I'm a believer in taking advantage of GM crops but also believe that some kind of regulation should be put in place to ensure that those crops yield seeds that can be used to plant future generations.
If these crops are designed to require you to buy from a producing company each year, that just seems so fundamentally artificial and going against the grain of all of our agricultural history. And I can see how much of a slippery slope it can represent... ayou read about farmer suicides in India related to this topic. I bring this up because the fact that none of this is discussed in the article makes me fear it's got a profit agenda.
I feel like this kind of discussion hinges on a misguided belief that farmers are not very smart businessmen. The idea that a farmer would abandon their current crop for GMO crop that they cannot replant without making a cost-benefit analysis in their head just strikes me as very odd. These peoples life depend on making such decisions, we should trust them to make them themselves.
In a multi-agent dynamic system, the optimal actions by each individual agents (based on whatever cost-benefit analysis they do) can evolve the system into a state where every agent is worse off compared to some initial state. This holds even if every individual agent is a "smart businessperson".
One main purpose of law and social rules is to prevent multi-agent systems from getting stuck into these global non-optimal states. And arguing that agents are smart is not a counter-argument to this.
As an extreme example, I'd add -- in some cases, because of market conditions (and perhaps the legal climate as well), within a given financial year a farmer may be forced to choose between purchasing GMO seeds and having to sell the farm, especially if the farm already used licensed GMO seeds in a prior year.
But as you pointed out, without legal and regulatory guardrails, the system at large can become badly suboptimal long before compromise-or-die dichotomies arise.
This is true in the abstract but I don’t see how it applies to this specific case. There are two agents here and the GMO plants will only be planted if planting them is the optimal choice for both.
If you are a farmer who has the choice of planting more productive plants or not, if you do not, you will be at a disadvantage and eventually will be outcompeted in the market if you don't "defect". Planting the GMO is the optimal choice if you want to survive in the short term, even if you can see disaster looming in the long term despite sweet supplier promises.
Once everyone is using the proprietary seeds, the price magically goes up and the farmers have less money than they had before, but the biotech company now gets a cut of every grain of wheat which has to increase year on year (growth!). This isn't the only negative outcome you could imagine.
A classic multipolar trap for the farmers because they all made an entirely rational decision at every stage and yet they all ended up worse off in the end. And a trap agrotech will be extremely happy to coax farmers into.
For their part, if they don't do it, a less scrupulous company would and so they need to do it or get outcompeted - not only must they grow, they just grow faster than the competition to survive long term. And so they are also a trap of their own where they could end up in a strongly negative situation (angry mobs after their blood, say) despite making what was both an optimal and necessary decision at every step.
Which is not to say you can't or even shouldn't use biotech to increase crop yield. It's just that you can't rely on people making rational choices for themselves to produce long-term overall good outcomes.
> Once everyone is using the proprietary seeds, the price magically goes up and the farmers have less money than they had before, but the biotech company now gets a cut of every grain of wheat which has to increase year on year (growth!). This isn't the only negative outcome you could imagine.
How does that make any sense? They can always switch back to the non-GMO crops. Short of original seed somehow disappearing.. it seems the farmer can make the decision to switch back at any time. The GMO company has no mote to coerce people to keep using their product. They only use it as long as it provides higher profits.
You'd have to get very create to imagine scenarios where this breaks down. Like the local climate changes and the original seed is no longer viable, and they have a ton of agricultural equipment for this one particular crop type.
This also has the premise that the farmers are somehow stupid and don't realize seed prices can change year to year
>> If you are a farmer who has the choice of planting more productive plants or not, if you do not, you will be at a disadvantage and eventually will be outcompeted in the market if you don't "defect".
More productive crops = more competitive = higher chance of market survival.
It's not about the crops per se. It's about surviving in a market that is ruthlessly cruel to anybody who doesn't subscribe to "line go up" dogma, and who isn't cutthroat in every advantage they can eke out or margin they can widen.
My immediate concern is the loss of overall biodiversity and specific genetic lines.
I'm not a large-scale farmer, but I've spent more than my share of hours in the cab of a tractor. It's already very difficult to find seeds for "heritage varieties" of many crops.
For example - for the past several years, I've grown a small patch of "Little Dutch". It's a tobacco variety that was popular in the 19th Century, but fell out of favor. To my knowledge it is not currently grown commercially at all. The only reason there are seeds available is because someone collected it from a farm in Ohio at some point.
In this example, seeds can be ordered without too much hassle... but there are relatively few vendors selling them, and I'd say it's still at moderate risk of being lost. There's a small but active hobby community around growing esoteric tobacco varieties, but that's not the case for most food crops. I wouldn't even know where to begin to even determine what varieties were grown in my area fifty years ago, much less where to obtain seeds.
In fact, this conversation has prompted me to go acquire some sorghum from someone I know that has been planting a couple of acres and processing it themselves for at least the past 50 years. They're getting older, their kids aren't interested in agriculture, and I seriously doubt they could even tell me what variety they're growing. It wouldn't surprise me if they've not purchased seed in generations. When they pass, that line will likely be gone forever if someone doesn't intentionally preserve it.
What prevents a farmer from simply switching back to the non-GMO seeds if the GMO option goes up in price? Or even ignoring that, switching to a different cheaper GMO seed from a different company?
I think that's the piece I and others are missing, isn't it ultimately a question of which seeds will make the farmer the most money? If a particular GMO seed suddenly become so expensive that either non-GMO or other GMO seeds are more cost-effective, why can't they just start using them instead?
Not really - if the market price for a crop is such that it depends on the greater volume which can be produced by GMO seeds, switching to non-GMO seeds becomes uneconomic.
Let's say GMO crops gives you a grain yield of 1-ton/acre and that non-GMO crops gives you a yield of 0.5-ton/acre. Now the market price is say set at $100/ton. This cuts down their earnings by half in the best case, all other inputs remaining the same.
Now if the GMO-seeds are controlled by a foreign entity, your entire agri output becomes dependent on that foreign entity not behaving badly. Whichever nation that controls the entity who owns the GMO-seed now has leverage over you.
So no, it isn't as simple as "switch back to using non-GMO seeds". This has to be carefully considered before adopting GMO-seeds.
Food security in general does need governance and this does includes vulnerability to price fixing of non-GMO seeds and agricultural chemicals as well as safety.
It also includes vigilance against such things as agricultural equipment with expensive repair lockouts, antibiotic overuse, soil degradation, deforestation and poor disease control.
The original assertion was that rational self-interested agents would naturally find and migrate to optimum global outcomes for everyone. Not only is this not true in the abstract game theoretic sense, but it's especially not true when many of the agents are independent developing world smallholders and some are multibillion agritech transnationals.
Obviously the argument is using GMO as the subject due to the context of the article, but you can have the exact same argument about powerful companies angling for capture of slices of many industries and even parts of the general human experience in many places where you can say "well if it wasn't going to be good for the farmers/taxi drivers/warehouse workers/software engineers/people looking for a date/restaurant chefs/whoever, they're not stupid and wouldn't agree to it".
The agents are numerous, as pointed out by sibling comment.
The farmer agents only make decisions based on personal profitability. The overall system after some years can evolve to a state where some of the following are true:
- the GMO seed maker acquires a monopoly over certain types of seeds, which enables it to reduce farmer profits to below what they were when they were planting non-GMO seeds.
- the country's food supply becomes dependent on foreign countries/corporations, which can cause severe problems at international negotiating tables.
- the GMO crop has long term health impacts, say after 20 years of use. When these are discovered, it is no longer possible to go back to non-GMO because the infrastructure required for non-GMO crops is not easily reconstructable (for instance a country might reduce its pesticide production significantly once enough farmers have switched to GMO). Similarly, farmers have living knowledge about how to grow certain crop varieties learned by long experience. non-GMO and GMO varieties require different techniques, and non-GMO techniques may be forgotten, making it infeasible to switch back to non-GMO.
Decisions to prevent these outcomes can only occur at the government/regulatory level, and may possibly be "GMO are banned".
I don't think you can arbitrarily leave out all the other parties in the agricultural system: the bank, who the farmer may need to borrow from to buy seed, the politicians, who may or may not accept money from the companies producing GMO seeds to produce favourable legislation, the public, who may vote with their wallets when purchasing the resulting crops, and so on...
If your neighbor planted a GMO crop in their field, and then sprayed them with the compatible chemicals, two things might happen:
1. The chemicals are carried by the wind onto your crop field, killing your non-GMO crops
2. The seeds from the GMO crop spread into your field, and corporate hired goons show up at your door threatening you with a lawsuit. Or maybe if your neighbor doesn't like you, they spread some GMO seed in your field, then report you to the company.
This led to neighbor versus neighbor conflicts in ag communities, in some cases turning violent.
1 - farmers watch the wind and won't spray when drift is an issue. the epa requires this in the us and they look at drift before approving spray
2 - this has only happened when someone sprays their crop thus killing anything that isn't gmo and bringing the patents into the field. if you don't take advantage of the trait the corporate people don't care.
though many of the more useful traits are off patent now and so they won't care anyway
We have a small-ish farm in Oregon. We religiously watch the wind before spraying for two reasons:
1) Chemicals are extremely expensive and chemicals that drift off the field are wasted, not to mention that in high winds you can't be confident in good coverage (unless you just dramatically increase your spray amount, which, see again re: cost).
2) Despite our extreme care, we have had regulatory bodies called on us by neighbours about drift (investigation exonerated us).
Thus we have both an internal, selfish reason to not spray during high wands and an external reason to not spray during high winds. I can't speak to other areas of the country (let alone the world) or other kinds of farming.
