Comment by rjzzleep | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rjzzleep | Hacker News Reader

a very important thing that we're overlooking here, where monsanto is kind of a side effect. is that we're losing our seeds. we're losing for example seeds that are have had hundreds of years of adapting to a certain environment.

a friend of mine was actually collecting seeds in afghanistan a couple of years back precisely, because of that.

besides the yield implications there are also health implications, as we're increasingly growing seeds with a certain taste.

this is completely disregarding the possible health implications of gmo crops.

imho there's huge potential for startups, but probably als huge attack surfaces on those startups.

why? don't forget that uncle bens for example tried to patent basmati rice, and it took the indian government to shut them down. there have also been countless other such cases.

and for those saying the whole monsanto thing is overrated? i remember the guy mentioning a couple of years back that he wants to own 100% of the crop market by 20xx(xx being a number that i forgot). that number has been growing rapidly. and again disregarding the health implications of generic seeds distributed throughout the world, we kinda recognize that monopolies in everything are dangerous.

what on earth makes us think that this is any different?

> we're losing for example seeds that are have had hundreds of years of adapting to a certain environment.

If they're really better adapted, why are people choosing to buy Monsanto seeds instead? Also, if this were the case, wouldn't Monsanto be interested in reverse-engineering these adaptations and applying them across species / regions?

> there are also health implications

Citation needed. And no, Seralini's work doesn't count -- if you would like me to explain why it was BS I can do so at great length.

> this is completely disregarding the possible health implications

1. We have never held "natural" crops to standards beyond the basic FDA regs. I put "natural" in quotes because usually "natural" = "inbred over generations because even primitive genetic engineering techniques with known, proven side effects are better than nothing." This is all despite the fact that natural crops are often much further, genetically speaking, from "known goods" than Monsanto's crops, which actually do receive additional testing.

> don't forget that uncle bens for example tried to patent basmati rice, and it took the indian government to shut them down

Were they trying to patent their modifications to the rice, or regular, unmodified rice? The Indian government (like the Chinese government) has a long history of ignoring patent law when it suits their purposes. It's a self-interest move, not a morality move.

> remember the guy mentioning a couple of years back that he wants to own 100% of the crop market by 20xx(xx being a number that i forgot). that number has been growing rapidly.

I'll assume by "the guy" you mean "a higher-up at Monsanto" and by "that number" you mean "Monsanto's present market share." In that case, your assertion is patently incorrect:

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/workshops/ag2010/015/AGW-1...

> and again disregarding the health implications of generic seeds distributed throughout the world

By "generic," I'll assume you mean "genetically engineered." Citation still needed.

> what on earth makes us think that this is any different?

The fact that Monsanto has made a significant improvement to one of the fundamental goods society is built around. They deserve a share of the value they created.

>The fact that Monsanto has made a significant improvement to one of the fundamental goods society is built around. They deserve a share of the value they created.

No, because I deny that they made any improvement. Only because it is shown in TV, it is not true!

Today's companies are great in creating "pseudo values". Of course, short term, there might be an improvement. But who checks for the long term effects? I also heard about countries where farmers wanted to go back to their old crop, since after paying the price for the crops (and the pesticides, that are sometimes additionally needed), the value was negative! But say what? They could not, because the old crops where swept from market!

> But who checks for the long term effects?

I'm becoming more and more convinced that in aggregate as a species nobody ever checks for the long term, and nobody ever actually cares about the long term. Even today, any environmentally friendly actions come off to me as being more social than logical - it is great we got green to be somewhat "cool", but the fact that is the driving force in adoption (people usually buy Teslas and hybrids because they are "cool", not because it vastly reduces their carbon footprint) leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

And it always happens throughout history. Depressions, wars, and famines are caused by perpetual short term thinking coming back to bite you the long term that eventually catches up to you.

> I deny that they made any improvement

The farmers buying Monsanto seeds over the competition and the customers buying the resulting cheaper/larger/less buggy produce get to make that decision, not you. They have spoken.

> I also heard about countries where farmers wanted to go back to their old crop, since after paying the price for the crops (and the pesticides, that are sometimes additionally needed), the value was negative!

Monsanto makes a point of A) not using terminator seeds, B) only going after farmers who are so guilty that they will possibly be a "PR win", and then donating the proceeds of the lawsuits to charity. Are they actually going after anyone in the 3rd world countries that don't ignore patents? I suspect that they would either be able to get away with saving seeds or are big enough that "the local seed dealer only sells Monsanto" isn't much of an excuse. But I could be wrong. Link to the specific stories you mention?

GM crops do improve yields in situations where they're called for:

>He also told me that the overall yield data on GM crops isn't as simple as "yes, it produces higher yields" or "no, it doesn't". For instance, he pointed to a paper published this February in Nature Biotechnology which shows that GM corn sometimes out-produces conventionally bred corn and sometimes under-produces in comparison. The key is in the environmental context. The years where GM corn was producing similar or lower yields than conventionally bred corn were average years, when it came to factors like the weather, disease, and pests. It was in bad years that you can see a significant, positive, difference for GM corn. When the situation was bad, GM corn had greater yields.

From http://boingboing.net/2013/03/29/do-gmos-yield-more-food-the...

Then there's of course Golden Rice which has an increased content of Vitamin A, which you can't measure in terms of yield.

I agree with that. Also, even when there would be no health implications ...

Then there is a problem. There are gmo crops out there which are resistant (e.g. by poison) against X, but there are also some side effects, that critics have found out. The X (e.g. some bugs) are becoming themselves resistant against the poison. And often times those crops need more fertilizers or pesticides because of other reasons. And because the gmo crops are often times dominating the old crops, the chance is high, that we loose the old crops -- so in the end we might end up with crops that need more care and that fully have replaced the old crops -- and the X, we made those crops in the first place, might be stronger than before.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com