GMO has sadly gotten a really bad reputation thanks to Mansanto selling it with their pesticides & holding patents
GMO, however, has huge potential to diversify our food supply, see for example golden rice:
The real issue is:
Privately-held patents of the developed GMO
GMO + pesticide combinations, like Monsanto does with roundup
The government shouldn’t develop them: instead, set out the requirements, then have companies bid to produce a GMO which:
Offer something on their own, without needing a pesticide to go with it
Are in the public domain, no private patents
It could lead to things like:
Avocados which are locally grown, even in cold climates, instead of being transported thousands of miles
Food with greater health benefits, like golden rice
It’s simply the next level of plant breeding: all the foods we eat are already greatly modified from their natural counterparts by selective breeding, this is simply the next step
Respectfully, GMO is going to forever have toxic consequences due to the process of crossing genetics. I understand your position, however, if we simply went back to cross breeding by cross pollination instead of chemical adhesions like those used in GMO, we can still accomplish food varieties we want.
You’re presenting this subject as if it’s the only option, but that’s not the case. GMO seeds are patented, leading to a transfer of wealth to four major corporations. They achieve this by preventing farmers from harvesting and replanting seeds, which drives up growing costs. Non-GMO companies operate similarly, requiring farmers to sign contracts that restrict replanting as well. Heirloom seeds are the only type that allows for harvesting and replanting, providing consistent products year after year. Biodiversity is maintained through farmers exchanging seeds. If a farmer chooses to use GMO seeds, that’s their decision, but it’s not something I would choose to do now or in the future.
I see your perspective. I think your proposal isn’t gaining traction because of the way it’s written and the subject line, which can put people off and convey the wrong message. This is a topic I’m really passionate about. Would you like to collaborate on a rewrite to make it more appealing?
Sorry yes that’s what I meant: what parts are off-putting & didn’t clearly communicate that the patents would be public domain? Did I just not call enough attention/focus on it, too much of an off-hand remark instead of central to the idea?
For this site, which focuses on federal rather than state or local issues, it’s important to highlight any GMO seeds developed with federal funding and then patented by private entities. It would be a significant injustice for a private company to charge farmers or even sue them for using seeds that were developed with federal funds.
i.e. the entire idea of patents on seeds/cultivars/etc. just creates unnecessary litigation
I get these companies need to make $ - but it should be in the form of something like government awards, e.g. “your seed/cultivar is widely grown & has improved our yields, here’s $10 million” rather than lawsuits to stop people from using
That’s a fair point, it definitely is something that could be done at the state level
There’s a bit more distribution at the federal level, i.e. if it costs $20 million to develop a new GMO that would be beneficial to 5 different states (and the whole country in terms of food supply), it’s more cost effective at the federal level instead of 1 state biting the cost
