I’m not smart enough to understand what im looking at here
Basically… The theoretical risk of a mutation occuring that is unwanted. Here is the thing that graphic hides though. With gene editing it’s a company that decides what is desired and what is off target. And we all know that big corporate is primarily interested in making more money. Not the well being of the people.
Agreed.
Additionally, the graphic oversimplifies things as well. The resulting genetically modified crop is often not even all that close close to the same as the non-GMO, as seen by studies such as this one:
https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-023-00715-6
Basically; GMO soybeans contain proteins which differ and also include additional proteins. This can cause allergic reactions to modified soy where non-modified soy might not cause an issue.
Monsanto supposedly even knew about these proteins and higher risk of allergic reaction and chose to not disclose it. (I saw some research that mentioned this years ago… It’d be hard to find the exact source I read back then.) This specific paper, which talks about additional proteins and side-effects brought in by the new transgenic splicing, also explicitly states that Monsanto did studies themselves and failed to report relevant findings:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5236067/
Obviously, other methods can also change proteins too, but these papers show it isn’t as clear cut as the graphic in the original post claims.
Along these lines, here’s a study that finds differences not just in soybeans grown organically versus ones treated by glyphosate (Monsanto Round-Up pesticide) but also between GMO and non-GMO crops, both treated by the pesticide.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201
But, yeah this is just a long way of agreeing with the parent post and saying that the end goal is to make the plants resistant to poison, not to make them better for humans, all to make more money. (In this case, Monsanto is even double-dipping by selling both the pesticide and the crops tailor-made for the pesticide.)
Other GMO crops might be closer to the original crop and might also actually be beneficial for humans without drawbacks. However, Monsanto’s soybeans are problematic, and other crops might be as well, especially if they’re made by companies who have money as their primary goal.
Even more reason to legalize precise gene editing. It’s cheaper than the other two methods, because you don’t need years to create something usable. Cheaper means more companies can play around with it, creating more competition and probably better results, not just better resistance to the pesticide the same company sells.
I wonder if there are any good reasons for that. Let’s ask the internet.
Well, surly this technology is used to improve the crops to be resistant to weed pressure and not just to sell more herbicides. Let’s ask the internet.
Ok, but at least farmers can reuse the resistant crops and don’t have to buy hybrid seeds every year because these new plants are genetically stable.
The post says that targeted mutagenesis is safer than non targeted. The criticism you mentioned - very one sided btw - holds true for both cases. You are right with your criticism on GMO’s but radioactivity Is a worse option than Crispr.
I admit, my arguments were cherry picked. I just wanted to provide a few counter examples to show that there are reasons for being skeptical of GMO crops. My biggest concern actually isn’t food safety or environmental impacts but the previously mentioned intellectual property implications. I don’t want Bayer to own certain genes making it illegal to plant seeds from apples I bought at the store.
Wait, do you think non-gmo variants don’t have IP laws applied to them?
No, unfortunately it does. GMO crops could make this even worse because they may pass their genes to wild plants through gene flow. The ‘owner’ of that gene could then require a licensing deal for the use of these plants as well.
Sure, let’s release organisms with precisely engineered advantages into our ecosystems, nothing could go wrong.
This implication has two problems:
-
This handling of new technology’s has always been like that. The first nuclear reactor was build bevor they knew if it even works. No body thought twice about the danger. The difference here is that it benefits poor people more than rich so most people don’t care really.
-
In the case of most non-competitive mutations we know exactly what happens. Because this argument is so old, we now have detailed study’s on gene mobility like vitamin A enzymes. Because the plant can’t use that much of it, the gene is silenced very quickly. That means that your crops will yield yellow and white seeds. The farmers have to plant only yellow ones ore the genes can hardly be found on his field after a few generations.
-
A big problem is that farmers are not allowed to use the corn and and grain which they grew themselves on their own field as seeds. When they buy the engineered seeds and accompanied pesticides they are forced to do it every year.
That’s a dangerous development in my opinion. You must not centralise seed production in that way.
Plus: the Roundup stuff really doesn’t look healthy to me.
-
This is a exclusive problem for the US. A County with a working justice system would acknowledge biological gene mobility and the natural reproduction cycle. That means farmers will be able to grow plants out of their own seeds as well as cross the mutants with relatives to keep the benefits alongside biodiversity. This is of course no business model but open funded research could do it as well.
-
Most scientists have a strong opinion against herbicide resistance (like round-up, round-up-ready). These genes are very quickly found in other plants do to gene transfer so it’s only a short short sighted solution.
PS: Glyphosate is the best herbicide we know. Your argument is valid for all herbicides but with roundup the least.
-
I don’t mean to sound like a Monsanto shill, but farmers are not forced to use those seeds. They could use their own seeds if they wanted. But the GMO crops are so much more efficient that they are worth the cost.
My knowledge stems from just my memory of one or two documentations I watched. But there they stated that the gmo advantage is just a marketing lie in the long run, because nature adapts and yields decrease and herbicide/ fungicide usage increases.
Is there a study that shows that gmo performs better (yield wise, impact on the fauna, toxicity) than all other approaches?
Bt Eggplants in Bangladesh have higher yields and need less pesticide, which saves the lives of farmers who are too poor to buy protective gear and now need to spray much less pesticide.
Thanks. That’s interesting. The outcome looks positive regarding the yield sold/ha and spray of pesticides.
I wasn’t able to find the duration of the study and an answer to the question: Are the improved yields/ reduced pesticide results stable over multiple years (1/5/10 years after the switch to Bt brinjal)? I searched for year and duration in the text and wasn’t able to find it. But I’m at my mobile phone atm. 😒
CRISPR is actually much cheaper than the methods used now, so there could be more participants in the market.
It’s about the creation of artifical markets - Allowing patents on genetic modifications in lifeforms so that one can sell something that basically copies itself if you provide it with a place to grow (exclusively) and some water and light. It’s highly problematic.
It’s uncritical to play that utilisation rights game with music and videos and other works of art. No one starves to death from not listening to music. But you shouldn’t play that game with food sources.
Which is more of a problem with the expensive methods, that are used right now. With CRISPR there would be a market for other viable mutations, which are not patented.
You mean garage generical engineering? Genetical design instead of breeding and selection?
I see pros and cons.
A big problem is that farmers are not allowed to use the corn and and grain which they grew themselves on their own field as seeds.
There is so much wrong with this claim, not least of which is that it’s about a century out of date and straight from a marketing playbook by “organic” associations.
1: most farmers don’t save their own seeds. They haven’t for a century, because it’s pretty hard to do right, so they simply buy seeds from a seed company. Even the ones using heirloom seeds do this.
2: almost every modern crop is a hybrid, including the ones that aren’t GMO. Hybrid crops are created by crossing two specific parent crops (say short leaf variant, crossed with long stem variant, to produce a hybrid with both traits). This hybrid will only produce 25% hybrid seeds itself though, so saving them is useless. This applies to basically every commercial non-gmo crop
There is a huge difference between not being allowed to do something, and deciding not to do something.
I don’t have a car (like most people in my town). So not allowing car ownership would be ok?
