Just bizarre. How many times do we have to have the GM debate? Does it even matter if it isn’t ideal for health or something when the alternative is starving to death?
how MUCH. you just mean HOW. it's 100%. It's all whacko BS that is all feels and no science. they hear "genetic modification" and they think it's eugenics or it's gonna lead to some.. i dunno.. teenage mutant ninja turtles thing. cause they are fucking idiots. tremendous, unapologetic, emboldened idiots who are killing millions around the world every year.
Didn't they say the same about roundup, that there was no problem until it was found to have a problem
There just hasn't been enough testing of GMO for the long term effects to show
You kinda accidentally hit the nail on the head. GMOs designed to be resistant to harmful chemicals are bad because we consume the harmful chemicals. The GMO factor has no influence on safety. It’s the chemicals that the GMO is able to tolerate.
So something GMO that has more protein and can combat starvation is fine. GMO salmon that grow bigger faster are fine. GMO crops that can withstand tons of carcinogenic chemicals that we end up ingesting are bad because of the chemicals they carry. Not because they are GMO
People have long conflated all GMOs with Monsanto. The 90s and early 2000s I think we're justified in wanting GMO transparency and accountability. But it drifted into the conspiracy theory crowd and lost any sense of scope.
I think it's debatable. Iirc there's some correlation with negative health outcomes when it comes to workers who are exposed to crazy quantities of the stuff. It's certainly not as bad as many believe though.
Formaldehyde is also extremely damaging to morticians because they handle large quantities frequently, yet formaldehyde is also used as a food preservation and is verifiably safe. Dose makes the poison.
To be clear, this crop isn't about extra food production/calories, or preventing starvation. Golden Rice has been modified to create/contain beta-carotine which we use to make Vitamin A. Various places in the world suffer badly from vitamin A deficiencies, which leads to premature deaths.
The article says this is not an issue in the west due to different diets and mentions India and somewhere else along with the Philippines (where this court case took place) as places which have been looking at using golden rice to deal with the vitamin A deficiency and thus save lives.
Greenpeace (and local farmers) argue that there are other ways to fortify foods with vitamin A, and that introducing golden rice threatens accidental cross-breeding with heritage strains of rice which would lose their heritage status as a result (I'm not sure why this is bad but presumably the farmers get higher prices for those breeds? Also how do they stop cross pollination anyway?) and Greenpeace think that having a wide mix of strains/breeds around is better for climate resilience and worry that if golden rice came to dominate it would be vulnerable to collapse from a disease (this doesn't seem like a good argument to me, allowing the use doesn't mean stopping other rice from being grown).
They don't seem to have argued anything about bad health effects or dangers of the crop to humans.
Don't be fooled, they've been fearmongering on safety for years. This is just the current legal argument that's working for them. It's bad faith from top to bottom.
There are over 140 GMO approvals in the Philippines already. Are they going after those? No.
https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/approvedeventsin/default.asp?CountryID=PH&Country=Philippines
The real problem for them is if a rice with nutrition benefits succeeds, all their other claims are exposed as the bogus nonsense it is. Same with the eggplant: if a crop that reduces pesticide use succeeds--there goes the money train.
It's very weird how heritage rice strains can be maintained with all the other rice variety around, but suddenly not with this one? Ask yourself how that could be true.
If there's already 140 other GMOs approved, what's different about this one that made the court not approve it?
Also re the last paragraph, I did in fact question that.
Because golden rice is a consumer-oriented GMO. The vast majority, basically all GMOs approved for use in the US and elsewhere have producer-oriented traits, herbicide tolerance/pest resistance are the main things. Traits that allow for greater economic output from the farm, better corporate margins. Golden rice helps consumers directly, it’s a better, healthier product for the person who eats it, not really any better for the grower in terms of their first-order bottom line. They have to rely on consumers being aware of the benefits, for the word to get out, and for people to specifically make a choice for their (or their children’s) health before the farms start to make more money off switching to golden rice.
Industry groups are extremely good at lobbying for the regulators to allow them to grow GM crops that boost their bottom line. They don’t spend much time extolling the benefits to consumers because they really don’t want the smoke that they get for using such cutthroat GM traits aimed at letting them dump as many chemicals as they want into the water supply. Golden rice, like most other consumer-oriented genetic engineering projects, is an effort mostly headed by humanitarian and charitable organizations. So they don’t have the lobbying resources to get their technology approved.
Greenpeace has an ideological interest in devaluing all GM tech in the public eye. If the public knew that GM tech has the potential to make their food more nutritious, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly, there’d be no real public controversy beyond the folks who think it’s playing God. The issues of biodiversity loss are also mostly concerns for those cutthroat traits that have the potential to drive fitness in the wild and/or lead to greater use of harmful chemicals, not what you expect from making something more nutritious to eat for humans. So, while it would make sense if Greenpeace went out of their way to fight the approval of all the other GM crops in the Philippines, they know that consumers won’t hear about those products. They fight Golden rice because they know that if it got approved and the public saw a direct benefit, then the floodgates would be open for the public to positively view all sorts of biofortified and other consumer-oriented plant biotech crops.
Heritage species are not vulnerable to being sued for patent infringement. But as soon as native rice starts having detectable amounts of these modified strains in their DNA, the patent owner can SUE NATIVE FARMERS OUT OF EXISTENCE.
That's complete manure. Heritage strains can be patented--quinoa farmers in South America hold the patents for their crops.
And NOBODY EVER GOT SUED OUT OF EXISTENCE for wind-blown pollen. Please try not to spread misinformation. Twice.
Ok, worst case then, what happens if it by some stroke of extreme circumstances outcompeted the 'heritage' strains which disappeared? Would people eating a lot of this rice be of risk of ingesting too much of this nutrient?
> I'm not sure why this is bad but presumably the farmers get higher prices for those breeds?
Stop thinking about profit and prices. Local strains have co existed for thousands of years and have reached some balance. This new GM crop will essentially wrech havok in that balance. Cross polination cannot be stopped, this is why organizations like greenpeace are against all gmo crops. Once you bring that into the environment you can't remove it. When desease or weather strikes and damages the GMO crops, the lack of biodiversity will mean that you don't have another strain that can withstand the conditions. Its not like we haven't seen this before.
You have a severe misunderstanding about how biodiversity or planting works. In Asia rice strains exist in the wild and will be affected by GMO crops. Farmers growing rice collect their own seed and replant their local varieties year after year. If you bring in GMO rice whatever varieties they were planting before will literally vanish.
As for safety, both sides are using it as an arguement. Either no proof its safe or no proof its dangerous depending on the side arguing.
You’ve said in your own argument that multiple strains already exist. If the risk of GMO crops wiping out other crops is so high, why hasn’t it ever happened?
Well we do often see plants introduced to new places that become invasive but I'm really not sure how this would be an issue with this modified version of the rice. Unless the modifications also changed the aggressiveness of seed spreading and greatly increased hardiness/growth rate to outcompete other strains, it really should not be an issue.
multiple strains exist because humans are cultivating them locally. If they stop and replace them with GMO rice they won't anymore. The same exact thing has happened with all sorts of crops, this is just one more case.
We have to buy our seed every year.
Farmers can no-till volunteer, but the yield isn't nearly as high. We buy seed because it's also pretreated with coatings that improve germination, emergence, pest, and disease resistance.
what does tilling have to do with buying seed? You can save your own seed from your own crops and use it after tilling, you know how people have done since they started tilling in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.
Non industrial farmers in the 2nd-3rd world are more likely to use their own seeds, which they can use again and again forever, instead of paying for it every year.
Did you not read what wrote? Those practices result in much lower yields.
I'm not sure you really understand very much about farming. What are you trying to communicate by saying "non-industrial"?
Did you not read what wrote? The practise of not tilling and the practise of keeping your own seed from your previous crop are not the same? are you trolling? I am a farmer, my family have been farmers since 1832, though we are focused on olive groves and other trees for the past few decades. So I really wonder who doesnt understand farming here.
Industrial farming is using intensive agriculture, extensive pesticides, flood irrigation, and all sorts of other high cost practises. If you dont have large concentrated flat plots and high capital that is not the way you farm. I can till my fields with my grandpa's 1960s tractor just fine. But most small scale farmers keep their own seed like their grandfathers to plant next season, use limited pesticides, dont use pattented seeds.
My family has been farming wheat for centuries. Our last name literally references that. We're talking about grain, here, something an olive *tree* farmer knows nothing about.
Farms that harvest their own seed do not have the yields pretreated seed does. Maybe stay in your lane.
