[ch4s3]

> it is about the largescale replacement of a system where farmers own their biodiverse seed with a top down monocultural approach that essentially makes farmers franchisees of a massive corporate behemoth and eliminates biodiversity, putting all eggs in one basket.

No one is out there forcing people to switch to GM crops when those seeds become available. Now the business model of large agriculture in the US isn't necessarily the one you would want to import, but GM crops could happily coexist in a country's agricultural mix along side traditional crops. You could probably even tweak some of your traditional seeds domestically to be more pest/drought resistant, give those seeds out, and call it a win.

It could be a really useful tech if people deployed it responsibly.

[chuckee]

> No one is out there forcing people to switch to GM crops when those seeds become available.

Just like if steroids became legal in sports, no-one would be forcing top athletes to take them. If you want to maintain food sovereignty, you can't ignore market forces.

[ch4s3]

> food sovereignty

This always seems like a really squishy concept. What does culturally appropriate food mean? It seems like an ultra-conservative and condescending concept. Why should people in the global south let a Quixote Belgian farming movement trap them in agrarian poverty?

A nation state a large, and well educated as India could surely develop its own domestic GMO tech and deploy it in a way that their citizens approve of via their democratic system of government. They developed their own pharmaceutical manufacturing industry which is the largest in any developing nation, so why not this? Are GMO seeds any more unnatural than statins or artificial insulin?

[chuckee]

I have no idea what "culturally appropriate food" has to do with this. Food sovereignty means a nation is not dependent on foreign entities for their food supply (or if they are for some elements, e.g. tractors, they can easily find someone else to buy them from). It has nothing to do with culture, and does not prevent India from growing non-local crops - or trading for them.

As for banning (foreign-made) GMOs trapping people in poverty, that's debatable at best. There's considerable evidence that unrestricted free trade hinders economic development [1], by keeping countries from developing their own industries. Every country that has climbed out of poverty so far, has done so without GMOs (granted because they were not widespread at the time, but the same should still be possible today) - and without unrestricted free trade [2].

The comparison with pharmaceuticals is apt. For one, pharmaceuticals don't displace anything, so there is no existing local industry harmed by their import (prior to developing local pharma industry). And if India developed their own GMO industry, you are correct, using those GMOs would not harm their food sovereignty. Of course issues with loss of crop biodiversity and farmers becoming dependent on a single giant (albeit Indian) corporation would remain, but at least viewed on a national level, sovereignty would not be harmed, even if individual farmers would still lose some independence. But at least the entities they became dependent on would be within their democratic reach.

And regarding how natural GMOs vs. pharmaceuticals are - I was not making an appeal to nature, so that is irrelevant. For the sake of argument, lets say they are equally unnatural.

[1] https://fpif.org/kicking_away_the_ladder_the_real_history_of...

[2] "... none of the world's most successful trading regions, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and now mainland China, reached their current status by adopting neoliberal trading rules." - James K. Galbraith, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

[ch4s3]

> I have no idea what "culturally appropriate food" has to do with this.

It's literally part of the initial declaration from the first global forum on food sovereignty. It's their thing, not something I made up.

> As for banning (foreign-made) GMOs trapping people in poverty, that's debatable at best.

That's not what I meant, I was criticizing the food sovereignty movements assumptions about small scale agriculture. Small scale agriculture basically always means poverty, and people rarely choose it freely. India's agricultural policies absolutely trap people in poverty now.

> For one, pharmaceuticals don't displace anything

There's a very large industry of traditional medicine in India that would probably beg to differ. Not that this quibble matters.

> Of course issues with loss of crop biodiversity and farmers becoming dependent on a single giant (albeit Indian) corporation would remain,

There's no reason you could produce a wide variety of slightly modified seeds that are 1 to 1 replacements for what people are growing. You could even spin this out of universities and establish regional seed banks.

> none of the world's most successful trading regions, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and now mainland China, reached their current status by adopting neoliberal trading rules.

That has nothing to do with banning a technology.