It has on multiple occasions as linked elsewhere in this discussion, made usage of anything other than a specific vendor's strain unusable. That is a textbook type 1.B. mono-supplier condition.
Yeah, I call bullshit on that claim. The only way something like this could become required would be if it's so much more performant that farmers would have no choice. But that would mean it's creating so much extra value the farmers still come out ahead. How is this a bad thing? In no scenario is it possible for the introduction of a new variety to force farmers to make a decision that leaves them worse off than some other decision they could make.
It's been mentioned about a dozen times already, you should have read it already. Again: It is the _combination_ of a custom crop and pest/herbicides which has a clear tendency to contaminate nearby farms, making the only viable crop the custom crop which has been engineered to withstand that specific treatment.
OH MY GOD! Today I learned that I, who generally like GMO, is actually exhibiting "irrational GMO hatred" when I don't even argue against the usage of GMO, but instead argue against the problematic usage of herbicide and pesticide which has externalities which are not properly accounted for and guarded against! You have also convinced me that facts and studies on the subject matters not, and that your, let me count them, zero sources, are better!
Do you have any other wisdom to spare from below the bridge?
You made me looking back at historical wind patterns in my county and last year they sprayed it was 12m/s SSW (Beaufort 6) the day I remember they sprayed.
This (2) case is, I think, mostly (maybe entirely) false. In every case I've read where this was claimed, the actual fact pattern was that the "victim" farmer wound up with unlicensed herbicide/pesticide-resistant crops that they then sprayed with herbicide or pesticide. If you plant unlicensed Roundup-Ready seeds and then spray the crop with Roundup, you know what you were doing.
That's a thing that can happen, but there's no evidence that anybody has been sued for it. The cases where people have been sued, the record is pretty extensive that they knowingly used the whole system, not just the seeds.
>1. The chemicals are carried by the wind onto your crop field, killing your non-GMO crops
That sounds like it should be handled by tort law rather than GMO laws. Even without GMOs you'll have issues like this, for instance conventional fields polluting organic fields, or herbicides that work for one type of plant but not another.
Valid points but this seems more simple to address using regulation rather than removing the seed patents (which are essential to some degree to make this whole process worthwhile for manufacturers). The argument is that without seed patents most of the genuine advancements would not be worth pursuing.
What regulation would you propose to fix either of these issues?
Case 2 I suspect could be addressed by a law granting some level of immunity for simply having GMO plants in a field. But how do you fix Case 1 with laws? These are effects of biology and physics.
If a factory pours poison into a farmers water source they can already sue, I cannot imagine it would be significantly harder to enable similar regulation for fertilizers and pesticides.
The legal costs would bankrupt most non-corporate farms. (In fact that's what happened - as explained in the link in that comment, many farmers had to settle even if they believed themselves innocent.)
A lawsuit is rarely a good remedy to a problem, between legal costs, the time delay to any rewards, and the overloaded court system strongly encouraging people to settle out of court.
Monsanto has already made legally binding declarations that they will never sue for "simply having GMO plants in a field" or "accidentally growing trace amounts of patented crops" which have been affirmatively held as legally binding [1].
The cases you are referencing are cases where the farmer discovers trace contamination of their field, then deliberately sprays Roundup to kill all non-GMO crops, then deliberately harvest seed from the survivors, then deliberately create a GMO section of their farm where they repeatedly plant and harvest to concentrate seed production until they have multiple thousands of acres of GMO crops they derived from the trace contamination [2].
Or cases where they signed a agreement to not replant their GMO soybeans, so they sold those GMO soybeans to a facility which sells to consumers for consumption, then turned around and rebought from that same facility the GMO soybeans they just sold so they could replant them [3] claiming that the sale to a third party meant they were not "replanting" the soybeans they just produced since they just oopsie-whoopsie bought them from someone not bound by the agreement.
If you actually look into it, most of the cases that people imagine were really bad or evidence of Monsanto screwing farmers are actually examples of ridiculously slimy farmers. That is not to say that Monsanto is a saint as they almost surely are hiding evidence of Roundup toxicity and you should be generally distrusting that large corporations are value-aligned with regular people, but specifically in the cases of Monsanto versus farmers, the farmers are almost always hiding how absolutely slimy they are actually being.
Why is that horrific? Is it because some farmers are smaller operations and have less bargaining power? What about a large farming conglomerate, e.g. Cargill? What in particular is bad about this contract, and makes it different from other contracts?
Is it horrific to be sued for modifying and selling software with a removed GPLv3 notice?
> 1. The chemicals are carried by the wind onto your crop field, killing your non-GMO crops
Have you ever been on a farm?
> 2. The seeds from the GMO crop spread into your field, and corporate hired goons show up at your door threatening you with a lawsuit.
Sorry, but this video is just pure post-truth bullshit. I unsubscribed from Veritassium because of this video, and I was a paying Patreon subscriber.
Monsanto has NEVER sued anyone for accidental contamination. Moreover, they will buy out your contaminated crops at higher-than-market prices.
They sued farmers that specifically and intentionally, over several years, bred resistant crops by using GMO genes from neighboring fields or by replanting the previous years' crop.
> This led to neighbor versus neighbor conflicts in ag communities, in some cases turning violent.
Can you cite any examples? Go on, fire up Kagi and search.
> I feel like this kind of discussion hinges on a misguided belief that farmers are not very smart businessmen.
I feel like assuming that the farmers are competent businessmen capable of understanding the ups and downs of GMOs is in disagreement with reality and mostly used to drive "free marketeering / deregulation" agendas.
It's the same argument they make for why we don't need food safety rules. Intelligent and rational people will be able to work out that the cheap carcinogenic additive is bad and therefore won't buy it and the company will do better and it's just fine. Right? Right? If they don't they're probably too stupid and probably poor and only have themselves to blame. It's just business.
Never mind that the the exact same kind of people are simultaneous lobbying for the elimination of (quote) "unjustified trade restrictions or commercial requirements, such as labeling, that affect new technologies, including biotechnology" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/4201)
Many businesses are not thinking long term. Farming businesses are businesses too, and may prefer short term profitability over long term sustainability.
See for example the depletion of the Ogallala aquifer, which is at the same time an existential threat to to farming and caused by farming.
Imagine if hypothetically a supplier offered very competitive - maybe even loss-making - prices when they had 25% of the market; then once they had 90% of the market and most of their competitors had gone out of business, they planned to raise prices substantially, make back the loss, and produce a big profit.
Isn't each customer's decision to buy (or not buy) from the loss-making supplier a tragedy-of-the-commons situation?
I struggle for an example of that actually working. If it does it must be exceedingly rare. I can think of lots of example of having 25% of the market and then getting closer to the majority by cutting prices, but the part where they jack them back up usually doesn't work. For instance, Rockefeller did that to put his competition out of business, but then the price of Kerosene just kept going down.
The times where it actually worked (railroad) was because the people doing it convinced the government afterwards to "protect the market" (interstate commerce act) and created a violence enforced cartel that prohibited by law rebates and other methods by which cartels (and pre-ICA railroad cartels) commonly fall apart.
Another hilarious thing about the argument is that Roundup, and also the gene package involved in Roundup Ready plants, are now in the public domain. The patents are expired.
There's nothing preventing a country from just ignoring patents, too. That pretty much happened in India with Bt cotton, engineered to express an insecticidal protein. Gray market seeds with the trait became widely available there and the foreign patent holders judged it not worthwhile to try to prosecute. This was all very good news for Indian cotton farmers, especially considering the personal cost to them of exposure to the pesticides they'd otherwise have to have used.
depends on which farmers youre talking about. In much of the world, they're smallholder subsistence farmers with little to no education, and are often at the mercy of middlemen who steal a significant proportion of their (meager, due to not much land that they dont really know how to take care of/take advantage of) crops' value.
The problem is that even with the seed rent-seeking, GMO crops are more productive and more profitable.
The farmer still makes just enough money, with some corporate middleman skimming off the top for no good reason. It's not that the fees are untenable- obviously nobody will buy it if they can't make a profit. The problem is the corporate rent-seeking. Producers have to raise costs which percolates up into increased costs for consumers.
> How are the food costs raising if GMO crops are more productive?
The farmer cries we've been hearing in the news over the last few months may be a little overblown, but they certainly aren't coming from a place where food costs are rising...
> Shouldn't this increase supply and lower prices?
Not necessarily. Prices are determined by supply _and demand_.
Are they? Farmers in the US just went a full month without selling a single soy bean to China. The last time it happened was seven years ago. Guess who was president both times it happened. Guess who farmers overwhelmingly voted for? They regularly vote against their own business interests. Perhaps farmers in Nigeria are better educated.
The entire reason almost every modern country massively subsidizes and manages the staple food crops of their agricultural economy is that letting them rationally act in their best interests kept causing famines when farmers did dumb things, like cause the dust bowl.
Central management of food supplies has been an essential part of societal stability since ancient times, and the USSR using "industrialization" and "centralization" of farming as an excuse to kill a bunch of "kulaks" does not undo that.
I was also curious about this, so I ended up watching a documentary a local politician made where she interviewed local farmers trying to figure out why they would vote against their own best interests, and the short answer was, net, they thought additional bailouts + deregulation of farming would outweigh the potential trade war.
Of course they will, but losing your long term market for a short term bailout shows they don't understand the actual business ramifications of what they voted for. Great. You get a bail out. What's the long term plan when China keeps buying soybeans from other countries?
