6 ms·

We certainly need a better system than patents on genes to allow people to pursue genetic engineering for the sake of money. This is not about "societal benefi

We certainly need a better system than patents on genes to allow people to pursue genetic engineering for the sake of money. This is not about "societal benefit". Nobody but Monsanto benefits from Roundup Ready products: in fact they are a net detriment to society since the continual use of glyphosate will select for Roundup resistant weeds. Then there's the issue of residual glyphosate in our food supply. You can put away your pom-poms and the "all Monstanto haters are liars" cheer line, and come join the rational debate. If GMOs cause my non-GM crops to be contaminated with GM genes, who owns my crops? More importantly, who pays for the cleanup when the value I offer to my customers is crops free of GMOs? If a GM wind- or bee-pollinated crop is planted within a few kilometres of my crop without my permission, who owns the genes that get transferred to my crops due to cross-pollination? Don't trot out the canard of "societal benefit" when the only people who actually benefit from GMOs are the companies who own the patents and manufacture the herbicides, pesticides and fertilisers that the GMO crops depend on.

Blahah 13y ago
> This is not about "societal benefit". Nobody but Monsanto benefits from Roundup Ready products That's just not true. Society benefits because we can avoid applying much more toxic and environmentally damaging herbicides and pesticides by using engineered resistance to pests or to harmless herbicides. > They are a net detriment to society since the continual use of glyphosate will select for Roundup resistant weeds This is a fallacy. All herbicide use selects for herbicide resistance. Herbicide resistance is a problem completely independent of GMOs, and is in no way exacerbated by using GMOs. Farmers have to use a huge quantity of herbicide regardless of whether they are growing GMOs cotton or organic quinoa. > Then there's the issue of residual glyphosate in our food supply. The whole point of using glyphosate is that it's one of the least harmful herbicides ever discovered. There is very little evidence of harm to humans even at much high doses than you would get in a lifetime of eating glyphosate-soaked food. Contrast that to every other broad action herbicide, which have various levels of toxicity but invariably higher than none.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >This is a fallacy. All herbicide use selects for herbicide resistance. Herbicide resistance is a problem completely independent of GMOs, and is in no way exacerbated by using GMOs Actually, it's your comment there that contains the fallacy. Roundup-Ready GM crops are designed to survive Roundup dosing (obviously). This leads to an overall increase in Roundup use and a corresponding increase in Roundup resistance. You may say that herbicide resistance can be found to exist with non-GMOs, but you cannot say that "resistance is in no way exacerbated by using GMOs". The latter is positively and obviously false.
  - Blahah 13y ago
    > Roundup-Ready GM crops are designed to survive Roundup dosing (obviously). This leads to an overall increase in Roundup use and a corresponding increase in Roundup resistance. Right, but without roundup farmers have to use at least as much of a different set of herbicides, at different times in the crop cycle. Using roundup leads to an increase in the overall resistance to roundup and a decrease in the resistance to 2,4-D, paraquat, etc. The problem exists independently of GMOs. >you cannot say that "resistance is in no way exacerbated by using GMOs" Yes, I can. Resistance to Roundup is exacerbated by using Roundup-Ready GMOs, while resistance to other herbicides is decreased.
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
      >Yes, I can. Resistance to Roundup is exacerbated by using Roundup-Ready GMOs, while resistance to other herbicides is decreased. No, you can't. Well, you can...in the same way that you can say up is down and down is up. That's literally what you're doing. You previously stated that resistance is no way exacerbated by using GMOs. Now you're saying that it is for one GMO, but trying to qualify it with a "but". Too late. You've already conceded the point. Now you're trying to lawyer it. With your initial claim refuted, we can move on to your qualifier. That is, whether there is some secondary effect whereby resistance to other herbicides is decreased in direct proportion would be another question. But, you fail on that point as well. Resistance is dose dependent. GMOs allow higher dosing. It's the entire point. The more herbicide-resistant GMOs we use, the more herbicides we'll use and the more resistance we'll see. It's really as simple as that.
shoyer 13y ago
"Nobody but Monsanto benefits from Roundup Ready products" Not even the farmers who grow the seeds with Monsanto's traits? Thousands of Monsanto's happy customers would beg to differ. You benefit, too, because GM crops are cheaper to grow, so the products they end up in are also (marginally) cheaper. You can certainly have a "rational debate" over the individual and societal costs of GM crops, but it is absurd to pretend that Monsanto is the only party that derives any benefit from their products. If that were true, nobody would buy them. Disclaimer: I work for a Monsanto subsidiary.

