GMO tech

[Ripster42]

No, I explained why they were contradictory in a later post. Feel free to stop believing and stating falsehoods, sir.

No, you explained why you think the current licensing structure is okay (you say because it allows for the quickest development of tech). That's not the same as saying that anti-science people are making the same complaints as anti-corporate people and definitely doesn't mean that supporting one while not the other is contradictory. You can be for a less lucrative licensing structure that still allows for innovation while still being pro-gmo.

[Osmeric]

No, you explained why you think the current licensing structure is okay (you say because it allows for the quickest development of tech). That's not the same as saying that anti-science people are making the same complaints as anti-corporate people and definitely doesn't mean that supporting one while not the other is contradictory. You can be for a less lucrative licensing structure that still allows for innovation while still being pro-gmo.

Please, tell me how GMOs get developed if there is no patent protection. I'll wait. In particular, I want you to explain how GMO development costs are recouped if farmers can replant their seeds.

[Damajin]

Yeah, I see that's all you are saying. I was just curious how that has anything to do with farming because...well it doesn't really (unless, yes, someone steals the industrial chemical from a farm and spreads it to the ecosystem, but that's insignificant to the entire debate really)

- - - Updated - - -



Good thing we aren't on water.

EDIT: your concerns aren't necessary, so don't worry about that if you are somehow scared that this topic is going to lead us into Resident Evil lifestyle.

Yeah, that's totally not necessary then again all those Seed Vaults up in the Arctic Circle aren't either under that unnecessary concern.

[Ripster42]

Please, tell me how GMOs get developed if there is no patent protection. I'll wait. In particular, I want you to explain how GMO development costs are recouped if farmers can replant their seeds.

Government funding. Alms from the poor. The farmers do it themselves. Who gives a shit. The only thing I'm saying is that not liking the current patenting system for GMOs (not even wanting to abolish the patenting system!) isn't contradictory to being pro-GMO.

[TirielWoW]

Please, tell me how GMOs get developed if there is no patent protection. I'll wait. In particular, I want you to explain how GMO development costs are recouped if farmers can replant their seeds.

Well, in several cases they were done at universities on grants.

[Damajin]

Please, tell me how GMOs get developed if there is no patent protection. I'll wait. In particular, I want you to explain how GMO development costs are recouped if farmers can replant their seeds.

Aww man, what did the world do for the millions of years before GMO frankenfoods?

Also since when is a farmer replanting seeds a crime? Let me answer my own question here: since Foodtechs and Herbicide companies decided monopolizing the food supply was their natural right. This garbage is no different than those that believe the water supply should be a private commodity. It shouldn't.

Thankfully the heirloom seed market is alive, strong and full of dedicated people.

[PixelFox]

GMO is a technical term defined by governmental agencies that refers specifically to inserting a gene from one organism into a different organism. It does not apply to other synthetic biology / genetic engineering operations that can result in as much or more change to the genome of the target species. For example, knocking out a gene to change the organism can have significant effects but does not count as making the "new" organism a "GMO".

So it's an insufficient label if you want to know if humans have made direct changes to the DNA of your lunch.

Further, as a whole, "GMO" or any other change can't be categorized as always "good" or "bad" any more than a label that says "there's something printed on the other side of this sheet of paper" will tell you whether it's likely to be a pretty or ugly picture.

So "GMO labeling" is pointless because it does not give you any information that's actionable. If you see a product in the store labeled "New GMO modified version!" and choose not to buy it, that's simply instinctive "fear of the unknown" and it's completely unjustified. To actually turn that into meaningful information, you would have to go home and google up whatever research papers and patents apply and read it all to understand exactly what was done (which of course would require at least an introductory knowledge of molecular biology but that's actually pretty easy to obtain). You could then make an informed decision as to whether there's anything you want to to worry about, assuming you don't trust your FDA or equivalent agency to be looking out for your interests.

Whether or not you agree that humans should be messing with DNA, it's the current forefront of technology and we're going to be doing it more and more as we learn even more of the details of how life works (this is one of the few areas of wonder and discovery in science currently just because of how much we *don't* know yet and how much room there is to make fundamental discoveries).

There's an edX free online MOOC called MITx 7.01x Introduction to Biology, the secret of life that's very accessible and will teach you what you need to know to understand much of the scientific literature surrounding these topics. There isn't a session scheduled currently, but it's worth watching out for.

[Osmeric]

Aww man, what did the world do for the millions of years before GMO frankenfoods?

Well, from the 1930s on, the world (at least, the US) had patent protection on non-GMO plant varieties. This concept of eliminating free riding to prevent market failure predates GMOs, or even the discovery of the genetic role of DNA.

Also since when is a farmer replanting seeds a crime?

It's not a crime, it's a tort. The farmer is violating a contract, as well as committing a civil violation of the patent rights of the seed company (and of any patents it licensed to go into its seeds.)

