billvon said:
I have little respect for people who oppose GMO's as a rule. They have some valid concerns (i.e. a future GMO could be hazardous, even though none have been so far) but the good done by GMO's far outweighs any potential bad.
The problems come from denying the scale or likelihood of the potential bad, and even the existing bad (such as the severity of the consequences of the damage done to glyphosate herbicide's effectiveness and Bt pesticide's effectiveness, the economic effects of de facto monopoly corporate dependency on vulnerable small scale farmers, and so forth.)
bizarrely overestimating the accomplished good - going to the extremes of entering projected or hypothetical good in the ledgers as if it had been accomplished, and accusing those toting up the downside of what's actually happening of being enemies of this wonderful good and wanting to take these wonderful benefits away,
and all the while ignoring the elephant in the room, namely the corporate agribusiness domination of the actual development, deployment, and terms of use of the actually existing GMOs, with all the attendant lying, cheating, stealing, and damaging that invariably accompanies such gold rush style booms, and a more or less complete loss of focus on the original wonderful and hypothetical benefits.
Er...we have! We used to have selective breeding, hybridization and other imprecise and limited methods of GMO and now we have more precise, selective and powerful direct GMO.
- - -
Implementing genetic instructions doesn't "use up" the plant's stores of energy
So who's sounding like unscientific anti-vaccers or climate change deniers now?
Selective breeding and hybridization are in no relevant way similar to genetic engineering, unless the engineering intentionally imitates them (as with, say, a couple but not all of the current programs to create disease resistance in American elms and American chestnut trees, entirely laudable and worthy of all the hoopla attendant). There are some older techniques - such as induced mutation - that are marginally similar in their results, but only if one ignores the exact features and potentials most at issue in a discussion of GMOs.
Yes, expressing genetic code in plant structures and behavior does use "energy" from the plant's available supply. In the case of the significant efforts required to manufacture pesticides or deal with herbicide poisoning, the cost in energy and other limited resources (nutrients, etc) can be substantial. And the research done in this area is very difficult to track down and look at - it is seldom published, often treated as proprietary corporate secrets. For some reason.
No. They were indeed effective at reducing bollworm infection. They were less effective in some places; in Indian crops (for example) they were less effective because the growing season was longer; the variant was designed for the shorter US growing season.
The promise was that they would not rapidly create resistance, that they would remain effective and cheap as was necessary to justify the conversion, that they would not do the kind of harm they did to farmers in America or India either one, that the dependency created by signing on to the corporate program specifically and explicitly would not lead to exactly the mess it did in fact lead to in India, as predicted by GMO critics, who had been dismissed as gadflies and ignorant nuisances.
billvon said:
So they introduced a new variant that was more effective.
Which didn't work either, at even greater costs of many kinds. The problem apparently was that the resistance engendered by the first variant abetted the even quicker development of resistance in the second. Plus the second one created some additional problems in the area of harmful use of other pesticides and herbicides, greater debt loads and predatory banking, etc and so forth.
billvon said:
This happens all the time, and will continue to happen. The Iphone 7 is better than the Iphone 6. That does not mean that Apple "botched up" the Iphone 6.
The food supply and landscape ecology and economic structure of an entire population is not some gizmo you can throw in the trash when it screws up, and be no worse off than a couple week's wages lost. Meanwhile, if any IPhone had crashed the way Bt cotton did in India, you wouldn't have the Apple corporation to kick around any more.
billvon said:
More importantly, there was no risk to humans.
There was not only great and obvious risk, but at least some of it happened - there was documented harm done, especially socially and economically, by the still continuing failure of Bt cotton in India. There was also high likelihood of other and various harms, undocumented, in America and India both. And more to come.
billvon said:
The usual issue that GMO opponents have is that GMO's are harmful; there was no harm done here (other than to the wallets of some farmers.)
What you casually dismiss as "the wallets of some farmers" is something you might want to check out, first.
Also: "no harm done" is an assessment one makes after, not before or in lieu of, investigation into the various areas in which harm was possible. So it's premature, to say the least, in the Indian cotton growing regions that have been dealing with GMOs.