6 ms·

The most promising way to reduce the use of pesticides is development of gene drive to eliminate common pest species, and precise genetic editing of crops trans

by chr1 3y ago

The most promising way to reduce the use of pesticides is development of gene drive to eliminate common pest species, and precise genetic editing of crops transplanting existing pest resistance features from one variety to others. Sadly both are slowed down due to irrational fear of GMOs and overregulation.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mistrial9 3y ago
> precise genetic editing of crops transplanting most promising of returns to investors?
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  We really need to do something about Monsanto/whoever owns their stuff now. Maybe change patent law for grown food modifications. Imagine if they were forced to research and reverse the sterilization of the seed crop, and 15 years after patented the science becomes public information. Being able to then selectively breed our own plants with fertile GMO plants so we get whatever benefits we need. Roundup resistance is hot button these days but I'm sure there are plenty of genes that should be public for the good of humanity.
  - pkaye 3y ago
    GMO crops are not sterile because terminator technology was never commercialized. However there maybe contractual agreements that many prevent replanting. Also many farmers choose not to replant seeds because the next generation may of plants may not be uniform in desired characteristics. I think the situation is worse for the seeds of hybrid plants.
    - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
      I remember reading about Monsanto aggressively suing seed cleaning businesses off the face of the earth because "they encouraged farmers to save and replant seeds they are not allowed to use in such a way" because of contractual obligations, as you said.
garbanz0 3y ago
> due to irrational fear of GMOs Would not be surprised to find this fear was astroturfed. It makes literally no sense.
- dexwiz 3y ago
  The fear has never been the GMOs themselves, it what GMOs enable. Roundup works so well because they also sell seeds resistant to it. The engineering doesn’t necessarily make a better food but it always makes a better product.
  - singularity2001 3y ago
    agreed at least part of the regulation in Europe was a (improper/indirect) means to keep the seed market free from American Monopoly
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - isitmadeofglass 3y ago
    [dead]
  - garbanz0 3y ago
    From what I have seen, plenty of the fear was about the GMOs themselves.
    - dexwiz 3y ago
      That is because some people are scared of words like genetics, and its hard to explain secondary effects to the general public. But if you listen to people actually in the know, they will tell you its more about market manipulation than the genetics themselves. The genetics are often begin, and include many beneficial things like blight resistance. But it goes bad when you are locked into using specific chemicals bought from the the only company that also sells seeds. Or when a multinational company sues a farmer because of accidental hybridization with their propriety genetics. Or when a few companies have such a lock on crops with superior output, that you have no choice but to buy them, because it would mean bankruptcy otherwise. There is no open source-like alternative for seeds.
4death4 3y ago
Generally, any type of GMO pest resistance is done via some change in the plant, and that change can also affect the consumer. It seems naive to believe that no unintended side effects are possible. Take Bt corn as an example. It uses a protein to target caterpillars. The proteins we consume affect us. It’s conceivable that consuming Bt corn, or some other GMO, could have a side effect. How are you so confident to exclude this possibility entirely? Going back to pesticides for a second, you seem to accept that pesticides affect insects and humans. So why are you so sure Bt corn only affects insects?
- kelipso 3y ago
  "Irrational fear of GMO" is basically a meme. Smart people have confidence in GMO, dumb people are paranoid about GMO. I am smart, therefore I believe in GMO.
- RadixDLT 3y ago
  precisely, why do you think so many people are gluten intolerant
timeon 3y ago
> Sadly both are slowed down due to irrational fear of GMOs and overregulation. Some people want to paint it as 'irrational fear' against science. But issue with GMO is mostly about contamination of nature with proprietary seeds. Also if you think that GMO is solution against pesticides then why use of pesticides is higher in US than in EU? There are no GMOs in EU while there is less pesticides than in US. You can probably create GMO plants that are resistant to pests. Unfortunately companies selling those seeds also sell pesticides. So pest resistant seeds would hurt business. There are probably other companies who are developing just pest resistant seeds but they are not dominant yet and that is not because of 'GMO fear'.
jl2718 3y ago
The most common form of GMO is for tolerance of extremely high levels of pesticide and herbicide usage. This is mostly because engineering chemical resistance is a vastly simpler process than pest resistance. Rational people are not generally concerned with the modifications themselves[1], but the results of the practices they allow, which is exactly what this article is about. And it’s not like the actual pest-resistant strains are actually reducing pesticide usage. What incentive does a farmer have to do that? Likely the pesticide resistance is part of the package. Perhaps there is an opportunity to flip this around and make a GMO crop that will not grow at all in the presence of pesticide or herbicide. [1] Yes, there is growing rational concern for GMOs that are not just resistant to chemicals, but actually produce novel compounds that may affect humans.

by chr1 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mistrial9 3y ago

> precise genetic editing of crops transplanting most promising of returns to investors?

