| A hundred times this. I couldn't agree more. GMO is a very vague term, we can engineer plants to make them toxic in which case no, eating GMO would not be OK. We are also most probably able to engineer interesting new kinds of crop that would have a very positive impact on humanity and our natural resource consumption. There are several issues here that are not addressed by these Nobel Laureates which makes their letter dangerous and irresponsible: - as of now, Monsanto and co. are engineering their seeds so that it's impossible to keep part of the harvest and use it to grow the next one (as peoples have done for thousands of years), essentially forcing farmers to come back next year and buy new seeds. This is a very efficient way to keep farmers poor and under control. It is also very unethical, but of course the optimal choice economically speaking... - Monsanto is also engineering seeds to resist RoundUp in order to shove said RoundUp down the throats of farmers. At this point I don't think I need to debate the negative impact of roundup on human beings and nature, it's known well enough. The main point though is that it's important to remember that the goal of these companies is to maximize profit, not benefit the world. Pushing RoundUp like this is a good example: there is no incentive for them to improve the resistance of seeds to diseases as it would bring down sales of their main product. - GMO is not all good or all bad, but it is complex and a powerful tool, thus requiring caution and thorough TESTING. Testing that GMO lobbies are not exactly diligent to run. - Speaking of lobbying, most of the problems mentioned in this thread could be solved with a better regulation as they're due to bad actors. they're not intrinsic to GMO. But Monsanto being a very powerful lobby, I'm personally not too confident about the outcome. |
> Monsanto and co. are engineering their seeds so that it's impossible to keep part of the harvest and use it to grow the next one
Are you referring to hybrid crops? While it is true that we wouldn't want to save such seed, they are not necessarily lumped under the GMO umbrella. The whole patent debate doesn't affect us with such crops because we wouldn't consider saving the seeds in the first place, GMO or not, patent or not.
On my farm, non-hybrid wheat is one crop we might save, but there are no GMO varieties of wheat on the market to begin with so again it is a complete non-issue. That said, rarely do we have the cleaning and treating equipment necessary to reuse the seed on the farm, so by the time you contract out that work, it's easier to just buy new seed from a dealer anyway.
> Monsanto is also engineering seeds to resist RoundUp in order to shove said RoundUp down the throats of farmers.
What do you mean by shove? We willing use glyphosate (not necessary Roundup™ since it is off patent and anyone can produce it) even on our non-roundup ready crops, just as farmers have done since the 1970s when glyphosate was invented. What Roundup Ready crops do allow is the use of only glyphosate, as opposed to a crazy cocktail of chemicals necessary on the non-RR crops, reducing input and application costs.
I will also add that Roundup Ready 1 is also off patent now. Anyone can use the technology that was invented by Monsanto that spearheaded this whole GMO debate in the first place.
> there is no incentive for them to improve the resistance of seeds to diseases as it would bring down sales of their main product.
Well, ultimately, we buy what works.
If, hypothetically, someone creates a viable seed that is immune to pests by itself, negating the need to apply any chemicals at all, we'd be quite willing to pay more for it. That would be a huge cost savings. Chemical applicators alone can run into half a million dollars pretty quickly, let alone the product being applied and labour costs. There are many companies (and governments) working on GMOs – it's not just Monsanto. There is a lot of incentive to come up with such a seed to become a more dominant player in the game.