Being concerned about patents is a very weak argument against technology which saves lives around the world (using non patented crops, no less!) and is responsible for allowing more people to eat healthier food.
Second, everytime this topic comes up, pro-GMOist make it sound like the technology is making some great strides with providing 'healthier food for everyone' with no downside. Why is it that the current model for GMO aims to increase resistance to pesticides instead of simply growing the yield? It probably has nothing to do with the fact that the company that provides you the seeds, also sells the pesticide. And how about the said pesticides tendency to destroy the micro-organisms in the soil, in effect making it harder to grow crops, and ultimately starting a loop for "more GMO, more pesticide, more land, repeat".
Figure a less disruptive business model, and I might be more pro-GMO myself.
It doesn't; there are plenty of traits beyond pesticide resistance that have GM crops targeting them, including yield, drought resistance, nitrogen fixation, etc.
Pesticide resistance is the most established on the market becauae there happened to be particular success with it decades ago, that’s it.
Negative consumer sentiment toward GMOs means that neither the producers nor the growers of GM crops are seeking public attention to the fact that crops are GM, and their products are mostly sold in markets that don’t require GM labelling for the same reason, so the crops already in the public consciousness are all that stays there.
This might be the case, but still my original bone to pick remains. GMO is not without downside, and people cheering for it without a hint of scepticism reeks ignorance and unwillingness to learn from past mistakes that were made in the name of science.
As you've highlighted, said technique was used for decades, for the detriment of soil health, bees and all kinds of smaller organisms, without it being questioned.
As for your last paragraph, I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that voicing these 'uneducated' opinions about GMO simply pushes the crops to incognito mode, making them less visible for consumers? Better to see your killer face-to-face than being stabbed to the back? Not sure about that.
consider an example from another area. the assembly line and "k12 education". a 'raw material' (but it's actually a child) enters an assembly line, every year they will be passed to the next part of the process, another professional worker will receive the product and will work on it/them for a year.
Also notice how modern elementary education treats the teachers; they far too much like factory workers! low wages, they haven't much of a choice about how to do their jobs.
Now consider the mindsets behind the successful GMO crops (+pesticide combos) that have been the money makers for these corporations.
And consider the mono-crop mentalities and the above mentioned feedback cycle: gmo+pesticide kill the soil leading to more gmo+pesticide; it's a vicious cycle. it's a vicious cycle that keeps making more money! (the assembly line was a great way to really manufacture lots and lots of munition for the war, it is a very effective technique to make stuff that will be sent to get wrecked in a war, in this sense it 'made a killing' as in made lots of 'money')
and again, consider the mindsets involved. why are we educating children like they were cars in a production line?
these corporations are full of people educated like I described, lowering our collective education quality in a longer feedback cycle far too large to be easily noticed; it's a 20-40 year feedback cycle, which has been reducing the quality of the living beings involved.
we have a difficult problem, and no power to do anything about it
What? TONS of GMO foods are made for things other than pesticides. Nutritional content, size, yield, taste - in fact one of the biggest uses of GMOs is making the plants need less pesticides! If you think the only reason GMOs exist is to sell more pesticides, you just do not know what you are talking about.
"Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future."[1]
Please bare in mind that I'm not advocating against GMO. I'm advocating against hailing GMO as a win:win to all of society and environment.
[1] https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-471... "Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. -- the first sixteen years"
Of course it has, Bayer just tried to ditch the bad brand image:
> The closing sets the stage for the 117-year-old agribusiness brand name “Monsanto” to be dropped by Bayer. Monsanto’s efforts to promote genetically modified crops have been the subject of much controversy from anti-GMO activists, and the U.S. company has spent millions of dollars over the years on brand and corporate ad campaigns to improve its overall image.
It's now called Bayer Crop Science Division and does the same thing.
Are you also outraged if someone says Facebook instead of Meta, although the social network is just one of the products from the company called Meta today?
There is a useful tell here when someone uses the old name for the wrong purpose, it can be a flag that the person is possibly operating under old information. Anyways, if you want to remove all ambiguity and also signal that you know and aren't falling for the rebrand as reputation washing, just mention them both: Meta nee Facebook, Bayer nee Monsanto
Monsanto was bought by Bayer in 2018. Its brand disappeared, but its products continue.
Although I'm not sure it's great branding when the maker of Roundup is bought by the maker of Zyklon B.
> bad wrap they've gotten from science ignorants
Science is not about blind trust. How many times have scientists discovered wondrous new things like asbestos, Thalidomide, leaded gasoline, teflon, only to take decades to realize the consequences?
Even if we blindly trust science, there are various other issues like: patenting life, monopolization, reducing genetic diversity, GMO cross-pollination, &c.
In what way?
> various other issues like: patenting life, monopolization, reducing genetic diversity, GMO cross-pollination
Agree these are all terrible, but nothing there is GMO-specific. That's all either bad agricultural practices like mono-cropping that can be done with any crop, or societal problems related to intellectual property or markets.
> In what way?
Because they're the exact equivalent of closed source in software.
There would be means to research, produce and use GMOs in good ways, but the way our economics work, they can't be used without either harming natural ones and/or involving NDAs, lawyers and all sort of things that in some contexts make closed source a nightmare for pretty much everyone except those selling it.
GMOs are a very complicated topic, and I can see both sides of the argument having some merit. Proving that new things don't actively do harm (both short- _and_ long-term) should be required before they go to market (or they should have to have very strong warning labels about being untested).