You seem not to understand why patents exist, and what problem they solve.

[lockedout]

Grow your own heirloom vegetables, then eat the shit they sell you in the store and tell me what tastes better..

[Damajin]

Well, from the 1930s on, the world (at least, the US) had patent protection on non-GMO plant varieties. This concept of eliminating free riding to prevent market failure predates GMOs, or even the discovery of the genetic role of DNA.



It's not a crime, it's a tort. The farmer is violating a contract, as well as committing a civil violation of the patent rights of the seed company (and of any patents it licensed to go into its seeds.)

You seem not to understand why patents exist, and what problem they solve.

I understand why patents exist just fine, just very strongly object to the patenting of the food supply.

[Osmeric]

I understand why patents exist just fine, just very strongly object to the patenting of the food supply.

The food supply isn't patented, though. Certain varieties of inputs to the food supply are patented. Why does this bother you? No farmer is required to plant patented seeds. They do so if they get more out of it than it costs. The net result is that patents can only reduce the cost of food to you, not increase it.

[Verzen]

[QUOTE=phillys;39462799]against. For the following reasons:
1. Where crops are engineered to become more resistant to pesticides, farmers have been known to use up to 30 times more than conventional crops, which has been found to be detrimental to human health and the environment
2. Kevlar tires are required to harvest engineered maize. Rats refuse to eat said corn.
3. Engineered apples are designed not to go brown, ie oxidize, and this is actually an important stage of human digestion.
4. The engineered crops are designed to be infertile, so farmers must buy a new seed supply each year. This has actually caused massive financial losses in a number of countries
5. Engineered crops for built-in pest resistance have inbuilt neurotoxins. These can not be washed off prior to ingesting them.
6. The crops are not more drought resistant than engineered crops, and have so far shown nothing of any great promise in terms of output improvements.
7. No long-term testing has been done into the safety of ingesting said foods. It's actually illegal to in the licensing terms from Monsanto and the other companies involved.
8. Since it's introduction into some regions of the USA, there have been increases in a number of cancers and tumors, including brain cancers. No way to tell if related to the GMO's, but there is solid and conclusive evidence of harm of pesticides, particularly the solvents in them, so it could very well be that they have already killed people.
9. It's a horrendously expensive way to farm.

I don't like how they strong arm farmers out of areas or sue them for seeds blowing onto their farms. As for the food itself if we are going to have a planet of 7 billion plus people and growing it is irresponsible to not look at ways to feed everybody.

- - - Updated - - -

We already produce enough food to feed 12-14 billion people, depending on how good the year is. It's a distribution problem, not a production problem.

1) This is untrue. The crops actually use LESS pesticides.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/06/bi...ticide-study-r

2) Rats refuse to eat corn? That doesn't mean the corn is dangerous. I refuse to eat brussel sprouts. That doesn't mean they are dangerous.

Furthermore, Bt corn doesn't harm mammals. Rats eat rat poison btw.. and it kills them!

3) "Engineered apples are designed not to go brown, ie oxidize, and this is actually an important stage of human digestion. "

o.O Actually the apples go into the stomach. The stomach acid digests and destroys the apple and then it's filtered through our system. GEing apples has no effect on that process.

4) They have never.. not once.. used terminator seed. It's in the contract they can't. The financial losses are actually a load of hogwash. Furthermore, most farmers don't replant seeds. The Indian suicides occurred due to different circumstances that predates the GMO cotton.

5) Bt toxin is not a neurotoxin. It's an enzyme that activates in the guts of insects.

6) This is just a lie.

7) Each new GE tech agriculture is tested for 10-12 years.

8) Correlation doesn't equate to causation. Furthermore, pesticides do not equal GMOs.

9) If it was more expensive than conventional, no one would by GMO. No one is forcing them to do it. They do it BECAUSE the juice is worth the squeeze.

Oh? We have enough food to feed 12-14 billion people, eh? So how are we going to distribute that food to places like... africa where they can't grow much food? But perhaps genetic engineering crops to grow there would perhaps be the better option?

[Osmeric]

Oh? We have enough food to feed 12-14 billion people, eh? So how are we going to distribute that food to places like... africa where they can't grow much food? But perhaps genetic engineering crops to grow there would perhaps be the better option?

If current western crop yields could be replicated in Africa, that continent could feed 15 billion people.

[Verzen]

If current western crop yields could be replicated in Africa, that continent could feed 15 billion people.

Which is why we need genetic modification.

[Damajin]

The food supply isn't patented, though. Certain varieties of inputs to the food supply are patented. Why does this bother you? No farmer is required to plant patented seeds. They do so if they get more out of it than it costs. The net result is that patents can only reduce the cost of food to you, not increase it.