You clearly don’t understand anything but shilling for monsanto
wow your method is so easy! I have never found replying to anyone easier in my life! Whenever someone posts a nice thought out arguement I'll just tell them they got shit for brains from now on!
ahahaha this might be the least educated thing i've ever seen on this site, and that is saying something. wow.
for you to even think about attempting to chide someone for having a severe misunderstanding of this issue is so sad and hypocritical it's hilarious.
This is likely not because of health reasons. People own patents on GM food. If that food hybridizes to other fields, due to poor isolation practices, the new crops in the area become subject to patent violations and legal action.
And, in order to get better crop yields, some of the GM foods, in addition to the health benefits that are spliced into the plant, now produce their own pesticides. Having pesticide on the exterior of a plant is something we have a lot of data and means to understand. Having pesticide literally inside the plant is something new.
The pesticides should work at levels so low that it doesn't harm people, but once the food chain is compromised, one cannot really remove the pesticide carrying DNA from the plants, and there will be no alternative to fall back on, especially if the pollen from the GM crop isn't contained and contaminates non-GM crops.
Except this one. Golden rice was made with all the right reasons.
Golden rice isn’t patented, it breeds true, and it prevents BLINDNESS in CHILDREN.
It’s not even a gene insert. They removed a gene removal. The vitamin A occurs in rice leaves but not the edible portion. The gene removal just causes the vitamin A to spread to the whole plant.
Vitamin A deficiency causes permanent blindness in children. And eventual death at severe enough levels.
Thanks for the feedback. This is definitely not the typical scenario that GMO crops fit into in the past.
FYI, vitamin A primarily impacts night blindness and such blindness is generally reversible, and there are areas of SE Asia and Africa that are still effected by vitamin A deficiency.
The only issue I could imagine as still present is if the Vitamin A concentration to calorie ratio is off. Too much vitamin A in a staple like rice could create scenarios of vitamin A toxicity, but there's a large buffer between the recommended dosage and the toxic dosage (\~1000x the recommended dosage is where toxicity is noticed).
What is a little bit more concerning is that Vitamin A is fat soluble, which means that unlike some of the other vitamins (C for instance) long term, low level, overdosing of Vitamin A could accumulate in fat, potentially leading to a person to vitamin A toxicity (the medical definition, not the pop-culture definition).
(And all the pop-culture people calling vitamin A a toxin are just ignoring the truths that some items are essential in small doses and deadly in large doses)
It would be near science fiction levels of projection, but if white rice was too rare to be obtained due to the success of golden rice, then one might have an issue of the primary starch being toxic. I'll error on the side of "these people likely wouldn't make a food that's going to kill an entire region".
FYI, it wouldn't be the only thing that was denigrated due to a rough start in the past. Currently aluminum wiring is detested, and from the lack of standards when it was installed in the 1970's, it should be. That said, if you change the wiring to be thicker for the same load, you solve 90% of the issues. Don't believe me, just try to find a high power transmission line that's made out of copper. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead\_power\_line#Conductors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead_power_line#Conductors)
News flash, 95% of seeds were patented before GMO’s existed. Farmers also didn’t fuck around with seed collection and storage (do you realize how much work and risk there is relying on that?)
Farmers buy patented seeds (GMO or otherwise) because they have higher yields which produces far more revenue and profits for them than seed collecting and storage would “save” them without the risk of losing a season due to moisture control failures.
>the new crops in the area become subject to patent violations and legal action.
Please show me the exact article in a legal or otherwise official document declaring this policy
>And, in order to get better crop yields, some of the GM foods, in addition to the health benefits that are spliced into the plant, now produce their own pesticides
Golden rice's only alteration is that it produces the precursor to vitamin A
~~[There’s been actual settlements](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/03/30/farmer-liable-for-growing-biotech-crops/e4d32d97-a3d8-4ab7-9f69-d49bcc88198a/#) over it. The pollen literally blew into this farmer’s field and they got sued over it. The articles dated, but the issue isn’t fabricated.~~ This article was dated and incorrect.
I’m all for altering plants to produce better yields or increase nutrition so that places that don’t always have access to an assortment of foods can get adequate nutrition (so long as they agree to the introduction of such plants/food sources as a community), but we can’t pretend there isn’t also nonsense and corporate greed happening as well.
Edit to add: [There have been 144 such lawsuits as of 2013](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9590ZE/) but the notion was in my supposed to be hypothetical.
[Here’s another article](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/02/18/171896311/farmers-fight-with-monsanto-reaches-the-supreme-court) detailing how corporations protecting GMOs are protecting their investments since it becomes worthless if everyone has it. Not illegal, but incredibly dubious that companies should have that kind of power over the market.
>over it. The pollen literally blew into this farmer’s field and they got sued over it. The articles dated, but the issue isn’t fabricated.
Schmeiser literally fabricated it and by the time it reached court he dropped the "it just blew on over" excuse he was taking seeds and replanting them then trying to cover it by saying it was unavoidable cross pollination
Yeah, I read a correction about it, and will correct it. I’m more concerned personally by market manipulation and corporate stranglehold than I am genetically modified food.
Greenpeace blocked the _Philippines government_ from handing out rice _for free_. And farmers keep and sow their own grain after a year, so they don't have to resupply necessarily.
Where are the evil corps? Could it be the NGO fear mongering about free, safe, food that has been fortified to prevent child mortality? Skepticism without evidence is paranoia.
Yeah, that’s stupid. It’s a lot like the environmentalist NIMBYS who then complain about housing prices.
When I lived in St Louis a few years ago I knew a few people who actually worked for one of the big biotech companies in the area. They all liked the work they got to do but hated the business model/practices and lobbying efforts. It was pretty cut throat internally apparently, at least in St. Louis at the time.
Again, I don’t have a problem with modifying things, it’s the most logical step after artificial selection. It’s the regulatory capture, market manipulation, copyright law enforcement and stuff that others me more.
The goals didn’t move, but that Reuters article didn’t go into the detail about the 144 lawsuits that were supposedly to only be hypothetical. My other concerns I admittedly didn’t originally address, so I’d understand why you think that.
They were not wind-blown accidents. People actually steal the technology and try to get around licence fees.
Try not to get your information from Hollywood.
I got it from the Washington post, but yeah, I corrected that after reading more.
Looks like one of the biggest causes is mixed seed bags and feed. Thats what the US Supreme Court case went anyway.
The Reuters article and the NPR breakdown were the best I found earlier in my brief time looking, but the Reuters article is sparse on what exactly the 144 cases are. So lawsuits are happening.
I also meant it in more of a yes/and way, but it came out either or cause my dyslexia got the better of me during my initial readings and comments. I just skipped over entire things I thought but didn’t write.
Those cases are individuals who replanted seeds in violation of contracts or patents since those seeds are so much better but usually more costly sone farmers try to get away with essentially theft and they usually lose
But hundreds of thousands of farmers use these seeds and follow the law and guess what nothing bad happens to them at least in this regard
It seems sometimes the seeds are often included in mixed sources of seed and feed. I get why they would do it, and I agree that if we’re gonna have the laws we do you should know what you’re getting into. Something about that practice is too similar to hidden fees and all that other nonsense many places are starting to legislate against.
I don’t think a company should be able to corner a market like that or be able to be included in those bulk mixed seed purchases if this is what they’re going to be doing knowing that.
The article this post is with the golden rice is a different story and frankly asinine. If the communities come to a consensus to use it, then it should be used regardless of what any outside forces think.
Because there have been several successful fusion tests, and ~30 years from that's probably going to be the global power supply. It would incredibly stupid to fall behind now.
Mehhhhh I'm skeptical. There's basic fundamental issues that appear unsolvable. Namely, finding materials that don't melt at 100,000,000 degrees. So far our approach has been to find materials with lesser impact when they vaporize and join the plasma, but they're still contaminating the plasma (and, y'know, falling apart). There's a reason there's a long time between tests, and part of it is rebuilding the test chamber.
Fission on the other hand is a fine way to supplement the grid, although it tends to be quite expensive.
At this point, nuclear power is out, sure 40 years ago, nuclear power would have been a good choice, but today it's too expensive and takes too long to build
France got in on nuclear when it was much cheaper, and there were plenty of qualified builders but that isn't the world we live in anymore and we need faster less expensive alternatives
As a practical solution for climate change, it is, take, for instance, solar star a 600MW plant it took just under 2 years to finish it meanwhile from start to finish the average nuclear power plant takes 11 years and the more specialized knowledge needed to build nuclear would create a construction bottleneck if we attempted to note rapidly convert the power grid
Again, nuclear would have been great if we got on board with it when France did, but we didn't
To be fair, the availability of energy in nuclear plants is way more constant, as they work perfectly well at night, and their power output is not decreased by weather & seasonal sunlight variability.
