3 ms·
Generally I tend to agree. Generally I am pro genetic enhancements. But I do recall there was one type of genetically modified corn that was made to produce a
by zadkey 7y ago
Generally I tend to agree. Generally I am pro genetic enhancements.
But I do recall there was one type of genetically modified corn that was made to produce a specific chemical that caused insects' stomachs to explode. Supposedly it was there to reduce the need for pesticides. I recall thinking to myself, If it does that to insect stomachs, what would it do it animals' stomachs?
The other issue that we haven't fully gotten figured out is cross pollination concerns. Aside from the problem of Monsanto's suicide seeds that grow only once and can't be harvested again accidentally cross pollinating with regular seeds from nearby fields, there is another problem with people becoming legally liable for the actions of bees, butterflies and other pollinators. Some GMO's have unreasonably restrictive licensing. This has resulted in a person's field getting pollinated with by bees who were pollinating GMO plants from a neighboring field now getting sued for having plants they haven't licensed even though did not originally plant that particular variety.
- cestith 7y agoThere is definitely a need for the law to catch up to reality. Farmers should be able to use seed from their own plants even if they've been cross-pollenated. They shouldn't be able to advertise the patented traits without paying for the patent license. I think that's a fair balance. You can't put your proprietary thing out there to automatically install itself in other people's systems then sue them for having it installed. Imagine if a software development company tried that in court.