The other issue people have with specific implementations is that big ag uses either sterility of the crop (eliminating #1) or the license agreements to prevent seed saving, effectively creating DRM for our food crops. This changes crop seeds from assets you buy once to a subscription model you’re forced to pay over and over for each season.
Finally, the actual execution of many GM changes is simply to make the plants resistant to specific heribicides, fungicides and pesticides. This allows farmers to bathe their fields in these chemicals which of course go on and leach into the environment. Not to mention killing plants, animals and insects in greater and greater quantities, which of course may also harm the bees and other pollinators.
I think #1 can be managed and avoided and in general (potentially through sterility) I’m ok with GM as a technology. However what I’m not ok with is the specific approaches big ag have been using.
> Genetic use restriction technology (GURT), also known as terminator technology or suicide seeds, is the name given to proposed methods for restricting the use of genetically modified plants by activating (or deactivating) some genes only in response to certain stimuli, especially to cause second generation seeds to be infertile. The development and application of GURTs is primarily an attempt by private sector agricultural breeders to increase the extent of protection on their innovations.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_techno...
First, biodiversity among crops is essential for food security and ecosystem protection. When you have hectares of crops with the same genetic makeup, not only does that make the system fragile (as another reply hinted at), but it also affects the other species that depend on that crop. Perhaps this is also a complaint against monocropping, which are generally GMO operations. But more genetic diversity strengthens resilience of the crop and the system that supports and coexists among it. Spontaneity in complex systems is good because it protects from colossal crop wipe-outs. It's also the fundamental difference between hybridization and GMO, so don't ever let some jackass from Monsanto say they are merely extending farming practices of genetic modification as old as farming itself.
Second, GMOs are often created to work in tandem with pesticides. So while the genetically modified strawberry might not damage my body, that shit on it will, and that doesn't always come off with a quick rinse in the sink. Pesticide (and herbicide, fungicide, etc.) use also doesn't stop with the target species making a meal out of the crop. It kills anything like it. Case in point is the dramatic decline in pollinators and insects hence bird species[1]. Again, futzing with nature's mechanics is folly because ecosystems rely on vastly complex networks of biomes that are themselves built on complex biodiversities. The truth is that while scientists can analyze insect and bird populations, understanding the complex interplay between many species in biomes is nebulous at best and generally outright opaque. The time it takes for scientists to say "with confidence" that X-->Y-->Z takes years, and even then we're talking about 3 variables and ignoring knock-on effects.
It is high time we learn our lessons and start trying to figure out how to work with nature rather than beat it back. I am always fascinated that HN draws such a brilliant crowd yet many people around here seem convinced that technology's inexorable advances are all we need to solve our problems.
[1]https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/pesticides-have-le...
I do agree that some GMO fearmongering is overblown. I’m just responding to the claim that ingested proteins can’t be absorbed or have any impact. The gut does break things down but not absolutely 100%. A little does make it into the bloodstream.
Prions via GMO plants are unlikely but foreign or altered proteins causing mysterious and really hard to isolate food allergies in fractions of the population is plausible. These could go undiagnosed for a very long time since GMOs are not labeled or tracked the way drugs or food additives are.
Most of the credible objections to GMOs revolve around their use in tandem with overuse of herbicides and pesticides (e.g. round up ready crops), the potential to impact pollinators, and gene patents and IP lock-in.
When it's in the fields, it at least seems to be a carcinogen
2. While GMO by itself is not dangerous a lot of the things that are done with it are. Roundup is very evil stuff, and GMO made it possible.
3. Another problem is also the business model behind a lot of commercial GMO crops, where the farmer essentially signs away all their rights.
2 and 3 are good reasons to be opposed to a lot of GMO.
https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/PrecautionaryPrinciple.ht...
USA has a serious anti-intellectualism problem (and to be honest a religion problem as well) and this is manifesting as bizarre pushbacks against some of the least harmful of modern inventions.
It's especially ironic because you don't often see these same folks pushing back against car ownership, or micro plastic accumulation from modern consumerism. Instead they advocate against GMO's, vaccines, and sometimes even birth control and abortion... all things that arguably have made the world a far better place.
I hope at some point we can move our country beyond arguing over left vs right politics and start realizing that we have deep national problems stemming from religion and our for profit higher education system. The former for actively promoting ancient morals, ideas, and belief systems, and the latter for putting modern morals, ideas, and belief systems behind a paywall that is out of reach of many Americans.