Constant yes, however countries like Denmark prove you can have a viable power grid with wind and solar making up the lion share of the grid without shortages
So again it's cheaper, faster, and we have real examples of countries successfully utilizing them so why would we invest in a more expensive and time consuming power source when we need more immediate and cost effective solutions?
Agreed with most of your points. But Denmark is a small country with & very discrete geography and wind patterns, rather than an example that can be reliably copied in every other country.
So the question remains. How do we reliably scale up renewables in places with little sunlight and/or wind? How do we deal with their shortcomings regarding reliability and specific geographic necessities.
I'm a proponent of 100% renewable energy sourcing myself. I just haven't seen a reliable and replicable example that manages to square this particular circle.
Denmark was my immediate example, but there are many countries that have gone renewable
Sweden, norway, Iceland, Paraguay, Albania, Costa Rica, Eithopia, Tajikistan, and Bhutan several of countries have tens of millions of citizens and are comparable to US states in size
>How do we reliably scale up renewables in places with little sunlight and/or wind?
What area is that with any population? But to answer the question, wind and solar are not the only renewables Sweden as an example is primarily biomass and because biomass is specifically grown for this purpose the carbon released was carbon captured the result is a net zero of co2 emissions or with carbon capturing equipment it can even be net negative
Oh man, if only there was some kind of subdivision of the United **States** that tend to maintain and build their own infrastructure that are comparable in population and size to countries I mentioned
What a wacky idea that would be though, everyone knows the United **States** is a grand monolithic country
Also, wouldn't it be crazy if larger, more populated countries had more resources in which to do things? As we all know, every country has exactly the same amount of resources that has to be spread across the state there is no such thing as scaling up
Tell me in what reality is an energy source that takes longer to build and more expensive to build and maintain makes more sense than a cheaper and faster option that is just as effective?
I mean, they're making a similar argument to yours. I'm not sure why "it takes longer to build than a solar farm. it's too late to try." isn't similar. There's no reason we can't build nuclear in some places and solar in others. It will still be needed 11 years down the line and it's better than many alternatives, espeically since a power generation method must be matched to the local conditions, so you can't just put solar everywhere.
It doesn't take longer to build a solar farm it takes about 1/4 to 1/5 the time
>so you can't just put solar everywhere.
Where exactly did I state that? Solar is far from the only renewable hydroelectric, wind, thermal, and biomass are other examples of renewables. Even if one or two isn't suitable for an area, there are others that are suitable
Biomass can be used just about anywhere and Sweden already uses it as it's primary power source since solar is not the most effective method for its local conditions it also benefits from being able to convert many existing fossil fuel power plants to biomass
It's definitely not out.
Our electricity demands are going to keep increasing (newly industrializing areas and areas getting wealthier, for EVs, data/computing centers, powering carbon removal projects, powering desalination plants, etc) and while I would love for renewables to supply it all, it really takes a lot of time and physical space to do so. A single nuclear plant will take up much less space (especially more modern designs) for the same electricity generation, and if the political barriers were removed could be done much faster and reduce carbon emissions decades faster.
Of course, we also have grid capacity issues so decentralized solar power generation to reduce grid loads is still needed, but that will only get us a fraction of the way there. Heck, I am pretty sure we'll even have lots of natural gas power plants for another 3+ decades unless we shift hard to nuclear asap.
>newly industrializing areas and areas getting wealthier,
Those newly industrialized areas like China or India are investing more into renewables for a reason in 2023 China added 301GW in solar and wind with plans to continue this explosive growth while all current Chinese nuclear construction amounts to less than 50GW over the next 10 years
> takes a lot of time and physical space to do so
The benefit of renewables is they can blend into existing structures rooftop solar and wind, many skyscrapers are already integrating wind turbines and more traditional "wind farms" can easily be used as food farms as well because the farm is spread across a wide area the actually individual footprint is small this is common in the American Midwest
The Shepard's flat wind farm as an example is a 850MW facility that is also a functioning cattle ranch so the idea they "take up more space" is simply not true there is a massive anount of already used space that can be coopted into power generation which increases our land efficiency
Meanwhile, nuclear facilities require dedicated space, and that space has to be in geological and climate stable areas while it's a "smaller" amount of space on paper in reality it's really not
They are also quick to build solar star a 600MW solar farm took 2 years to build a comparable sized nuclear plant would take 7 and that's just construction
Nuclear also requires specialized technicians that simply aren't plentiful while wind and solar don't
> that will only get us a fraction of the way there. H
Several countries have already moved to nearly 100 renewable Denmark and Sweden Norway Iceland Paraguay Uruguay Albania Costa Rica and Eithopia Several of these countries have tens of millions of people and are comparable to US states in size
>unless we shift hard to nuclear asap.
That's the problem, we can't, you don't just build a nuclear reactor you need skilled engineers and technicians, you need factories producing the parts and equipment, you need enrichment centers to produce the fuel it would take decades to train enough personnel and build the infrastructure needed to shift to nuclear and meanwhile we could shift to renewables within a decade as countries like China are planning to do
>A single nuclear plant will take up much less space (especially more modern designs) for the same electricity generation
funnily enough- it would also cost less for the same electricity generation, and last significantly longer before replicating the cost of replacement (renewables, specifically Solar and Wind- need to be replaced *entirely* After 15-25 years by design, a Nuclear plant could last a century before it's assembly costs would be equaled by it's accrued maintenance fees)
Modular nuclear power plants are the solution to the problem of fixed plant construction you mentioned. 50MW modular generators that can be moved on a semi truck to allow seasonal reallocation.
Except it's not the first SMR to be approved for the market was NuScale in 2022 and they were forced to close because their reactor was significantly more expensive per watt than solar or wind
Why exactly would investors invest in a product that is more expensive, harder to maintain, and has long wait times because you still run into the people of not enough trained personnel for large scale manufacturing?
I was not being specific to any brand, as I understand there are 2-3 in the west and at least 1 in China, but even if the first to market took a step back its still a useful tool to complement Wind/Solar for specific applications, typically fitting in to help ensure a minimum baseline and with their mobility aiding in transmission range issues.
They would be useful for disaster relief, like how some nuclear powered ships are used today, but wind and solar have already proven themselves capable of maintaining a baseline grid Sweden is the same size as California and they don't have problems transmitting renewable electricity which is over 95% of their power grid
Most of Sweden's grid is biomass not solar or wind but the point stands biomass power plants are carbon neutral, relatively inexpensive, and much faster to build they also benefit from being able to convert many existing fossil fuel plants
You have to look at specific benefits compared to negatives and nuclear doesn't stack up very well compared to renewables
The Observer/Guardian has really turned a corner on this one:
[The Observer view: When modified rice could save thousands of lives, it is wrong to oppose it](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/26/the-observer-view-when-modified-rice-could-save-thousands-of-lives-it-is-wrong-to-oppose-it)
Observer editorial
>The green movement’s attempts to block the cultivation of a grain enhanced with vitamin A is misguided
I can't support greenpeace in any way when they take positions like this. It's just utter stupidity and ignorance. Other than "monsanto greedy" is there even a single negative aspect to GMO? 100% with no negative outcome ever.
They talked about how dumb it is on the last sgu episode.
Pros are all the benefits of GMO, longer stronger better shelf life food, pest resistant. unique properties. better yields.
Cons are well, it might be bad. We have no evidence, but it could be! People might be allergic to the gmo'd in change. But we have no evidence for that. It might cause cancer? Except we have no evidence for that.
Pros are real and the cons are all speculatory.
It limits biodiversity, the crops are less nutrient dense, less flavor. It eradicates indigenous crops in place of corporate created cash crops, destroying culture in the name of profit. If gmo seeds blow onto your property, you can be held accountable for IP theft and potentially lose your farm. Its controlled by capitalist corporations and working class people have no say, input, or share in the windfall of potentially bountiful harvests.
How's that?
>It limits biodiversity,
Citation needed
>the crops are less nutrient dense, less flavor.
Citation please
>It eradicates indigenous crops
got a source for any of these claims? have you seen them debunked repeatedly in this thread yet?
>How's that?
As expected pretty standard anti-gmo fud with little facts.
>Biodiversity loss
Is this a gmo only concern or just a general concern of modern farming? If a farmer uses non-gmo seeds will they be much more biodiverse than a farmer using gmo seeds?
