7 ms·

I'm incredibly excited Nutrient-dense GMOs.Imagine a world where produce is not only cheaper, but healthier. Unfortunately there are special interest groups wh

I'm incredibly excited Nutrient-dense GMOs.Imagine a world where produce is not only cheaper, but healthier. Unfortunately there are special interest groups who have twisted public opinion. Over 1 million kids die every year due to Vitamin A deficiency. Some of these groups are trying to ban Golden Rice, GMO rice infused with viatamin A (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/25/greenpeace-blocks-planting-of-lifesaving-golden-rice-philippines https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/25/...).

lithos 2y ago
More likely to follow the exact path that selected breeding did. Shelf life, increased size, herbicide immunity, and similar at all other costs.
- safety1st 2y ago
  The opinion of an expert in the article directly contradicts your cynicism. > The push for nutrient-dense GMOs is a recent trend, says Kathleen Hefferon, a microbiologist at Cornell University. The first wave of GMOs were for staple crops that were easier to grow. > "There was a real push of trying to achieve food security for a lot of populaces in developing countries and usually that involved making these staple crops that grew better, such as rice and corn and wheat and things like this," she explained. > A transgenic papaya was introduced to combat a virus that was destroying the crops in Hawaii. It's largely credited with saving the industry on the islands. There were also crops to increase nutritional value for populations in developing countries. Golden rice was developed in the late 1990s to have more beta-carotene to combat Vitamin A deficiencies. Because of practical and regulatory issues, the crop never took off. > The trend now is for biofortified foods, like the Purple Tomato.
rhcom2 2y ago
There are no doubt groups against all GMOs but Monsanto definitely deserves some credit for linking GMOs with awful business and ethical practices.
- coin 2y ago
  What specifically?
  - fragmede 2y ago
    that whole suing farmers for patent infringement for using seeds from their own fields that were contaminated by the neighbor's Monsanto plants thing sticks out for me.
    - coin 2y ago
      I think the case you're referring to is Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser. It often gets misreported that Schmeiser was sued simply for his field having been contaminated from his neighbor. The reality is that while Schmeiser's field did have some cross pollination of his neighbor's Roundup Ready canola, he intentionally applied Roundup thereby killing off his own non-RR plants. He then kept the remaining pure RR canola and replanted it on a much larger scale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...
      - fragmede 2y ago
        The reality is that the seeds were on his land, and they're seeds. It seems wrong that to sue someone for that in the first place, and then furthermore to win the case just seems wrong. The fact that he used Roundup to get the right seeds isn't this gotcha that changes public opinion. As children, before we're taught economics, we learn farmers plant seeds to grow corn to feed us. Suing the farmer for planting seeds hurts this very basic role we learned as kids. Of course the world is more complicated than the world we learned of at seven, but this is a farmer planting seeds. That bit in India also sounds horrible.
        Suppafly 2y ago
        >It seems wrong that to sue someone for that in the first place, and then furthermore to win the case just seems wrong. That's a lot of 'seems' that ignores that last hundred years or so modern farming and the case law around seed patents that has existed since the 30s. > As children, before we're taught economics, we learn farmers plant seeds to grow corn to feed us. Suing the farmer for planting seeds hurts this very basic role we learned as kids. Generally anytime someone's argument is based around an appeal to emotions, you can be they aren't dealing with reality and logical thinking. Doubly so when you're talking about planting corn when discussing a case about canola.
helloworld42024 2y ago
So you're saying because 1 Million children die every year is due to Vitamin A you believe the answer is genetically modify rice rather than actually feed the children a balanced diet of Vitamin A enriched foods (carrots, sweet potatoes, spinach, kale...?) or even supplements? I suppose in theory we can put every nutrient needed known to man in a grain of rice one day. But just because you could, does it mean you should? I suppose this opens up a much more broader discussion of morals, ethics and potentially alogical topics of conversation.
- sfifs 2y ago
  Arguably yes. In this day and age of prosperity and technological development of our species, isn't it unethical and morally depraved to let children to die of malnutrition when a simple change could help? Iodine enrichment of salt achieved much the same in so many countries.
- tedunangst 2y ago
  It's easier to meet the people where they are. If they eat rice, feed them better rice.
  - helloworld42024 2y ago
    "Sorry we are having trucking difficulties and supply problems at the moment. Please take your daily serving of 1-cup all nutrient dense supplied food called Rice®™℠. Remember be grateful to your {INSERT ENTITY HERE}" ...And remember kids "It's easier to meet the people where they are!"
    - fragmede 2y ago
      Meeting people where they are dates to the 1940's, when we started putting iodine, iron and other additives into food with a significant impact in reducing disease like goiter and anemia all over the world. The Lucky Iron Fish is a good story in this area.
    - kurthr 2y ago

lithos 2y ago

More likely to follow the exact path that selected breeding did. Shelf life, increased size, herbicide immunity, and similar at all other costs.

