3 ms·

The real question is why anyone would not. Before you reply remember random mutation is common - normal in nature. what is the difference between a random muta

The real question is why anyone would not. Before you reply remember random mutation is common - normal in nature. what is the difference between a random mutation and one a scientist comes up with. So far the only one I've found is random mutation isn't studied for safety.

jackbravo 1y ago
One common drawback of GM crops is the monopolistic nature of their seeds. They come with a license and a cost to use, you cannot save seeds and use them later. So it seems like a threat to the sovereignty of a Country. The article briefly mentions that initially some seeds are given with royalty free licenses, but for how long?
- gruez 1y ago
  1. as others have mentioned in a sibling thread, "saving seeds" isn't really a thing that can be done with modern crops, GMO or not. 2. If you get a productivity boost from GMO, and but then GMO company goes rogue, can't you still go back to planting regular seeds?
  - abdullahkhalids 1y ago
    Re 2: on this software engineering forum, the following example will help. If you have core dependency goes rogue, and you have to switch to an alternate library with similar features, is that a free switch? Think of how many thousands of hours of work are often needed? How many businesses have gone under because of such issues? Growing a particular variety requires a lot of knowledge gained by each individual farmer from experience. You can't just go back to an old variety for free. It may take several years for yields to go back to previous levels and by then the farmer may have gone under.
    - gruez 1y ago
      Ok but going back to the library analogy, GMO bans are like the government banning react.js because they're convinced angularjs (or jquery) is good enough and facebook might go rogue. Shouldn't it be up to individual farmers to decide?
      - small_scombrus 1y ago
        The difference I think, is that the libraries are open source, and you don't have to pay Facebook yearly to use React. Countries can and do ban closed source paid products when they don't trust the provider (e.g. Huawei)
        icpmoles 1y ago
        When you buy hardware that goes rogue you're forced to throw it away and install something new, which costs money for hardware and labor. When a GMO goes rogue you can just buy a different seed the next planting season, which you were going to do anyway.
    - bluGill 1y ago
      Farmers change seeds all the time. One I know tells me that a great variety will terrible in 3 more years, though I'm not clear why. In any case they all are planting several varities ever year - four different ones in a field isn't uncommon - with harvest data to track the difference (different soils need different seeds). Test plots where they do many different side by side are somewhat common. they are always trying different options to see what works to do more. Plus predictions on weather mean different seeds.
- bluGill 1y ago
  The patents are expiring. Many of the useful traits are no longer under patent. even ignoring that things the patents were easy for golden rice to license. https://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how9_IP.php https://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how9_IP.php
Symmetry 1y ago
And before GMO essentially all modern strains were created by accelerating the mutation of plants via the application of x-rays.
like_any_other 1y ago
Why not? First, the safety reason: random mutations (and selective breeding) are to genetic engineering as a pedestrian is to a 747 jet. The range of possibilities and the speed at which they can be realized is far greater with genetic engineering. But, supposing there are rigorous tests and only well understood, small alterations are permitted, there is the second reason: economics. E.g. what will a country do when a GMO seed company starts taking over farms? Like store-brand products in supermarkets, such company farms have a competitive advantage in that they can get seeds cheaper, so it could happen they slowly take over all farming. And even independent farms would be in the precarious position of depending on a small handful of global companies for their seeds. If they don't comply with the demands of these seed companies, they'd go out of business, unable to compete. Yes there are seed companies already, but the barrier to entry, degree of consolidation, and advantage gained by doing business with them, is less than when you need genetic engineering to stay in the race, so the risk of such sovereignty-wrecking monopolies is much greater with GM seeds. And third, the health reason (distinct from safety). When companies are allowed to engineer food as they want, we get Snickers bars and Coca Cola. Do we want to unleash these same corporate practices on plants themselves? Why do we believe business pressures will get us only things like drought-resistant and vitamin-enriched rice, and not some rice variant that sacrifices nutrients to increase yield or taste? Currently, the healthiest foods are those with the least corporate engineering. What reason is there to believe this will change with GMOs?
- bluGill 1y ago
  > The range of possibilities and the speed at which they can be realized is far greater with genetic engineering. This is 100% false. Random genetic change happens often across the billions of seeds planted every year. GMO is a much much smaller amount of change that targets a very tiny section of DNA. > what will a country do when a GMO seed company starts taking over farms? That is unrelated to GMO. Seed companies existed for many decades before GMO. There is a reason they have not taken over: the economics of running a large farm do not pay - they still need employees at each farm to learn the field and make decision on what works - soil is not 100% uniform and often farmers plant different seeds in the same field (that is 4 different corn seeds depending on the soil- the low areas get a variety that handles wet conditions better, while the high areas need to handle drought. Then there is the sand/clay mix... And that is a very high level overview, you can get a phd in soil if you want details). Someone needs to make decisions about what fertilizer to use. Someone needs to take the risk of good/bad weather, tariffs, and all the other things farmers do. There is a lot of value to seed companies in not having to worry about that. > Like store-brand products in supermarkets, such company farms have a competitive advantage in that they can get seeds cheaper, so it could happen they slowly take over all farming. This is a competitive disadvantage. A seed company doesn't make the best seed for all situations, so if they end up with a farm where their competitors seeds are better they are losing value putting their own seeds in their fields - seeds that they cannot then sell to a different field where they would do better. Remember from above planting 4 different seeds in a field is not uncommon - 1 of those might be from a different company. > the health reason Has nothing to do with GMO.
MatekCopatek 1y ago
From my perspective, this is a slightly naive opinion. I believe we're not fighting against GMOs because "mutations are bad". When activists point that out, it's because it's the easiest way to reach the general population and convince them to get behind the cause. The real reason, however, are the political and economical implications of GMOs. Sure, they say they'll use them to fight famine. But in reality, they'll just try to extract as much profit as they can, regardless of the interests of the people growing the plants and eating the food. We've seen farmers get sued (see Bowman v Monsanto) and other evil stuff like that.
- bluGill 1y ago
  Bowman v Monsanto deserved to be sued and lose in court. By citing that case you prove you have not dug into the details and don't understand what you are talking about. I don't understand why you are fighting against GMO. Not all GMO is done by corporations. Golden rice for example was not done by a big corporation.

