guarantee that the original traits in the parents that were selected for are carried down the line. The best traits are soon lost. It's much the same story here. > I'm just not aware of them. That surprises me. Bayer, BASF, DOW? I would have figured these are household names, and in some cases are much larger businesses than Monsanto.

ptaipale 10y ago

> GMO are generally sterile, so you have to buy seeds every year from Monsanto It's incredible how these myths are able to multiply. I suppose it's because they grow organically? To the point: No, GMOs are not generally sterile. Also "conventional" seeds or mostly bought from a seed company, because that is most efficient. And, the subject of seed IPRs is not related to GMO technology at all; it has been there in the U.S. since 1930's and throughout the developed world by 1990's.