I_Am_Nous 3y ago
We really need to do something about Monsanto/whoever owns their stuff now. Maybe change patent law for grown food modifications. Imagine if they were forced to research and reverse the sterilization of the seed crop, and 15 years after patented the science becomes public information. Being able to then selectively breed our own plants with fertile GMO plants so we get whatever benefits we need. Roundup resistance is hot button these days but I'm sure there are plenty of genes that should be public for the good of humanity.
- pkaye 3y ago
  GMO crops are not sterile because terminator technology was never commercialized. However there maybe contractual agreements that many prevent replanting. Also many farmers choose not to replant seeds because the next generation may of plants may not be uniform in desired characteristics. I think the situation is worse for the seeds of hybrid plants.
  - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
    I remember reading about Monsanto aggressively suing seed cleaning businesses off the face of the earth because "they encouraged farmers to save and replant seeds they are not allowed to use in such a way" because of contractual obligations, as you said.

garbanz0 3y ago

> due to irrational fear of GMOs Would not be surprised to find this fear was astroturfed. It makes literally no sense.

dexwiz 3y ago
The fear has never been the GMOs themselves, it what GMOs enable. Roundup works so well because they also sell seeds resistant to it. The engineering doesn’t necessarily make a better food but it always makes a better product.
- singularity2001 3y ago
  agreed at least part of the regulation in Europe was a (improper/indirect) means to keep the seed market free from American Monopoly
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- isitmadeofglass 3y ago
  [dead]
- garbanz0 3y ago
  From what I have seen, plenty of the fear was about the GMOs themselves.
  - dexwiz 3y ago
    That is because some people are scared of words like genetics, and its hard to explain secondary effects to the general public. But if you listen to people actually in the know, they will tell you its more about market manipulation than the genetics themselves. The genetics are often begin, and include many beneficial things like blight resistance. But it goes bad when you are locked into using specific chemicals bought from the the only company that also sells seeds. Or when a multinational company sues a farmer because of accidental hybridization with their propriety genetics. Or when a few companies have such a lock on crops with superior output, that you have no choice but to buy them, because it would mean bankruptcy otherwise. There is no open source-like alternative for seeds.

4death4 3y ago

Generally, any type of GMO pest resistance is done via some change in the plant, and that change can also affect the consumer. It seems naive to believe that no unintended side effects are possible. Take Bt corn as an example. It uses a protein to target caterpillars. The proteins we consume affect us. It’s conceivable that consuming Bt corn, or some other GMO, could have a side effect. How are you so confident to exclude this possibility entirely? Going back to pesticides for a second, you seem to accept that pesticides affect insects and humans. So why are you so sure Bt corn only affects insects?

kelipso 3y ago
"Irrational fear of GMO" is basically a meme. Smart people have confidence in GMO, dumb people are paranoid about GMO. I am smart, therefore I believe in GMO.
RadixDLT 3y ago
precisely, why do you think so many people are gluten intolerant

timeon 3y ago

> Sadly both are slowed down due to irrational fear of GMOs and overregulation. Some people want to paint it as 'irrational fear' against science. But issue with GMO is mostly about contamination of nature with proprietary seeds. Also if you think that GMO is solution against pesticides then why use of pesticides is higher in US than in EU? There are no GMOs in EU while there is less pesticides than in US. You can probably create GMO plants that are resistant to pests. Unfortunately companies selling those seeds also sell pesticides. So pest resistant seeds would hurt business. There are probably other companies who are developing just pest resistant seeds but they are not dominant yet and that is not because of 'GMO fear'.

jl2718 3y ago

The most common form of GMO is for tolerance of extremely high levels of pesticide and herbicide usage. This is mostly because engineering chemical resistance is a vastly simpler process than pest resistance. Rational people are not generally concerned with the modifications themselves[1], but the results of the practices they allow, which is exactly what this article is about. And it’s not like the actual pest-resistant strains are actually reducing pesticide usage. What incentive does a farmer have to do that? Likely the pesticide resistance is part of the package. Perhaps there is an opportunity to flip this around and make a GMO crop that will not grow at all in the presence of pesticide or herbicide. [1] Yes, there is growing rational concern for GMOs that are not just resistant to chemicals, but actually produce novel compounds that may affect humans.