> "A 2015 study in Environmental Sciences Europe found that farmer suicide rates in India's rainfed areas were "directly related to increases in Bt cotton adoption." Factors leading to suicide included "high costs of BT cotton" and "ecological disruption and crop loss after the introduction of Bt cotton.""
The contradicting studies were mostly produced by "International Food Policy Research Institute, an agriculture policy think tank formed to promote the adoption of innovations in agricultural technology, based in Washington, D.C." which seems like an obvious conflict of interest.
That's a story of a farmer in debt because he had two consecutive years of crop failure. I'd be less apt to blame the expected cost of seeds than the unexpected crop failures for his misfortune.
Do any smart business people get locked into software ecosystems?
People seem very focused on the science to the expense of the business side.
Like it's possible to be pro-database but anti-Oracle. And if the Oracle guys called you anti-database it would be very transparent bullshit. Doubly so if they wrapped it in "databases are going to save the poor" rhetoric.
Most farmers don't save seed for replanting anymore even if they're non GMO, especially if they want to be economically competitive. The $50-150/acre that seeds cost are a small fraction of the benefit of using F1 hybrid seeds due to hybrid vigor - the plants they produce have a higher yield that more than makes up for it, on the order of 15-50% higher depending on variety.
The seeds they get from a manufacturer also mature more consistently and uniformly, they do a much better job of cleaning and protecting the seed (e.g. fungicide), and usually end up costing less than doing it yourself because of the labor involved in preparing the seed for storage.
If it's economically advantageous to buy the seeds anyway then why do the manufacturers legally prohibit the farmers to save the seeds? Wouldn't the farmers naturally pick the option that yields them the most profit?
It allows them to maximize the value they extract from the whole enterprise and defend their competitive advantage. In short: greed and fear.
The long answer is more complicated. For example corn, soybeans, and wheat aren’t generally planted as F1 hybrids so farmers can (and do) save seed so the manufacturers walk this tight rope between crops where it really matters and ones where they don’t, but have to defend their whole system regardless.
Because that'd be unmanageable.. obviously a local "seed cleaning/prep" company (such at the one providing nonGMO seed) would just come around and undercut the company that developed the GMO seed. The farmers will just claim they're reusing their seed
I’m fairly sure that farmers often buy seeds rather than harvesting them. There are lots of reasons for this but essentially growing seeds and growing produce is just quite different. I don’t think it’s the dramatic shift you’re making it out to be.
My grandfather in the US Midwest in the 1950s farmed specifically to harvest seeds for planting which he then sold to his regional neighbors via distributors. I don't know the specifics, but I understand that even back then the farming practices were sufficiently different that the specialization was warranted.
It depends on the crop. With cereals, the seed is the product, and you could divert a part of production to next year's planting. With other crops, harvest may happen before seeds mature and may require special processing to extract them for the seed producers.
If you are planting hybrid seeds you would never save seeds because their children don't yield well. Hybrid yields so much better that it isn't worth planting anything else if you have the option.
>With cereals, the seed is the product, and you could divert a part of production to next year's planting.
Theoretically, but generally that doesn't happen because you want hybrid seeds that need to be grown every year to get the traits you want, you don't want to plant the seeds you harvested from the hybrid plants.
You do understand that your requirement effectively cuts out many modern non-GMO seeds?
One of the big advancements in the turn of the 20th century was heterosis, or the systematic exploitation of hybrid vigor. If you maintain two (or more) extremely inbred but different from each other germlines, but cross them to produce seed, you get seed that is much more heterozygotic than is naturally common. This seed is then dramatically more viable and productive. But if you replant what it yields, you only get very disappointing yield.
That is, it has been normal for farmers to buy new seed each season from some provider that specializes in making very productive seed for more than a hundred years now. Part of getting developing countries to raise their agricultural productivity to modern standards is getting them to start doing this, instead of continuously replanting their old seeds.
I think having terminator genes in seeds is a reasonable safeguard against leaking lots of novel genes into the environment above and beyond what crops from across the planet already would leak. I think this is a benefit that people too quickly dismiss. Seed saving as others have pointed out is already increasingly rare for many crops.
>I'm a believer in taking advantage of GM crops but also believe that some kind of regulation should be put in place to ensure that those crops yield seeds that can be used to plant future generations.
That's not a GMO issue, that's a hybrid issue that applies to pretty much all modern seeds. Unless you're specifically worried about so-called terminator seeds, a common boogeyman discussed by organic farming proponents, but those have never been on the market and there is basically a worldwide ban on them.
To this day nobody in the agritech industry touting expensive super seeds and synthetics has figured out how to sustainably sell their products to developing countries.
Agriculture is the primary industry in most developing nations. The value proposition of agritech is "give us your money and we'll give you food". Meanwhile the people in developed countries need a way to turn what they already produce into money. The objectives are diametrically opposed.
How exactly is an agricultural society that primarily produces crops to feed itself pay for the imported goods which were the source of their money in the past? What I'm trying to get at here is the fact that a domestic farmer has to export their crops to earn money for the imported inputs. You need more land to feed the same quantity of people, because only a portion of the land will be farmed for domestic consumption.
The business model just fundamentally doesn't make much sense, because it makes the underlying assumption that these people are already busy doing more important things than farming that earn them enough money to buy seeds, so buying the more productive seeds means they are less busy farming and spend more time earning money.
From a practical standpoint that is difficult to do. E.g. many crops are hybrid species taking advantage of hybrid vigor (1). If the hybrid is fertile at all will be quite variable in phenotypes.
> I'm a believer in taking advantage of GM crops but also believe that some kind of regulation should be put in place to ensure that those crops yield seeds that can be used to plant future generations.
This hasn't been that useful for quite a while. Most modern crops are hybrids that rapidly degrade if they are just replanted year after year.
Apple trees are weird. You can take a seed from an apple tree in your yard and grow apples that taste disgusting. One of the apples from that disgusting tree might make apples that taste absolutely heavenly. You can't just grow an apple tree from seed and expect anything other than an apple only fit for making alcohol. Johnny Appleseed was keeping folks drunk, not healthy.
Hybrids sometimes produce no seeds or seeds that won't grow the same thing. Sometimes this is desirable - seedless watermelons, for example. Or having a plant that grows better in your region at the cost of having to buy seeds (which you were likely to do in modern times regardless).
I get your point, but this isn't really a problem that's special to GMOs in particular. It is a problem now, and it isn't always that horrible of one. We can support farmers better now and prevent some of it now.
On the other hand fertile GMOs will sooner or later mix into the surrounding nature, compete with local plants and undergo "normal" evolution. This might be undesirable.
Another consideration is that optimizing one or two features like yield or resistance in plants often affects other areas negatively like adaptability or fertiliy. Making fertile GMOs with the same yield is probably harder than making infertile ones.
But at the very least it should not be possible to patent or copyright DNA or any other parts of living organisms, what an utterly horrible idea.
Is natural breeding better with just randomly flipping genes with help of radiation or whatever they use to get a bunch of genes to flip? At least with GMO, you know the outcomes of the DNA instead of rolling dice over and over.
GMO is just more precision and regular breeding can do the same given enough time. It’s just DNA code end of the day.
Personally I think genetics and evolution are highly fascinating topics and we should do much more research.
I'd love to have some glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants in my yard. Why not?!
But realistically there is just too much irrational public resentment.
> but also believe that some kind of regulation should be put in place to ensure that those crops yield seeds that can be used to plant future generations.
Did you mistype? I think in general it should be 100% illegal with guaranteed jail time to to make any non sterile otherwise we are just going to create our own invasive species.
> In general, a higher democracy index correlates with greater GM acceptance, although large differences exist between individual nations.5 South America contains both pro-GM and GM-skeptical nations. When comparing the two using the Democracy Index, however, the pro-GM countries have a consistently higher Democracy Index (6.8) than those that ban GM (4.4). Similarly, the mean Democracy Index for Sub-Saharan African countries that cultivate or are currently legislating towards GM crop cultivation (4.7) is higher than those that ban it (3.5).
> This suggests that fostering democratic accountability is not simply a political good in itself, but also a precursor for enabling science-based agriculture. For countries looking to promote GM, the priority may not be exporting “democracy” wholesale, but supporting governments in building credibility, transparency, and public trust — the very conditions under which new technologies can take root.
This makes this piece sound like a political propaganda post. There is no concrete causal mechanism posited here, just vague assertions. Two seconds of thought would reveal that all non-democratic countries have adopted technologies of all sorts. And people in those countries use technologies extensively in daily life.
I would assume it is easier for corporations to spread bribes around in a decentralized decision making system like representative democracy, than it is in centralized authoritarian systems.
> I would assume it is easier for corporations to spread bribes around in a decentralized decision making system like representative democracy, than it is in centralized authoritarian systems.
I would assume the opposite. The more authoritarian the country, the fewer people who need to be bribed to get what you want, generally speaking (placing things like lobbying under the umbrella of bribes).
Is there not a confounding factor at play that a more functional government would facilitate both more democracy and more legislation on newer technology? Is this notion that "it might be nice to help your target market have a generally working government to facilitate them being willing to divert money towards non-corruption goals and able to protect your market with laws" really that new?
(Here the model would be that democracy is something that countries develop once they have some OK government systems, not that democracy in itself makes those systems better, but it works with the causation the other way too)
I agree: at first glance it is a very flimsy argument -- made by an organization whose entire purpose seems to be to advocate for what they consider to be technological progress specifically in the biological domain.
They've allowed for a huge expansion of the use of herbicide but drastically reduced the use of insecticide. I'd much rather have the former than the later.
