Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe • Hacker News Board

Re: Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

#31

Post by CapitalistCartr » Fri, May 31, 2013, 6:01 PM UTC

manmal wrote: post #24

pvnick wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>didn't control the entire industry While this is obvious hyperbole, I agree with your general sentiment. In fact, GMOs, perhaps more-so than any other modern technology, have an unprecedented potential to save billions of lives. Golden Rice alone could save the lives of one million children every year. As a biochem major, GMOs are something I'm passionate about, and it really aggravates me when I see armchair scient…

>unprecedented potential to save billions of lives Potential, yes; but not with massive financial interests behind it. In a world where shiploads of wheat are held back in order to game the wheat market, things need to change before GMOs can cure 3rd world hunger. I've read that GMOs have to be bought anew for every season because the harvested crops can't be used as seeds. Is that actually true?

Yes, they're patented and copying them is a violation of the "user agreement".

http://grist.org/news/supreme-court-hands-a-big-win-to-monsa...

Re: Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

#32

Post by mikeash » Fri, May 31, 2013, 6:02 PM UTC

api wrote: post #13

Anonazon wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this statement is it is assuming that there are no health concerns.

A lot of people see opposition to GMOs as irrational, but I don't think it is. It's perfectly rational, especially if you don't really understand genetics (which most people don't... it's an esoteric subject). The reason it's rational is this: were GMOs to be found to be unhealthy, it would be a continuation of a well-established pattern. Nearly all food "innovations" of the last 100 years are unhealthy. - Trans-fats…

MSG? Really? What's next, the evils of vaccines?

Re: Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

#33

Post by samolang » Fri, May 31, 2013, 6:02 PM UTC

manmal wrote: post #24

pvnick wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>didn't control the entire industry While this is obvious hyperbole, I agree with your general sentiment. In fact, GMOs, perhaps more-so than any other modern technology, have an unprecedented potential to save billions of lives. Golden Rice alone could save the lives of one million children every year. As a biochem major, GMOs are something I'm passionate about, and it really aggravates me when I see armchair scient…

>unprecedented potential to save billions of lives Potential, yes; but not with massive financial interests behind it. In a world where shiploads of wheat are held back in order to game the wheat market, things need to change before GMOs can cure 3rd world hunger. I've read that GMOs have to be bought anew for every season because the harvested crops can't be used as seeds. Is that actually true?

Yes [1]. But for good reason. It is similar to pharmaceutical companies. They invest millions into inventing products. They should be entitled to a monopoly on the product for some period of time in order to re-coup their investment.

[1] http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-su...

Re: Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

#34

Post by stephengoodwin » Fri, May 31, 2013, 6:03 PM UTC

pvnick wrote: post #15

api wrote: post #2

I really think there'd be less opposition to GMOs were it not for the fact that this one company -- a firm with a history of somewhat scummy and antagonistic behavior -- didn't control the entire industry.

>didn't control the entire industry While this is obvious hyperbole, I agree with your general sentiment. In fact, GMOs, perhaps more-so than any other modern technology, have an unprecedented potential to save billions of lives. Golden Rice alone could save the lives of one million children every year. As a biochem major, GMOs are something I'm passionate about, and it really aggravates me when I see armchair scient…

The issue that I have is that Monsanto and other food companies fight very hard against GMO labeling. That's a big red flag to me.

Re: Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

#35

Post by arkades » Fri, May 31, 2013, 6:04 PM UTC

pod4369 wrote: post #10

api wrote: post #2

I really think there'd be less opposition to GMOs were it not for the fact that this one company -- a firm with a history of somewhat scummy and antagonistic behavior -- didn't control the entire industry.

They don't control the entire industry. Way to give in to blatant propaganda.

http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifprid...

The data suggests that it is hyperbole to say that Monsanto owns the market, but judging by the CR4 and HHI - standard economics measures for concentration of market power - it's fair to say that the GMO market is very concentrated, and that Monsanto leads the pack by a significant margin.

Re: Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

#36

Post by api » Fri, May 31, 2013, 6:06 PM UTC

criley wrote: post #25

api wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people see opposition to GMOs as irrational, but I don't think it is. It's perfectly rational, especially if you don't really understand genetics (which most people don't... it's an esoteric subject). The reason it's rational is this: were GMOs to be found to be unhealthy, it would be a continuation of a well-established pattern. Nearly all food "innovations" of the last 100 years are unhealthy. - Trans-fats…

Hey, just jumping in, I have a BS in Biology and api's post here is full of non-scientific and pseudoscientific garbage. I believe he suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect and his completely unsourced post should create a huge red flag in any readers mind. I'm not going to go point by point as the average HNer should be able to research for themselves, but I will respond to this gem that generated the largest facepa…

I should also have been more precise. By food "innovations" I meant synthetic alterations in the composition of food itself such as the introduction of chemically altered oils, flavoring additives, preservatives, and similar. Borlaug changed the way food is grown, not its composition.

