[misto]

First, Monsanto and its way of operating very much still exist. Just because it was purchased by another company (which of course resulted in an even greater monopoly), does not make its impact to the world disappear.

Second, everytime this topic comes up, pro-GMOist make it sound like the technology is making some great strides with providing 'healthier food for everyone' with no downside. Why is it that the current model for GMO aims to increase resistance to pesticides instead of simply growing the yield? It probably has nothing to do with the fact that the company that provides you the seeds, also sells the pesticide. And how about the said pesticides tendency to destroy the micro-organisms in the soil, in effect making it harder to grow crops, and ultimately starting a loop for "more GMO, more pesticide, more land, repeat".

Figure a less disruptive business model, and I might be more pro-GMO myself.

[dragonwriter]

> Why is it that the current model for GMO aims to increase resistance to pesticides instead of simply growing the yield? I

It doesn't; there are plenty of traits beyond pesticide resistance that have GM crops targeting them, including yield, drought resistance, nitrogen fixation, etc.

Pesticide resistance is the most established on the market becauae there happened to be particular success with it decades ago, that’s it.

Negative consumer sentiment toward GMOs means that neither the producers nor the growers of GM crops are seeking public attention to the fact that crops are GM, and their products are mostly sold in markets that don’t require GM labelling for the same reason, so the crops already in the public consciousness are all that stays there.

[misto]

> Pesticide resistance is the most established on the market becauae there happened to be particular success with it decades ago, that’s it.

This might be the case, but still my original bone to pick remains. GMO is not without downside, and people cheering for it without a hint of scepticism reeks ignorance and unwillingness to learn from past mistakes that were made in the name of science.

As you've highlighted, said technique was used for decades, for the detriment of soil health, bees and all kinds of smaller organisms, without it being questioned.

As for your last paragraph, I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that voicing these 'uneducated' opinions about GMO simply pushes the crops to incognito mode, making them less visible for consumers? Better to see your killer face-to-face than being stabbed to the back? Not sure about that.

[somrand0]

from a more generalist viewpoint, we must consider not only the business models, but the mindsets behind them

consider an example from another area. the assembly line and "k12 education". a 'raw material' (but it's actually a child) enters an assembly line, every year they will be passed to the next part of the process, another professional worker will receive the product and will work on it/them for a year.

Also notice how modern elementary education treats the teachers; they far too much like factory workers! low wages, they haven't much of a choice about how to do their jobs.

Now consider the mindsets behind the successful GMO crops (+pesticide combos) that have been the money makers for these corporations.

And consider the mono-crop mentalities and the above mentioned feedback cycle: gmo+pesticide kill the soil leading to more gmo+pesticide; it's a vicious cycle. it's a vicious cycle that keeps making more money! (the assembly line was a great way to really manufacture lots and lots of munition for the war, it is a very effective technique to make stuff that will be sent to get wrecked in a war, in this sense it 'made a killing' as in made lots of 'money')

and again, consider the mindsets involved. why are we educating children like they were cars in a production line?

these corporations are full of people educated like I described, lowering our collective education quality in a longer feedback cycle far too large to be easily noticed; it's a 20-40 year feedback cycle, which has been reducing the quality of the living beings involved.

we have a difficult problem, and no power to do anything about it

[alexb_]

>Why is it that the current model for GMO aims to increase resistance to pesticides instead of simply growing the yield?

What? TONS of GMO foods are made for things other than pesticides. Nutritional content, size, yield, taste - in fact one of the biggest uses of GMOs is making the plants need less pesticides! If you think the only reason GMOs exist is to sell more pesticides, you just do not know what you are talking about.

[misto]

Of course not the only reason, but a reason nonetheless.

"Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future."[1]

Please bare in mind that I'm not advocating against GMO. I'm advocating against hailing GMO as a win:win to all of society and environment.

[1] https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-471... "Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. -- the first sixteen years"