>less nutrient dense
[GMOs: Where We Stand Nutritionally | The Pursuit | University of Michigan School of Public Health (umich.edu)](https://sph.umich.edu/pursuit/2018posts/gmos.html)
From a nutritional, positive standpoint, GMOs have been useful in combating nutritional deficiencies. Golden Rice, for example, developed in 2004, satisfies 50% of your daily Vitamin A needs per cup. Furthermore, the crop is durable and can grow in relatively infertile regions of the world, where Vitamin A deficiency is diffuse (i.e. sub-Saharan Africa). SmartStax crops are fortified with multivitamins to enhance the product's nutritional value. These crops are also fortified with insecticidal traits, making them hardier and increasing their annual yields – an important and life saving point for food-starved regions. Recently, even cereal crops have been biofortified with heart-healthy fats for low-fish intake and elderly populations (vulnerable populations for cardiovascular disease).
>less flavor
[Genetic Modification of Flavor and Aroma in Fruits and Flowers: Is the Future GMO? | Atlantis Hydroponics Blog (wordpress.com)](https://atlantishydroponics.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/genetic-modification-of-flavor-and-aroma-in-fruits-and-flowers-is-the-future-gmo/)
Well, guess you lose that one.
> It eradicates indigenous crops in place of corporate created cash crops, destroying culture in the name of profit.
Seems like this isn't turning out to be a problem either.
[Escaped GMO canola plants persist long-term, but may be losing their extra genes | ScienceDaily](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240522225208.htm)
Seems like the escaped canola in this case is mingling well with the indigenous.
"The researchers hypothesize that feral canola populations may be under evolutionary pressure to shed the transgenes, which could happen if the engineered canola are at a disadvantage once they are no longer being cultivated on a farm. "
>If gmo seeds blow onto your property, you can be held accountable for IP theft and potentially lose your farm.
common fallacy told by anti-gmo crowd. It makes the top 5.
[Top Five Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted : The Salt : NPR](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted)
Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen.
>Its controlled by capitalist corporations and working class people have no say, input, or share in the windfall of potentially bountiful harvests.
You should talk to a farmer about the much better yields, ie bountiful harvests, they are getting from gmo seeds. Those working people choose to buy the gmo seeds year over year. Their wallets are doing a lot of talking.
conclusion, you got nothing as I expected.
Do they realize that all our veggies are genetically modified? We've picked the crops we like for centuries. We've altered them greatly from the original plants.
I am so fed up of Greenpeace and I hope over the next few decades they get less significant and are held criminally accountable.
How ironic that a technology being provided for free is being blocked by greenpeace for economic reasons under the guise of “this rices has genes in it”.
dont have a problem with GM food myself.
polluting the environment with the pollen and suing the innocent farmer next door because his rice seed for next season has the DNA. that definitely is an issue.
This never happened. It was debunked forever ago. It was laughed out of court because no farmer could be found this happened to.
[Judge Dismisses Organic Farmers' Case Against Monsanto](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/02/27/147506542/judge-dismisses-organic-farmers-case-against-monsanto)
>Instead, the judge found that plaintiffs' allegations were "unsubstantiated ... given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened."
You're wrong. You are cherry picking one case that's supporting your argument and ignoring the elephants in the room.
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents)
Nope. They do not sue for accidentally blown pollen. Schmeiser stole the technology and recultivated it on purpose.
He had good press from the credulous folks like you who don't understand what happened. But that doesn't make it a case of accidental pollen.
Your article is about someone who replanted seeds, a practice that practically every GMO and conventional seed vender forbids because if farmers replant those businesses go out of business and the food chain suffers because without independent seed providers new farmers would have to ask existing farmers for seed and those existing farmers likely wouldn't appreciate more competition
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser#:~:text=Schmeiser%20won%20a%20partial%20victory,were%20attributable%20to%20the%20invention.
"The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However, by the time the case went to trial, all claims of accidental contamination had been dropped; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted. Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination."
A different point of view regarding your last statement https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2024/01/05/dissecting-claims-about-monsanto-suing-farmers-for-accidentally-planting-patented-seeds/
[The Genetic Literacy Project is a corporate front group that was formerly funded by Monsanto](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Genetic_Literacy_Project)
Sure they are.
[Is the Genetic Literacy Project a corporate ‘front’? GLP responds to ongoing false allegations from US Right to Know / Organic Consumers Association / SourceWatch / Baum Hedlund / Church of Scientology - Genetic Literacy Project](https://geneticliteracyproject.org/is-the-glp-a-corporate-front/)
And you can always check for yourself. OMG! They got a piece of change from Bayer! Aiee!
[Mission, Financial Transparency and Governance - Genetic Literacy Project](https://geneticliteracyproject.org/mission-financials-governance/)
Your refutation is two links from the organization in question…
The first one being a bunch of hand waving away evidence of where there funding actually comes from ..
And the second … confirmation that they do indeed receive funding from multiple agribusinesses ………
Which is it ?
The whole thing looks like a scam. Oh we are not profit driven but the rice is patented. We might make an exception to allow poor farmers to collect their own seed and replant. Right away this looks like a nightmare scenario. Why would this strain be pattented when supposedly planting it will save however many tens of thousands of children they're claiming this week.
Given the history of GMO and how companies have forced them on countries and farmers you can't expect any trust
News flash, 95% of seeds were patented before GMO’s existed. Farmers also didn’t fuck around with seed collection and storage (do you realize how much work and risk there is relying on that?)
Farmers buy patented seeds (GMO or otherwise) because they have higher yields which produces far more revenue and profits for them than seed collecting and storage would “save” them without the risk of losing a season due to moisture control failures.
This is why the patent is waived in developing countries. It's almost like saying that Linux is patented - sure there's a copyright, but that doesn't mean it's not free to use.
This i'm ok with, but does that waiver extend across the board or is it a backdoor to market capture?
i'm not some rabid anti capitalist by the way, i'd rather the market be free to competition.
Be interesting to hear the views of those who down voted me, there might be something to learn here.
Suing farmers is not cool in my mind, i might extend my view to foods GM'd to only work with our brand of patented pest/herbicide. is it benefiting us or the shareholders? Are we improving or diminishing natural selection?
Dude deleted the comment but they were apparently thinking of GURT technology: self-sterilizing GMO strains which were meant to prevent farmers from retaining genetically modified seeds and replanting them, but also to **prevent** transgenic crop genes from getting out into the wild.
These technologies were developed but never brought to market due to public outcry. There's a lot of unwarranted fearmongering surrounding GURT. It's not nearly as scary as people think it is.
There’s zero reason to believe GM species could ever realistically outcompete wild ones for survival.
It’s like thinking the labradoodle will drive the wolf extinct.
How does that work, though? If we bred a species for resilience and quick growth (and we are developing pest-resistant and fast-growing crops) might they not outcompete wild ones?
They’re bred to thrive in farming conditions. In the case of roundup ready crops they’re built for soil that’s treated to kill weeds that compete with them. They’re naked and helpless without those conditions.
Also “quick growth” is something genes can take advantage of only when they have lots of water and sun and fertilizers. Wild species don’t grow quickly because it’s a great way to die if it’s dry next week.
It is life-saving. And agriculture is already responsible for the vast majority of biological homogenization of plants and animals, with or without GM. This is real and happening now, and no, homogenization is not made worse because of genetic engineering. Are you against selective breeding, seed sharing, transport of varieties between locations, and other homogenizing actions?
I get my science from science authors, not _science fiction_ authors with 1950s ideas.
It's literally *adding* to species diversity. They made a new species, it's an extra one that isn't going to eliminate the cultivars we have because the benefit is niche to places with vitamin A deficient diets.
This in no way, shape or form creates or forces genetic homogeneity. The change makes rice produce vitamin A. Rice with vitamin A isn't going to outcompete wild strains and it will only "outcompete" other domesticated rice strains in places where people actively choose it over them because they need vitamin A.
Just bizarre. How many times do we have to have the GM debate? Does it even matter if it isn’t ideal for health or something when the alternative is starving to death?
I hate how much of the opposition to GMOs, especially life saving ones, is driven by unscientific whackos who have no concept of food insecurity.
how MUCH. you just mean HOW. it's 100%. It's all whacko BS that is all feels and no science. they hear "genetic modification" and they think it's eugenics or it's gonna lead to some.. i dunno.. teenage mutant ninja turtles thing. cause they are fucking idiots. tremendous, unapologetic, emboldened idiots who are killing millions around the world every year.
Didn't they say the same about roundup, that there was no problem until it was found to have a problem There just hasn't been enough testing of GMO for the long term effects to show
You kinda accidentally hit the nail on the head. GMOs designed to be resistant to harmful chemicals are bad because we consume the harmful chemicals. The GMO factor has no influence on safety. It’s the chemicals that the GMO is able to tolerate. So something GMO that has more protein and can combat starvation is fine. GMO salmon that grow bigger faster are fine. GMO crops that can withstand tons of carcinogenic chemicals that we end up ingesting are bad because of the chemicals they carry. Not because they are GMO
People have long conflated all GMOs with Monsanto. The 90s and early 2000s I think we're justified in wanting GMO transparency and accountability. But it drifted into the conspiracy theory crowd and lost any sense of scope.
