That’s exactly what I’m saying we should do. Brown rice ironically while it is food, might be like giving a baby an economic pacifier instead of trade milk and expecting it to grow. The Philippines has a range of biodiverse crops and other commodities that have more value than just the one food to feed them all, which would undercut the market and stifle local knowledge over time.

That said someone here suggested a more advanced plan to seed the beta-carotine gene into the native species, which is awesome in theory, but could create patent law violations and just generally be incredibly risky to the very biodiversity we’re trying to protect.

This is why I think while the science is very cool, we should avoid such irreversible treatments unless it’s a last resort.

Mosquitos on the other hand. Love the idea of genetically editing those fuckers out of existence. As the world inevitably warms, malaria is only going to spread further and wider. We should be getting ahead of that catastrophic future while we have the chance.

How about we just introduce them to carrots as a crop?

What about when rice prices crash and local small scale farmers go out of business?

Sure, but that doesn’t really address the argument in making. It’s a lazy way out that benefits the western world for its low cost and the fact is carrying a patented gene modification. We should be doing more, not relying on risky shortcuts.

Maybe one day all rice cultivars will be golden and the world we’ll be better off for it. But if the history of other GM crops is anything to go by, it sucks for the environment, and low prices screw local farmers over.

Seed patent holders have previously, successfully, sued farmers who inadvertantly grew patented plants they did not intentionally plant, but arrived on their property through natural means.

I’ve heard this claim many times, and have yet to see anyone provide even a single case of it happening. Please don’t try to cite Monsanto v Schmeiser. It’s amazing how often that is used as the example when both the farmer very deliberately planted the seeds, and did not even argue that it was inadvertent in court.

I’m replying to you instead of the first reply to this comment because I would also really appreciate seeing information regarding cases where something like natural migration of seeds has led to a won lawsuit.

Citation needed. And don’t give me any Salon crap. I want the exact incident in question where a farmer was sued over this and lost.

It’s pointless because literally every time I ask people to produce this mythical court case I get some salon article about how it is possible to occur one day.

Fix the laws?

No. It’s the GMOs who are wrong.

You, redisdead, already used this personal attack in this thread. Where are the mods when you need one? Thought this was a place to discuss ideas not attack the intelligence of those that disagree

They might be talking about waste that radiology departments produce, but that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the waste generated by the energy sector.

In the face of the established historical record of over 100 lawsuits brought against farmers, the amended PUBPAT complaint asserts, “Monsanto implicitly acknowledges that its transgenic seeds can contaminate the property of non-transgenic farmers,” but in its asserted “commitment” to not sue farmers over “inadvertent,” and “trace” amounts of contamination, the company fails to define either term. Therefore, the Complaint argues, “the clear implication is that Monsanto indeed intends to assert its transgenic seed patents against certified organic and non-transgenic farmers who come to possess more than ‘trace amounts’ of Monsanto’s transgenic seed, even if it is not their fault.”

When Monsanto sued family farmer Percy Schmeiser in Canada over contamination caused by transgenic seed blown off a passing neighbor’s truck, it cost him a half million dollars to fight them, and he had to mortgage his farm to raise the money, Patterson recalls. In the process, he lost control over 50 years of his own traditional, non-transgenic seed development work, according to Patterson and published reports telling the Schmeiser story. “Monsanto reportedly spent $4 million on their case against Schmeiser,” Patterson says. Percy Schmeiser told him Monsanto had 19 lawyers at one point in the courtroom up against his own single lawyer. “In the school yard and in the NFL, that is called ‘piling on,’” he concludes. https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/763/family-farmers-amplify-complaint-against-monsantos-gmos-reinforcing-their-arguments-with-two-dozen-additional-plaintiffs

They don’t own anything, the modified something that came with the planet, and they want everyone on the planet to be forced to use it, and them to pay them for the privilege. I’ve never been to Msto HQ but I’d give Dollars to Donuts that that is printed on the wall.

Sorry for the late response, busy day hahaha. A few things:

1. Please don’t get hung out on the particular examole I picked. I just googled Monsanto seed lawsuit and picked the first example. But there are so many many more examples.

2. I mean, you don’t see that’s the problem I was pointing out exactly? Again, I’m not against GMOs themselves (though again, totally unneducated opinion). My concern, as someone from a third world country, is precisely with the laws and economic pressure these companies use to exploit people in our countries using this technology.

