4 ms·
My take: there’s no GM story here. No-one’s saying the GM crops don’t work, no-one’s even saying they have negative externalities. Instead, we’ve got a lousy p
by moomin 9y ago
My take: there’s no GM story here. No-one’s saying the GM crops don’t work, no-one’s even saying they have negative externalities.
Instead, we’ve got a lousy product being sold by a large multinational that’s trying to suppress the evidence of the awfulness of its product.
So yeah, they deserve to be sued into the ground, but it doesn’t move the needle one jot on what I think about GM in general.
- linuskendall 9y agoYet, GMO as a technology is in many ways inherently associated with an agricultural system dominated by large multinational actors who excert a great deal of power. This is for me the greatest problem with GMO - not any possible health implications (for which there is scant negative evidence). Greater reliance on seed that can't be reproduced locally and on highly specialised chemicals and packages of practice is a huge threat to many farmers (especially where I work - India).
- sambull 9y agoI believe it is a GM story. Monsanto's GM is to allow chemicals like dicambra, and glyphosate to be sprayed on these crops, their modifications make them resistant. So, the GM application is mainly pesticide resistance, and the subsequent shitty pesticides they use which kill everything that hasn't been modified. The use of these pesticides is because they are growing GM crops.
- zymhan 9y agoYes, but the issue is not the GM crops causing issues, but the pesticide they are engineered to survive. If people just grew the GM crops, there wouldn't be a problem, but it's the use of the accompanying pesticide that is destroying innocent crops.
- mcguire 9y agoThat's the externality. If they didn't use the herbicide, they wouldn't want the GM crops.
- antispew 9y agoFirst, you are talking about herbicides, not pesticides. Secondly, GM opposition is a very odd thing. Every carton of milk I buy has a little sticker that it comes from non-GM cows, Every one of those stickers is a lie. We have selectively bred cattle for hundreds of years to build the modern dairy cow with specific genetics. It's been very scientifically done for a long time. Third, the real issue here is not GM. It is IP. (I know Stallman would bristle at generically lumping it all under IP). But this new idea that one party can own a seed and just license it to others for planting is crazy. The idea that they can contaminate other crops and then claim ownership of those crops, too? Crazy.
- libertyEQ 9y ago>We have selectively bred cattle for hundreds of years to build the modern dairy cow with specific genetics. I don't think it is a good idea to conflate selective breeding programs with gene splicing as they are very different.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> I don't think it is a good idea to conflate selective breeding programs with gene splicing as they are very different. Yeah, we have a lot more specific control and selectivity with gene splicing than selective breeding.
- zwerdlds 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiotropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiotropy
- cholantesh 9y agoWhat point are you trying to make?
- legulere 9y agoHerbicides are included in the group of pesticides. Genetic Manipulation is a form of breeding, but not all kinds of breeding fall under genetic manipulation. Genetic manipulation allows you to do things you cannot do with other breeding techniques such as horizontal gene transfer. You cannot produce medicine by breeding tobacco, but you can do with genetic manipulation (which is also being done).