[nerdjon]

I despise this anti GMO fad that has been passing around. With the requirement that everything be labeled in the US soon (now?) I worry that advancements like this will just disappear (or never show up) from the market.

I will fight back on anyone claiming GMO's are bad when the science is clear that they are not. Now you can argue that the ethics of certain companies like Monsanto is a problem. But GMO's themselves are not and are perfectly safe. They are how we are going to feed our growing population (and maybe even grow them more environmentally friendly).

I hate myself every time I buy something that proudly claims it is "Non GMO" as if that's a good thing. It is almost as bad as the organic craze (but at least Organic has at least some science behind it).

[rhn_mk1]

The problem with GMO is that it's intertwined with intellectual property shenanigans favouring corporations over traditional farmers, and upsetting traditional methods of farming.

> Are you infringing a patent by selling your soybeans that contain a minor amount of contaminating Roundup tolerant seeds from your neighbor’s land? Are you infringing a patent by replanting those seeds? While you don’t intend to use or sell Monsanto’s crops, intention is not material to patent infringement. All that matters is the mere existence of Monsanto’s crops in your harvest.

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/the-patent-landscape...

Granted, GMO is not the only type of crop affected, but it has a greater overlap with those practices than non-GMO crops.

> Farmers worldwide increasingly find themselves unable to legally save, share, sell, or breed with their own seeds.

https://www.opensourceseeds.org/en/about-us

[nerdjon]

I don't discount that, I even mentioned Monsanto in my original comment.

But the vast majority of the time (even in these comments) that people talk about GMO's being bad they are claiming the science is wrong, its bad for your health, etc etc etc.

Almost no one talks about the issues with the corporations. Which is a very real issue, but that issue should not be used to paint GMO's as bad on their own.

But labeling or banning them is not the solution. Considering the major health benefits (and environmental, costs, etc) that these improvements can have. Better laws about what these corporations can and cannot do is the answer.

Frankly, the public has been lied too to think that GMO's are bad for them.

[Tagbert]

Yes, this. The real problems with GMOs are not the changes themselves but the use of them as an excuse to use more herbicides and locking down the seeds. If you want to affect change you need to tackle the actual problems. When people wave their hands and demonize all GMOs without exception, that just obscures the real problems and makes it harder to address them. I know that this technique of muddying the waters is used by a lot of people with vested interprets to deflect criticism and defuse action.

[klondike_]

Generally farmers don't save their seeds even for non GMO crops. It's simply much less hassle to buy from a seed farm, and produces a more consistent crop

[goda90]

Modifying crops to be pesticide resistant is a problem because it makes use of those pesticides less discriminate. We should be trying to move towards not spraying as much as possible to avoid runoff and increase biodiversity. GMOs can help with that too. We can't group all modifications together in the good vs bad buckets.

[hirvi74]

I could be incorrect, but I think I remember reading something about pest-resistant crops and how they are often implemented incorrectly when I was in university taking ecology classes.

Basically, if you take crop like corn as an example. Say our example corn has been genetically modified to resist various pests. However, you cannot just go and plant an entire field of said corn and expect it to be pest-resistant forever.

What farmers are supposed to do is plant non-pest-resistant corn crops for every n number of GMO corn corps in the same field. So, any given row of corn would have something like a non-pest-resistant corn plant after every 4 GMO corn plants.

This causes the said modified corn to retain its pest resistance for longer amounts of time, and the non-pest-resistant crops serve as honeypots for the pests. (You know path of least resistance and all).

However, doing this technically hurts the yields of a farmer's crops and more yield = more profit, thus many farmers forgo this practice. Even if done correctly, I still do not think it works forever, but it does slow down the microevolution of said pests -- at least hypothetically.

Not sure if that is correct, but I would love to know either way.

[IntrepidWorm]

I cannot confirm, but that sounds plausible. This is the same logic for using antibiotics sparingly and in manners that will maximize their effect, to reduce the rate at which resistant strains of organisms dangerous to us can mutate.

[searine]

You and the person you were replying to are confusing two kinds of GMO crop:

Pest-resistant (kills bugs) and Herbicide-resistant( makes the plant robust to chemicals which kills weeds)

You're right about refuges, they only slow things down. To truly prevent resistance genes in pests from appearing, you need multiple modes of action. This was used effectively in HIV treatment. The virus was developing resistance to AZT treatment alone, eventually new drugs came along and patients were treated with 3 or more drugs at once. Multiple modes of action makes it too hard for the virus (or pest) to adapt in time. We don't really have multiple modes of action in plants yet, but one day, maybe?

The person you were replying to was describing herbicide resistant crops, which are sprayed (sometimes oversprayed). This isn't so cut and dry as they describe though. Things like glyphosate are much milder compared to older herbicides and GMO crops encourage things like 'no til' agriculture which greatly improves soil quality. So we're still spraying, but it's better, and has ecological benefits.

[fsflover]

> (but at least Organic has at least some science behind it)

Not very much: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food

From the perspective of science and consumers, there is insufficient evidence in the scientific and medical literature to support claims that organic food is either substantially safer or healthier to eat than conventional food.[7]

[lobocinza]

But it sure is more expensive.

[aksss]

> I will fight back on anyone claiming GMO's are bad when the science is clear that they are not.

Well, don't overcorrect. Being a GMO does not make an O inherently bad, but that doesn't mean all GMOs are inherently good. Labeling something a GMO is just a descriptor which doesn't say anything about the particular modification that was done on said organism. It would be like saying you'll fight back on anyone claiming homemade clothing is bad when science is clear that it is not. Well, kinda depends on the creator and the quality of the result, right?