3 ms·

I think it's fair to say eating one plant is not comparable with eating a different plant. Why is eating one pattern of DNA (rice) less dangerous than another (

I think it's fair to say eating one plant is not comparable with eating a different plant. Why is eating one pattern of DNA (rice) less dangerous than another (Castor beans, where ricin comes from)? I think that's pretty self-explanatory. They code for different proteins. I think the answer is more that we have no reason to believe that these modifications introduced harmful proteins, and we tested it on animals and humans, and they were fine. The problem I have with GMOs generally speaking is the business model of patenting, selling sterile seeds that put farmers on mandatory subscription model - and that frequently the only genetic modification is to make the crop resistant to pesticides and herbicides so you can soak the fields, sterilize them and kill everything else. Or all 3 at once, like RoundUp Ready corn and soy.

gruez 4y ago
>The problem I have with GMOs generally speaking is the business model of patenting, selling sterile seeds that put farmers on mandatory subscription model What you said also applies to hybrid varieties, yet they don't receive nearly as much pushback. Furthermore, what's wrong with a subscription model? GMO seeds costs money to develop and that has to be recouped somehow. The alternative is paying some sort of upfront fixed cost, which is probably even worse on a farmer's finances and gives large scale operations even more of an advantage (they have easy access to capital).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- memco 4y ago
  > Furthermore, what's wrong with a subscription model? GMO seeds costs money to develop and that has to be recouped somehow. The alternative is paying some sort of upfront fixed cost, which is probably even worse on a farmer's finances and gives large scale operations even more of an advantage (they have easy access to capital). A subscription isn’t in and of itself a bad thing, but the expectation is a little strange given that the plants themselves spread and grow in places that cannot be regulated by the developers. Thus someone could subscribe once then cancel but still grow the crop. Further, people who didn’t subscribe could end up having some of the crop spread onto their land then could unintentionally grow it without permission. This has sometimes led to attempts to either force people to pay for services they didn’t agree to or to destroy something growing on their own land through no fault of their own. In those cases, non-customers are actively penalized for their non-participation rather being left alone or being incentivized to try product through positive means.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >but the expectation is a little strange given that the plants themselves spread and grow in places that cannot be regulated by the developers. Thus someone could subscribe once then cancel but still grow the crop. 1. As mentioned before, what isn't applicable to hybrid crops. If you try to collect the seeds of hybrid crops and try to plant them, you'll get the seeds of the parents, which aren't going to have the attributes you're looking for. 2. I take it that you're also against copyrights? After all, you can theoretically buy a blu-ray once, and copy it infinitely. >Further, people who didn’t subscribe could end up having some of the crop spread onto their land then could unintentionally grow it without permission. This has sometimes led to attempts to either force people to pay for services they didn’t agree to or to destroy something growing on their own land through no fault of their own. In those cases, non-customers are actively penalized for their non-participation rather being left alone or being incentivized to try product through positive means. Source for this? It's been often alleged that monsanto engages in this behavior, but according to wikipedia[1] they've only gone after farmers that were intentionally trying to reverse engineer/breed their seeds. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaintiff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaint...
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      If I kept getting sent single frames of a bluray whether I want them or not, but I was forbidden from putting those frames together into the full movie, I'd be pretty annoyed about that use of copyright too.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- imtringued 4y ago
  >Furthermore, what's wrong with a subscription model? GMO seeds costs money to develop and that has to be recouped somehow. Developing countries must import seeds which forces them to export something to maintain balanced trade. Most developed nations are fighting currency wars against each other and developing countries which means they can at best export natural resources like oil, gold, raw copper or diamonds.
  - gruez 4y ago
    This seems like a self-correcting problem. If you can't export stuff then foreign currency/GMO seeds would get more and more expensive, until the increased productivity of GMO seeds isn't worth it anymore at which point you switch back to conventional seeds. Considering that you can't eat "natural resources like oil, gold, raw copper or diamonds", having the option to turn those things into more food (ie. by exporting them and using the money to buy GMO Seeds) seems like a net positive.

gruez 4y ago

>The problem I have with GMOs generally speaking is the business model of patenting, selling sterile seeds that put farmers on mandatory subscription model What you said also applies to hybrid varieties, yet they don't receive nearly as much pushback. Furthermore, what's wrong with a subscription model? GMO seeds costs money to develop and that has to be recouped somehow. The alternative is paying some sort of upfront fixed cost, which is probably even worse on a farmer's finances and gives large scale operations even more of an advantage (they have easy access to capital).

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
memco 4y ago
> Furthermore, what's wrong with a subscription model? GMO seeds costs money to develop and that has to be recouped somehow. The alternative is paying some sort of upfront fixed cost, which is probably even worse on a farmer's finances and gives large scale operations even more of an advantage (they have easy access to capital). A subscription isn’t in and of itself a bad thing, but the expectation is a little strange given that the plants themselves spread and grow in places that cannot be regulated by the developers. Thus someone could subscribe once then cancel but still grow the crop. Further, people who didn’t subscribe could end up having some of the crop spread onto their land then could unintentionally grow it without permission. This has sometimes led to attempts to either force people to pay for services they didn’t agree to or to destroy something growing on their own land through no fault of their own. In those cases, non-customers are actively penalized for their non-participation rather being left alone or being incentivized to try product through positive means.
- gruez 4y ago
  >but the expectation is a little strange given that the plants themselves spread and grow in places that cannot be regulated by the developers. Thus someone could subscribe once then cancel but still grow the crop. 1. As mentioned before, what isn't applicable to hybrid crops. If you try to collect the seeds of hybrid crops and try to plant them, you'll get the seeds of the parents, which aren't going to have the attributes you're looking for. 2. I take it that you're also against copyrights? After all, you can theoretically buy a blu-ray once, and copy it infinitely. >Further, people who didn’t subscribe could end up having some of the crop spread onto their land then could unintentionally grow it without permission. This has sometimes led to attempts to either force people to pay for services they didn’t agree to or to destroy something growing on their own land through no fault of their own. In those cases, non-customers are actively penalized for their non-participation rather being left alone or being incentivized to try product through positive means. Source for this? It's been often alleged that monsanto engages in this behavior, but according to wikipedia[1] they've only gone after farmers that were intentionally trying to reverse engineer/breed their seeds. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaintiff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaint...
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    If I kept getting sent single frames of a bluray whether I want them or not, but I was forbidden from putting those frames together into the full movie, I'd be pretty annoyed about that use of copyright too.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
imtringued 4y ago
>Furthermore, what's wrong with a subscription model? GMO seeds costs money to develop and that has to be recouped somehow. Developing countries must import seeds which forces them to export something to maintain balanced trade. Most developed nations are fighting currency wars against each other and developing countries which means they can at best export natural resources like oil, gold, raw copper or diamonds.
- gruez 4y ago
  This seems like a self-correcting problem. If you can't export stuff then foreign currency/GMO seeds would get more and more expensive, until the increased productivity of GMO seeds isn't worth it anymore at which point you switch back to conventional seeds. Considering that you can't eat "natural resources like oil, gold, raw copper or diamonds", having the option to turn those things into more food (ie. by exporting them and using the money to buy GMO Seeds) seems like a net positive.