GMO's - good or bad?

[civ_king]

Monsanto is involved in it therefore it is dangerous.

 

[Tahuti]

Just as I thought. There's no amount of evidence that would prove safety to the GMO naysayers and no coherent claims in what ways they are unsafe.

This. It is true we do know less about GMO food than non-GMO food, but that's how we discovered things were edible in the first place. The paranoia about GMO kinda resembles that of water fluoridation in North America.

 

[History_Buff]

Monsanto is involved in it therefore it is dangerous.

This is really my only objection. The use of GMOs themselves is not a problem (it's just accelerating what we've already been doing for thousands of years anyway), it's the corporate interests creating them.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

This. It is true we do know less about GMO food than non-GMO food, but that's how we discovered things were edible in the first place. The paranoia about GMO kinda resembles that of water fluoridation in North America.

We do know less about GMOs than non-GMOs. Does stating skepticism toward GMOs mean you're paranoid? And what about water fluoridating in NA - Do you do it?

As it's now we've got Swedish environmentalists and people guarding the Swedish environment - against GMOs, claiming that there are studies showing the biodiversity suffers from GMOs. On the other side American companies and lobbyists are claiming there are studies showing that no harm to the environment or the health of the individual can be proved. Also, those who want to use GMOs are firmly against regulation that hold them accountable for any future damage the GMOs might cause. Somehow I don't believe companies will solve world hunger with their products.

 

[luiz]

We do know less about GMOs than non-GMOs. Does stating skepticism toward GMOs mean you're paranoid? And what about water fluoridating in NA - Do you do it?

As it's now we've got Swedish environmentalists and people guarding the Swedish environment - against GMOs, claiming that there's studies showing the biodiversity suffers from GMOs. On the other side American companies and lobbyists claiming there are studies showing no harm to the environment or the health of the individual. Also, those who want to use GMOs are firmly against regulation that hold them accountable for any future damage the GMOs might cause. Somehow I don't believe companies will solve world hunger with their products.

We know more than enough about GMOs. They have been in use for decades (yeah, decades) and there's no evidence that they are dangerous. The anti-GMO crowd is anti-science.

Anyway, I'll trust corporation trying to make money over those heroic, selfless and altruistic environmentalists trying to save the world (read, save European agricultural interests) any day of the week.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'd prefer more open-source GMOs, and I think it's kinda shameful that we fund all of these agricultural colleges, but still charge for patents ...

I think that part of the regulatory environment for GMOs is too harsh. One modification that I've seen recommended is that any transgenics that involve switching genes that could've been gotten through cross-breeding be exempt from severe testing. This way, we can continue to demand extensive testing of 'weird' transgenics, but allow the burst in transgenic technology to deliver us crops that 'could've' been derived 'naturally'

The term 'GMO' is such a catchall, that I don't really like it.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I'd prefer more open-source GMOs, and I think it's kinda shameful that we fund all of these agricultural colleges, but still charge for patents ...

I think that part of the regulatory environment for GMOs is too harsh. One modification that I've seen recommended is that any transgenics that involve switching genes that could've been gotten through cross-breeding be exempt from severe testing. This way, we can continue to demand extensive testing of 'weird' transgenics, but allow the burst in transgenic technology to deliver us crops that 'could've' been derived 'naturally'

The term 'GMO' is such a catchall, that I don't really like it.

It's shameful that we charge for patents??!

But who's interested in switched genes? Companies would probably not be able to patent those products. Should the state support research on "switched gene transgenics", to do what with the info?

Anyway, I'll trust corporation trying to make money over those heroic, selfless and altruistic environmentalists trying to save the world (read, save European agricultural interests) any day of the week.

"In May 2007, Sweden became the first EU country to take the position that all EU farm subsidies should be abolished (except those related to environmental protection)" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy

You shouldn't be so cynical.

 

[luiz]

"In May 2007, Sweden became the first EU country to take the position that all EU farm subsidies should be abolished (except those related to environmental protection)" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy

You shouldn't be so cynical.

Yeah, "except those related to environmental protection". A nice, PC and subjective way to be as protectionist as one wants to be.

 

[jtb1127]

I think the biggest problem is the monsanto issue.

 

[dirtyparrot]

My main problem with the way modern agriculture is trending is that we're reducing the genetic diversity of crops. I'm also not a big fan of how companies like Mosanto try to enforce their patents.

 

[civ_king]

I'd prefer more open-source GMOs, and I think it's kinda shameful that we fund all of these agricultural colleges, but still charge for patents ...