jackbravo 1y ago

One common drawback of GM crops is the monopolistic nature of their seeds. They come with a license and a cost to use, you cannot save seeds and use them later. So it seems like a threat to the sovereignty of a Country. The article briefly mentions that initially some seeds are given with royalty free licenses, but for how long?

gruez 1y ago
1. as others have mentioned in a sibling thread, "saving seeds" isn't really a thing that can be done with modern crops, GMO or not. 2. If you get a productivity boost from GMO, and but then GMO company goes rogue, can't you still go back to planting regular seeds?
- abdullahkhalids 1y ago
  Re 2: on this software engineering forum, the following example will help. If you have core dependency goes rogue, and you have to switch to an alternate library with similar features, is that a free switch? Think of how many thousands of hours of work are often needed? How many businesses have gone under because of such issues? Growing a particular variety requires a lot of knowledge gained by each individual farmer from experience. You can't just go back to an old variety for free. It may take several years for yields to go back to previous levels and by then the farmer may have gone under.
  - gruez 1y ago
    Ok but going back to the library analogy, GMO bans are like the government banning react.js because they're convinced angularjs (or jquery) is good enough and facebook might go rogue. Shouldn't it be up to individual farmers to decide?
    - small_scombrus 1y ago
      The difference I think, is that the libraries are open source, and you don't have to pay Facebook yearly to use React. Countries can and do ban closed source paid products when they don't trust the provider (e.g. Huawei)
      - icpmoles 1y ago
        When you buy hardware that goes rogue you're forced to throw it away and install something new, which costs money for hardware and labor. When a GMO goes rogue you can just buy a different seed the next planting season, which you were going to do anyway.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    Farmers change seeds all the time. One I know tells me that a great variety will terrible in 3 more years, though I'm not clear why. In any case they all are planting several varities ever year - four different ones in a field isn't uncommon - with harvest data to track the difference (different soils need different seeds). Test plots where they do many different side by side are somewhat common. they are always trying different options to see what works to do more. Plus predictions on weather mean different seeds.
bluGill 1y ago
The patents are expiring. Many of the useful traits are no longer under patent. even ignoring that things the patents were easy for golden rice to license. https://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how9_IP.php https://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how9_IP.php

