[roywiggins]

> The hubris to think we know which varietals are the best and will continue to be the best.

If they don't grow GMO Cavendish, they will pick some other variety and grow that everywhere, like they did after the Gros Michel went under. GMO doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for monoculture at all.

> the power of being able to still survive on pure nature's means

We haven't been able to do that since the dawn of agriculture. If modern agriculture disappeared tomorrow, the Cavendish plantations would not resemble Cavendish plantations very long, Panama disease or not.

The only problem I have with a "GMO Cavendish" is that it would likely be patented, which could create a company with some extraordinarily powerful IP, which is very dangerous. But that's a problem with the law, not GMOs per se.

[xbmcuser]

Many of us that are considered anti gmo are more anti patent for food genes rather than of anti gmo. The developing world mostly has agricultural economy now Western companies are trying to horn in that as well. A few years ago an American company tried to patent and stop Pakistan and India from selling a rice variety called Basmati by modifing it genes and trying to patent it. When its come to gmo the trust deficit in rest of the world is not just about the science but of the western companies and their patents.

[howlin]

Literally all of the problems you mentioned existed before GMO was a thing. Companies have been patenting varietals since the 1930's. Patent trolling in agriculture is also quite old. E.g. the yellow bean patent debacle:

https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080507/full/453145b.html

GMO is tangentially related but few of the biggest overreaches in agricultural IP are directly tied to them.

[yoube]

Then don't call yourselves anti-GMO?

[xbmcuser]

I didn't say we were anti-gmo rather we are labeled as anti-gmo despite our reservations being about the patenting systems rather than the science.