I personally am not particularly afraid of GMO foods. I was pointing out the sociological and political reasons for opposition to them. Look into the history of health advice and you'll find the same pattern: something is said to be healthy and people are told to do it. Later it is found to be unhealthy, often dramatically so. Cigarettes and margarine / trans-fat are probably the clearest examples, but there are many others and many outside the realm of food.

Every time you say something is good then reverse yourself, you lose credibility. At some point people actually start taking your pronouncements as a contrarian indicator. "Oh, the experts say GMO foods are great... they must be on Monsanto's payroll and they're probably worse for you than cigarettes."

Re: Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

#37

Post by pvnick » Fri, May 31, 2013, 6:06 PM UTC

stephengoodwin wrote: post #34

pvnick wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>didn't control the entire industry While this is obvious hyperbole, I agree with your general sentiment. In fact, GMOs, perhaps more-so than any other modern technology, have an unprecedented potential to save billions of lives. Golden Rice alone could save the lives of one million children every year. As a biochem major, GMOs are something I'm passionate about, and it really aggravates me when I see armchair scient…

The issue that I have is that Monsanto and other food companies fight very hard against GMO labeling. That's a big red flag to me.

Such a label does indicate danger to the uninformed masses, even if it's unfounded. I would say it falls under free speech. Let the market forces dictate the risks vs benefits.

Once completely organic chicken breast becomes as unattainably expensive as beluga cavier I think you'll find nobody gives a shit how the cheap stuff is produced.

Re: Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

#38

Post by genwin » Fri, May 31, 2013, 6:06 PM UTC

manmal wrote: post #24

pvnick wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>didn't control the entire industry While this is obvious hyperbole, I agree with your general sentiment. In fact, GMOs, perhaps more-so than any other modern technology, have an unprecedented potential to save billions of lives. Golden Rice alone could save the lives of one million children every year. As a biochem major, GMOs are something I'm passionate about, and it really aggravates me when I see armchair scient…

>unprecedented potential to save billions of lives Potential, yes; but not with massive financial interests behind it. In a world where shiploads of wheat are held back in order to game the wheat market, things need to change before GMOs can cure 3rd world hunger. I've read that GMOs have to be bought anew for every season because the harvested crops can't be used as seeds. Is that actually true?

True. See "The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops" at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genoc...

Re: Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

#39

Post by tomjen3 » Fri, May 31, 2013, 6:07 PM UTC

manmal wrote: post #24

pvnick wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>didn't control the entire industry While this is obvious hyperbole, I agree with your general sentiment. In fact, GMOs, perhaps more-so than any other modern technology, have an unprecedented potential to save billions of lives. Golden Rice alone could save the lives of one million children every year. As a biochem major, GMOs are something I'm passionate about, and it really aggravates me when I see armchair scient…

>unprecedented potential to save billions of lives Potential, yes; but not with massive financial interests behind it. In a world where shiploads of wheat are held back in order to game the wheat market, things need to change before GMOs can cure 3rd world hunger. I've read that GMOs have to be bought anew for every season because the harvested crops can't be used as seeds. Is that actually true?

That shiploads are held back is actually a _great_ thing, maybe one of the best things capitalism does.

Yes it means you get to pay more (in some cases a lot more) for your bread. It also means that farmers make more money and enable them to sell their wheat _now_ when they need the money and not after they have been foreclosed and it puts a price floor on the market for wheat, insuring that the crops we need to prevent starvation will not rot on the fields.

Re: Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

#40

Post by tptacek » Fri, May 31, 2013, 6:09 PM UTC

api wrote: post #2

I really think there'd be less opposition to GMOs were it not for the fact that this one company -- a firm with a history of somewhat scummy and antagonistic behavior -- didn't control the entire industry.

That antagonistic behavior being what? I ask because there's a commonly-held belief about Monsanto that they, in effect, wait for the wind to blow IP-encumbered seeds onto fields and then sue the farmers who manage those fields for royalties.

The reality is that Monsanto sues farmers when they take Roundup-Ready crops, plant them, and then use Roundup on those crops. You can't do that innocently; if you spray Roundup on non-Monsanto crops, you kill the crop.

If there's a case where Monsanto sued a farmer simply for having Roundup-Ready seeds or plants on their farms, I haven't seen it, and I've (a) looked and (b) asked around a lot.

If you just mean that patent enforcement is inherently scummy and antagonistic, well, I have no snappy response for that. Although again note that the problem with software patents is that you can implement some obvious piece of functionality and get sued by someone with a ridiculous patent. Like I said, nobody accidentally uses the whole Roundup system on a farm.