[c6vkuNRg]

I took that for granted obviously

[KuznehikVasaN]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
The genetic alterations are not minor changes but designed to have a major effect, so it is difficult to predict what effect those changes will have. Not really. The genetic alterations are significant (at least vis-a-vis agriculture) but very simple. We don't have the understanding to perform complex changes.

I have mentioned a few, transfering the engineered qualities to weeds is another possible one. The more GM crops we have the more we will have problems of this kind. Lateral gene transfer is an inherent and forseeable risk of any genetic alteration, even a natural one. If a natural strain of crop evolved pesticide resistance, for example, it'd be just as likely to transfer those genes to other plants.

[obHQNsY2]

The mosquito project sounds like a good idea; any weapon in the fight against malaria has to be worth a look.

GM food, thus far, has been fairly useless. Most of the world's hungry people are hungry due to lack of money, rather than lack of food, and overproduction and obesity are becoming bigger problems anyway.

The grasping, rent-seeking behaviour of Monsanto hardly inspires confidence. I'd scrap gene copyrighting and leave the research up to organisations with no interest in profit. It's not a surprise that the mosquito project was developed by a university.

[inilbowly]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Say goodbye to a lot of very expensive research then. And you can't copyright genes; you can sort of patent them. Big deal. I don't see it as a given that this research will result in anything worthwhile. Most likely it will be tailored to generate more rent-seeking opportunities. It's awful to allow them to indulge in anti-social behaviour on the off chance that the money that it's helping them rake in will pay for something good.

Universities have an interest in profit too - they make plenty of money licensing patents. And they can save it by not forking out royalties. This particular project was funded by government and charity money, unsurprisingly.

[diegogo]

If we allow GM crops it's only a small step before we allow forced genetic modifications of all children to make them obediant to the coorperations!

[carletoxtrs]

GM

Toyota

[ReggieRed]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Since when has it been a good idea to write off an entire area of research - one that has already produced results - as worthless? Do you see how absurd it is to claim that no private sector biotech research has produced worthwhile results? You're completely misrepresenting me here. Did I say that all patents in biotech should be scrapped? No. Did I say that no biotech company has ever produced anything worthwhile? No. Did I write off an entire area of research? No, I specifically said that the GM mosquito was a good idea. Scrapping gene patents doesn't necessarily entail scrapping all patents. If companies refocus their efforts on creating actual products rather than hoarding genetic patents, so much the better.

No one would pay the rent if it wasn't a better deal than they were getting previously. What, like that farmer that Monsanto demanded money from when his crop was pollinated by their stuff?

How much do you think universities pay to Monsanto for GM seed? the royalties universities pay are usually for things that are and should be patentable anyway (real processes, not "genes") or goes directly to funding the R&D that lets them do R&D. Or will completely annihilating private sector biotech R&D somehow accelerate the pace of research? I don't believe that private sector research will be 'completely annihilated' by being unable to patent genes. It has, however, been suggested that too many property rights will retard research due to the fragmentation involved. Taking 'golden rice' as an example, it required seventy different patents etc to be waived in order to be created. Getting the agreement was presumably expensive and complicated, moreso if any of the companies involved had wanted payment. Add to that the nice collary for golden rice, which is that if a third world farmer makes too much money from it, they have to start paying the patent-holder.

[v74ClzKY]

Roundup-Ready seeds (especially soybeans) must be a great benefit to farmers, since the uptake was so fast across the board with all types of farmers -- everybody from your family farm to large agribusinesses. There's nothing wrong with bringing home a fat paycheck, if you're creating value. That is, unless you're a communist, in which case it's tough to have any interesting discussion about this.

Glyphosate itself is no longer under patent and is sold by many generic producers. Because of this, Roundup-Ready seeds allow you to apply more but cheaper glyphosate. It's not a case of Monsanto double-dipping, for instance.

[Verriasana]

.

[Tilmbeinymn]

As a sidenote, it's amusing to see how Kuci manages to make an idiot out of himself with his loud-mouthed ignorance even in tech-oriented threads now.

[vipBrooriErok]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
putting greed before public health


profit

public health


Think about what would happen if the situation were reversed. If everyone was healthy and there was no profit, there would be instability... war... population explosion. We'd destroy ourselves.

Frankly, I accept a little bit of suffering because it allows the rest of us to survive. Humanity isn't mature or responsible enough to deal with success and prosperity. We've evolved to be greedy, gluttonous creatures. If there was "enough to go around" so to speak, bad things would happen.

It's in humanity's best interest to struggle.

And I don't need you to agree with me. You probably won't.

[Uvgsgssu]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I'm not familiar with that case - I'd have to see details about it. It does sound familiar. The homepage of the most famous victim has several stories, also about other law suits.
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

[meridiasas]

Originally posted by DanS
To be honest, it's a pretty worthless conversation you're having here. For one, I think those cases were dismissed. Schmeisser's case for instance was only dismissed by Canadian Supreme Court, he lost battles on the way. And a considerable number of farmers (no estimate is known to me, sorry) decided to rather pay the fee before waging a war against a multi-national giant fore years.

[POMAH_K]

Originally posted by VJ
Wow, "serious concerns" again.

There was a time when GM was brand-new, suspicious technology which needed to be further researched and tested so it would not have some (not very likely but) potentially catastrophic consequences when widely grown.

That time was in the 1980s. There has been absolutely no concrete evidence against GM crops, just unspecified "concerns" proved wrong in a matter of months when broadly investigated by scientists.

A whole generation has already consumed GM foods in the US. It's time to face reality and start eating more efficiently grown food in Europe, too.
You're limiting this again on the nutritional part. The problems with GM go much further. And stil, you don't have to be a genius to predict that when the number of patented GM crops rises there will be cases of bad consequences for the consumer because the companies either didn't test enough or concealed evidence. This is not a special GM thing, it happens from pharmaceutics to "normal" food industry to other industries threatening our health all the time. It's in the very nature of man that some will risk problems of others for their own profit.

[6Rexw51X]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


1/10 really why do you think you can so easily dismiss this?

Do you really believe that in the absence of testing we catch every non GM crop that is dangerously allergenic to some people (like the peanut) or that could potentially serve as a host vector for blights that silently afflict wild related or even unrelated species?

If anti-GM activists can blithely dismiss decades of closely observed consumption of GM crops by large populations as inconclusive what fills you with so much confidence in the general safety of all of those untested crops?

[occurrini]

Originally posted by Pekka
hippies taking away GM food from thrid world countries. I say let them decide if they want to eat or not. Hippies Selfish bastards. Thrid world countries can't afford GM crops to begin with, so they aren't being taken away. GM crops are more expensive and don't allow farmers to save grain for the next planting.

There is no reason why we can't both support and oppose GM. Somethings are good, like mosquitoes that don't transmit disease. Heck, maybe they could make their saliva non-itchy too.

GM food isn't a bad idea in theory, but the purpose of it is not to make the world more productive when it comes to food. As it is, the world produces far more food than can be profitably sold, meaning mass quantities are destroyed every year to keep prices propped up.

The only purpose of GM food is to make GM companies rich. I don't see why we need to have this stuff foisted upon us when it produces no real benefits.

Before anyone brings up the golden rice, a day's supply of that stuff would only render 5% of the Vitamin A a body needs. Hardly enough to combat Vitamin A deficiency. It's just a fig leaf being used to sell the gullible on GM food.

[StitsVobsaith]

Wernazuma is an idiot.