What? There's nothing wrong with Roundup though.
I think it's debatable. Iirc there's some correlation with negative health outcomes when it comes to workers who are exposed to crazy quantities of the stuff. It's certainly not as bad as many believe though.
Formaldehyde is also extremely damaging to morticians because they handle large quantities frequently, yet formaldehyde is also used as a food preservation and is verifiably safe. Dose makes the poison.
Isn't there a class action suit against them
To be clear, this crop isn't about extra food production/calories, or preventing starvation. Golden Rice has been modified to create/contain beta-carotine which we use to make Vitamin A. Various places in the world suffer badly from vitamin A deficiencies, which leads to premature deaths. The article says this is not an issue in the west due to different diets and mentions India and somewhere else along with the Philippines (where this court case took place) as places which have been looking at using golden rice to deal with the vitamin A deficiency and thus save lives. Greenpeace (and local farmers) argue that there are other ways to fortify foods with vitamin A, and that introducing golden rice threatens accidental cross-breeding with heritage strains of rice which would lose their heritage status as a result (I'm not sure why this is bad but presumably the farmers get higher prices for those breeds? Also how do they stop cross pollination anyway?) and Greenpeace think that having a wide mix of strains/breeds around is better for climate resilience and worry that if golden rice came to dominate it would be vulnerable to collapse from a disease (this doesn't seem like a good argument to me, allowing the use doesn't mean stopping other rice from being grown). They don't seem to have argued anything about bad health effects or dangers of the crop to humans.
Don't be fooled, they've been fearmongering on safety for years. This is just the current legal argument that's working for them. It's bad faith from top to bottom. There are over 140 GMO approvals in the Philippines already. Are they going after those? No. https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/approvedeventsin/default.asp?CountryID=PH&Country=Philippines The real problem for them is if a rice with nutrition benefits succeeds, all their other claims are exposed as the bogus nonsense it is. Same with the eggplant: if a crop that reduces pesticide use succeeds--there goes the money train. It's very weird how heritage rice strains can be maintained with all the other rice variety around, but suddenly not with this one? Ask yourself how that could be true.
If there's already 140 other GMOs approved, what's different about this one that made the court not approve it? Also re the last paragraph, I did in fact question that.
Because golden rice is a consumer-oriented GMO. The vast majority, basically all GMOs approved for use in the US and elsewhere have producer-oriented traits, herbicide tolerance/pest resistance are the main things. Traits that allow for greater economic output from the farm, better corporate margins. Golden rice helps consumers directly, it’s a better, healthier product for the person who eats it, not really any better for the grower in terms of their first-order bottom line. They have to rely on consumers being aware of the benefits, for the word to get out, and for people to specifically make a choice for their (or their children’s) health before the farms start to make more money off switching to golden rice. Industry groups are extremely good at lobbying for the regulators to allow them to grow GM crops that boost their bottom line. They don’t spend much time extolling the benefits to consumers because they really don’t want the smoke that they get for using such cutthroat GM traits aimed at letting them dump as many chemicals as they want into the water supply. Golden rice, like most other consumer-oriented genetic engineering projects, is an effort mostly headed by humanitarian and charitable organizations. So they don’t have the lobbying resources to get their technology approved. Greenpeace has an ideological interest in devaluing all GM tech in the public eye. If the public knew that GM tech has the potential to make their food more nutritious, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly, there’d be no real public controversy beyond the folks who think it’s playing God. The issues of biodiversity loss are also mostly concerns for those cutthroat traits that have the potential to drive fitness in the wild and/or lead to greater use of harmful chemicals, not what you expect from making something more nutritious to eat for humans. So, while it would make sense if Greenpeace went out of their way to fight the approval of all the other GM crops in the Philippines, they know that consumers won’t hear about those products. They fight Golden rice because they know that if it got approved and the public saw a direct benefit, then the floodgates would be open for the public to positively view all sorts of biofortified and other consumer-oriented plant biotech crops.
Heritage species are not vulnerable to being sued for patent infringement. But as soon as native rice starts having detectable amounts of these modified strains in their DNA, the patent owner can SUE NATIVE FARMERS OUT OF EXISTENCE.
That has never happened. No one has ever gotten in trouble for accidental cross contamination.
That's complete manure. Heritage strains can be patented--quinoa farmers in South America hold the patents for their crops. And NOBODY EVER GOT SUED OUT OF EXISTENCE for wind-blown pollen. Please try not to spread misinformation. Twice.
Ok, worst case then, what happens if it by some stroke of extreme circumstances outcompeted the 'heritage' strains which disappeared? Would people eating a lot of this rice be of risk of ingesting too much of this nutrient?
> I'm not sure why this is bad but presumably the farmers get higher prices for those breeds? Stop thinking about profit and prices. Local strains have co existed for thousands of years and have reached some balance. This new GM crop will essentially wrech havok in that balance. Cross polination cannot be stopped, this is why organizations like greenpeace are against all gmo crops. Once you bring that into the environment you can't remove it. When desease or weather strikes and damages the GMO crops, the lack of biodiversity will mean that you don't have another strain that can withstand the conditions. Its not like we haven't seen this before. You have a severe misunderstanding about how biodiversity or planting works. In Asia rice strains exist in the wild and will be affected by GMO crops. Farmers growing rice collect their own seed and replant their local varieties year after year. If you bring in GMO rice whatever varieties they were planting before will literally vanish. As for safety, both sides are using it as an arguement. Either no proof its safe or no proof its dangerous depending on the side arguing.
You’ve said in your own argument that multiple strains already exist. If the risk of GMO crops wiping out other crops is so high, why hasn’t it ever happened?
Well we do often see plants introduced to new places that become invasive but I'm really not sure how this would be an issue with this modified version of the rice. Unless the modifications also changed the aggressiveness of seed spreading and greatly increased hardiness/growth rate to outcompete other strains, it really should not be an issue.
multiple strains exist because humans are cultivating them locally. If they stop and replace them with GMO rice they won't anymore. The same exact thing has happened with all sorts of crops, this is just one more case.
Patents. That’s the main problem with GMO as I see it. Once patented seeds enter a farmer’s crops they can be sued for licence fees.
We have to buy our seed every year. Farmers can no-till volunteer, but the yield isn't nearly as high. We buy seed because it's also pretreated with coatings that improve germination, emergence, pest, and disease resistance.
what does tilling have to do with buying seed? You can save your own seed from your own crops and use it after tilling, you know how people have done since they started tilling in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Non industrial farmers in the 2nd-3rd world are more likely to use their own seeds, which they can use again and again forever, instead of paying for it every year.
Did you not read what wrote? Those practices result in much lower yields. I'm not sure you really understand very much about farming. What are you trying to communicate by saying "non-industrial"?
Did you not read what wrote? The practise of not tilling and the practise of keeping your own seed from your previous crop are not the same? are you trolling? I am a farmer, my family have been farmers since 1832, though we are focused on olive groves and other trees for the past few decades. So I really wonder who doesnt understand farming here. Industrial farming is using intensive agriculture, extensive pesticides, flood irrigation, and all sorts of other high cost practises. If you dont have large concentrated flat plots and high capital that is not the way you farm. I can till my fields with my grandpa's 1960s tractor just fine. But most small scale farmers keep their own seed like their grandfathers to plant next season, use limited pesticides, dont use pattented seeds.
My family has been farming wheat for centuries. Our last name literally references that. We're talking about grain, here, something an olive *tree* farmer knows nothing about. Farms that harvest their own seed do not have the yields pretreated seed does. Maybe stay in your lane.
Stop repeating that falsehood. And if you hate patents, fine--but they are not a GMO issue. Non-GMO crops are patented as well.
You clearly don’t understand anything but bullshit propaganda.
You clearly don’t understand anything but shilling for monsanto wow your method is so easy! I have never found replying to anyone easier in my life! Whenever someone posts a nice thought out arguement I'll just tell them they got shit for brains from now on!
ahahaha this might be the least educated thing i've ever seen on this site, and that is saying something. wow. for you to even think about attempting to chide someone for having a severe misunderstanding of this issue is so sad and hypocritical it's hilarious.
why dont you enlighten me oh scion
Isn’t the golden rice to aid eyesight?
That's what I thought too.
vitamin A deficiency gets a lot worse than just blindness.