Before you reply remember random mutation is common - normal in nature. what is the difference between a random mutation and one a scientist comes up with. So far the only one I've found is random mutation isn't studied for safety.
From my perspective, this is a slightly naive opinion. I believe we're not fighting against GMOs because "mutations are bad". When activists point that out, it's because it's the easiest way to reach the general population and convince them to get behind the cause.
The real reason, however, are the political and economical implications of GMOs. Sure, they say they'll use them to fight famine. But in reality, they'll just try to extract as much profit as they can, regardless of the interests of the people growing the plants and eating the food. We've seen farmers get sued (see Bowman v Monsanto) and other evil stuff like that.
Bowman v Monsanto deserved to be sued and lose in court. By citing that case you prove you have not dug into the details and don't understand what you are talking about.
I don't understand why you are fighting against GMO. Not all GMO is done by corporations. Golden rice for example was not done by a big corporation.
One common drawback of GM crops is the monopolistic nature of their seeds. They come with a license and a cost to use, you cannot save seeds and use them later. So it seems like a threat to the sovereignty of a Country.
The article briefly mentions that initially some seeds are given with royalty free licenses, but for how long?
Re 2: on this software engineering forum, the following example will help.
If you have core dependency goes rogue, and you have to switch to an alternate library with similar features, is that a free switch? Think of how many thousands of hours of work are often needed? How many businesses have gone under because of such issues?
Growing a particular variety requires a lot of knowledge gained by each individual farmer from experience. You can't just go back to an old variety for free. It may take several years for yields to go back to previous levels and by then the farmer may have gone under.
Farmers change seeds all the time. One I know tells me that a great variety will terrible in 3 more years, though I'm not clear why. In any case they all are planting several varities ever year - four different ones in a field isn't uncommon - with harvest data to track the difference (different soils need different seeds). Test plots where they do many different side by side are somewhat common. they are always trying different options to see what works to do more. Plus predictions on weather mean different seeds.
Ok but going back to the library analogy, GMO bans are like the government banning react.js because they're convinced angularjs (or jquery) is good enough and facebook might go rogue. Shouldn't it be up to individual farmers to decide?
Why not? First, the safety reason: random mutations (and selective breeding) are to genetic engineering as a pedestrian is to a 747 jet. The range of possibilities and the speed at which they can be realized is far greater with genetic engineering.
But, supposing there are rigorous tests and only well understood, small alterations are permitted, there is the second reason: economics. E.g. what will a country do when a GMO seed company starts taking over farms?
Like store-brand products in supermarkets, such company farms have a competitive advantage in that they can get seeds cheaper, so it could happen they slowly take over all farming. And even independent farms would be in the precarious position of depending on a small handful of global companies for their seeds. If they don't comply with the demands of these seed companies, they'd go out of business, unable to compete. Yes there are seed companies already, but the barrier to entry, degree of consolidation, and advantage gained by doing business with them, is less than when you need genetic engineering to stay in the race, so the risk of such sovereignty-wrecking monopolies is much greater with GM seeds.
And third, the health reason (distinct from safety). When companies are allowed to engineer food as they want, we get Snickers bars and Coca Cola. Do we want to unleash these same corporate practices on plants themselves? Why do we believe business pressures will get us only things like drought-resistant and vitamin-enriched rice, and not some rice variant that sacrifices nutrients to increase yield or taste? Currently, the healthiest foods are those with the least corporate engineering. What reason is there to believe this will change with GMOs?
> The range of possibilities and the speed at which they can be realized is far greater with genetic engineering.
This is 100% false. Random genetic change happens often across the billions of seeds planted every year. GMO is a much much smaller amount of change that targets a very tiny section of DNA.
> what will a country do when a GMO seed company starts taking over farms?
That is unrelated to GMO. Seed companies existed for many decades before GMO. There is a reason they have not taken over: the economics of running a large farm do not pay - they still need employees at each farm to learn the field and make decision on what works - soil is not 100% uniform and often farmers plant different seeds in the same field (that is 4 different corn seeds depending on the soil- the low areas get a variety that handles wet conditions better, while the high areas need to handle drought. Then there is the sand/clay mix... And that is a very high level overview, you can get a phd in soil if you want details). Someone needs to make decisions about what fertilizer to use. Someone needs to take the risk of good/bad weather, tariffs, and all the other things farmers do. There is a lot of value to seed companies in not having to worry about that.
> Like store-brand products in supermarkets, such company farms have a competitive advantage in that they can get seeds cheaper, so it could happen they slowly take over all farming.
This is a competitive disadvantage. A seed company doesn't make the best seed for all situations, so if they end up with a farm where their competitors seeds are better they are losing value putting their own seeds in their fields - seeds that they cannot then sell to a different field where they would do better. Remember from above planting 4 different seeds in a field is not uncommon - 1 of those might be from a different company.
> Yet in all the billions of mice born every year, not one was born luminescent
That is random chance. There is no reason to think it won't happen next year. A statistician can calculate the odds - but remember that the odds are the same for every other random mutation - yet many of them happen. (many many more will not)
Regardless of potential bribes to politicians, its easy to look at the increased yields from GMO foods as a benefit for a country where ~20% of the population are undernourished
It is an artificial dichotomy tbh. When you say GMO foods, you usually refer to foods that have been introduced to populations across the globe in environments they are not suitable to be grown in. Yes GMO rice will probably grow better and feed more people in drought prone regions of India, but so would the indigenous millets that were replaced by rice. They require less water (and fertilizers and pesticides that GMOs require), are more resilient to climate events and more suitable to local climate. Not saying GMO foods are A solution, just that they aren’t the ONLY solution if the goal was to feed enough people.
Behavior follows costs. There is probably some stumbling block regarding millets. That being said, seed companies are very interested in land races, do not be mistaken. They are a good source of phenotypic variation and potential traits that might be favorable to introduce into the elite cultivars.
Did you read the article? I think this case study shows why gm is likely to be key to avoiding mass starvation as climate change becomes a bigger issue.
I'm a believer in taking advantage of GM crops but also believe that some kind of regulation should be put in place to ensure that those crops yield seeds that can be used to plant future generations.
If these crops are designed to require you to buy from a producing company each year, that just seems so fundamentally artificial and going against the grain of all of our agricultural history. And I can see how much of a slippery slope it can represent... ayou read about farmer suicides in India related to this topic. I bring this up because the fact that none of this is discussed in the article makes me fear it's got a profit agenda.
I feel like this kind of discussion hinges on a misguided belief that farmers are not very smart businessmen. The idea that a farmer would abandon their current crop for GMO crop that they cannot replant without making a cost-benefit analysis in their head just strikes me as very odd. These peoples life depend on making such decisions, we should trust them to make them themselves.
In a multi-agent dynamic system, the optimal actions by each individual agents (based on whatever cost-benefit analysis they do) can evolve the system into a state where every agent is worse off compared to some initial state. This holds even if every individual agent is a "smart businessperson".
One main purpose of law and social rules is to prevent multi-agent systems from getting stuck into these global non-optimal states. And arguing that agents are smart is not a counter-argument to this.
Great point.
As an extreme example, I'd add -- in some cases, because of market conditions (and perhaps the legal climate as well), within a given financial year a farmer may be forced to choose between purchasing GMO seeds and having to sell the farm, especially if the farm already used licensed GMO seeds in a prior year.
But as you pointed out, without legal and regulatory guardrails, the system at large can become badly suboptimal long before compromise-or-die dichotomies arise.
This is true in the abstract but I don’t see how it applies to this specific case. There are two agents here and the GMO plants will only be planted if planting them is the optimal choice for both.
If you are a farmer who has the choice of planting more productive plants or not, if you do not, you will be at a disadvantage and eventually will be outcompeted in the market if you don't "defect". Planting the GMO is the optimal choice if you want to survive in the short term, even if you can see disaster looming in the long term despite sweet supplier promises.
Once everyone is using the proprietary seeds, the price magically goes up and the farmers have less money than they had before, but the biotech company now gets a cut of every grain of wheat which has to increase year on year (growth!). This isn't the only negative outcome you could imagine.
A classic multipolar trap for the farmers because they all made an entirely rational decision at every stage and yet they all ended up worse off in the end. And a trap agrotech will be extremely happy to coax farmers into.
For their part, if they don't do it, a less scrupulous company would and so they need to do it or get outcompeted - not only must they grow, they just grow faster than the competition to survive long term. And so they are also a trap of their own where they could end up in a strongly negative situation (angry mobs after their blood, say) despite making what was both an optimal and necessary decision at every step.
Which is not to say you can't or even shouldn't use biotech to increase crop yield. It's just that you can't rely on people making rational choices for themselves to produce long-term overall good outcomes.
> Once everyone is using the proprietary seeds, the price magically goes up and the farmers have less money than they had before, but the biotech company now gets a cut of every grain of wheat which has to increase year on year (growth!). This isn't the only negative outcome you could imagine.
How does that make any sense? They can always switch back to the non-GMO crops. Short of original seed somehow disappearing.. it seems the farmer can make the decision to switch back at any time. The GMO company has no mote to coerce people to keep using their product. They only use it as long as it provides higher profits.
You'd have to get very create to imagine scenarios where this breaks down. Like the local climate changes and the original seed is no longer viable, and they have a ton of agricultural equipment for this one particular crop type.
This also has the premise that the farmers are somehow stupid and don't realize seed prices can change year to year
>> If you are a farmer who has the choice of planting more productive plants or not, if you do not, you will be at a disadvantage and eventually will be outcompeted in the market if you don't "defect".
