Support NeoGAF

[Kinitari]

So in the "scientific misconceptions" thread, there was a bit of a conversation on GMOs. There are a lot of ideas and misconceptions people have regarding both GMOs and Monsanto that cropped up, and they're pretty common. I don't like to sound like I am some sort of expert on this subject, but I think I may at least have a position that is backed up by the science and hopefully I am right about most of the things I'm gonna say right now.

I sort of just wanted to make a thread that reaches out to people who have issues with GMOs, but want to talk about them. It seems like on GAF the general feel on GMOs has improved and/or is continuing to improve, so I want to encourage this trend more with more open conversation. And I want to focus on maybe the more difficult to discuss criticisms that are often levied against GMOs.

GMOs encourage Monoculture

So I think first what I should do is talk about what Monoculture is and why it's bad. For the quick Google Definition:

Monoculture is the agricultural practice of producing or growing a single crop or plant species in a field at a time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoculture

The summary as to what Monoculture is, is basically a farming technique where you have a single plant grown in a large area. Like a wheat field or a vineyard. The value in this, if not immediately apparent, is basically having fewer concerns and less overhead and min-maxing your yield easier. A potential problem with monoculture is disease. When you have all of one species of wheat for example in a field, you can be decimated by a disease that targets that species of wheat.

Now, I'm not actually immediately sure where GMOs come into the equation here, but my guess is that people think that GMO crops are better than non-GMO so a farmer will, for example, fill his field with just GMO soy. The reality is though, this doesn't seem to have been the case. There are many species of GMO soy for example, which all express the BT gene - allowing them to all be viable. This sort of process can make more and more unprofitable crops, profitable. Monoculture and it's problems existed way before we had GMOs, and as time goes by, GMOs seem to be one of the best opportunities we have to increase the diversity of crops we eat.


Patents stifle innovation

So, this one I think is a complaint derived from the poor use of software patents, and how much trouble software developers have had because of them. Patents, I think fundamentally, were originally designed to provide a safety net for innovation. I think that when compared to software, agricultural patents make significantly more sense and are used much better. Take Bt Soy (again) for example. It's patent recently expired and now quite a few people are looking to make their own varieties of this crop. The research and money that went into Bt Soy has paid off, and the patent has expired after not that long. This lets big companies take risks without worrying about being undercut, but also eventually shares these innovations.


Those are just two, but I hope we can talk about this stuff and maybe I can change a few more minds. If people want to contribute to this thread, I really ask that they try to not be snarky or condescending, even if people say seemingly dumb things! I just really want good conversation to come out of this. And if anyone thinks I said anything wrong, let me know so I can correct it!

 

[Feep]

I mean, you pretty much take of it in the OP. (shrug)

 

[Man God]

The first one is a problem that GMOs can solve much more easily than so-called non genetically modified organisms can adapt to. The second is a global concern that needs to be sorted out with all sorts of things. Patent and copyright law needs global standards.

 

[G.ZZZ]

The economics of GMO are good only for multimillionaire corps, the end.

This is how it would go in europe

- GMOs legal in europe
- most local productors fail because they can't compete at the research level americans billionaire corps
- europe become economical dependent from american corps
- european farmers margin remain basically the same and the only one who gain from this is the selling corp because competition is non-existent
- lots of typical agricultural products become economically unviable, this is in turn create unemployement in mostly vulnerable areas who depend from it (the mediterranean area is extremely dependent economically from said products, and also the poorest area of europe in general)
- local decrease in wealth: said decrease in wealth mean people will tend to choose more the cheapest option, cheapest option is unvariably GMO crop, meaning a loop where everything but GMOs crops become unviable, more unemployement, race to the bottom etc...

No one is dying of hunger in europe , but with this option we would basically move the wealth oversea for no good reason but... more margin profits for billionaire corps? Ok.

It's basically the Wal-Mart effect but on a sub-continental level. The most disgusting shit is that corps are pushing them to "fight world hunger" . This is extremely stupid because:
- no one in the world is dying of hunger because there isn't enough food, but because the logistics of distribution of food isn't good enough for capitalistics systems. Purely capitalistic distribution of basic necessities is basically a call for disasters, but w/e
- the biggest push for GMOs adaptation is for europe (see TTIP), where no one would die of hunger without them. On the other hand, it would probably kill most local producers and hugely increase american corps profit (because europe market is huge), which is why they actually want to push them.


All the discussion around them remind me a lot of the nuclear debate post-chernobil, basically capitalizing on fear from billionaire corps to pursue their economical interest at the expense of the many.

 

[Stet]

The economics of GMO are good only for multimillionaire corps, the end.

