GMO Crops

 Copperopolis, California,  
This morning I read an article about the benefits of GMO crops. Reading through the comments section, I see that anyone who does not like the idea of GMO crops is ridiculed. There are also several disparaging comments about Europe banning GMO crops.

I think that perhaps this article is a fluff piece to try and boost the image of Monsanto and Bayer. Particularly at a time when the two are going through a merger (which would then have that company controlling 1/3 or more of the worlds seed production).

How do my European connections feel about GMO, Monsanto and Bayer?

Planting GMOs kills so many bugs that it helps non-GMO crops


Bt corn protects neighboring peppers and green beans, cuts pesticide use.
  last edited: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:41:29 -0700  
You may be something similar to what we see when somebody publishes an article on coal mining or nuclear power. The GMO (and closely related big pharma) industries have the same behaviour; in which ginormous sums are paid to keep all public conversations "balanced"; i.e. favourable to industry.

I call them corporate attack dogs. A writer (even a professional writer) doesn't stand a chance against skilled debaters who have been practising for years and have well-researched emotion-laden counterpoints to every point you can muster and backed by hard statistics. Never mind that the statistics and studies were also bought in most cases.

You'll see the same thing occurring in conversations about gun control and anti-fascism; even though the fingers pulling the strings are better hidden in these cases.

Basically you can't really have a reasonable public debate about these topics. You need to pursue your agenda quietly if you aren't on the same side as the corporate attack dogs. They're mean and they bite.
Bt corn, cotton, and soybeans have been engineered to express insect-killing proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, and they have indeed been successful at controlling the crops' respective pests. They even protect the non-Bt versions of the same crop that must be planted in adjacent fields to help limit the evolution of Bt resistance.

But new work shows that Bt corn also controls pests in other types of crops planted nearby, specifically vegetables. In doing so, it cuts down on the use of pesticides on these crops, as well.

Until Bt resistance evolves, which seems to be a foregone conclusion based on the requirement to plant non-Bt variants nearby precisely to slow this evolutionary trend.

At that point, the bugs will be unstoppable.
I find most arguments to be totally void of nuance. "GMO" is used as a monolithic thing, either all good or all bad. And then there are indirect effects -- like having Round-Up ready crops so you can pour a metric fuck-ton of pesticide on the crops. In that case, I'm more worried about the pesticide than the genetic modification. Is being Round-Up Ready somehow supposed to be equivalent to golden rice? Based on most "arguments" I see, you've got to love or hate both.