More productive crops = more competitive = higher chance of market survival.
It's not about the crops per se. It's about surviving in a market that is ruthlessly cruel to anybody who doesn't subscribe to "line go up" dogma, and who isn't cutthroat in every advantage they can eke out or margin they can widen.
i dont understand what the dogma is... yes, it may become economically infeasable to grow nonGMO plants. What's the problem?
if the seed price is increased then either it will become feasible again, or the price of the crop will increase
but this is just extremely basic capitalist market forces... has no relation to GMO. The end result is cheaper food for everyone
My immediate concern is the loss of overall biodiversity and specific genetic lines.
I'm not a large-scale farmer, but I've spent more than my share of hours in the cab of a tractor. It's already very difficult to find seeds for "heritage varieties" of many crops.
For example - for the past several years, I've grown a small patch of "Little Dutch". It's a tobacco variety that was popular in the 19th Century, but fell out of favor. To my knowledge it is not currently grown commercially at all. The only reason there are seeds available is because someone collected it from a farm in Ohio at some point.
In this example, seeds can be ordered without too much hassle... but there are relatively few vendors selling them, and I'd say it's still at moderate risk of being lost. There's a small but active hobby community around growing esoteric tobacco varieties, but that's not the case for most food crops. I wouldn't even know where to begin to even determine what varieties were grown in my area fifty years ago, much less where to obtain seeds.
In fact, this conversation has prompted me to go acquire some sorghum from someone I know that has been planting a couple of acres and processing it themselves for at least the past 50 years. They're getting older, their kids aren't interested in agriculture, and I seriously doubt they could even tell me what variety they're growing. It wouldn't surprise me if they've not purchased seed in generations. When they pass, that line will likely be gone forever if someone doesn't intentionally preserve it.
What prevents a farmer from simply switching back to the non-GMO seeds if the GMO option goes up in price? Or even ignoring that, switching to a different cheaper GMO seed from a different company?
I think that's the piece I and others are missing, isn't it ultimately a question of which seeds will make the farmer the most money? If a particular GMO seed suddenly become so expensive that either non-GMO or other GMO seeds are more cost-effective, why can't they just start using them instead?
Not really - if the market price for a crop is such that it depends on the greater volume which can be produced by GMO seeds, switching to non-GMO seeds becomes uneconomic.
Let's say GMO crops gives you a grain yield of 1-ton/acre and that non-GMO crops gives you a yield of 0.5-ton/acre. Now the market price is say set at $100/ton. This cuts down their earnings by half in the best case, all other inputs remaining the same.
Now if the GMO-seeds are controlled by a foreign entity, your entire agri output becomes dependent on that foreign entity not behaving badly. Whichever nation that controls the entity who owns the GMO-seed now has leverage over you.
So no, it isn't as simple as "switch back to using non-GMO seeds". This has to be carefully considered before adopting GMO-seeds.
It's just that you can't rely on people making rational choices for themselves to produce long-term overall good outcomes.
Yet most of the world relies on such a system and it’s produced the highest advancement of any system.
The tale you weaved is clearly an edge case of a monopoly. That’s not the situation we have.
And you’re ignoring the fact that farmers will be aware that they are purchasing from a monopoly and that can help weight their decision.
> Yet most of the world relies on such a system and it’s produced the highest advancement of any system.
Nah this is a simplification at best. Countries have regulation and laws, none rely only on free markets. GMO is great but it needs governance
Why does GMO need governance, vs. (say) hybrid non-GMO seeds?
All these arguments smack of badly functioning rationalizations for basically irrational prejudice against GMOs.
Food security in general does need governance and this does includes vulnerability to price fixing of non-GMO seeds and agricultural chemicals as well as safety.
It also includes vigilance against such things as agricultural equipment with expensive repair lockouts, antibiotic overuse, soil degradation, deforestation and poor disease control.
The original assertion was that rational self-interested agents would naturally find and migrate to optimum global outcomes for everyone. Not only is this not true in the abstract game theoretic sense, but it's especially not true when many of the agents are independent developing world smallholders and some are multibillion agritech transnationals.
So it has nothing to do with GMOs specifically.
Correct. It's continuing the general observation first made here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45725408) that doesn't specifically mention GMO at all and a disagreement with the premise of the reply to that here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45725551).
Obviously the argument is using GMO as the subject due to the context of the article, but you can have the exact same argument about powerful companies angling for capture of slices of many industries and even parts of the general human experience in many places where you can say "well if it wasn't going to be good for the farmers/taxi drivers/warehouse workers/software engineers/people looking for a date/restaurant chefs/whoever, they're not stupid and wouldn't agree to it".
The agents are numerous, as pointed out by sibling comment.
The farmer agents only make decisions based on personal profitability. The overall system after some years can evolve to a state where some of the following are true:
- the GMO seed maker acquires a monopoly over certain types of seeds, which enables it to reduce farmer profits to below what they were when they were planting non-GMO seeds.
- the country's food supply becomes dependent on foreign countries/corporations, which can cause severe problems at international negotiating tables.
- the GMO crop has long term health impacts, say after 20 years of use. When these are discovered, it is no longer possible to go back to non-GMO because the infrastructure required for non-GMO crops is not easily reconstructable (for instance a country might reduce its pesticide production significantly once enough farmers have switched to GMO). Similarly, farmers have living knowledge about how to grow certain crop varieties learned by long experience. non-GMO and GMO varieties require different techniques, and non-GMO techniques may be forgotten, making it infeasible to switch back to non-GMO.
Decisions to prevent these outcomes can only occur at the government/regulatory level, and may possibly be "GMO are banned".
I don't think you can arbitrarily leave out all the other parties in the agricultural system: the bank, who the farmer may need to borrow from to buy seed, the politicians, who may or may not accept money from the companies producing GMO seeds to produce favourable legislation, the public, who may vote with their wallets when purchasing the resulting crops, and so on...
Moloch: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
If your neighbor planted a GMO crop in their field, and then sprayed them with the compatible chemicals, two things might happen:
1. The chemicals are carried by the wind onto your crop field, killing your non-GMO crops
2. The seeds from the GMO crop spread into your field, and corporate hired goons show up at your door threatening you with a lawsuit. Or maybe if your neighbor doesn't like you, they spread some GMO seed in your field, then report you to the company.
This led to neighbor versus neighbor conflicts in ag communities, in some cases turning violent.
https://youtu.be/CxVXvFOPIyQ?t=1567
1 - farmers watch the wind and won't spray when drift is an issue. the epa requires this in the us and they look at drift before approving spray
2 - this has only happened when someone sprays their crop thus killing anything that isn't gmo and bringing the patents into the field. if you don't take advantage of the trait the corporate people don't care.
though many of the more useful traits are off patent now and so they won't care anyway
> farmers watch the wind and won't spray when drift is an issue
Do they really? Never seem my neighbours being particularly picky about wind conditions.
> the epa requires this in the us and they look at drift before approving spray
Putting aside the current grave gutting of the agency in question, do they really inspect each usage on a regular basis or is it a pinky promise?
> this has only happened when someone sprays their crop thus killing anything that isn't gmo
That's a primary problem which is already happening as linked previously in the discussion, it essentially forces a mono-supplier and a mono-culture.
We have a small-ish farm in Oregon. We religiously watch the wind before spraying for two reasons:
1) Chemicals are extremely expensive and chemicals that drift off the field are wasted, not to mention that in high winds you can't be confident in good coverage (unless you just dramatically increase your spray amount, which, see again re: cost). 2) Despite our extreme care, we have had regulatory bodies called on us by neighbours about drift (investigation exonerated us).
Thus we have both an internal, selfish reason to not spray during high wands and an external reason to not spray during high winds. I can't speak to other areas of the country (let alone the world) or other kinds of farming.
It doesn't force a mono-supplier, since existing seeds are not suddenly made unavailable when new seeds are brought to market.
It has on multiple occasions as linked elsewhere in this discussion, made usage of anything other than a specific vendor's strain unusable. That is a textbook type 1.B. mono-supplier condition.
Yeah, I call bullshit on that claim. The only way something like this could become required would be if it's so much more performant that farmers would have no choice. But that would mean it's creating so much extra value the farmers still come out ahead. How is this a bad thing? In no scenario is it possible for the introduction of a new variety to force farmers to make a decision that leaves them worse off than some other decision they could make.
It's been mentioned about a dozen times already, you should have read it already. Again: It is the _combination_ of a custom crop and pest/herbicides which has a clear tendency to contaminate nearby farms, making the only viable crop the custom crop which has been engineered to withstand that specific treatment.
The contamination issue was also a ridiculous red herring.
So, no, you don't have any real argument here. It's all the usual rationalization of irrational GMO hatred.
OH MY GOD! Today I learned that I, who generally like GMO, is actually exhibiting "irrational GMO hatred" when I don't even argue against the usage of GMO, but instead argue against the problematic usage of herbicide and pesticide which has externalities which are not properly accounted for and guarded against! You have also convinced me that facts and studies on the subject matters not, and that your, let me count them, zero sources, are better!
Do you have any other wisdom to spare from below the bridge?
>Do they really? Never seem my neighbours being particularly picky about wind conditions.
You really think they don't consider how to effectively apply the expensive chemicals that increase their profits by a ton?
You made me looking back at historical wind patterns in my county and last year they sprayed it was 12m/s SSW (Beaufort 6) the day I remember they sprayed.