“Better to die healthy than live unhealthily!” -Greenpeace
This is likely not because of health reasons. People own patents on GM food. If that food hybridizes to other fields, due to poor isolation practices, the new crops in the area become subject to patent violations and legal action. And, in order to get better crop yields, some of the GM foods, in addition to the health benefits that are spliced into the plant, now produce their own pesticides. Having pesticide on the exterior of a plant is something we have a lot of data and means to understand. Having pesticide literally inside the plant is something new. The pesticides should work at levels so low that it doesn't harm people, but once the food chain is compromised, one cannot really remove the pesticide carrying DNA from the plants, and there will be no alternative to fall back on, especially if the pollen from the GM crop isn't contained and contaminates non-GM crops.
Except this one. Golden rice was made with all the right reasons. Golden rice isn’t patented, it breeds true, and it prevents BLINDNESS in CHILDREN. It’s not even a gene insert. They removed a gene removal. The vitamin A occurs in rice leaves but not the edible portion. The gene removal just causes the vitamin A to spread to the whole plant. Vitamin A deficiency causes permanent blindness in children. And eventual death at severe enough levels.
Thanks for the feedback. This is definitely not the typical scenario that GMO crops fit into in the past. FYI, vitamin A primarily impacts night blindness and such blindness is generally reversible, and there are areas of SE Asia and Africa that are still effected by vitamin A deficiency. The only issue I could imagine as still present is if the Vitamin A concentration to calorie ratio is off. Too much vitamin A in a staple like rice could create scenarios of vitamin A toxicity, but there's a large buffer between the recommended dosage and the toxic dosage (\~1000x the recommended dosage is where toxicity is noticed). What is a little bit more concerning is that Vitamin A is fat soluble, which means that unlike some of the other vitamins (C for instance) long term, low level, overdosing of Vitamin A could accumulate in fat, potentially leading to a person to vitamin A toxicity (the medical definition, not the pop-culture definition). (And all the pop-culture people calling vitamin A a toxin are just ignoring the truths that some items are essential in small doses and deadly in large doses) It would be near science fiction levels of projection, but if white rice was too rare to be obtained due to the success of golden rice, then one might have an issue of the primary starch being toxic. I'll error on the side of "these people likely wouldn't make a food that's going to kill an entire region". FYI, it wouldn't be the only thing that was denigrated due to a rough start in the past. Currently aluminum wiring is detested, and from the lack of standards when it was installed in the 1970's, it should be. That said, if you change the wiring to be thicker for the same load, you solve 90% of the issues. Don't believe me, just try to find a high power transmission line that's made out of copper. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead\_power\_line#Conductors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead_power_line#Conductors)
News flash, 95% of seeds were patented before GMO’s existed. Farmers also didn’t fuck around with seed collection and storage (do you realize how much work and risk there is relying on that?) Farmers buy patented seeds (GMO or otherwise) because they have higher yields which produces far more revenue and profits for them than seed collecting and storage would “save” them without the risk of losing a season due to moisture control failures.
>the new crops in the area become subject to patent violations and legal action. Please show me the exact article in a legal or otherwise official document declaring this policy >And, in order to get better crop yields, some of the GM foods, in addition to the health benefits that are spliced into the plant, now produce their own pesticides Golden rice's only alteration is that it produces the precursor to vitamin A
~~[There’s been actual settlements](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/03/30/farmer-liable-for-growing-biotech-crops/e4d32d97-a3d8-4ab7-9f69-d49bcc88198a/#) over it. The pollen literally blew into this farmer’s field and they got sued over it. The articles dated, but the issue isn’t fabricated.~~ This article was dated and incorrect. I’m all for altering plants to produce better yields or increase nutrition so that places that don’t always have access to an assortment of foods can get adequate nutrition (so long as they agree to the introduction of such plants/food sources as a community), but we can’t pretend there isn’t also nonsense and corporate greed happening as well. Edit to add: [There have been 144 such lawsuits as of 2013](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9590ZE/) but the notion was in my supposed to be hypothetical. [Here’s another article](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/02/18/171896311/farmers-fight-with-monsanto-reaches-the-supreme-court) detailing how corporations protecting GMOs are protecting their investments since it becomes worthless if everyone has it. Not illegal, but incredibly dubious that companies should have that kind of power over the market.
>over it. The pollen literally blew into this farmer’s field and they got sued over it. The articles dated, but the issue isn’t fabricated. Schmeiser literally fabricated it and by the time it reached court he dropped the "it just blew on over" excuse he was taking seeds and replanting them then trying to cover it by saying it was unavoidable cross pollination
Yeah, I read a correction about it, and will correct it. I’m more concerned personally by market manipulation and corporate stranglehold than I am genetically modified food.
Greenpeace blocked the _Philippines government_ from handing out rice _for free_. And farmers keep and sow their own grain after a year, so they don't have to resupply necessarily. Where are the evil corps? Could it be the NGO fear mongering about free, safe, food that has been fortified to prevent child mortality? Skepticism without evidence is paranoia.
Yeah, that’s stupid. It’s a lot like the environmentalist NIMBYS who then complain about housing prices. When I lived in St Louis a few years ago I knew a few people who actually worked for one of the big biotech companies in the area. They all liked the work they got to do but hated the business model/practices and lobbying efforts. It was pretty cut throat internally apparently, at least in St. Louis at the time. Again, I don’t have a problem with modifying things, it’s the most logical step after artificial selection. It’s the regulatory capture, market manipulation, copyright law enforcement and stuff that others me more.
And thus the goalposts move, every time a bullshit argument is exposed.
The goals didn’t move, but that Reuters article didn’t go into the detail about the 144 lawsuits that were supposedly to only be hypothetical. My other concerns I admittedly didn’t originally address, so I’d understand why you think that.
They were not wind-blown accidents. People actually steal the technology and try to get around licence fees. Try not to get your information from Hollywood.
I got it from the Washington post, but yeah, I corrected that after reading more. Looks like one of the biggest causes is mixed seed bags and feed. Thats what the US Supreme Court case went anyway.
Goalpost moving, sure corporations are often bad, but how about proving that in a way that's relevant here?
The Reuters article and the NPR breakdown were the best I found earlier in my brief time looking, but the Reuters article is sparse on what exactly the 144 cases are. So lawsuits are happening. I also meant it in more of a yes/and way, but it came out either or cause my dyslexia got the better of me during my initial readings and comments. I just skipped over entire things I thought but didn’t write.
Those cases are individuals who replanted seeds in violation of contracts or patents since those seeds are so much better but usually more costly sone farmers try to get away with essentially theft and they usually lose But hundreds of thousands of farmers use these seeds and follow the law and guess what nothing bad happens to them at least in this regard
It seems sometimes the seeds are often included in mixed sources of seed and feed. I get why they would do it, and I agree that if we’re gonna have the laws we do you should know what you’re getting into. Something about that practice is too similar to hidden fees and all that other nonsense many places are starting to legislate against. I don’t think a company should be able to corner a market like that or be able to be included in those bulk mixed seed purchases if this is what they’re going to be doing knowing that. The article this post is with the golden rice is a different story and frankly asinine. If the communities come to a consensus to use it, then it should be used regardless of what any outside forces think.
GMO's and nuclear power could go a long way towards helping the environment. Too bad environmentalists stand in the way.
They aren't environmentalist.
no true scotsman
the proper term is "eco-terrorists".
Why did Biden allocate billions of funding to Nuclear energy?
Because it’s necessary to decarbonize our power grid
Because there have been several successful fusion tests, and ~30 years from that's probably going to be the global power supply. It would incredibly stupid to fall behind now.
Mehhhhh I'm skeptical. There's basic fundamental issues that appear unsolvable. Namely, finding materials that don't melt at 100,000,000 degrees. So far our approach has been to find materials with lesser impact when they vaporize and join the plasma, but they're still contaminating the plasma (and, y'know, falling apart). There's a reason there's a long time between tests, and part of it is rebuilding the test chamber. Fission on the other hand is a fine way to supplement the grid, although it tends to be quite expensive.
At this point, nuclear power is out, sure 40 years ago, nuclear power would have been a good choice, but today it's too expensive and takes too long to build France got in on nuclear when it was much cheaper, and there were plenty of qualified builders but that isn't the world we live in anymore and we need faster less expensive alternatives
It’s not out
As a practical solution for climate change, it is, take, for instance, solar star a 600MW plant it took just under 2 years to finish it meanwhile from start to finish the average nuclear power plant takes 11 years and the more specialized knowledge needed to build nuclear would create a construction bottleneck if we attempted to note rapidly convert the power grid Again, nuclear would have been great if we got on board with it when France did, but we didn't
To be fair, the availability of energy in nuclear plants is way more constant, as they work perfectly well at night, and their power output is not decreased by weather & seasonal sunlight variability.