Symmetry 1y ago

And before GMO essentially all modern strains were created by accelerating the mutation of plants via the application of x-rays.

like_any_other 1y ago

Why not? First, the safety reason: random mutations (and selective breeding) are to genetic engineering as a pedestrian is to a 747 jet. The range of possibilities and the speed at which they can be realized is far greater with genetic engineering. But, supposing there are rigorous tests and only well understood, small alterations are permitted, there is the second reason: economics. E.g. what will a country do when a GMO seed company starts taking over farms? Like store-brand products in supermarkets, such company farms have a competitive advantage in that they can get seeds cheaper, so it could happen they slowly take over all farming. And even independent farms would be in the precarious position of depending on a small handful of global companies for their seeds. If they don't comply with the demands of these seed companies, they'd go out of business, unable to compete. Yes there are seed companies already, but the barrier to entry, degree of consolidation, and advantage gained by doing business with them, is less than when you need genetic engineering to stay in the race, so the risk of such sovereignty-wrecking monopolies is much greater with GM seeds. And third, the health reason (distinct from safety). When companies are allowed to engineer food as they want, we get Snickers bars and Coca Cola. Do we want to unleash these same corporate practices on plants themselves? Why do we believe business pressures will get us only things like drought-resistant and vitamin-enriched rice, and not some rice variant that sacrifices nutrients to increase yield or taste? Currently, the healthiest foods are those with the least corporate engineering. What reason is there to believe this will change with GMOs?

bluGill 1y ago
> The range of possibilities and the speed at which they can be realized is far greater with genetic engineering. This is 100% false. Random genetic change happens often across the billions of seeds planted every year. GMO is a much much smaller amount of change that targets a very tiny section of DNA. > what will a country do when a GMO seed company starts taking over farms? That is unrelated to GMO. Seed companies existed for many decades before GMO. There is a reason they have not taken over: the economics of running a large farm do not pay - they still need employees at each farm to learn the field and make decision on what works - soil is not 100% uniform and often farmers plant different seeds in the same field (that is 4 different corn seeds depending on the soil- the low areas get a variety that handles wet conditions better, while the high areas need to handle drought. Then there is the sand/clay mix... And that is a very high level overview, you can get a phd in soil if you want details). Someone needs to make decisions about what fertilizer to use. Someone needs to take the risk of good/bad weather, tariffs, and all the other things farmers do. There is a lot of value to seed companies in not having to worry about that. > Like store-brand products in supermarkets, such company farms have a competitive advantage in that they can get seeds cheaper, so it could happen they slowly take over all farming. This is a competitive disadvantage. A seed company doesn't make the best seed for all situations, so if they end up with a farm where their competitors seeds are better they are losing value putting their own seeds in their fields - seeds that they cannot then sell to a different field where they would do better. Remember from above planting 4 different seeds in a field is not uncommon - 1 of those might be from a different company. > the health reason Has nothing to do with GMO.

MatekCopatek 1y ago

From my perspective, this is a slightly naive opinion. I believe we're not fighting against GMOs because "mutations are bad". When activists point that out, it's because it's the easiest way to reach the general population and convince them to get behind the cause. The real reason, however, are the political and economical implications of GMOs. Sure, they say they'll use them to fight famine. But in reality, they'll just try to extract as much profit as they can, regardless of the interests of the people growing the plants and eating the food. We've seen farmers get sued (see Bowman v Monsanto) and other evil stuff like that.

bluGill 1y ago
Bowman v Monsanto deserved to be sued and lose in court. By citing that case you prove you have not dug into the details and don't understand what you are talking about. I don't understand why you are fighting against GMO. Not all GMO is done by corporations. Golden rice for example was not done by a big corporation.