4 ms·

> Once everyone is using the proprietary seeds, the price magically goes up and the farmers have less money than they had before, but the biotech company now ge

> Once everyone is using the proprietary seeds, the price magically goes up and the farmers have less money than they had before, but the biotech company now gets a cut of every grain of wheat which has to increase year on year (growth!). This isn't the only negative outcome you could imagine. How does that make any sense? They can always switch back to the non-GMO crops. Short of original seed somehow disappearing.. it seems the farmer can make the decision to switch back at any time. The GMO company has no mote to coerce people to keep using their product. They only use it as long as it provides higher profits. You'd have to get very create to imagine scenarios where this breaks down. Like the local climate changes and the original seed is no longer viable, and they have a ton of agricultural equipment for this one particular crop type. This also has the premise that the farmers are somehow stupid and don't realize seed prices can change year to year

bilegeek 1y ago
>> If you are a farmer who has the choice of planting more productive plants or not, if you do not, you will be at a disadvantage and eventually will be outcompeted in the market if you don't "defect". More productive crops = more competitive = higher chance of market survival. It's not about the crops per se. It's about surviving in a market that is ruthlessly cruel to anybody who doesn't subscribe to "line go up" dogma, and who isn't cutthroat in every advantage they can eke out or margin they can widen.
- contrarian1234 1y ago
  i dont understand what the dogma is... yes, it may become economically infeasable to grow nonGMO plants. What's the problem? if the seed price is increased then either it will become feasible again, or the price of the crop will increase but this is just extremely basic capitalist market forces... has no relation to GMO. The end result is cheaper food for everyone
  - Ancapistani 1y ago
    My immediate concern is the loss of overall biodiversity and specific genetic lines. I'm not a large-scale farmer, but I've spent more than my share of hours in the cab of a tractor. It's already very difficult to find seeds for "heritage varieties" of many crops. For example - for the past several years, I've grown a small patch of "Little Dutch". It's a tobacco variety that was popular in the 19th Century, but fell out of favor. To my knowledge it is not currently grown commercially at all. The only reason there are seeds available is because someone collected it from a farm in Ohio at some point. In this example, seeds can be ordered without too much hassle... but there are relatively few vendors selling them, and I'd say it's still at moderate risk of being lost. There's a small but active hobby community around growing esoteric tobacco varieties, but that's not the case for most food crops. I wouldn't even know where to begin to even determine what varieties were grown in my area fifty years ago, much less where to obtain seeds. In fact, this conversation has prompted me to go acquire some sorghum from someone I know that has been planting a couple of acres and processing it themselves for at least the past 50 years. They're getting older, their kids aren't interested in agriculture, and I seriously doubt they could even tell me what variety they're growing. It wouldn't surprise me if they've not purchased seed in generations. When they pass, that line will likely be gone forever if someone doesn't intentionally preserve it.

bilegeek 1y ago

>> If you are a farmer who has the choice of planting more productive plants or not, if you do not, you will be at a disadvantage and eventually will be outcompeted in the market if you don't "defect". More productive crops = more competitive = higher chance of market survival. It's not about the crops per se. It's about surviving in a market that is ruthlessly cruel to anybody who doesn't subscribe to "line go up" dogma, and who isn't cutthroat in every advantage they can eke out or margin they can widen.

contrarian1234 1y ago
i dont understand what the dogma is... yes, it may become economically infeasable to grow nonGMO plants. What's the problem? if the seed price is increased then either it will become feasible again, or the price of the crop will increase but this is just extremely basic capitalist market forces... has no relation to GMO. The end result is cheaper food for everyone
- Ancapistani 1y ago
  My immediate concern is the loss of overall biodiversity and specific genetic lines. I'm not a large-scale farmer, but I've spent more than my share of hours in the cab of a tractor. It's already very difficult to find seeds for "heritage varieties" of many crops. For example - for the past several years, I've grown a small patch of "Little Dutch". It's a tobacco variety that was popular in the 19th Century, but fell out of favor. To my knowledge it is not currently grown commercially at all. The only reason there are seeds available is because someone collected it from a farm in Ohio at some point. In this example, seeds can be ordered without too much hassle... but there are relatively few vendors selling them, and I'd say it's still at moderate risk of being lost. There's a small but active hobby community around growing esoteric tobacco varieties, but that's not the case for most food crops. I wouldn't even know where to begin to even determine what varieties were grown in my area fifty years ago, much less where to obtain seeds. In fact, this conversation has prompted me to go acquire some sorghum from someone I know that has been planting a couple of acres and processing it themselves for at least the past 50 years. They're getting older, their kids aren't interested in agriculture, and I seriously doubt they could even tell me what variety they're growing. It wouldn't surprise me if they've not purchased seed in generations. When they pass, that line will likely be gone forever if someone doesn't intentionally preserve it.