7 ms·

The majority of anti-GMO people I know don't debate the science, they generally want to ban them for two reasons: 1. Overuse of pesticides leads to tolerance w

The majority of anti-GMO people I know don't debate the science, they generally want to ban them for two reasons: 1. Overuse of pesticides leads to tolerance which leads to an escalation which is some of what you see in this article. 2. One or two large corporations controling the vast majority of food production for the US. Gains in farming are awesome, but they shouldn't be at the expense of autonomy of the farmers who bring us the food.

kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
Genetic modifications are useful for more than pesticide resistance. We could have better, riper tomatoes in stores if the Flavr Savr hadn't been attacked by alarmists. Instead we get ethylene treated junk.
- dxhdr 9y ago
  From Wikipedia: "The Flavr Savr turned out to disappoint researchers ... as the antisensed PG gene had a positive effect on shelf life, but not on the fruit's firmness, so the tomatoes still had to be harvested like any other unmodified vine-ripe tomatoes. An improved flavor, later achieved through traditional breeding of Flavr Savr and better tasting varieties, would also contribute to selling Flavr Savr at a premium price at the supermarket. ... The failure of the Flavr Savr has been attributed to Calgene's inexperience in the business of growing and shipping tomatoes." Sounds like Flavr Savrs were just a failure. I don't see anything about alarmists.
  - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
    It's been 20+ years. Any flaws could have been worked out by now.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      I prefer this example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice The controversy section is very telling. While not directly quoted in the article, I've seen/heard people argue, "It hasn't been proven safe!" Well, yeah? Of course it hasn't. Nothing is ever proven safe, really. It'd be much easier to demonstrate the benefits if, you know, they actually let trials go forward. Some trials have been started, but people keep protesting and doing stuff like burning the fields.
      - Chathamization 9y ago
        > Some trials have been started, but people keep protesting and doing stuff like burning the fields. That's not the reason why Golden Rice has been a failure[1]: > While activists did destroy one Golden Rice test plot in a 2013 protest, it is unlikely that this action had any significant impact on the approval of Golden Rice. > “Destroying test plots is a dubious way to express opposition, but this was only one small plot out of many plots in multiple locations over many years,” he said. Rather: > As Stone and Glover note in the article, researchers continue to have problems developing beta carotene-enriched strains that yield as well as non-GMO strains already being grown by farmers. [1] https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden-rice-falls-short-lifesaving-promises/ https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- badwolf 9y ago
  If they'd make a non-browning avocado, most of these yuppies would immediately abandon their anti-GMO stances I imagine :)
viggity 9y ago
"Overuse of pesticides leads to tolerance" Dicamba is a herbicide, not a pesticide. Using Dicamba or Glyphosphate leads to less herbicide use. Because the soybeans or maize has been modified specifically to tolerate dicamba or glyphosphate and that those herbicides kill pretty much anything that is green, they don't have to use a lot of it. If we didn't have broad spectrum herbicides, farmers would have to use many narrow spectrum herbicides to kill weeds of different varieties. More herbicide, not less.
- undersuit 9y ago
  You don't think overuse of herbicides ALSO leads to resistance among plants? Dicamba is being pushed because Glyphosate is falling off in effectiveness now that weeds have developed resistance. >If we didn't have broad spectrum herbicides, farmers would have to use many narrow spectrum herbicides to kill weeds of different varieties. More herbicide, not less. The reverse is true. Narrow application of herbicides to just the weed plants encroaching upon a field results in far less herbicide application then spraying entire fields as a matter of practice.
soundwave106 9y ago
I'll add context to #2: according to this source (http://fortune.com/2014/06/26/monsanto-gmo-crops/ http://fortune.com/2014/06/26/monsanto-gmo-crops/), about 80% of US corn and 90% of US soybeans are grown with patented seed traits from one single company -- Monsanto. The science behind GMOs are fine. The situation with GMOs being patentable IP, and the monopolization of the market that has resulted from this, to me is rather worrying.
- alexwebb2 9y ago
  If a company spends millions upon millions in R&D to come up with something that makes their customers dramatically more productive, I think it's fitting that they should be able to patent it and reap the rewards of their investment. That's how we encourage that kind of innovation - with the potential for massive windfalls. It works. I do have a bit of wariness in the back of my mind about the long-term ramifications of setting the precedent that companies can own genetic patterns. I don't think anybody knows quite what the knock-on effects of that might be in twenty or thirty years... but I also don't know how we can protect and encourage this kind of innovation without granting those exclusive rights.
Shorel 9y ago
3. Police publicly destroying the harvest and brutalizing of local farmers in a South American country for 'patent license' reasons.

