Current Events > I don't think people are upset about GMOs, they're upset about capitalism

(+) Yeah! (+)

And I understand why, because patenting a plant genome and making it incapable of reproducing so one company has a monopoly on selling the seeds is a shitty aspect of GMOs.

But as far as the "genetically modified" part goes, GMOs make it possible for hardier crops to grow in tougher environments. People who would have otherwise starved to death have been able to farm crops to feed themselves and others, because someone fiddled with a plant's DNA and made it more resistant to heat, able to retain water for longer and thrive on slightly less water.

GMOs are a life saver. As a technological breakthrough? They're a miracle. GMOs themselves are fine.

Companies taking away their ability to reproduce? Companies patenting the genome so they can sue other people and companies for unauthorised use/tampering? That's disgusting. They're crops that people need to live. Corporatising the DNA makeup of a crop is incredibly disgusting. It flies in the face of all the good that a GMO could do for people who need them.

That being said, that's the fault of big industry who've been able to shape the law in their own favor. It's not the GMO itself that's at fault. People have rice and corn and shit for them to eat in places that otherwise would be much less able to support agriculture. The conversation should be about reforming patent law, not "GMOs are evil and will kill everyone you ever love".

Uh... But maybe they're right and GMOs are bad?

It's both

The GMO products are not themselves immoral.

There is a form of GMO rice that is really heavily fortified with Vitamin A and played a big part in curbing malnutrition-related blindness in children in India, for example.

The problem is when Monsanto sues a farmer into oblivion because their crop pollen got in his field and they called copyright infringement.

If IP Law wasn't broken to shit it'd probably be fine. Those corps could have their exclusive rights for 20 to 25 years to make a profit, then the GMO strain enters public domain for anyone to reap the benefit.

In reality this is not how it has been working unfortunately

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Uh... But maybe they're right and GMOs are bad?

In a way that doesn't amount to patent abuse or wrongdoing by a patent holder, how?

IIrC, part of the justification for making GM crops incapable of reproducing is that there were problems a few decades ago where GM roundup resistant rapeseed was cross-pollinating with closely related weed species, meaning there were roundup resistant weeds.

I think just banning GM products on the basis of GM is bad is short-sighted and silly.

MrMallard posted...

In a way that doesn't amount to patent abuse or wrongdoing by a patent holder, how?

Not to mention that it's not dramatically different than what we've been doing for thousands of years.

Nobody on this board has EVER eaten a natural banana.

DrizztLink posted...

The GMO products are not themselves immoral.

There is a form of GMO rice that is really heavily fortified with Vitamin A and played a big part in curbing malnutrition-related blindness in children in India, for example.

The problem is when Monsanto sues a farmer into oblivion because their crop pollen got in his field and they called copyright infringement.

That's not the full story. Yes, some of the farmer's crop got cross-pollinated by Roundup-resistant strains, but instead of leaving it alone or discarding of them since he did not purchase the license to use the GMO plants, the farmer intentionally kept the seeds from the contaminated crops with full knowledge of what they were and planted them instead of conventional seeds for the next several years. Monsanto found out obviously (since he bought Roundup but not their seeds), and the rest is history.

/college business ethics study

Paragon21XX posted...

That's not the full story. Yes, some of the farmer's crop got cross-pollinated by Roundup-resistant strains, but instead of leaving it alone or discarding of them since he did not purchase the license to use the GMO plants, the farmer intentionally kept the seeds from the contaminated crops with full knowledge of what they were and planted them instead of conventional seeds for the next several years. Monsanto found out obviously (since he bought Roundup but not their seeds), and the rest is history.

/college business ethics study

That's the full story for one of their cases.

There's also the time they sued a sharecropper who had nothing to do with the seeds then refused to apologize or pay his legal fees.

The fact that a plant can do a natural, biological thing in spreading its seeds and get other people in trouble because they used those seeds to grow more crops is more a failing of copyright law and the ability of corporations to monopolize the genome of a plant than it is the fault of GMOs for existing and allowing people to grow better crops.