3 ms·

GMO crops allow us to grow more food with less space/nutrients/etc. They are a solution, not a problem, and when people fear monger about them it hurts everyone

• DoctorNick 6y ago
  So you'd prefer that farmers get screwed by the onerous IP clauses surrounding them?
  • pm90 6y ago
    No, just remove the onerous clauses rather than GMO crops.
    • bluGill 6y ago
      The most interesting patents have already expired. Most of the clauses you think of as onerous are non issues to real farmers. Hybrid seeds don't breed true, so no farmer is saving their seed in the first place.
  • tofof 6y ago
    This is a false dichotomy, and really just a red herring. GP claimed "GMOs ... will kill the best farming land we have" The parent you replied to refuted that point. Onerous IP clauses surrounding crop seeds is an IP issue, not one of agriculture and topsoil quality. And quite frankly, if onerous IP was the cost we HAD to pay, compared to the depletion of a resourse that is "non-renewable in human timescales," [1][2] yes, that's easily worth it. 1: Food & Agriculture Organization of the UN, http://www.fao.org/resources/infographics/infographics-details/en/c/278954/ http://www.fao.org/resources/infographics/infographics-detai... "Soil is a finite resource, meaning its loss and degradation is not recoverable within a human lifespan." 2: US Forest Service, way back in 2003 https://web.archive.org/web/20170531160340/https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fia/local-resources/pdf/field_manuals/2003_manual_supplement_cover_p3.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170531160340/https://www.fs.fe... Section 11.2 "On human time scales, fertile topsoil is not a renewable resource."