WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 20459412

(no title)

neotokio | 6 years ago

That's a brilliant solution, what a shame that is also part of a problem.

GM crop is by definition commercial crop, half of Indian agricultural problems are because of death of local farming vs conventional farming (think energy costs, supply chains effectiveness, technology dependence and lack of biodiversity which hits food chain hard).

Why are we exactly fixed on GM crop but not on better food management policies, promotion of local farming and climate-related tech (ie. irrigation)? Is it because GMO has clear profit margin where above mentioned (and many more) doesn't?

One can argue even about selective breeding which also has its own costs (fragility of a given genetics), but GMO should, by rule, be heavily limited.

discuss

order

kaitai|6 years ago

I think this brings up some important points.

I'm not "against GMO" because I think it makes frankentomatoes that will eat us, or because I think that gene modification is intrinsically unhealthful. I'm (sort of) against GMO because genetically modified organisms are controlled by profit-focused corporations who lock farmers into a financial system that disadvantages them and promotes heavy use of brand-name herbicides that are not good for the surrounding ecosystem. Especially in 2nd/3rd world countries where people rely more heavily on waterways for water and their backyards for food, as opposed to the US where we can pay to outsource these problems, local ability to maintain a healthy environment without paying a multinational on a yearly contract is essential.

People have been able to plant saved seeds for all of human history. Programs that prevent the ability to grow your own food for only the cost of labor put farmers and local areas at a significant disadvantage by eliminating the possibility of subsistence farming. I know that GMOs are designed to increase yields -- but that's focused on farming as commodity.

Neotokio's remark about the "clear profit margin" of GMOs is, I think, exactly on the money.

beat|6 years ago

That's exactly where I am, too.

Just because GMO can be used to solve human problems does not mean GMO will be used for human problems. It's more likely to solve corporate problems instead.

umeshunni|6 years ago

> half of Indian agricultural problems are because of death of local farming

Eh, citation needed. Especially given the role of GM crops in sparking the Green Revolution and avoiding famine in India:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution#Start_in_Indi...

In 1961, India was on the brink of mass famine... India soon adopted IR8 – a semi-dwarf rice variety developed by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) that could produce more grains of rice per plant when grown with certain fertilizers and irrigation...In 1968, Indian agronomist S.K. De Datta published his findings that IR8 rice yielded about 5 tons per hectare with no fertilizer, and almost 10 tons per hectare under optimal conditions. This was 10 times the yield of traditional rice.

neotokio|6 years ago

Stands for a point of 'profit margins'.

Indian Green Revolution was a spiritual successor of Mexican 'Green' Revolution (avoiding famine in Mexico), same people (corporations) responsible for both. Yes, famine was avoided, but let's look at the costs - energy + soil degradation + lack of biodiversity (btw. India STILL has tremendous malnutrition problem, crops are mainly exported - again - profit margins).

There is a big asymmetry here we are discussing, mainly, pre 'Green Revolution' agriculture was unsustainable because of population growth and lack of education (development of sustainable agriculture for internal use), while after revolution is unsustainable because of... same things (exchange lack of education for no need to educate). India didn't solve anything, it just pushed the problem further ahead while country monetized on exports (which, without a doubt, provided higher standard of living for some %).

Why not do what i already described? Better management, better climate related preparations, stronger internal supply lines? How is that worse than GM-way which seems to only beat those solutions in profits? Seems more reasonable to save energy, make agriculture less reliable on outsourced tech and empower local production.

I think GMOs are solution to problem from 1960-1970s, not from 2020.