Gmo debate continues

[syncretic]

@PhilT

to create customers for ‘the right seeds’, pest controls, and fertilisers. Not too hard to guess which are the ‘right’ ones.

This prospect stirs up one of my dark fears, which may or may not be rational, that corporations, who answer only to the profit motive, can and will gather too much power. Control over production of major food staples is a great deal of power. I cannot say how likely this may be; does that make it wrong to fear? The principle of patenting genes bothers me. It may be legal but is it right?

[PhilT]

@syncretic

corporations, who answer only to the profit motive, can and will gather too much power.

I would phrase that can and have. One just need look at US agriculture to see how the money flows to and from the food chain to the political chain. A bit lower scale here but as usual, following along. Sometimes I fear we actually lead

At some point food and water become issues of national security rather than human survival, and off it goes.

@syncretic

The principle of patenting genes bothers me.

Isn’t the current system of law great? It gives those who have a go a real go and for the rest, suck it up.

[natural.thought]

@grahroll

From your quoted links “global dependence on a few select crops equates to expansive monocultures, with more lives riding on the outcome of the game of cat and mouse between pestilence and uniform varieties grown over large areas” add to this another from your links “much of the crop diversity that remains is threatened”. When you have single or limited crop types that are now more broadly produced by GM to master all “problems” you then have a reliance on 1) Corporate ownership of crops not forgetting the cases of when GMO types have infiltrated non GMO types and the non GMO farmers having to then pay the licence for the GMO products they didn’t want 2) less diversity because of the greater use of these GM (and limited types of these), this results in a lack of diversity ie a disappearance of the older crops as they are no longer grown or used.

You have stilled failed to link GE with the current decline in crop diversity. Your false equivalence of current varieties=GMO is flat-out wrong and highlights the nuance of this topic that you are not grasping. I have already explained several causes for our current diversity loss and have even supplied you with links for further reading. You do seem to have read (or at least copy+pasted) some of it, but it seems you are only viewing the information through your predisposed lens of “anti-GMO”, because nothing of what you are saying in this paragraph makes sense. Can you please try to explain this link you have created between crop diversity loss and genetic engineering?

@grahroll

From the FAO UN Panel of Eminent Experts on ethics in Food and Agriculture report "The Panel recommends that more support be given to small-scale food production, particularly for issues regarding access to or control over seeds, water, infrastructure, information, credit and marketing, and that in place of almost unregulated international trade in agriculture, the primary emphasis be put on fair trade regulated in ways that benefit primarily those that are food-insecure, while focusing on traditional food culture and on traditional crops produced for local markets.

This is also out-of-context and misguided, likely fueled by your anti-GMO lens you apply to these websites. The UN does not insist against biotechnology, but in fact urges that alternatives such as biotechnology and agroecology should be explored.

Myth: UN Calls for Small-Scale Organic Farming

@grahroll

Monoculture is the problem for diversity and GM crops certainly strengthen the use of monoculture.

I haven’t ignored your bait-and-switch of corporate ownership or false equivalence with monoculture, I’m just addressing one claim at a time to prevent gish-galloping. You accepted and agree with the safety and efficacy of GMOs, now we are addressing your next claim: diversity loss. Next will be your claim of corporate ownership, then monocultures. One at a time make the information sink in better

[syncretic]

@PhilT

Isn’t the current system of law great? It gives those who have a go a real go and for the rest, suck it up.

I am not sure what you mean, can you explain a little?

[PhilT]

@syncretic

can you explain a little?

I did not think it was a very deep comment, especially as the phrase was recently in the news courtesy of the PM and it seemed to ring with many voters, but I’ll play.

If you are going well this and possibly the alternative government, though stewardship of ‘the system’ will enhance your prospects by giving you all sorts of benefits from allowing you to (eg) own and profit from genes to many forms of tax breaks and so on.

If you are not partaking because of insufficient wealth and income you can watch and accept your lot in life as you are a leaner.

[syncretic]

@PhilT

I did not think it was a very deep comment, especially as the phrase was recently in the news courtesy of the PM and it seemed to ring with many voters, but I’ll play.

Thank you for clarifying. My question was genuine not a game. I haven’t seen the PM’s comment. This medium is imperfect so I would rather clarify than assume.

[PhilT]

@syncretic

I haven’t seen the PM’s comment.

The meaning of Morrison's mantra about getting a fair go is clear. It's...