GMOs

[Vulpes Jarr]

 ;) :D

[Drakus]

They're great when they aren't designed by idiots with a death wish

[Shadow]

It's not so much GMOs I have a problem with as the ridiculous patent laws that apply to them. I could get on board with GMOs after patent reform, but until then, not a chance.

[Drakus]

Can you really patent a gene sequence?

If you can't, then how would competition in the agricultural world work? If one corporation designs a type of corn that trumps all the others, then—if patents don't exist—everyone else can just piggyback on that corporation's brilliant design.

It seems that capitalism necessitates these type of patents—or else no one will want to put in the time and effort to make GMO corn.

However, as Shadow said, it grows (no pun intended) into something utterly ridiculous.

We should move this to UMD...

[Shadow]

I would be OK (not really, but it would be a step in the right direction) with patenting a plant if prosecution of patent violation was limited to the person who sold the offending seed. But right now Monsanto, for example, can prosecute farmers who happen to have their plants on their land, regardless of how the plants got there. Buyers/end users should not be on the hook for patent violation.

[Vulpes Jarr]

 Compare it with computer software and hacking. Monsanto created the genes, so if they find them in your crops you are violating their property. And every year the seeds get a little less great, and eventually end up losing their resistance to chemicals. 

It's also too soon to tell if GMOs are causing big environmental problems. Science has proven that there's no difference between GM and non GM seeds, so it's likely that there's no problems (after all, the genes are all natural that they put in the seeds) . Nobody wants to harm the land, animals or the environment.

[Drakus]

I support patenting GMO seeds because to disallow that would be a slap in the face to capitalism. However, it is the responsibility of everyone to practice capitalism in such a way that money is flowing in such a way that it is beneficial both to the self and society, not benefiting the self and harming society like Monsanto is doing.

[Shadow]

But farmers should not be on the hook if some of their neighbors seed blows onto their property.

Science has proven that there's no difference between GM and non GM seeds,

if this were true then they wouldn't be valuable or useful - of course they are different

so it's likely that there's no problems (after all, the genes are all natural that they put in the seeds)

There are problems, and ones which could easily have been foreseen. For example: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2011/12/05/143141300/insects-find-crack-in-biotech-corns-armor

When you mess with nature, nature evolves to fight back. And it's a lot better at it then we are.

Nobody wants to harm the land, animals or the environment.

It's true that probably nobody wants to, but that not the same statement that everyone cares whether or not they do. Big business doesn't care.

[Gen. Volkov]

I'm more or less with Shadow. GM foods are a great concept, and have a huge potential upside, but until patent law in the US gets out of the 19th century, there are going to be issues. Monsanto should not be able to sue a farmer into bankruptcy for having a few of their plants in his field. But if he plants an entire field of Monsanto corn and they don't see a dime, then maybe they are owed some damages.