This (2) case is, I think, mostly (maybe entirely) false. In every case I've read where this was claimed, the actual fact pattern was that the "victim" farmer wound up with unlicensed herbicide/pesticide-resistant crops that they then sprayed with herbicide or pesticide. If you plant unlicensed Roundup-Ready seeds and then spray the crop with Roundup, you know what you were doing.
> If you plant unlicensed Roundup-Ready seeds and then spray the crop with Roundup, you know what you were doing.
... or you're trying to exterminate an errant plant, only to end up with it being the only thing remaining in the field.
That's a thing that can happen, but there's no evidence that anybody has been sued for it. The cases where people have been sued, the record is pretty extensive that they knowingly used the whole system, not just the seeds.
>1. The chemicals are carried by the wind onto your crop field, killing your non-GMO crops
That sounds like it should be handled by tort law rather than GMO laws. Even without GMOs you'll have issues like this, for instance conventional fields polluting organic fields, or herbicides that work for one type of plant but not another.
Valid points but this seems more simple to address using regulation rather than removing the seed patents (which are essential to some degree to make this whole process worthwhile for manufacturers). The argument is that without seed patents most of the genuine advancements would not be worth pursuing.
What regulation would you propose to fix either of these issues?
Case 2 I suspect could be addressed by a law granting some level of immunity for simply having GMO plants in a field. But how do you fix Case 1 with laws? These are effects of biology and physics.
If a factory pours poison into a farmers water source they can already sue, I cannot imagine it would be significantly harder to enable similar regulation for fertilizers and pesticides.
Yes, that very famously worked for PFAS poisoned waters by DuPont in the US.
It's still ongoing and we're 24 years later.
The legal costs would bankrupt most non-corporate farms. (In fact that's what happened - as explained in the link in that comment, many farmers had to settle even if they believed themselves innocent.)
A lawsuit is rarely a good remedy to a problem, between legal costs, the time delay to any rewards, and the overloaded court system strongly encouraging people to settle out of court.
Monsanto has already made legally binding declarations that they will never sue for "simply having GMO plants in a field" or "accidentally growing trace amounts of patented crops" which have been affirmatively held as legally binding [1].
The cases you are referencing are cases where the farmer discovers trace contamination of their field, then deliberately sprays Roundup to kill all non-GMO crops, then deliberately harvest seed from the survivors, then deliberately create a GMO section of their farm where they repeatedly plant and harvest to concentrate seed production until they have multiple thousands of acres of GMO crops they derived from the trace contamination [2].
Or cases where they signed a agreement to not replant their GMO soybeans, so they sold those GMO soybeans to a facility which sells to consumers for consumption, then turned around and rebought from that same facility the GMO soybeans they just sold so they could replant them [3] claiming that the sale to a third party meant they were not "replanting" the soybeans they just produced since they just oopsie-whoopsie bought them from someone not bound by the agreement.
If you actually look into it, most of the cases that people imagine were really bad or evidence of Monsanto screwing farmers are actually examples of ridiculously slimy farmers. That is not to say that Monsanto is a saint as they almost surely are hiding evidence of Roundup toxicity and you should be generally distrusting that large corporations are value-aligned with regular people, but specifically in the cases of Monsanto versus farmers, the farmers are almost always hiding how absolutely slimy they are actually being.
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/06/12/190977225/co...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.
The idea that a farmer can ever be sued for saving seeds is horrific, no matter what corporate pr speak you dress it up in
Why is that horrific? Is it because some farmers are smaller operations and have less bargaining power? What about a large farming conglomerate, e.g. Cargill? What in particular is bad about this contract, and makes it different from other contracts?
Is it horrific to be sued for modifying and selling software with a removed GPLv3 notice?
this is still based on the idea that farmers are bad businessmen, and couldnt find the seed innovation because it would result in better crops.
if the advancement is genuinely worthwhile, farmers are going to make it happen
The whole point of the G in GMO is that you don’t get these plants by the usual technique of selecting good strains produced by natural gene variance.
> 1. The chemicals are carried by the wind onto your crop field, killing your non-GMO crops
Have you ever been on a farm?
> 2. The seeds from the GMO crop spread into your field, and corporate hired goons show up at your door threatening you with a lawsuit.
Sorry, but this video is just pure post-truth bullshit. I unsubscribed from Veritassium because of this video, and I was a paying Patreon subscriber.
Monsanto has NEVER sued anyone for accidental contamination. Moreover, they will buy out your contaminated crops at higher-than-market prices.
They sued farmers that specifically and intentionally, over several years, bred resistant crops by using GMO genes from neighboring fields or by replanting the previous years' crop.
> This led to neighbor versus neighbor conflicts in ag communities, in some cases turning violent.
Can you cite any examples? Go on, fire up Kagi and search.
Monsanto Derangement Syndrome got Veritasium? Geez...
Point 1 isn't a "might happen", it's a "will happen"
> I feel like this kind of discussion hinges on a misguided belief that farmers are not very smart businessmen.
I feel like assuming that the farmers are competent businessmen capable of understanding the ups and downs of GMOs is in disagreement with reality and mostly used to drive "free marketeering / deregulation" agendas.
It's the same argument they make for why we don't need food safety rules. Intelligent and rational people will be able to work out that the cheap carcinogenic additive is bad and therefore won't buy it and the company will do better and it's just fine. Right? Right? If they don't they're probably too stupid and probably poor and only have themselves to blame. It's just business.
Never mind that the the exact same kind of people are simultaneous lobbying for the elimination of (quote) "unjustified trade restrictions or commercial requirements, such as labeling, that affect new technologies, including biotechnology" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/4201)
Many businesses are not thinking long term. Farming businesses are businesses too, and may prefer short term profitability over long term sustainability.
See for example the depletion of the Ogallala aquifer, which is at the same time an existential threat to to farming and caused by farming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer
This is a tragedy of the commons and not comparable to a singular farmer making a singular decision about what to plant on his field.
Imagine if hypothetically a supplier offered very competitive - maybe even loss-making - prices when they had 25% of the market; then once they had 90% of the market and most of their competitors had gone out of business, they planned to raise prices substantially, make back the loss, and produce a big profit.
Isn't each customer's decision to buy (or not buy) from the loss-making supplier a tragedy-of-the-commons situation?
I struggle for an example of that actually working. If it does it must be exceedingly rare. I can think of lots of example of having 25% of the market and then getting closer to the majority by cutting prices, but the part where they jack them back up usually doesn't work. For instance, Rockefeller did that to put his competition out of business, but then the price of Kerosene just kept going down.
The times where it actually worked (railroad) was because the people doing it convinced the government afterwards to "protect the market" (interstate commerce act) and created a violence enforced cartel that prohibited by law rebates and other methods by which cartels (and pre-ICA railroad cartels) commonly fall apart.
Once mosanto has 90% of the market and they jack up their prices. Farmers can go back to growing non-GMO seeds and not using round up to weed.
Another hilarious thing about the argument is that Roundup, and also the gene package involved in Roundup Ready plants, are now in the public domain. The patents are expired.
There's nothing preventing a country from just ignoring patents, too. That pretty much happened in India with Bt cotton, engineered to express an insecticidal protein. Gray market seeds with the trait became widely available there and the foreign patent holders judged it not worthwhile to try to prosecute. This was all very good news for Indian cotton farmers, especially considering the personal cost to them of exposure to the pesticides they'd otherwise have to have used.
Imagine if Monsanto just murdered every farmer that didn't use their seeds.
Both are equally legal.
I can’t think of a more complete “Jack of all trades” than the modern farmer.
It's not just a question of intelligence or education, but also power.
The free market does not always produce good outcomes, hence the need for regulation.
depends on which farmers youre talking about. In much of the world, they're smallholder subsistence farmers with little to no education, and are often at the mercy of middlemen who steal a significant proportion of their (meager, due to not much land that they dont really know how to take care of/take advantage of) crops' value.
The problem is that even with the seed rent-seeking, GMO crops are more productive and more profitable.
The farmer still makes just enough money, with some corporate middleman skimming off the top for no good reason. It's not that the fees are untenable- obviously nobody will buy it if they can't make a profit. The problem is the corporate rent-seeking. Producers have to raise costs which percolates up into increased costs for consumers.
How are the food costs raising if GMO crops are more productive? Shouldn't this increase supply and lower prices?
> How are the food costs raising if GMO crops are more productive?
The farmer cries we've been hearing in the news over the last few months may be a little overblown, but they certainly aren't coming from a place where food costs are rising...
> Shouldn't this increase supply and lower prices?
Not necessarily. Prices are determined by supply _and demand_.
What would stop them from jacking up prices when they have monopoly? It's not like we haven't seen this scenario before..
Isn't this an argument against literally any technological advance?
Are they? Farmers in the US just went a full month without selling a single soy bean to China. The last time it happened was seven years ago. Guess who was president both times it happened. Guess who farmers overwhelmingly voted for? They regularly vote against their own business interests. Perhaps farmers in Nigeria are better educated.
The entire reason almost every modern country massively subsidizes and manages the staple food crops of their agricultural economy is that letting them rationally act in their best interests kept causing famines when farmers did dumb things, like cause the dust bowl.
Central management of food supplies has been an essential part of societal stability since ancient times, and the USSR using "industrialization" and "centralization" of farming as an excuse to kill a bunch of "kulaks" does not undo that.
I think farmers know about the trade war that Trump will create, but they also think he will do other things to help them.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2025/10/02/tru...
I was also curious about this, so I ended up watching a documentary a local politician made where she interviewed local farmers trying to figure out why they would vote against their own best interests, and the short answer was, net, they thought additional bailouts + deregulation of farming would outweigh the potential trade war.