This is how it would go in europe

- GMOs legal in europe
- most local productors fail because they can't compete at the research level americans billionaire corps
- europe become economical dependent from american corps
- european farmers margin remain basically the same and the only one who gain from this is the selling corp because competition is non-existent
- lots of typical agricultural products become economically unviable, this is in turn create unemployement in mostly vulnerable areas who depend from it (the mediterranean area is extremely dependent economically from said products, and also the poorest area of europe in general)
- local decrease in wealth: said decrease in wealth mean people will tend to choose more the cheapest option, cheapest option is unvariably GMO crop, meaning a loop where everything but GMOs crops become unviable, more unemployement, race to the bottom etc...

No one is dying of hunger in europe , but with this option we would basically move the wealth oversea for no good reason but... more margin profits for billionaire corps? Ok.

It's basically the Wal-Mart effect but on a sub-continental level. The most disgusting shit is that corps are pushing them to "fight world hunger" . This is extremely stupid because:
- no one in the world is dying of hunger because there isn't enough food, but because the logistics of distribution of food isn't good enough for capitalistics systems. Purely capitalistic distribution of basic necessities is basically a call for disasters, but w/e
- the biggest push for GMOs adaptation is for europe (see TTIP), where no one would die of hunger without them. On the other hand, it would probably kill most local producers and hugely increase american corps profit (because europe market is huge), which is why they actually want to push them.


All the discussion around them remind me a lot of the nuclear debate post-chernobil, basically capitalizing on fear from billionaire corps to pursue their economical interest at the expense of the many.

Local farmers in the U.S. aren't owned by agricultural technology firms. Why do you think they'd fail? Is there a perception that all farming in North America is done by huge factory farms?

 

[devilhawk]

Alright, so there might be issues with innovation due to patents. They should be addressed.

What innovations are the non-GMO crops currently undergoing?

Edit: I guess the OP is in favor on GMO's. Good.

 

[KHarvey16]

- most local productors fail because they can't compete at the research level americans billionaire corps"

Uh, three of the big six GMO and pesticide producers are European.

 

[Kinitari]

The economics of GMO are good only for multimillionaire corps, the end.

This is how it would go in europe

- GMOs legal in europe
- most local productors fail because they can't compete at the research level americans billionaire corps
- europe become economical dependent from american corps
- european farmers margin remain basically the same and the only one who gain from this is the selling corp because competition is non-existent
- lots of typical agricultural products become economically unviable, this is in turn create unemployement in mostly vulnerable areas who depend from it (the mediterranean area is extremely dependent economically from said products, and also the poorest area of europe in general)
- local decrease in wealth: said decrease in wealth mean people will tend to choose more the cheapest option, cheapest option is unvariably GMO crop, meaning a loop where everything but GMOs crops become unviable, more unemployement, race to the bottom etc...

No one is dying of hunger in europe , but with this option we would basically move the wealth oversea for no good reason but... more margin profits for billionaire corps? Ok.

It's basically the Wal-Mart effect but on a sub-continental level. The most disgusting shit is that corps are pushing them to "fight world hunger" . This is extremely stupid because:
- no one in the world is dying of hunger because there isn't enough food, but because the logistics of distribution of food isn't good enough for capitalistics systems. Purely capitalistic distribution of basic necessities is basically a call for disasters, but w/e
- the biggest push for GMOs adaptation is for europe (see TTIP), where no one would die of hunger without them. On the other hand, it would probably kill most local producers and hugely increase american corps profit (because europe market is huge), which is why they actually want to push them.


All the discussion around them remind me a lot of the nuclear debate post-chernobil, basically capitalizing on fear from billionaire corps to pursue their economical interest at the expense of the many.

Don't you think that it's likely that with the increased production that farmers would get, their profits would increase? That potentially, the price of food would drop which would benefit the general public? That the farmers who don't want to use GMOs can sell their products at a premium like they do in the US?

Your argument is basically an argument that could be levied against any foreign product being introduced in a country.

 

[aeolist]

monoculture and patents aren't a problem specific to GMOs, "non-GMO" crops (which are still genetically modified in less precise ways than the GMOs people object to) have exactly the same issues.

 

[KHarvey16]

Don't you think that it's likely that with the increased production that farmers would get, their profits would increase? That potentially, the price of food would drop which would benefit the general public? That the farmers who don't want to use GMOs can sell their products at a premium like they do in the US?

Your argument is basically an argument that could be levied against any foreign product being introduced in a country.

Also he ignores the meteoric rise in the use of GMO seeds to grow crops. It's pretty obvious those actually growing things prefer to use them.

 

[aeolist]

the only "GMOs" that activist groups are concerned about are transgenics

this makes no sense whatsoever if you know anything about the issues