I think that part of the regulatory environment for GMOs is too harsh. One modification that I've seen recommended is that any transgenics that involve switching genes that could've been gotten through cross-breeding be exempt from severe testing. This way, we can continue to demand extensive testing of 'weird' transgenics, but allow the burst in transgenic technology to deliver us crops that 'could've' been derived 'naturally'

The term 'GMO' is such a catchall, that I don't really like it.

Actually it's a bad idea, sure scientists can accurately find the gene, but then they take a pot shot at the DNA to get it in

 

[luiz]

I don't get how Monstanto enforcing patents is an argument against GMOs. That would be like saying that Microsoft enforcing patents is an arguemnt against softwares.

Monsanto is a profit-seeker and as such it will use the existing law to maximise its profits. If the law allows them to enforce seed patents, they will. They will also lobby to have laws more favorable to them. But if there is a problem (and I am not sure there is, after all it's not like people are forced to buy Monsanto seeds), than it is with the political structure, not with GMOs.

 

[civ_king]

I don't get how Monstanto enforcing patents is an argument against GMOs. That would be like saying that Microsoft enforcing patents is an arguemnt against softwares.

Monsanto is a profit-seeker and as such it will use the existing law to maximise its profits. If the law allows them to enforce seed patents, they will. They will also lobby to have laws more favorable to them. But if there is a problem (and I am not sure there is, after all it's not like people are forced to buy Monsanto seeds), than it is with the political structure, not with GMOs.

Because Monsanto seeds can spread in to your yard and even if you are waging a war against it to kill the pest you are still "infringing" on their copyright

 

[luiz]

Because Monsanto seeds can spread in to your yard and even if you are waging a war against it to kill the pest you are still "infringing" on their copyright

That doesn't strike me as a true story. Even if it were, the problem once again would be on the law, not on GMOs.

 

[The_J]

I'd prefer more open-source GMOs, and I think it's kinda shameful that we fund all of these agricultural colleges, but still charge for patents ...

Oh, there are tons of open genomes, and with some kits from a company you have everything you need ^^.

Because Monsanto seeds can spread in to your yard and even if you are waging a war against it to kill the pest you are still "infringing" on their copyright

o_O what?
Their plant seeds are normally sterile (so can't spread), because they want to sell them every year again to the farmers.
Else you could just do the norma agriculturual cycle and retain some of the seeds for the next year...which they sure don't want, doesn't make any profit.

 

[Midgard Eagle]

Because Monsanto seeds can spread in to your yard

As can, of course, any other seed in the world.

 

[civ_king]

Oh, there are tons of open genomes, and with some kits from a company you have everything you need ^^.



o_O what?
Their plant seeds are normally sterile (so can't spread), because they want to sell them every year again to the farmers.
Else you could just do the norma agriculturual cycle and retain some of the seeds for the next year...which they sure don't want, doesn't make any profit.

Many times seeds aren't sterile which is why the sue people for seed saving

As can, of course, any other seed in the world.

Precisely, for seeds containment is nigh impossible

 

[dirtyparrot]

Oh, there are tons of open genomes, and with some kits from a company you have everything you need ^^.



o_O what?
Their plant seeds are normally sterile (so can't spread), because they want to sell them every year again to the farmers.
Else you could just do the norma agriculturual cycle and retain some of the seeds for the next year...which they sure don't want, doesn't make any profit.

Their seed are fertile. In fact they send inspectors to make sure that people who buy their seeds don't save them. I believe that this is explained in documentaries like Food Inc.

 

[classical_hero]

Just as I thought. There's no amount of evidence that would prove safety to the GMO naysayers and no coherent claims in what ways they are unsafe.

We have produced evidence that they are not safe, so no matter what evidence is produced to yes-sayers and no coherent claims in what what ways they are safe, outside of biased company statements.

 

[History_Buff]

Their seed are fertile. In fact they send inspectors to make sure that people who buy their seeds don't save them. I believe that this is explained in documentaries like Food Inc.

It's gone to court here in Canada too. Monsanto Canola seed blew onto a neighboring farm, and took root in an existing Canola field. The farmer was using glyphosate based herbicide to kill plants in certain areas of the field (I forget why), and noticed that some of the plants didn't die. He then saved these seeds, and started replanting them.

This was ruled to be a violation of Monsanto's patent rights, which pretty damn ridiculous. This being Canada though, there wasn't much of question of damages. The eventual settlement involved Monsanto paying the farmer for the cost of removing the offending plants (something like $200).