

We Need G.M.O. Wheat - vellum
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/opinion/we-need-gmo-wheat.html

======
tomByrer
"Monsanto recently said that it had made significant progress in the
development of herbicide-tolerant wheat."

Plain English Translation:

"We want to soak the soil with even more chemicals, to harm even more people
and wildlife with various known effects that we won't admit to, & unknown
effects that we'll try to suppress to stay unknown."

I can see the argument with having lower-water consuming variants. But why not
grow one of the 100s other grains that can grow in such soils?

~~~
spikels
Plain english tanslation of comment above:

I don't care if there is a scientific consensus that GMOs are safe or if
millions of people would starve without them but I won't change my opinion
despite new information.

~~~
georgebarnett
There's a really simple solution here.

Force produce that's GMO to be labelled as such and let the consumer decide.
Many will decide they're happy to eat GMO foods and many will decide they're
not.

It should be left to an individual to make the decision themselves.

~~~
reporter
I agree. Why doesn't every organic company just label their food as GMO-free.
Then people can assume all others may have GMOs, because most do. The GMO-free
business can stand out to the customers who are needing them and thrive.

Oh wait. That is how our food is labelled at the moment. Now we can save the
millions of dollars on the cost of regulation of labeling, that could go to
say, education. Phew.

------
KaiserPro
Correction, we need good soil husbandry.

Super saturating soil with herbicide will only help western farmers, as its
_expensive,_ So is buying GMOs, as they tend to be mules (that is they do not
breed effectively and the farmer needs to buy more seed every year)

the people that really need this are the third world, and they need cheap
practical husbandry skill (rotation, water management, sympathetic planting,
soil improvment)

~~~
glenra
> GMOs, as they tend to be mules (that is they do not breed effectively and
> the farmer needs to buy more seed every year)

There's a couple of myths in there. The issue of having to buy new seed every
year isn't a GMO or not-GMO thing, it's about hybridization. Hybrid corn has
been around since 1926. Farmers plant hybrid seeds to improve their
productivity - to get crops that grow better. The seeds are a _cross_ between
specific parent strains designed to grow especially well given the local
conditions. The resulting crops aren't "mules" \- you _could_ just use their
seeds to plant the next generation if you wanted to - but if you did so you
would lose all the benefit of hybrid vigor. It'd be a dumb thing to do. (If
you want to re-use seed, buy _normal_ seed, not a custom hybrid.)

Farmers choose to buy hybrid seeds - GMO or not - because doing so is on-net
_cheaper_ than using regular seeds when one includes the value of the
resulting improved productivity - in the case of corn, you get ~30% more corn
per acre from hybrids.

[http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/corn-
info3.htm](http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/corn-info3.htm)

As for where the myth came from, it's true that some people have talked about
possibly using GMO technology to _prevent_ accidental seed reuse - there have
even been patents issued related to that idea. But as far as I know the tech
didn't work well and the idea has never resulted in any actual commercial
product - there is nobody who is today buying and planting seeds that have
been deliberately _designed_ not to allow re-seeding. It was just a scare
story that made the rounds for a while.

------
reporter
As a plant scientist, like all plant scientists, we think GMOs are safe. There
is just no credible science against this.

The point I want to bring up, which the article didn't, is wheat is an
incredibly hard organism to deal with bioinformatically, since wheat has an
incredibly complex genome owing to its polyploid nature. Therefore, making GMO
wheat will be extremely hard. So even if there is a consensus on attempting to
make GMO wheat. I pity the scientists who have to work on such a task and it
will take a LONG time.

~~~
runarberg
I'm sorry for commenting around your main point, but I have a question
regarding the safety of GMOs, since biologists are keen on declaring them
"safe".

So there are ample evidence for the safety of their consumption. But is that
the only criteria for safety? Is GMO safe for business? Are there social
risks? Is there a risk of monopoly? Is it safe for the environment? Are
butterfly spices at risk? Are less thorough plants loosing migration from
escaped GMO plants?

I'm asking since there seems to be a really anthropocentric definition of
"safety" at work here. In fact, there seems to be a really western centric
definition. Is it really safe for the food production of this world to invest
such time and money in an unsound production process, that is likely to leave
the business of food production in few hands with minimum diversity for land
use? Or is "safe to eat" enough to conclude the debate?

~~~
reporter
By safety, I am speaking of human health safety. You are absolutely right,
this whole issue is very complex. Since it is not an easy topic, labeling
something "safe" for _everything_ is something I cannot say in full
confidence.

That being said, I do think GMOs are as safer overall then most other
technologies at the moment.

Environment: We do have research on the environmental effects of disposable of
computers/electronics, plastics, cars, pesticides ect. Being scared of GMOs as
a environmental factor seems reasonable, but this should be applied to
everything. I am surprised people attack GMO for this reason, when there are
obvious other technologies that are doing some real scientifically proven
harm.

Business: Yes. I do think GMOs can be dangerous as a business, especially with
the patenting issues of a large corporation. The patent issue is the same
issue that most developers and small businesses have to battle with all the
time. So I do not really see this as a GMO specific issue either. The problem
is that the more GMOs are attacked, the harder it is for a small business to
have enough power and credibility, as a small business to even have a chance.

Social Risks: Not sure what you mean by this.

The last bit about GMOs being the best way: I totally agree. I personally
think it is not the best option. Monoculture, seems is causing some real
problems. Not to mention GMO production has a low and slow success rate,
considering how so much money and research goes into it. Land use practices, I
believe is our best bet to solving some of our problems.

I still think GMOs have potential of being a really innovative technology, I
just want science to have a fair shot.

~~~
runarberg
Thanks for this good and thorough answer. And sorry again I derailed your main
point.

------
blueskin_
I'm so annoyed with all the NIMBYs who don't want GM food as it's borne of
stupidity and misunderstanding of basic science.

We need either GM food or population control, preferably both.

~~~
cinitriqs
population control... = misunderstanding of basic science... GM food = NOT the
GM Food the companies tell us about. We have been "modifying" genes for
centuries thanks to simple, natural selection/crossing. Instead of putting
more money into those methods (looking at crops region to region) the GM-
maffia is only trying to patent a "universal/general" crop that should work in
large areas.... anyhow, I am presenting all this very simplistically, but, I
do not feel the need to insert genes from animals into plants n vice versa.

Is a study into GM necessary: yes, do we need to let monopolies decide policy
for the people? no f'in way...

------
hornetblack
Genetically Modified Organism Wheat. Why not just call it G.M. Wheat?

~~~
blueskin_
RAS syndrome. People not knowing what GMO means other than being 'something to
do with genetic modification'.

------
cinitriqs
Oh and another thought, all in the good mind-set of errrm "profit": patenting
life = criminal...

