4 ms·

>unprecedented potential to save billions of lives Potential, yes; but not with massive financial interests behind it. In a world where shiploads of wheat are

by manmal 13y ago

>unprecedented potential to save billions of lives Potential, yes; but not with massive financial interests behind it. In a world where shiploads of wheat are held back in order to game the wheat market, things need to change before GMOs can cure 3rd world hunger. I've read that GMOs have to be bought anew for every season because the harvested crops can't be used as seeds. Is that actually true?

qwertzlcoatl 13y ago
> Potential, yes; but not with massive financial interests behind it. This is not necessarily true in every case. pvnick mentioned Golden Rice. The Co-inventor of the genetically engineered, vitamin-A-rich strain of rice Potrykus has spearheaded an effort to have golden rice distributed for free to poor farmers. This required several companies which had intellectual property rights to the results of Beyer's research to license it for free. In fact, Monsanto was one of the first companies to grant free licenses. If the substinence farmer doesn't make more than $10,000 per year, he is freed from paying any royalities. The farmers are even permitted to keep and replant the seeds. This is in the specific case of Golden Rice. Maybe somebody can jump in and tell a horrific Monsanto story.
CapitalistCartr 13y ago
Yes, they're patented and copying them is a violation of the "user agreement". http://grist.org/news/supreme-court-hands-a-big-win-to-monsanto-on-gmo-seeds/ http://grist.org/news/supreme-court-hands-a-big-win-to-monsa...
samolang 13y ago
Yes [1]. But for good reason. It is similar to pharmaceutical companies. They invest millions into inventing products. They should be entitled to a monopoly on the product for some period of time in order to re-coup their investment. [1] http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-su...
genwin 13y ago
True. See "The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops" at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genoc...
- smsm42 13y ago
  This article commits journalistic fraud - it attributes the fact that crops failed due to pests (which can happen to any crop, GM or not) solely to the fact that the crops were GM, and making a false impression that suicides were caused not by crop failures but by the fact that the crops were GM. They imply that "after" means "because", and that's the fraud. Of course, even GM crops can not protect from all causes of crop failure. But blaming them on every cause of failure is wrong.
  - glhaynes 13y ago
    The whole thing is complicated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers_suicides_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers_suicides_in_India) and the Daily Mail has a history of being an awful source.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      I agree, it is complicated. That's why it is shameful for Daily Mail to take a complicated story and rewrite it as a single-cause case against GM.
    - genwin 13y ago
      The story confirms that the seeds must be purchased anew with each season.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  - genwin 13y ago
tomjen3 13y ago
That shiploads are held back is actually a _great_ thing, maybe one of the best things capitalism does. Yes it means you get to pay more (in some cases a lot more) for your bread. It also means that farmers make more money and enable them to sell their wheat _now_ when they need the money and not after they have been foreclosed and it puts a price floor on the market for wheat, insuring that the crops we need to prevent starvation will not rot on the fields.
- manmal 13y ago
  I agree that it's good for the sellers (farmers). But how is artificial scarcity and rising prices good against hunger? The argument about rotting crops is a bit weak, AFAIK crops can be stored quite well if kept dry.
jrkelly 13y ago
Buying new seeds every season began with hybrid crops in the 1920s. "Today, hybrid seed production is predominant in agriculture and home gardening, and is one of the main contributing factors to the dramatic rise in agricultural output during the last half of the 20th century. In the US, the commercial market was launched in the 1920s, with the first hybrid maize. All of the hybrid seeds planted by the farmer will be the same hybrid while the seeds from the hybrids planted will not consistently have the desired characteristics. This is why hybrid seed is constantly repurchased by growers for each planting season." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed
- nitrogen 13y ago
  But at least you still have the option of accepting the mixed results of replanting hybrid seeds.

by manmal 13y ago

qwertzlcoatl 13y ago

> Potential, yes; but not with massive financial interests behind it. This is not necessarily true in every case. pvnick mentioned Golden Rice. The Co-inventor of the genetically engineered, vitamin-A-rich strain of rice Potrykus has spearheaded an effort to have golden rice distributed for free to poor farmers. This required several companies which had intellectual property rights to the results of Beyer's research to license it for free. In fact, Monsanto was one of the first companies to grant free licenses. If the substinence farmer doesn't make more than $10,000 per year, he is freed from paying any royalities. The farmers are even permitted to keep and replant the seeds. This is in the specific case of Golden Rice. Maybe somebody can jump in and tell a horrific Monsanto story.

CapitalistCartr 13y ago

Yes, they're patented and copying them is a violation of the "user agreement". http://grist.org/news/supreme-court-hands-a-big-win-to-monsanto-on-gmo-seeds/ http://grist.org/news/supreme-court-hands-a-big-win-to-monsa...

samolang 13y ago

Yes [1]. But for good reason. It is similar to pharmaceutical companies. They invest millions into inventing products. They should be entitled to a monopoly on the product for some period of time in order to re-coup their investment. [1] http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-su...

genwin 13y ago

True. See "The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops" at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genoc...

smsm42 13y ago
This article commits journalistic fraud - it attributes the fact that crops failed due to pests (which can happen to any crop, GM or not) solely to the fact that the crops were GM, and making a false impression that suicides were caused not by crop failures but by the fact that the crops were GM. They imply that "after" means "because", and that's the fraud. Of course, even GM crops can not protect from all causes of crop failure. But blaming them on every cause of failure is wrong.
- glhaynes 13y ago
  The whole thing is complicated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers_suicides_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers_suicides_in_India) and the Daily Mail has a history of being an awful source.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    I agree, it is complicated. That's why it is shameful for Daily Mail to take a complicated story and rewrite it as a single-cause case against GM.
  - genwin 13y ago
    The story confirms that the seeds must be purchased anew with each season.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- genwin 13y ago

tomjen3 13y ago

That shiploads are held back is actually a _great_ thing, maybe one of the best things capitalism does. Yes it means you get to pay more (in some cases a lot more) for your bread. It also means that farmers make more money and enable them to sell their wheat _now_ when they need the money and not after they have been foreclosed and it puts a price floor on the market for wheat, insuring that the crops we need to prevent starvation will not rot on the fields.

manmal 13y ago
I agree that it's good for the sellers (farmers). But how is artificial scarcity and rising prices good against hunger? The argument about rotting crops is a bit weak, AFAIK crops can be stored quite well if kept dry.

jrkelly 13y ago

Buying new seeds every season began with hybrid crops in the 1920s. "Today, hybrid seed production is predominant in agriculture and home gardening, and is one of the main contributing factors to the dramatic rise in agricultural output during the last half of the 20th century. In the US, the commercial market was launched in the 1920s, with the first hybrid maize. All of the hybrid seeds planted by the farmer will be the same hybrid while the seeds from the hybrids planted will not consistently have the desired characteristics. This is why hybrid seed is constantly repurchased by growers for each planting season." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed

nitrogen 13y ago
But at least you still have the option of accepting the mixed results of replanting hybrid seeds.