Blahah 13y ago

> This is not about "societal benefit". Nobody but Monsanto benefits from Roundup Ready products That's just not true. Society benefits because we can avoid applying much more toxic and environmentally damaging herbicides and pesticides by using engineered resistance to pests or to harmless herbicides. > They are a net detriment to society since the continual use of glyphosate will select for Roundup resistant weeds This is a fallacy. All herbicide use selects for herbicide resistance. Herbicide resistance is a problem completely independent of GMOs, and is in no way exacerbated by using GMOs. Farmers have to use a huge quantity of herbicide regardless of whether they are growing GMOs cotton or organic quinoa. > Then there's the issue of residual glyphosate in our food supply. The whole point of using glyphosate is that it's one of the least harmful herbicides ever discovered. There is very little evidence of harm to humans even at much high doses than you would get in a lifetime of eating glyphosate-soaked food. Contrast that to every other broad action herbicide, which have various levels of toxicity but invariably higher than none.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>This is a fallacy. All herbicide use selects for herbicide resistance. Herbicide resistance is a problem completely independent of GMOs, and is in no way exacerbated by using GMOs Actually, it's your comment there that contains the fallacy. Roundup-Ready GM crops are designed to survive Roundup dosing (obviously). This leads to an overall increase in Roundup use and a corresponding increase in Roundup resistance. You may say that herbicide resistance can be found to exist with non-GMOs, but you cannot say that "resistance is in no way exacerbated by using GMOs". The latter is positively and obviously false.
- Blahah 13y ago
  > Roundup-Ready GM crops are designed to survive Roundup dosing (obviously). This leads to an overall increase in Roundup use and a corresponding increase in Roundup resistance. Right, but without roundup farmers have to use at least as much of a different set of herbicides, at different times in the crop cycle. Using roundup leads to an increase in the overall resistance to roundup and a decrease in the resistance to 2,4-D, paraquat, etc. The problem exists independently of GMOs. >you cannot say that "resistance is in no way exacerbated by using GMOs" Yes, I can. Resistance to Roundup is exacerbated by using Roundup-Ready GMOs, while resistance to other herbicides is decreased.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    >Yes, I can. Resistance to Roundup is exacerbated by using Roundup-Ready GMOs, while resistance to other herbicides is decreased. No, you can't. Well, you can...in the same way that you can say up is down and down is up. That's literally what you're doing. You previously stated that resistance is no way exacerbated by using GMOs. Now you're saying that it is for one GMO, but trying to qualify it with a "but". Too late. You've already conceded the point. Now you're trying to lawyer it. With your initial claim refuted, we can move on to your qualifier. That is, whether there is some secondary effect whereby resistance to other herbicides is decreased in direct proportion would be another question. But, you fail on that point as well. Resistance is dose dependent. GMOs allow higher dosing. It's the entire point. The more herbicide-resistant GMOs we use, the more herbicides we'll use and the more resistance we'll see. It's really as simple as that.

shoyer 13y ago

"Nobody but Monsanto benefits from Roundup Ready products" Not even the farmers who grow the seeds with Monsanto's traits? Thousands of Monsanto's happy customers would beg to differ. You benefit, too, because GM crops are cheaper to grow, so the products they end up in are also (marginally) cheaper. You can certainly have a "rational debate" over the individual and societal costs of GM crops, but it is absurd to pretend that Monsanto is the only party that derives any benefit from their products. If that were true, nobody would buy them. Disclaimer: I work for a Monsanto subsidiary.