Why does this bother me? The inevitable slippery slope all encompassing corporatization that always occurs and that you can't legitimately believe Monsanto and the other Big Food companies don't want to have happen. People bitch about Citizens United and then turn a blind eye to that SC case in the 80s that gave corporations the legal ability to patent life forms which to me is crazy since they're hand in hand part of the larger problem of things: companies having far too much say and sway over the landscape, whether physical or political. It's only that case in 2014 that established where Monsanto couldn't sue farmers for their product contaminating their non GMO fields if it was 1% or less, before that they were on the warpath trying to strongarm their way to a monopoly and make farmers destroy their crop if they didn't turn it over.

As I said before this is on the level of companies like Nestle thinking that the drinking water of the world should be privatized and treated as a commodity. Corporations shouldn't have that much power over the things that are required to sustain life, period. Any legalese contrary to this is ultimately irrelevant.

[Poopymonster]

Playing God is Taboo, even amongst Atheists.

I never played Taboo, but I don't see a role for God in it. And I'm an Atheist.

[Alvito]

[QUOTE=Verzen;39471571]

against. For the following reasons:
1. Where crops are engineered to become more resistant to pesticides, farmers have been known to use up to 30 times more than conventional crops, which has been found to be detrimental to human health and the environment
2. Kevlar tires are required to harvest engineered maize. Rats refuse to eat said corn.
3. Engineered apples are designed not to go brown, ie oxidize, and this is actually an important stage of human digestion.
4. The engineered crops are designed to be infertile, so farmers must buy a new seed supply each year. This has actually caused massive financial losses in a number of countries
5. Engineered crops for built-in pest resistance have inbuilt neurotoxins. These can not be washed off prior to ingesting them.
6. The crops are not more drought resistant than engineered crops, and have so far shown nothing of any great promise in terms of output improvements.
7. No long-term testing has been done into the safety of ingesting said foods. It's actually illegal to in the licensing terms from Monsanto and the other companies involved.
8. Since it's introduction into some regions of the USA, there have been increases in a number of cancers and tumors, including brain cancers. No way to tell if related to the GMO's, but there is solid and conclusive evidence of harm of pesticides, particularly the solvents in them, so it could very well be that they have already killed people.
9. It's a horrendously expensive way to farm.



1) This is untrue. The crops actually use LESS pesticides.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/06/bi...ticide-study-r

2) Rats refuse to eat corn? That doesn't mean the corn is dangerous. I refuse to eat brussel sprouts. That doesn't mean they are dangerous.

Furthermore, Bt corn doesn't harm mammals. Rats eat rat poison btw.. and it kills them!

3) "Engineered apples are designed not to go brown, ie oxidize, and this is actually an important stage of human digestion. "

o.O Actually the apples go into the stomach. The stomach acid digests and destroys the apple and then it's filtered through our system. GEing apples has no effect on that process.

4) They have never.. not once.. used terminator seed. It's in the contract they can't. The financial losses are actually a load of hogwash. Furthermore, most farmers don't replant seeds. The Indian suicides occurred due to different circumstances that predates the GMO cotton.

5) Bt toxin is not a neurotoxin. It's an enzyme that activates in the guts of insects.

6) This is just a lie.

7) Each new GE tech agriculture is tested for 10-12 years.

8) Correlation doesn't equate to causation. Furthermore, pesticides do not equal GMOs.

9) If it was more expensive than conventional, no one would by GMO. No one is forcing them to do it. They do it BECAUSE the juice is worth the squeeze.

Oh? We have enough food to feed 12-14 billion people, eh? So how are we going to distribute that food to places like... africa where they can't grow much food? But perhaps genetic engineering crops to grow there would perhaps be the better option?

click on the wrong quote?

[Halyon]

Because if an unexpected crop plague scourge the commonly used crop varieties everybody will starve until our almighty corporate overlords are done isolating the roundup ready gene in a new variety. Because most of the agricultural land is useless without it.

The problem is that organic can't reliably feed populations this large. So we either need to improve GMO's, or let large portions of the population die out. I'd love to do the 2nd, because population is a problem, and it's increasing, so...

[hrugner]

Err... I'm not against an entire branch of tech, no. I do expect caution regarding biodiversity and the rising problems of patenting genetic materials. The second problem has had some progress recently, and the first problem is unlikely to be addressed ever.

[Incredibale]

Selective breeding - how you get the most popular species of banana, wagyu cows, fainting goats
GMO - how you get goats which produce spider silk protein, glow in the dark pigs, viruses in corn

One is not like the other. But "LOL FOR TEH SCIENZE!!111"

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is that organic can't reliably feed populations this large. So we either need to improve GMO's, or let large portions of the population die out. I'd love to do the 2nd, because population is a problem, and it's increasing, so...

You don't need GMO crops to feed current or future populations. This is bullshit.