They do not.
Wyoming here. The farmers and ranchers are 100% convinced they’ll be bailed out.
And honestly? They probably will. ICE basically stopped enforcing around here because the farmers threw a hissy fit.
Of course they will, but losing your long term market for a short term bailout shows they don't understand the actual business ramifications of what they voted for. Great. You get a bail out. What's the long term plan when China keeps buying soybeans from other countries?
Many Indian farmers have been driven to suicide due to debt from buying GMO seeds https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-geno...
The data doesn’t support your claim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India#G...
> "A 2015 study in Environmental Sciences Europe found that farmer suicide rates in India's rainfed areas were "directly related to increases in Bt cotton adoption." Factors leading to suicide included "high costs of BT cotton" and "ecological disruption and crop loss after the introduction of Bt cotton.""
The contradicting studies were mostly produced by "International Food Policy Research Institute, an agriculture policy think tank formed to promote the adoption of innovations in agricultural technology, based in Washington, D.C." which seems like an obvious conflict of interest.
Isn't gray market Bt cotton widely used in India outside patent protection? (Or was, given patents likely expired by now.)
That's a story of a farmer in debt because he had two consecutive years of crop failure. I'd be less apt to blame the expected cost of seeds than the unexpected crop failures for his misfortune.
Do any smart business people get locked into software ecosystems?
People seem very focused on the science to the expense of the business side.
Like it's possible to be pro-database but anti-Oracle. And if the Oracle guys called you anti-database it would be very transparent bullshit. Doubly so if they wrapped it in "databases are going to save the poor" rhetoric.
Most farmers don't save seed for replanting anymore even if they're non GMO, especially if they want to be economically competitive. The $50-150/acre that seeds cost are a small fraction of the benefit of using F1 hybrid seeds due to hybrid vigor - the plants they produce have a higher yield that more than makes up for it, on the order of 15-50% higher depending on variety.
The seeds they get from a manufacturer also mature more consistently and uniformly, they do a much better job of cleaning and protecting the seed (e.g. fungicide), and usually end up costing less than doing it yourself because of the labor involved in preparing the seed for storage.
If it's economically advantageous to buy the seeds anyway then why do the manufacturers legally prohibit the farmers to save the seeds? Wouldn't the farmers naturally pick the option that yields them the most profit?
It allows them to maximize the value they extract from the whole enterprise and defend their competitive advantage. In short: greed and fear.
The long answer is more complicated. For example corn, soybeans, and wheat aren’t generally planted as F1 hybrids so farmers can (and do) save seed so the manufacturers walk this tight rope between crops where it really matters and ones where they don’t, but have to defend their whole system regardless.
Because that'd be unmanageable.. obviously a local "seed cleaning/prep" company (such at the one providing nonGMO seed) would just come around and undercut the company that developed the GMO seed. The farmers will just claim they're reusing their seed
I’m fairly sure that farmers often buy seeds rather than harvesting them. There are lots of reasons for this but essentially growing seeds and growing produce is just quite different. I don’t think it’s the dramatic shift you’re making it out to be.
My grandfather in the US Midwest in the 1950s farmed specifically to harvest seeds for planting which he then sold to his regional neighbors via distributors. I don't know the specifics, but I understand that even back then the farming practices were sufficiently different that the specialization was warranted.
It depends on the crop. With cereals, the seed is the product, and you could divert a part of production to next year's planting. With other crops, harvest may happen before seeds mature and may require special processing to extract them for the seed producers.
If you are planting hybrid seeds you would never save seeds because their children don't yield well. Hybrid yields so much better that it isn't worth planting anything else if you have the option.
>With cereals, the seed is the product, and you could divert a part of production to next year's planting.
Theoretically, but generally that doesn't happen because you want hybrid seeds that need to be grown every year to get the traits you want, you don't want to plant the seeds you harvested from the hybrid plants.
You do understand that your requirement effectively cuts out many modern non-GMO seeds?
One of the big advancements in the turn of the 20th century was heterosis, or the systematic exploitation of hybrid vigor. If you maintain two (or more) extremely inbred but different from each other germlines, but cross them to produce seed, you get seed that is much more heterozygotic than is naturally common. This seed is then dramatically more viable and productive. But if you replant what it yields, you only get very disappointing yield.
That is, it has been normal for farmers to buy new seed each season from some provider that specializes in making very productive seed for more than a hundred years now. Part of getting developing countries to raise their agricultural productivity to modern standards is getting them to start doing this, instead of continuously replanting their old seeds.
Thanks for this. I did not know
>Thanks for this. I did not know
Honestly, you weren't even informed enough to make your initial comment if you didn't know that much.
I think having terminator genes in seeds is a reasonable safeguard against leaking lots of novel genes into the environment above and beyond what crops from across the planet already would leak. I think this is a benefit that people too quickly dismiss. Seed saving as others have pointed out is already increasingly rare for many crops.
>I'm a believer in taking advantage of GM crops but also believe that some kind of regulation should be put in place to ensure that those crops yield seeds that can be used to plant future generations.
That's not a GMO issue, that's a hybrid issue that applies to pretty much all modern seeds. Unless you're specifically worried about so-called terminator seeds, a common boogeyman discussed by organic farming proponents, but those have never been on the market and there is basically a worldwide ban on them.
To this day nobody in the agritech industry touting expensive super seeds and synthetics has figured out how to sustainably sell their products to developing countries.
Agriculture is the primary industry in most developing nations. The value proposition of agritech is "give us your money and we'll give you food". Meanwhile the people in developed countries need a way to turn what they already produce into money. The objectives are diametrically opposed.
How exactly is an agricultural society that primarily produces crops to feed itself pay for the imported goods which were the source of their money in the past? What I'm trying to get at here is the fact that a domestic farmer has to export their crops to earn money for the imported inputs. You need more land to feed the same quantity of people, because only a portion of the land will be farmed for domestic consumption.
The business model just fundamentally doesn't make much sense, because it makes the underlying assumption that these people are already busy doing more important things than farming that earn them enough money to buy seeds, so buying the more productive seeds means they are less busy farming and spend more time earning money.
From a practical standpoint that is difficult to do. E.g. many crops are hybrid species taking advantage of hybrid vigor (1). If the hybrid is fertile at all will be quite variable in phenotypes.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis
> I'm a believer in taking advantage of GM crops but also believe that some kind of regulation should be put in place to ensure that those crops yield seeds that can be used to plant future generations.
This hasn't been that useful for quite a while. Most modern crops are hybrids that rapidly degrade if they are just replanted year after year.
I really dislike this logic because it centers the farmers, not the people who buy agricultural products (everybody).
"going against the grain" --- was that deliberate? ;-)
Apple trees are weird. You can take a seed from an apple tree in your yard and grow apples that taste disgusting. One of the apples from that disgusting tree might make apples that taste absolutely heavenly. You can't just grow an apple tree from seed and expect anything other than an apple only fit for making alcohol. Johnny Appleseed was keeping folks drunk, not healthy.
Hybrids sometimes produce no seeds or seeds that won't grow the same thing. Sometimes this is desirable - seedless watermelons, for example. Or having a plant that grows better in your region at the cost of having to buy seeds (which you were likely to do in modern times regardless).
I get your point, but this isn't really a problem that's special to GMOs in particular. It is a problem now, and it isn't always that horrible of one. We can support farmers better now and prevent some of it now.
On the other hand fertile GMOs will sooner or later mix into the surrounding nature, compete with local plants and undergo "normal" evolution. This might be undesirable.
Another consideration is that optimizing one or two features like yield or resistance in plants often affects other areas negatively like adaptability or fertiliy. Making fertile GMOs with the same yield is probably harder than making infertile ones.
But at the very least it should not be possible to patent or copyright DNA or any other parts of living organisms, what an utterly horrible idea.
Is natural breeding better with just randomly flipping genes with help of radiation or whatever they use to get a bunch of genes to flip? At least with GMO, you know the outcomes of the DNA instead of rolling dice over and over.
GMO is just more precision and regular breeding can do the same given enough time. It’s just DNA code end of the day.
Personally I think genetics and evolution are highly fascinating topics and we should do much more research. I'd love to have some glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants in my yard. Why not?!
But realistically there is just too much irrational public resentment.
In some cases this is desirable, like with the GMO American Chestnut with the transplanted wheat gene that makes it resistant to chestnut blight.
> read about farmer suicides in India related to this topic
The data doesn’t support this claim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India#G...
> but also believe that some kind of regulation should be put in place to ensure that those crops yield seeds that can be used to plant future generations.
Did you mistype? I think in general it should be 100% illegal with guaranteed jail time to to make any non sterile otherwise we are just going to create our own invasive species.
Farmers want sterile crops. last years seed in this years field is a weed that messes with your crop rotation plan without any upsides.
From the TFA
> In general, a higher democracy index correlates with greater GM acceptance, although large differences exist between individual nations.5 South America contains both pro-GM and GM-skeptical nations. When comparing the two using the Democracy Index, however, the pro-GM countries have a consistently higher Democracy Index (6.8) than those that ban GM (4.4). Similarly, the mean Democracy Index for Sub-Saharan African countries that cultivate or are currently legislating towards GM crop cultivation (4.7) is higher than those that ban it (3.5).
> This suggests that fostering democratic accountability is not simply a political good in itself, but also a precursor for enabling science-based agriculture. For countries looking to promote GM, the priority may not be exporting “democracy” wholesale, but supporting governments in building credibility, transparency, and public trust — the very conditions under which new technologies can take root.