kevin_thibedeau 9y ago

Genetic modifications are useful for more than pesticide resistance. We could have better, riper tomatoes in stores if the Flavr Savr hadn't been attacked by alarmists. Instead we get ethylene treated junk.

dxhdr 9y ago
From Wikipedia: "The Flavr Savr turned out to disappoint researchers ... as the antisensed PG gene had a positive effect on shelf life, but not on the fruit's firmness, so the tomatoes still had to be harvested like any other unmodified vine-ripe tomatoes. An improved flavor, later achieved through traditional breeding of Flavr Savr and better tasting varieties, would also contribute to selling Flavr Savr at a premium price at the supermarket. ... The failure of the Flavr Savr has been attributed to Calgene's inexperience in the business of growing and shipping tomatoes." Sounds like Flavr Savrs were just a failure. I don't see anything about alarmists.
- kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
  It's been 20+ years. Any flaws could have been worked out by now.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    I prefer this example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice The controversy section is very telling. While not directly quoted in the article, I've seen/heard people argue, "It hasn't been proven safe!" Well, yeah? Of course it hasn't. Nothing is ever proven safe, really. It'd be much easier to demonstrate the benefits if, you know, they actually let trials go forward. Some trials have been started, but people keep protesting and doing stuff like burning the fields.
    - Chathamization 9y ago
      > Some trials have been started, but people keep protesting and doing stuff like burning the fields. That's not the reason why Golden Rice has been a failure[1]: > While activists did destroy one Golden Rice test plot in a 2013 protest, it is unlikely that this action had any significant impact on the approval of Golden Rice. > “Destroying test plots is a dubious way to express opposition, but this was only one small plot out of many plots in multiple locations over many years,” he said. Rather: > As Stone and Glover note in the article, researchers continue to have problems developing beta carotene-enriched strains that yield as well as non-GMO strains already being grown by farmers. [1] https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden-rice-falls-short-lifesaving-promises/ https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
badwolf 9y ago
If they'd make a non-browning avocado, most of these yuppies would immediately abandon their anti-GMO stances I imagine :)

viggity 9y ago

"Overuse of pesticides leads to tolerance" Dicamba is a herbicide, not a pesticide. Using Dicamba or Glyphosphate leads to less herbicide use. Because the soybeans or maize has been modified specifically to tolerate dicamba or glyphosphate and that those herbicides kill pretty much anything that is green, they don't have to use a lot of it. If we didn't have broad spectrum herbicides, farmers would have to use many narrow spectrum herbicides to kill weeds of different varieties. More herbicide, not less.

undersuit 9y ago
You don't think overuse of herbicides ALSO leads to resistance among plants? Dicamba is being pushed because Glyphosate is falling off in effectiveness now that weeds have developed resistance. >If we didn't have broad spectrum herbicides, farmers would have to use many narrow spectrum herbicides to kill weeds of different varieties. More herbicide, not less. The reverse is true. Narrow application of herbicides to just the weed plants encroaching upon a field results in far less herbicide application then spraying entire fields as a matter of practice.

soundwave106 9y ago

I'll add context to #2: according to this source (http://fortune.com/2014/06/26/monsanto-gmo-crops/ http://fortune.com/2014/06/26/monsanto-gmo-crops/), about 80% of US corn and 90% of US soybeans are grown with patented seed traits from one single company -- Monsanto. The science behind GMOs are fine. The situation with GMOs being patentable IP, and the monopolization of the market that has resulted from this, to me is rather worrying.

alexwebb2 9y ago
If a company spends millions upon millions in R&D to come up with something that makes their customers dramatically more productive, I think it's fitting that they should be able to patent it and reap the rewards of their investment. That's how we encourage that kind of innovation - with the potential for massive windfalls. It works. I do have a bit of wariness in the back of my mind about the long-term ramifications of setting the precedent that companies can own genetic patterns. I don't think anybody knows quite what the knock-on effects of that might be in twenty or thirty years... but I also don't know how we can protect and encourage this kind of innovation without granting those exclusive rights.

Shorel 9y ago

3. Police publicly destroying the harvest and brutalizing of local farmers in a South American country for 'patent license' reasons.