[saiya-jin]

On paper, you are absolutely right. But we don't live in theoretical world, rather in one where corporations like Monsanto will use any technology available to extract as much profit from everybody as possible.

Even if it means doing highly amoral stuff and tightly coupling crops enhanced for mass, immunity to pests and diseases with things like inability to breed, so farmers have to keep buying their seeds.

Its not hard to see why everybody has issues with this - not many want to be slaves with the very thing that our lives depend on to company thats extremely greedy from the start. GMs without those traits, having just weaknesses adressed might be much better sell for poor countries.

Rich countries like Europe will react when its time to react, no need to freak out now when as you describe serious issues will be present in next century. Crops can be changed pretty fast if there is strong enough motivation and one has enough cash.

[goatlover]

Can't the Indian government promote it's own agricultural companies and ban Monsanto products? That would allow Indian GM crops without worrying about some other country's corporation making Indian farmers dependent. Prohibiting GM foods sounds like handicapping countries if the concern is merely becoming dependent on other countries.

[pphysch]

Doable, sure. But that is precisely how one gets labeled an "authoritarian regime" by Western capitalists.

[jpollock]

Not authoritarian, but it does tend to run up against free trade agreements where offshore products and companies need to be given equivalent treatment.

However, I don't think India has many FTAs, and probably few of them include agricultural products.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bilateral_free-trade_a...

[pphysch]

If not authoritarian, do you have any counterexamples of "authoritarian" countries that do have a FTA with Washington?