This makes this piece sound like a political propaganda post. There is no concrete causal mechanism posited here, just vague assertions. Two seconds of thought would reveal that all non-democratic countries have adopted technologies of all sorts. And people in those countries use technologies extensively in daily life.
I would assume it is easier for corporations to spread bribes around in a decentralized decision making system like representative democracy, than it is in centralized authoritarian systems.
> I would assume it is easier for corporations to spread bribes around in a decentralized decision making system like representative democracy, than it is in centralized authoritarian systems.
I would assume the opposite. The more authoritarian the country, the fewer people who need to be bribed to get what you want, generally speaking (placing things like lobbying under the umbrella of bribes).
Is there not a confounding factor at play that a more functional government would facilitate both more democracy and more legislation on newer technology? Is this notion that "it might be nice to help your target market have a generally working government to facilitate them being willing to divert money towards non-corruption goals and able to protect your market with laws" really that new?
(Here the model would be that democracy is something that countries develop once they have some OK government systems, not that democracy in itself makes those systems better, but it works with the causation the other way too)
I agree: at first glance it is a very flimsy argument -- made by an organization whose entire purpose seems to be to advocate for what they consider to be technological progress specifically in the biological domain.
GMOs allowed for the huge expansion on the use of pesticides in America, since the crops are "pesticide ready".
They've allowed for a huge expansion of the use of herbicide but drastically reduced the use of insecticide. I'd much rather have the former than the later.
What do you think farmers were doing before GM crops?
The real question is why anyone would not.
Before you reply remember random mutation is common - normal in nature. what is the difference between a random mutation and one a scientist comes up with. So far the only one I've found is random mutation isn't studied for safety.
From my perspective, this is a slightly naive opinion. I believe we're not fighting against GMOs because "mutations are bad". When activists point that out, it's because it's the easiest way to reach the general population and convince them to get behind the cause.
The real reason, however, are the political and economical implications of GMOs. Sure, they say they'll use them to fight famine. But in reality, they'll just try to extract as much profit as they can, regardless of the interests of the people growing the plants and eating the food. We've seen farmers get sued (see Bowman v Monsanto) and other evil stuff like that.
Bowman v Monsanto deserved to be sued and lose in court. By citing that case you prove you have not dug into the details and don't understand what you are talking about.
I don't understand why you are fighting against GMO. Not all GMO is done by corporations. Golden rice for example was not done by a big corporation.
One common drawback of GM crops is the monopolistic nature of their seeds. They come with a license and a cost to use, you cannot save seeds and use them later. So it seems like a threat to the sovereignty of a Country.
The article briefly mentions that initially some seeds are given with royalty free licenses, but for how long?
1. as others have mentioned in a sibling thread, "saving seeds" isn't really a thing that can be done with modern crops, GMO or not.
2. If you get a productivity boost from GMO, and but then GMO company goes rogue, can't you still go back to planting regular seeds?
Re 2: on this software engineering forum, the following example will help.
If you have core dependency goes rogue, and you have to switch to an alternate library with similar features, is that a free switch? Think of how many thousands of hours of work are often needed? How many businesses have gone under because of such issues?
Growing a particular variety requires a lot of knowledge gained by each individual farmer from experience. You can't just go back to an old variety for free. It may take several years for yields to go back to previous levels and by then the farmer may have gone under.
Farmers change seeds all the time. One I know tells me that a great variety will terrible in 3 more years, though I'm not clear why. In any case they all are planting several varities ever year - four different ones in a field isn't uncommon - with harvest data to track the difference (different soils need different seeds). Test plots where they do many different side by side are somewhat common. they are always trying different options to see what works to do more. Plus predictions on weather mean different seeds.
Ok but going back to the library analogy, GMO bans are like the government banning react.js because they're convinced angularjs (or jquery) is good enough and facebook might go rogue. Shouldn't it be up to individual farmers to decide?
The difference I think, is that the libraries are open source, and you don't have to pay Facebook yearly to use React.
Countries can and do ban closed source paid products when they don't trust the provider (e.g. Huawei)
When you buy hardware that goes rogue you're forced to throw it away and install something new, which costs money for hardware and labor.
When a GMO goes rogue you can just buy a different seed the next planting season, which you were going to do anyway.
The patents are expiring. Many of the useful traits are no longer under patent.
even ignoring that things the patents were easy for golden rice to license. https://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how9_IP.php
Why not? First, the safety reason: random mutations (and selective breeding) are to genetic engineering as a pedestrian is to a 747 jet. The range of possibilities and the speed at which they can be realized is far greater with genetic engineering.
But, supposing there are rigorous tests and only well understood, small alterations are permitted, there is the second reason: economics. E.g. what will a country do when a GMO seed company starts taking over farms?
Like store-brand products in supermarkets, such company farms have a competitive advantage in that they can get seeds cheaper, so it could happen they slowly take over all farming. And even independent farms would be in the precarious position of depending on a small handful of global companies for their seeds. If they don't comply with the demands of these seed companies, they'd go out of business, unable to compete. Yes there are seed companies already, but the barrier to entry, degree of consolidation, and advantage gained by doing business with them, is less than when you need genetic engineering to stay in the race, so the risk of such sovereignty-wrecking monopolies is much greater with GM seeds.
And third, the health reason (distinct from safety). When companies are allowed to engineer food as they want, we get Snickers bars and Coca Cola. Do we want to unleash these same corporate practices on plants themselves? Why do we believe business pressures will get us only things like drought-resistant and vitamin-enriched rice, and not some rice variant that sacrifices nutrients to increase yield or taste? Currently, the healthiest foods are those with the least corporate engineering. What reason is there to believe this will change with GMOs?
> The range of possibilities and the speed at which they can be realized is far greater with genetic engineering.
This is 100% false. Random genetic change happens often across the billions of seeds planted every year. GMO is a much much smaller amount of change that targets a very tiny section of DNA.
> what will a country do when a GMO seed company starts taking over farms?
That is unrelated to GMO. Seed companies existed for many decades before GMO. There is a reason they have not taken over: the economics of running a large farm do not pay - they still need employees at each farm to learn the field and make decision on what works - soil is not 100% uniform and often farmers plant different seeds in the same field (that is 4 different corn seeds depending on the soil- the low areas get a variety that handles wet conditions better, while the high areas need to handle drought. Then there is the sand/clay mix... And that is a very high level overview, you can get a phd in soil if you want details). Someone needs to make decisions about what fertilizer to use. Someone needs to take the risk of good/bad weather, tariffs, and all the other things farmers do. There is a lot of value to seed companies in not having to worry about that.
> Like store-brand products in supermarkets, such company farms have a competitive advantage in that they can get seeds cheaper, so it could happen they slowly take over all farming.
This is a competitive disadvantage. A seed company doesn't make the best seed for all situations, so if they end up with a farm where their competitors seeds are better they are losing value putting their own seeds in their fields - seeds that they cannot then sell to a different field where they would do better. Remember from above planting 4 different seeds in a field is not uncommon - 1 of those might be from a different company.
> the health reason
Has nothing to do with GMO.
> This is 100% false. Random genetic change happens often across the billions of seeds planted every year.
Yet in all the billions of mice born every year, not one was born luminescent [1]. Peddle your lies somewhere else.
> There is a lot of value to seed companies in not having to worry about that.
Yet many companies vertically integrate, and get a competitive edge. You think soil and weather diversity is an unassailable moat?
> That is unrelated to GMO.
I explicitly explained how it is related to GMO.
> This is a competitive disadvantage. A seed company doesn't make the best seed for all situations
Can still buy from other seed companies, same as any other farmer. But they get a discount on their own seeds, unlike other farmers.
> Has nothing to do with GMO.
I explained how GMO enables it.
[1] https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2017/02/glowing-mice-sugge...
> Yet in all the billions of mice born every year, not one was born luminescent
That is random chance. There is no reason to think it won't happen next year. A statistician can calculate the odds - but remember that the odds are the same for every other random mutation - yet many of them happen. (many many more will not)
And before GMO essentially all modern strains were created by accelerating the mutation of plants via the application of x-rays.
maybe we need to ask why was Nigeria in a place to accept GMOs being pushed by the Gates Foundation ?
what are the conditions that led to that outcome ?
Because GMOs are superior
No, GMOs are hazardous and inferior
Because they are poor and you can easily bribe the politicians
Regardless of potential bribes to politicians, its easy to look at the increased yields from GMO foods as a benefit for a country where ~20% of the population are undernourished
https://www.globalhungerindex.org/nigeria.html
It is an artificial dichotomy tbh. When you say GMO foods, you usually refer to foods that have been introduced to populations across the globe in environments they are not suitable to be grown in. Yes GMO rice will probably grow better and feed more people in drought prone regions of India, but so would the indigenous millets that were replaced by rice. They require less water (and fertilizers and pesticides that GMOs require), are more resilient to climate events and more suitable to local climate. Not saying GMO foods are A solution, just that they aren’t the ONLY solution if the goal was to feed enough people.
Some additional reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10695985/#:~:text=A...
Behavior follows costs. There is probably some stumbling block regarding millets. That being said, seed companies are very interested in land races, do not be mistaken. They are a good source of phenotypic variation and potential traits that might be favorable to introduce into the elite cultivars.
You're making the fallacy that these people can afford greater quantities of more expensive food.
Did you read the article? I think this case study shows why gm is likely to be key to avoiding mass starvation as climate change becomes a bigger issue.
The government can't even make a dent into wars between farmers and livestock herders.
Any political control or statement on GMOs are largely theater. They have next to no means to prohibit it nor subsidize it.