safety1st 2y ago
The opinion of an expert in the article directly contradicts your cynicism. > The push for nutrient-dense GMOs is a recent trend, says Kathleen Hefferon, a microbiologist at Cornell University. The first wave of GMOs were for staple crops that were easier to grow. > "There was a real push of trying to achieve food security for a lot of populaces in developing countries and usually that involved making these staple crops that grew better, such as rice and corn and wheat and things like this," she explained. > A transgenic papaya was introduced to combat a virus that was destroying the crops in Hawaii. It's largely credited with saving the industry on the islands. There were also crops to increase nutritional value for populations in developing countries. Golden rice was developed in the late 1990s to have more beta-carotene to combat Vitamin A deficiencies. Because of practical and regulatory issues, the crop never took off. > The trend now is for biofortified foods, like the Purple Tomato.

rhcom2 2y ago

There are no doubt groups against all GMOs but Monsanto definitely deserves some credit for linking GMOs with awful business and ethical practices.

coin 2y ago
What specifically?
- fragmede 2y ago
  that whole suing farmers for patent infringement for using seeds from their own fields that were contaminated by the neighbor's Monsanto plants thing sticks out for me.
  - coin 2y ago
    I think the case you're referring to is Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser. It often gets misreported that Schmeiser was sued simply for his field having been contaminated from his neighbor. The reality is that while Schmeiser's field did have some cross pollination of his neighbor's Roundup Ready canola, he intentionally applied Roundup thereby killing off his own non-RR plants. He then kept the remaining pure RR canola and replanted it on a much larger scale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...
    - fragmede 2y ago
      The reality is that the seeds were on his land, and they're seeds. It seems wrong that to sue someone for that in the first place, and then furthermore to win the case just seems wrong. The fact that he used Roundup to get the right seeds isn't this gotcha that changes public opinion. As children, before we're taught economics, we learn farmers plant seeds to grow corn to feed us. Suing the farmer for planting seeds hurts this very basic role we learned as kids. Of course the world is more complicated than the world we learned of at seven, but this is a farmer planting seeds. That bit in India also sounds horrible.
      - Suppafly 2y ago
        >It seems wrong that to sue someone for that in the first place, and then furthermore to win the case just seems wrong. That's a lot of 'seems' that ignores that last hundred years or so modern farming and the case law around seed patents that has existed since the 30s. > As children, before we're taught economics, we learn farmers plant seeds to grow corn to feed us. Suing the farmer for planting seeds hurts this very basic role we learned as kids. Generally anytime someone's argument is based around an appeal to emotions, you can be they aren't dealing with reality and logical thinking. Doubly so when you're talking about planting corn when discussing a case about canola.

helloworld42024 2y ago

So you're saying because 1 Million children die every year is due to Vitamin A you believe the answer is genetically modify rice rather than actually feed the children a balanced diet of Vitamin A enriched foods (carrots, sweet potatoes, spinach, kale...?) or even supplements? I suppose in theory we can put every nutrient needed known to man in a grain of rice one day. But just because you could, does it mean you should? I suppose this opens up a much more broader discussion of morals, ethics and potentially alogical topics of conversation.

sfifs 2y ago
Arguably yes. In this day and age of prosperity and technological development of our species, isn't it unethical and morally depraved to let children to die of malnutrition when a simple change could help? Iodine enrichment of salt achieved much the same in so many countries.
tedunangst 2y ago
It's easier to meet the people where they are. If they eat rice, feed them better rice.
- helloworld42024 2y ago
  "Sorry we are having trucking difficulties and supply problems at the moment. Please take your daily serving of 1-cup all nutrient dense supplied food called Rice®™℠. Remember be grateful to your {INSERT ENTITY HERE}" ...And remember kids "It's easier to meet the people where they are!"
  - fragmede 2y ago
    Meeting people where they are dates to the 1940's, when we started putting iodine, iron and other additives into food with a significant impact in reducing disease like goiter and anemia all over the world. The Lucky Iron Fish is a good story in this area.
  - kurthr 2y ago