What slays me about the GMO debate is the misportrayal of my anti-GMO position, lumping me in with the anti-vaxxors, creationists, and defenders of Freedom Markets™.
> What slays me about the GMO debate is the misportrayal of my anti-GMO position, lumping me in with the anti-vaxxors
The scientific consensus on GMOs being safe is stronger than consensus on climate change. If you go against the scientific consensus, you are rightly labeled as being anti-science.
I'm meh about the genetics of GMO, its just accelerated selection. Transgenetic could be worrisome, so we should be hippocratic there.
But crops that allow us to expand into more arid, saline, or whatever areas are probably good to have. And developing perennial grains (eg kernza) sounds great.
But that's not why I oppose GMO.
--
I'm utterly opposed to "ReadyUp Ready" genetic engineering. Any effort to increase, permit the use of more pesticides (herbicides, insecticides) must be opposed. We need to reduce the use of pesticides, maybe even eventually ban all pesticides.
I'm utterly opposed to Monsanto's (and Big Ag's) business practices, especially patenting life, and secondarily turning all farmers (people who work the land) into serfs. Their GMO efforts, independent of the actual plants and biology, or just the wedge for those strategies.
I reject the pro-GMO arguments about increasing yield. We already toss 1/3 to 1/2 of the food produced. Trying to increase yields is passing over dollars to pick up pennies.
Lastly if Monsanto (and Big Ag) is for it, I'm against it. They've done so much harm, for so long, with zero contrition, I presume they're guilty. If there was some kind of truth and reconciliation tribunal, maybe, just maybe, I'd give them a second chance. And massive reparations followed by acts of goodwill.
>We need to reduce the use of pesticides, maybe even eventually ban all pesticides.
You are fighting your own best interests.
Roundup ready has reduced harmful pesticide application by millions of tons.
Yes, zero pesticide is best, but you can't reach the moon in one step. It takes incremental change. Glyphosate replaces much more harmful pesticides like atrazine, and we are all the better for it.
>especially patenting life,
You can't patent natural genetic sequences.
>and secondarily turning all farmers (people who work the land) into serfs
Contracts are willingly signed, and those that don't sign are successful in other areas of agriculture (see organic farming).
>I reject the pro-GMO arguments about increasing yield.
No GMO plant has ever directly tried to increase yield. Rather they mitigate risk from weather or pests.
>Lastly if Monsanto (and Big Ag) is for it, I'm against it.
I'm glad you're willing to approach this topic reasonably, and with an open mind.
”You are fighting your own best interests. ... It takes incremental change. Glyphosate replaces much more harmful pesticides like atrazine, and we are all the better for it.”
Wise words. Big fan of incrementalism. Even though I’m currently freaked out about decline of pollinators, I’ll keep your viewpoint in mind.
If Big Ag owns this issue, and helps address it, I’ll ease up.
”...approach this topic reasonbly, and with an open mind.”
No such luck. I’m fresh out of goodwill. When Monsanto et al stop lying (being merchants of doubt), I’ll resume listening.
As my libertarian bestie teases me: the problem with you liberals is you can’t tolerate hypocracy. Guilty as charged. To my tribe, any good Monsanto does is completely negated by their (documented, proven) malfeasance.
Which malfeasance are you talking about? Like I said earlier a lot of the claims against monsanto are either outright false, exaggerated and occasionaly warranted.
- Terminator seeds? myth, that technology was never commercialised [0]
- Suing farmers for accidental contamination? Mostly false. For example in the case of the canadian farmer, he knowingly replanted GM seeds from plants that he sprayed with roundup and ending up with 95% GM canola, breaking patent law and hence getting sued
- Indian Suicide caused by GM Cotton ? Myth. Indian farmers are committing suicide but not because of GM cotton. In fact, GM cotton got approved because Indian farmers where importing it on the black market. [2]
I'm not saying Monsanto is completely blameless in everything (as the dicamba story shows), but they do provide a very easy target to demonise and blame for a lot of issues. I used to be on the anti monsanto bandwagon as you, but after looking deeper, I realised a lot of it is BS. Those stories (especially the Indian suicide one), are very compelling so I understand why a lot of people believe them wholesale. Alas, the reality is a lot more complex.
True. Carrying the flame long after the war has been lost is kinda pathetic. Then its more about identity (virtue signal, tribal affiliation) than anything else.
