|
|
|
|
|
by neotokio
2527 days ago
|
|
That's a brilliant solution, what a shame that is also part of a problem. GM crop is by definition commercial crop, half of Indian agricultural problems are because of death of local farming vs conventional farming (think energy costs, supply chains effectiveness, technology dependence and lack of biodiversity which hits food chain hard). Why are we exactly fixed on GM crop but not on better food management policies, promotion of local farming and climate-related tech (ie. irrigation)? Is it because GMO has clear profit margin where above mentioned (and many more) doesn't? One can argue even about selective breeding which also has its own costs (fragility of a given genetics), but GMO should, by rule, be heavily limited. |
|
I'm not "against GMO" because I think it makes frankentomatoes that will eat us, or because I think that gene modification is intrinsically unhealthful. I'm (sort of) against GMO because genetically modified organisms are controlled by profit-focused corporations who lock farmers into a financial system that disadvantages them and promotes heavy use of brand-name herbicides that are not good for the surrounding ecosystem. Especially in 2nd/3rd world countries where people rely more heavily on waterways for water and their backyards for food, as opposed to the US where we can pay to outsource these problems, local ability to maintain a healthy environment without paying a multinational on a yearly contract is essential.
People have been able to plant saved seeds for all of human history. Programs that prevent the ability to grow your own food for only the cost of labor put farmers and local areas at a significant disadvantage by eliminating the possibility of subsistence farming. I know that GMOs are designed to increase yields -- but that's focused on farming as commodity.
Neotokio's remark about the "clear profit margin" of GMOs is, I think, exactly on the money.