2 ms·

That is another phrasing issue, because it would be reasonable to take the question as a practical one meant to refer to the things that actually exist, but it

That is another phrasing issue, because it would be reasonable to take the question as a practical one meant to refer to the things that actually exist, but it would also be reasonable to take it as a theoretical one like you're suggesting.

mlyle 4y ago
Well, most of the criticism don't apply to, e.g. golden rice, which could improve the food security and nutrition for a billion people, including preventing severe deficiencies that cause blindness. > associated with strain patenting strain patenting isn't really a GM-vs-non-GM issue. As to golden rice-- sure, it's patented, but it's also licensed in a way that most of the people cultivating it wouldn't pay any license fees. > seedless plants Golden rice isn't seedless. > because they contaminate neighbouring organic plots with non-organic DNA Because of how rice is cultivated and the fact that it self-pollinates, the potential for this is extremely limited. > because they are often sold in conjunction with herbicides Not the case here. > frankly, because I hate the way their lobbyists act on our legislators. Here, there's not much desire to cultivate it "here", though obviously governments abroad do need to approve it. The amount of pro-gm lobbying here is limited, though, because there's really just not much direct fiscal interest in approval (licensing it gratis and letting farmers retain seed neuters that). Of course, there's some, in part from the desire for an opportunity to show GM as wholesome.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > Golden rice I was careful to hedge myself, with phrases like "associated with" and "sold in conjunction with". I know there are exceptions. I have no problem with golden rice, except if it's grown adjacent to some organic farmer's plot - that would potentially destroy his business. In fact I'd eat golden rice - but I've never seen it on sale.

mlyle 4y ago

Well, most of the criticism don't apply to, e.g. golden rice, which could improve the food security and nutrition for a billion people, including preventing severe deficiencies that cause blindness. > associated with strain patenting strain patenting isn't really a GM-vs-non-GM issue. As to golden rice-- sure, it's patented, but it's also licensed in a way that most of the people cultivating it wouldn't pay any license fees. > seedless plants Golden rice isn't seedless. > because they contaminate neighbouring organic plots with non-organic DNA Because of how rice is cultivated and the fact that it self-pollinates, the potential for this is extremely limited. > because they are often sold in conjunction with herbicides Not the case here. > frankly, because I hate the way their lobbyists act on our legislators. Here, there's not much desire to cultivate it "here", though obviously governments abroad do need to approve it. The amount of pro-gm lobbying here is limited, though, because there's really just not much direct fiscal interest in approval (licensing it gratis and letting farmers retain seed neuters that). Of course, there's some, in part from the desire for an opportunity to show GM as wholesome.

denton-scratch 4y ago
> Golden rice I was careful to hedge myself, with phrases like "associated with" and "sold in conjunction with". I know there are exceptions. I have no problem with golden rice, except if it's grown adjacent to some organic farmer's plot - that would potentially destroy his business. In fact I'd eat golden rice - but I've never seen it on sale.