GMO isn’t bad. Everything is genetically modified.
Patented foods already exist. Have for years.
Monsanto has corn plants that don’t grow at a consistent height if you try to replant the seeds, making them profit by getting you to buy more seeds next year.
Like most things, the real problem behind GMO is greed. Creating rice strains that grow in impoverished areas, where little else will grow, is hard to see as a bad thing. We could be, and to some degree are, creating strains to solve world hunger, improve nutrition, improve durability of produce without sacrificing flavor. Tomatoes, I’m looking at you.
But so much of GMO is an effort to dominate the market, instead of to make the market better.
Dominate the market instead of make the market better? I don’t quite follow.
A seed that can be planted in more areas, and consistently grow more abundantly, seems favorable for all.
Yet I can still go to the farmer’s market and get my 60+ types of apples, honey, etc. If I want something special.
Or are you saying that once one seed is produced, companies will stick with that instead of continuing to improve the seed? Because that’s not the case either, there’s hundreds of varieties of corn, each able to tolerate slightly different conditions.
Monocultures are a real problem, not just when looking at the produce at the supermarket (which most people buy, if at all), but even more so when looking at the manufactured foods.
But I’m talking more about business practices of big players in the GMO game. For example, see the litigation history of Bayer, formerly Monsanto.
GMO isn’t bad. Everything is genetically modified.
Patented foods already exist. Have for years.
Monsanto has corn plants that don’t grow at a consistent height if you try to replant the seeds, making them profit by getting you to buy more seeds next year.
We already have seedless plants, bananas.
Just wait until they hear about this one fruit called an “apple”.
Like most things, the real problem behind GMO is greed. Creating rice strains that grow in impoverished areas, where little else will grow, is hard to see as a bad thing. We could be, and to some degree are, creating strains to solve world hunger, improve nutrition, improve durability of produce without sacrificing flavor. Tomatoes, I’m looking at you.
But so much of GMO is an effort to dominate the market, instead of to make the market better.
Dominate the market instead of make the market better? I don’t quite follow.
A seed that can be planted in more areas, and consistently grow more abundantly, seems favorable for all.
Yet I can still go to the farmer’s market and get my 60+ types of apples, honey, etc. If I want something special.
Or are you saying that once one seed is produced, companies will stick with that instead of continuing to improve the seed? Because that’s not the case either, there’s hundreds of varieties of corn, each able to tolerate slightly different conditions.
Monocultures are a real problem, not just when looking at the produce at the supermarket (which most people buy, if at all), but even more so when looking at the manufactured foods.
But I’m talking more about business practices of big players in the GMO game. For example, see the litigation history of Bayer, formerly Monsanto.