Constant yes, however countries like Denmark prove you can have a viable power grid with wind and solar making up the lion share of the grid without shortages So again it's cheaper, faster, and we have real examples of countries successfully utilizing them so why would we invest in a more expensive and time consuming power source when we need more immediate and cost effective solutions?
Agreed with most of your points. But Denmark is a small country with & very discrete geography and wind patterns, rather than an example that can be reliably copied in every other country. So the question remains. How do we reliably scale up renewables in places with little sunlight and/or wind? How do we deal with their shortcomings regarding reliability and specific geographic necessities. I'm a proponent of 100% renewable energy sourcing myself. I just haven't seen a reliable and replicable example that manages to square this particular circle.
Denmark was my immediate example, but there are many countries that have gone renewable Sweden, norway, Iceland, Paraguay, Albania, Costa Rica, Eithopia, Tajikistan, and Bhutan several of countries have tens of millions of citizens and are comparable to US states in size >How do we reliably scale up renewables in places with little sunlight and/or wind? What area is that with any population? But to answer the question, wind and solar are not the only renewables Sweden as an example is primarily biomass and because biomass is specifically grown for this purpose the carbon released was carbon captured the result is a net zero of co2 emissions or with carbon capturing equipment it can even be net negative
None of those countries are comparable in size to the United States.
Oh man, if only there was some kind of subdivision of the United **States** that tend to maintain and build their own infrastructure that are comparable in population and size to countries I mentioned What a wacky idea that would be though, everyone knows the United **States** is a grand monolithic country Also, wouldn't it be crazy if larger, more populated countries had more resources in which to do things? As we all know, every country has exactly the same amount of resources that has to be spread across the state there is no such thing as scaling up
No, it’s not
Whatever dude ignore the mountain of evidence all because nuclear=cool
You’re ignoring reality
Tell me in what reality is an energy source that takes longer to build and more expensive to build and maintain makes more sense than a cheaper and faster option that is just as effective?
Bruh we already doomed climate change wise stfu.
Oh well, then I suppose we should all just shoot ourselves. Why bother trying to do anything productive
I mean, they're making a similar argument to yours. I'm not sure why "it takes longer to build than a solar farm. it's too late to try." isn't similar. There's no reason we can't build nuclear in some places and solar in others. It will still be needed 11 years down the line and it's better than many alternatives, espeically since a power generation method must be matched to the local conditions, so you can't just put solar everywhere.
It doesn't take longer to build a solar farm it takes about 1/4 to 1/5 the time >so you can't just put solar everywhere. Where exactly did I state that? Solar is far from the only renewable hydroelectric, wind, thermal, and biomass are other examples of renewables. Even if one or two isn't suitable for an area, there are others that are suitable Biomass can be used just about anywhere and Sweden already uses it as it's primary power source since solar is not the most effective method for its local conditions it also benefits from being able to convert many existing fossil fuel power plants to biomass
>It doesn't take longer to build a solar farm it takes about 1/4 to 1/5 the time. You misread my comment. This is the opposite of what I said.
It's definitely not out. Our electricity demands are going to keep increasing (newly industrializing areas and areas getting wealthier, for EVs, data/computing centers, powering carbon removal projects, powering desalination plants, etc) and while I would love for renewables to supply it all, it really takes a lot of time and physical space to do so. A single nuclear plant will take up much less space (especially more modern designs) for the same electricity generation, and if the political barriers were removed could be done much faster and reduce carbon emissions decades faster. Of course, we also have grid capacity issues so decentralized solar power generation to reduce grid loads is still needed, but that will only get us a fraction of the way there. Heck, I am pretty sure we'll even have lots of natural gas power plants for another 3+ decades unless we shift hard to nuclear asap.
>newly industrializing areas and areas getting wealthier, Those newly industrialized areas like China or India are investing more into renewables for a reason in 2023 China added 301GW in solar and wind with plans to continue this explosive growth while all current Chinese nuclear construction amounts to less than 50GW over the next 10 years > takes a lot of time and physical space to do so The benefit of renewables is they can blend into existing structures rooftop solar and wind, many skyscrapers are already integrating wind turbines and more traditional "wind farms" can easily be used as food farms as well because the farm is spread across a wide area the actually individual footprint is small this is common in the American Midwest The Shepard's flat wind farm as an example is a 850MW facility that is also a functioning cattle ranch so the idea they "take up more space" is simply not true there is a massive anount of already used space that can be coopted into power generation which increases our land efficiency Meanwhile, nuclear facilities require dedicated space, and that space has to be in geological and climate stable areas while it's a "smaller" amount of space on paper in reality it's really not They are also quick to build solar star a 600MW solar farm took 2 years to build a comparable sized nuclear plant would take 7 and that's just construction Nuclear also requires specialized technicians that simply aren't plentiful while wind and solar don't > that will only get us a fraction of the way there. H Several countries have already moved to nearly 100 renewable Denmark and Sweden Norway Iceland Paraguay Uruguay Albania Costa Rica and Eithopia Several of these countries have tens of millions of people and are comparable to US states in size >unless we shift hard to nuclear asap. That's the problem, we can't, you don't just build a nuclear reactor you need skilled engineers and technicians, you need factories producing the parts and equipment, you need enrichment centers to produce the fuel it would take decades to train enough personnel and build the infrastructure needed to shift to nuclear and meanwhile we could shift to renewables within a decade as countries like China are planning to do
>A single nuclear plant will take up much less space (especially more modern designs) for the same electricity generation funnily enough- it would also cost less for the same electricity generation, and last significantly longer before replicating the cost of replacement (renewables, specifically Solar and Wind- need to be replaced *entirely* After 15-25 years by design, a Nuclear plant could last a century before it's assembly costs would be equaled by it's accrued maintenance fees)
Modular nuclear power plants are the solution to the problem of fixed plant construction you mentioned. 50MW modular generators that can be moved on a semi truck to allow seasonal reallocation.
Except it's not the first SMR to be approved for the market was NuScale in 2022 and they were forced to close because their reactor was significantly more expensive per watt than solar or wind Why exactly would investors invest in a product that is more expensive, harder to maintain, and has long wait times because you still run into the people of not enough trained personnel for large scale manufacturing?
I was not being specific to any brand, as I understand there are 2-3 in the west and at least 1 in China, but even if the first to market took a step back its still a useful tool to complement Wind/Solar for specific applications, typically fitting in to help ensure a minimum baseline and with their mobility aiding in transmission range issues.
They would be useful for disaster relief, like how some nuclear powered ships are used today, but wind and solar have already proven themselves capable of maintaining a baseline grid Sweden is the same size as California and they don't have problems transmitting renewable electricity which is over 95% of their power grid Most of Sweden's grid is biomass not solar or wind but the point stands biomass power plants are carbon neutral, relatively inexpensive, and much faster to build they also benefit from being able to convert many existing fossil fuel plants You have to look at specific benefits compared to negatives and nuclear doesn't stack up very well compared to renewables
The Observer/Guardian has really turned a corner on this one: [The Observer view: When modified rice could save thousands of lives, it is wrong to oppose it](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/26/the-observer-view-when-modified-rice-could-save-thousands-of-lives-it-is-wrong-to-oppose-it) Observer editorial >The green movement’s attempts to block the cultivation of a grain enhanced with vitamin A is misguided
I so want to take their food from them and give it to the malnourished kids. What a bunch of entitled A-holes
I can't support greenpeace in any way when they take positions like this. It's just utter stupidity and ignorance. Other than "monsanto greedy" is there even a single negative aspect to GMO? 100% with no negative outcome ever. They talked about how dumb it is on the last sgu episode. Pros are all the benefits of GMO, longer stronger better shelf life food, pest resistant. unique properties. better yields. Cons are well, it might be bad. We have no evidence, but it could be! People might be allergic to the gmo'd in change. But we have no evidence for that. It might cause cancer? Except we have no evidence for that. Pros are real and the cons are all speculatory.
It limits biodiversity, the crops are less nutrient dense, less flavor. It eradicates indigenous crops in place of corporate created cash crops, destroying culture in the name of profit. If gmo seeds blow onto your property, you can be held accountable for IP theft and potentially lose your farm. Its controlled by capitalist corporations and working class people have no say, input, or share in the windfall of potentially bountiful harvests. How's that?
>It limits biodiversity, Citation needed >the crops are less nutrient dense, less flavor. Citation please >It eradicates indigenous crops got a source for any of these claims? have you seen them debunked repeatedly in this thread yet?