Let me explain how this works in my experience:

1. Monsanto or any of these companies create a new GMO. This GMO is usually actually better at something than traditional crops. Though here better is usually economically better, as in cheaper to produce.
2. These companies start preassuring every farmer in our countries to use their seeds and crops. Usually this is done through economic preassure. That is usually they price their seeds so they are cheaper to use than traditional crops (on it’s own, not terrible). There is usually some preassure thorugh laws anf marketing to force people to switch too.
3. The farmers using these new crops will outperform, in an economical sense, the farmers that keep using the traditional crops. They will produce better crops for less money for a while. Usually the ones who survuve this are the big farmers, most family farms can’t compete here. After some time of this we end in a situation where all the crops are replaced with the new GMO, patented crop, giving these companies a monopoly over our food.

If things ended here it would be okish, though I wiould still hate it hahaha. But we all know that companies will always exploit their monopoly positions as much as possible. So this usually ends with even more hunger in our countries even though we now technicslly have better crops. So yeah, I think you are wrong. If our onky options are to continue using old “inneficient” crops, or this shit, I prefer the traditional crops. So good on Greenpeace for blocking this.

Yeah, your chances to get blood clots due to vaccination are orders of magnitude lower than your chance to just die from covid.

YouTube recommendations have sucked for years, your own fault for using Google, art hasn’t made sense since a can of soup counted as it, and your mom shouldn’t be answering calls. Period. What the fuck just text like a normal person.

So sincerely please stop being a luddit,

Removed by mod

Bifurcation. Basic logical fallacy.

Yup. Even my supposedly egalitarian country had relatively recent legislation ensuring “white” immigration.

Apparently it was a surprise to the government of the time that Indians some Pacific islanders were British (at the time) and that upset some people who equated “white” and “British”.

Literally you are repeating the same argument. Come back when you have a new one.

Also, I have family that are large-scale farmers, so they have first-hand experience with agriculture practices and technology. I have other family members that are researchers on soil ecology and related fields. And I was a researcher (at a completely unrelated field, I admit) and I read lots of literature about the subject, because I had access to all scientific journals at my university. But yeah, “I’m naive”, lol.

I am? Please show me the date and time and comment in question. Unless you meant “you” in the sense of the word “imaginary person”.

I’m curious why it doesn’t make up a bigger share of energy generation in China then. I assume China doesn’t have the same issues with NIMBYism.

It is pretty stupid to look at a nuclear power plant and think “cool, this is pretty clean, cheap and safe” when spent nuclear fuel and plutonium wastes require well-designed storage for periods ranging from tens of thousands to a million years, to minimize releases of the contained radioactivity into the environment.
What if generation 2748 in the future makes a mistake and pollutes an entire region? A million accidents could and will happen, it is so obvious. Aren’t you aware of this? It’s insane to do this to our childrens children and all other earthlings that will live after us.

While nuclear energy can appear cost-effective compared to other energy sources, the true cost is often higher when considering indirect factors. Society typically bears these costs through taxes, insurance premiums, and health care costs rather than the price paid for nuclear-generated electricity.
These costs can be divided into several categories:

1. Environmental Costs: These include the long-term management of nuclear waste, the potential contamination from radioactive materials, and the decommissioning of nuclear plants. Managing nuclear waste safely over thousands of years is a significant and expensive challenge.

2. Health Costs: Exposure to radiation can have serious health impacts, including cancer and genetic damage. The cost of healthcare for affected individuals and communities can be substantial.

3. Accident Costs: In the event of a nuclear accident, such as the Chernobyl or Fukushima disasters, the costs can be immense. This includes evacuation, compensation, cleanup, and long-term environmental and health monitoring.

4. Security Costs: Ensuring that nuclear materials are not diverted for weapons use or targeted by terrorists involves significant expenditure on security measures and regulatory oversight.

5. Economic Costs: There can be broader economic impacts from nuclear accidents, including loss of agricultural or commercial land, reduced property values, and long-term disruption to local economies.

Nuclear power is a wonderful example of how costs can be pushed into the future and onto future generations. People are obviously still falling for this. The “Asse”-repository in Germany was used for storage from 1967 to 1978 and now we descendants have to deal with the follow-up costs while our ancestors enjoyed the oh-so-cheap nuclear power. Groundwater is already leaking in, and preventing pollution is complex and expensive. And we are only the second generation, but the stuff will still be there in 2000 generations. Rooting for this is so incredibly short-sighted.

Hä, ich verstehe nicht was du meinst?

This contribution was based on the understanding that Syngenta would retain commercial exclusivity for the technology, including large agricultural setups in developing countries.

Lots of claims about it being for humanitarian purposes but there it is.

Source: http://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how9_IP.php