3 ms·
This is misinformed. Firstly, Monsanto, Syngenta, and their ilk have dominated the world seed market since the 1950s. GM food is completely independent of them
by Blahah 14y ago
This is misinformed.
Firstly, Monsanto, Syngenta, and their ilk have dominated the world seed market since the 1950s. GM food is completely independent of them. Monsanto may be the largest US producer of GM seed today, but the next generation of GM plants that are being worked on are designed to solve a wide range of humanitarian problems. Please, don't make your mind up about a technology with myriad potentially life-saving uses based on one company's commercial implementation. They don't define plant science.
Secondly, the jury is emphatically not still out on the consequences. As with climat change, in the independent scientific literature there is an overwhelming consensus that the technology itself is fundamentally safe, that each new implementation must be assessed separately, and that the risks in general are lower than those for conventionally bred crops.
- michaelbuddy 14y ago"Solve a wide range of humanitarian problems..." which also has the side effect of them monopolizing developing countries. Don't kid yourself. Their unethical corporate behavior is well documented. It's companies like them that if they start losing money to organics, then they worm their way in to change the meaning of organic on food labels. It's pathetic and they deserve all the criticism they get.
- Blahah 14y agoMonsanto won't own the next generation of tech - it's being produced by governments, especially in Asia, and by academic and charitable organisations. Most that I know of are working towards free licensing arrangements, whereby they patent the tech and allow free use for individuals and small companies. I'm not defending Monsanto - I'm saying GM is not Monsanto.
- CaptainZapp 14y agoIf Monsanto doesn't own the next generation of such tech I can assure you that they will sue the living bejeezus out of anybody who owns it, or uses it. It's part of their corporate DNA.
- Blahah 14y agoThat doesn't make any sense. Monsanto owns patents in a very restricted area of plant transformation. They aren't going to just sue people owning a completely different technology, as they would have zero chance of winning, and a very high chance of pissing off the governments and (perhaps more scary) the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, who funded the next-gen tech.
- lazyjones 14y ago> Monsanto owns patents in a very restricted area of plant transformation. They aren't going to just sue people owning a completely different technology They are already suing people who are not applying any plant transformation, just using seeds. They are even suing people who never used their seeds, but got affected by cross-pollination (http://www.rodale.com/research-feed/organic-vs-monsanto-organic-farmers-lose-right-protect-crops http://www.rodale.com/research-feed/organic-vs-monsanto-orga...). So who are you to say who they are or aren't going to sue next?
- penny500 14y agoSeriously, what is with the blatantly biased sources? Why not link to a source from an unbiased top IP lawyer or professor instead?
- lazyjones 14y agoWho are you to call these sources "blatantly biased" and IP lawyers and professors on the same payroll as you "unbiased"?
- CaptainZapp 14y agoI was wondering that too. Specifically since the dude, or dudette, is extremely assertive and even aggressive in demanding sources, while at the same time has not even remotely a source to offer for his / her assertions. The biggest kicker was to demand a source for an opinion I presented. If I wouldn,t be against feeding trolls I would be happy to explain the difference between an assertion of fact and an opinion.