3 ms·

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 gen

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.
  - loup-vaillant 10y ago
    Hasn't Bayer bought Monsanto by the way? In any case, you're certainly more aware of those firms than I am. It's your trade after all. I have heard those names, but the propaganda I've seen tend to point to Monsanto as the one deserving the torches and pitchforks. > If you selected the two most ideal humans to breed I get the point (super-crops that regress to the mean after a couple generations), but the actual downsides seem more serious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid#Disadvantages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid#Disadvantages On the other hand, the upsides are enticing.
    - randomdata 10y ago
      > but the actual downsides seem more serious What part seems serious? That the offspring are not useful for replant? It's really not that big of a deal, honestly. I, like most farmers, don't have the equipment to prepare the seeds for replant anyway, so by the time I contract that out I may as well just buy from someone who is already in the business of selling seeds. Specialization and economies of scale won out. It's no surprise that farmers themselves are not overly concerned about the replanting issue. It didn't happen much even before it became a legal issue. It's funny to me how the rest of the population have latched onto that topic.
      - loup-vaillant 10y ago
        > What part seems serious? That the offspring are not useful for replant? There is that, but also the cost of maintaining such seeds (seems to be higher than for regular seeds). I get the economy of scale though. There's also the problem of single point of failure. I cannot help but think that if farmers were self-seeding, the system would be more resilient. I'm not sure. Yet another problem is one of control. If Bayer controls our seeds the way Alphabet controls our data, this isn't going to be fun when start using that control for something we didn't expect. I mean, it's food. We need it, and they know it. I don't trust them. I've seen a documentary talking about Indian farmers committing suicide when they noticed their wonderful F1 crops could not breed properly. They thought they they were making an investment. And that's without the even more obvious problems associated with planting crops unsuited to the local climate or weak against the local pests. A crop (F1 or not) that thrives in Arizona may not fare so well in Ethiopia. I believe the "oops it requires too much water" has happened before.

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.
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  Hasn't Bayer bought Monsanto by the way? In any case, you're certainly more aware of those firms than I am. It's your trade after all. I have heard those names, but the propaganda I've seen tend to point to Monsanto as the one deserving the torches and pitchforks. > If you selected the two most ideal humans to breed I get the point (super-crops that regress to the mean after a couple generations), but the actual downsides seem more serious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid#Disadvantages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_hybrid#Disadvantages On the other hand, the upsides are enticing.
  - randomdata 10y ago
    > but the actual downsides seem more serious What part seems serious? That the offspring are not useful for replant? It's really not that big of a deal, honestly. I, like most farmers, don't have the equipment to prepare the seeds for replant anyway, so by the time I contract that out I may as well just buy from someone who is already in the business of selling seeds. Specialization and economies of scale won out. It's no surprise that farmers themselves are not overly concerned about the replanting issue. It didn't happen much even before it became a legal issue. It's funny to me how the rest of the population have latched onto that topic.
    - loup-vaillant 10y ago
      > What part seems serious? That the offspring are not useful for replant? There is that, but also the cost of maintaining such seeds (seems to be higher than for regular seeds). I get the economy of scale though. There's also the problem of single point of failure. I cannot help but think that if farmers were self-seeding, the system would be more resilient. I'm not sure. Yet another problem is one of control. If Bayer controls our seeds the way Alphabet controls our data, this isn't going to be fun when start using that control for something we didn't expect. I mean, it's food. We need it, and they know it. I don't trust them. I've seen a documentary talking about Indian farmers committing suicide when they noticed their wonderful F1 crops could not breed properly. They thought they they were making an investment. And that's without the even more obvious problems associated with planting crops unsuited to the local climate or weak against the local pests. A crop (F1 or not) that thrives in Arizona may not fare so well in Ethiopia. I believe the "oops it requires too much water" has happened before.