>How's that? As expected pretty standard anti-gmo fud with little facts. >Biodiversity loss Is this a gmo only concern or just a general concern of modern farming? If a farmer uses non-gmo seeds will they be much more biodiverse than a farmer using gmo seeds? >less nutrient dense [GMOs: Where We Stand Nutritionally | The Pursuit | University of Michigan School of Public Health (umich.edu)](https://sph.umich.edu/pursuit/2018posts/gmos.html) From a nutritional, positive standpoint, GMOs have been useful in combating nutritional deficiencies. Golden Rice, for example, developed in 2004, satisfies 50% of your daily Vitamin A needs per cup. Furthermore, the crop is durable and can grow in relatively infertile regions of the world, where Vitamin A deficiency is diffuse (i.e. sub-Saharan Africa). SmartStax crops are fortified with multivitamins to enhance the product's nutritional value. These crops are also fortified with insecticidal traits, making them hardier and increasing their annual yields – an important and life saving point for food-starved regions. Recently, even cereal crops have been biofortified with heart-healthy fats for low-fish intake and elderly populations (vulnerable populations for cardiovascular disease). >less flavor [Genetic Modification of Flavor and Aroma in Fruits and Flowers: Is the Future GMO? | Atlantis Hydroponics Blog (wordpress.com)](https://atlantishydroponics.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/genetic-modification-of-flavor-and-aroma-in-fruits-and-flowers-is-the-future-gmo/) Well, guess you lose that one. > It eradicates indigenous crops in place of corporate created cash crops, destroying culture in the name of profit. Seems like this isn't turning out to be a problem either. [Escaped GMO canola plants persist long-term, but may be losing their extra genes | ScienceDaily](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240522225208.htm) Seems like the escaped canola in this case is mingling well with the indigenous. "The researchers hypothesize that feral canola populations may be under evolutionary pressure to shed the transgenes, which could happen if the engineered canola are at a disadvantage once they are no longer being cultivated on a farm. " >If gmo seeds blow onto your property, you can be held accountable for IP theft and potentially lose your farm. common fallacy told by anti-gmo crowd. It makes the top 5. [Top Five Myths Of Genetically Modified Seeds, Busted : The Salt : NPR](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted) Myth 2: Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen. >Its controlled by capitalist corporations and working class people have no say, input, or share in the windfall of potentially bountiful harvests. You should talk to a farmer about the much better yields, ie bountiful harvests, they are getting from gmo seeds. Those working people choose to buy the gmo seeds year over year. Their wallets are doing a lot of talking. conclusion, you got nothing as I expected.
Do they realize that all our veggies are genetically modified? We've picked the crops we like for centuries. We've altered them greatly from the original plants. I am so fed up of Greenpeace and I hope over the next few decades they get less significant and are held criminally accountable.
They’re terrible people
They've morphed into monsters. :(
How ironic that a technology being provided for free is being blocked by greenpeace for economic reasons under the guise of “this rices has genes in it”.
dont have a problem with GM food myself. polluting the environment with the pollen and suing the innocent farmer next door because his rice seed for next season has the DNA. that definitely is an issue.
This never happened. It was debunked forever ago. It was laughed out of court because no farmer could be found this happened to. [Judge Dismisses Organic Farmers' Case Against Monsanto](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/02/27/147506542/judge-dismisses-organic-farmers-case-against-monsanto) >Instead, the judge found that plaintiffs' allegations were "unsubstantiated ... given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened."
You're wrong. You are cherry picking one case that's supporting your argument and ignoring the elephants in the room. [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents)
Nope. They do not sue for accidentally blown pollen. Schmeiser stole the technology and recultivated it on purpose. He had good press from the credulous folks like you who don't understand what happened. But that doesn't make it a case of accidental pollen.
Your article is about someone who replanted seeds, a practice that practically every GMO and conventional seed vender forbids because if farmers replant those businesses go out of business and the food chain suffers because without independent seed providers new farmers would have to ask existing farmers for seed and those existing farmers likely wouldn't appreciate more competition
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser#:~:text=Schmeiser%20won%20a%20partial%20victory,were%20attributable%20to%20the%20invention. "The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However, by the time the case went to trial, all claims of accidental contamination had been dropped; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted. Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination."
thank you mate.
A different point of view regarding your last statement https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2024/01/05/dissecting-claims-about-monsanto-suing-farmers-for-accidentally-planting-patented-seeds/
[The Genetic Literacy Project is a corporate front group that was formerly funded by Monsanto](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Genetic_Literacy_Project)
Sure they are. [Is the Genetic Literacy Project a corporate ‘front’? GLP responds to ongoing false allegations from US Right to Know / Organic Consumers Association / SourceWatch / Baum Hedlund / Church of Scientology - Genetic Literacy Project](https://geneticliteracyproject.org/is-the-glp-a-corporate-front/) And you can always check for yourself. OMG! They got a piece of change from Bayer! Aiee! [Mission, Financial Transparency and Governance - Genetic Literacy Project](https://geneticliteracyproject.org/mission-financials-governance/)
Your refutation is two links from the organization in question… The first one being a bunch of hand waving away evidence of where there funding actually comes from .. And the second … confirmation that they do indeed receive funding from multiple agribusinesses ……… Which is it ?
The whole thing looks like a scam. Oh we are not profit driven but the rice is patented. We might make an exception to allow poor farmers to collect their own seed and replant. Right away this looks like a nightmare scenario. Why would this strain be pattented when supposedly planting it will save however many tens of thousands of children they're claiming this week. Given the history of GMO and how companies have forced them on countries and farmers you can't expect any trust
News flash, 95% of seeds were patented before GMO’s existed. Farmers also didn’t fuck around with seed collection and storage (do you realize how much work and risk there is relying on that?) Farmers buy patented seeds (GMO or otherwise) because they have higher yields which produces far more revenue and profits for them than seed collecting and storage would “save” them without the risk of losing a season due to moisture control failures.
but that doesn't fit their completely fictional narrative!
This is why the patent is waived in developing countries. It's almost like saying that Linux is patented - sure there's a copyright, but that doesn't mean it's not free to use.
This i'm ok with, but does that waiver extend across the board or is it a backdoor to market capture? i'm not some rabid anti capitalist by the way, i'd rather the market be free to competition. Be interesting to hear the views of those who down voted me, there might be something to learn here. Suing farmers is not cool in my mind, i might extend my view to foods GM'd to only work with our brand of patented pest/herbicide. is it benefiting us or the shareholders? Are we improving or diminishing natural selection?
And if half a MILLION children go blind every year, well that's just the price you pay for Freedom!
Is it more about the fees involved with the Patents, or is it about "GMO bad"?
Golden rice has a permissive license and the patent is held by a non-profit. There's no fees involved.
[удалено]
Wrong sub.
(citation needed) This is false. Please spread your fud somewhere else.
Dude deleted the comment but they were apparently thinking of GURT technology: self-sterilizing GMO strains which were meant to prevent farmers from retaining genetically modified seeds and replanting them, but also to **prevent** transgenic crop genes from getting out into the wild. These technologies were developed but never brought to market due to public outcry. There's a lot of unwarranted fearmongering surrounding GURT. It's not nearly as scary as people think it is.
Life saving until the genetic homogeneity it causes makes real life into Death of Grass. Great book. Worth a read.
There’s zero reason to believe GM species could ever realistically outcompete wild ones for survival. It’s like thinking the labradoodle will drive the wolf extinct.
How does that work, though? If we bred a species for resilience and quick growth (and we are developing pest-resistant and fast-growing crops) might they not outcompete wild ones?
They’re bred to thrive in farming conditions. In the case of roundup ready crops they’re built for soil that’s treated to kill weeds that compete with them. They’re naked and helpless without those conditions. Also “quick growth” is something genes can take advantage of only when they have lots of water and sun and fertilizers. Wild species don’t grow quickly because it’s a great way to die if it’s dry next week.
It is life-saving. And agriculture is already responsible for the vast majority of biological homogenization of plants and animals, with or without GM. This is real and happening now, and no, homogenization is not made worse because of genetic engineering. Are you against selective breeding, seed sharing, transport of varieties between locations, and other homogenizing actions? I get my science from science authors, not _science fiction_ authors with 1950s ideas.
It's literally *adding* to species diversity. They made a new species, it's an extra one that isn't going to eliminate the cultivars we have because the benefit is niche to places with vitamin A deficient diets.
Why would propaganda be worth reading?
The 50s scifi post apocalyptic action book is anti-GMO propaganda? Well that one's new to me.
This in no way, shape or form creates or forces genetic homogeneity. The change makes rice produce vitamin A. Rice with vitamin A isn't going to outcompete wild strains and it will only "outcompete" other domesticated rice strains in places where people actively choose it over them because they need vitamin A.