[Retric]

Market forces heavily push GM crops when you let them enter the market without labeling laws.

[whimsicalism]

Market forces in this instance meaning cheaper food for people, just so we're clear.

[chuckee]

Becoming dependent on a foreign corporation for your food supply will cost you far more in the long run.

[panta]

I wonder if a lock-in phenomenon could take place at some point in the future, where non-GM varieties become a no-go and the GM ones get very expensive?

[fshbbdssbbgdd]

GM crops can produce more yield in worse conditions. As the climate changes, humanity will become increasingly dependent on these crops for survival. And yes, at that point we will be locked in, in the same way we are locked into many other technological advances that make our lives possible. However I don’t expect that will ever make the GM crops more expensive than non-GM, since the land that is capable of growing non-GM will only become more of a rare luxury.

[spywaregorilla]

cheaper food, with the long tail risk that a single crop vulnerability to a new disease destroys all of it without warning

[asdff]

Why is that not an issue with traditional crops? At least with GM crops if there is a known blight you can introduce traits that confer resistance to said blight in a much faster process than attempting to cross a high yielding and blight resistant strain and getting both favorable phenotypes in your crops. Especially with crops where it can take years for the progeny to reach maturity to even assess the phenotypes of the hybrids.

[Retric]

GM crops have significantly less genetic diversity simply as a result of how their created and sold. This isn’t a new problem, but fixing it significantly slows time to market.

As to using GM to add blight resistance, that’s not always an option. Cavendish bananas for example are at massive risk from Panama disease TR4 and have been for years.

[asdff]

I'm glad you brought up the Canvendish, what an excellent recent example of the success of genetic tools in agriculture. There are other bananas that are resistant to panama disease but have other traits such as thinner skin that make them unfit for export. In fact, researchers have turned to genetic modification, and created a Cavendish variety that is resistant to Panama disease by introducing a blight resistant gene from a blight resistant wild banana. (1) This is just one example of how we can use genetic tooling to do what would otherwise take a breeder a lifetime of work in the field with a single cross and generation of progeny per growing season.

You can develop GM crops that harbor genetic diversity. You can mutagenize them to introduce random variation and yield a variety of novel phenotypes that can adapt to any sort of conditions. You can conduct analysis using statistical models to identify the genes and regulatory mechanisms involved with these phenotypes. You can introduce these phenotypes into your cultivar. You can cross your cultivar with wild landraces to introduce more diversity, and cross these with geographically distant populations to introduce more divergent and diverse genetic compositions than what would even be possible among the landraces. To put it simply, the box has been opened, and you can do pretty much anything to shape and alter the plant with genetic tooling.

1. https://www.wur.nl/en/newsarticle/World-first-Panama-disease...

[whimsicalism]

> GM crops have significantly less genetic diversity simply as a result of how their created and sold. This isn’t a new problem, but fixing it significantly slows time to market.

The Cavendish is an excellent counterpoint actually - monocropping is not at all en exclusive GMO phenomenon. Naturally selected cultivars like the Cavendish are all identical clones.

This is very common across many different types of produce, and all without GE.

The same solutions for diversity work for cultivars as well as GMO seed.

[AdamN]

Yes. That is why in the US people are so malnourished - eating the cheapest possible food day in day out.

That price also does not include externalities (eg. the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico caused by Iowa fertilizer runoff is not accounted for in the price of the food produced).

[jonahbenton]

Putting out a request for someone with knowledge of IP dynamics in this space to weigh in. My understanding is that nothing is "forced" but adoption of IP-protected seed has substantial downstream effects and risks, and that there is no real "happy coexistence." Looking to be educated...

[throw63738]

GM modified seeds can not be usually replanted after harvest. Sometimes they need proprietary fertiliser.

Genetic sequences are patented. There was a case where GM seeds spread to neighbours, and Monsato sued neighbour...

It is horror show similar to software patents.

[ch4s3]

> Monsato sued neighbour

That's not what happened at all. Even NPR calls that claim bogus[1]. That said, they do some other things that are a bit unsavory.

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/to...