Overuse of Bioengineered Corn Gives Rise To Resistant Pests

An anonymous reader writes "Though warned by scientists that overuse of a variety of corn engineered to be toxic to corn rootworms would eventually breed rootworms with resistance to its engineered toxicity, the agricultural industry went ahead and overused the corn anyway with little EPA intervention. The corn was planted in 1996. The first reports of rootworm resistance were officially documented in 2011, though agricultural scientists weren't allowed by seed companies to study the engineered corn until 2010. Now, a recent study has clearly shown how the rootworms have successfully adapted to the engineered corn. The corn's continued over-use is predicted, given current trends, and as resistance eventually spreads to the whole rootworm population, farmers will be forced to start using pesticides once more, thus negating the economic benefits of the engineered corn. 'Rootworm resistance was expected from the outset, but the Bt seed industry, seeking to maximize short-term profits, ignored outside scientists.'"

Comments

Surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how life works doesn't it? Pest attacks plant. Plant evolves defense. Pest finds a way bypass defense.

Re:Surprised?

[xelah]

Presumably there are other ways of reducing the pest population and ways of delaying resistance to this and to pesticides. Consider crop rotation, for example. Gardeners know that some plants shouldn't be planted in the same place year after year because the pest population increases over time (and because of the effect on the soil, and sometimes other reasons). I'm sure farmers know this, too. But if maize is the best paying crop and someone offers you these seeds as a way to continue to plant maize on a heavily infested area, what are you going to do?

Re:Surprised?

[Issarlk]

"Plant evolves defense."

Stop right there ! There's no such thing as evolution. Pests didn't evolve defense, God created new resistant pests. All those farmers who used GMO crops are obviously gay and are punished for it. *That's the only explanation.*

Re:Surprised?

[taiwanjohn]

Diversity is the key. (Crop rotation is just one example.) The whole "mega-scale, mono-culture" approach to farming is flawed, and these GMO tweaks are just prolonging its inevitable demise. The future lies with smaller-scale, multi-species farms which more closely mimic the patterns found in nature.

For example, put multiple crops in a single field, alternating several rows of each (depending on what equipment you're using), and interspersed with "islands" of other species whose purpose is to provide habitat for the predators of your pests. You might not get quite as much yield, but if you don't have to spend a dime on pesticide, you'll still come out ahead.

It's a lot more sophisticated than I can explain here, but there are plenty of people doing this already, and it is growing in popularity. There are many different methods being developed, most of which fit under the umbrella of "permaculture" or "holistic management". Look at what Joel Salatin is doing at Poliface Farm in Virginia, or what Colin Seis is doing with "pasture cropping" in Australia, as just a couple of prominent examples.

There are better ways to produce our food and fiber, it's just going to take a while to revolutionize the entire industry.

Re:Surprised?

[ShieldW0lf]

The problem with this model is, it's not friendly to automation. You can't harvest from a complex ecosystem with a petrol driven combine.

But you can build custom forests that are filled with massive diversity of food crops, and it's not really any more work to gather your food from one than it is to go to the grocery store.

These forests deliver way, way more food per acre than any conventional farming method, by a huge margin.

Because they're built using perennial plants that will propagate themselves, once they're up, you never have to dig, and you never have to plant the earth.

Because you fill all the available ecological niches with food bearing plants, you never have to weed, and you never have to use pesticides.

Because they are stable ecosystems, once you put them together, barring fire or catastrophic weather events, they'll continue to abide for many generations of man.

All these ridiculous claims about how the Earth is overpopulated are based on the assumption that we will continue to use existing farming techniques.

The truth is, if we transitioned to this method of food production, we could completely abandon oil, increase our population into the trillions and the worlds ecosystems would not only be healthier than they are now, but they would be healthier than if mankind weren't around in the first place.

But, for it to work, people need to stop thinking of food as something that comes from the store, and start thinking of it as something that comes from the forest. People need to go pick their food themselves.

It's not more work. It won't take more time out of your day than the way you gather food now. It's just a change of lifestyle, and the quality of the food you eat goes up, and your health improves as a consequence.

Regardless of what the rest of you do, it's my intention to build such a forest, build a home within it for myself, and another for my daughter and each of my future children. But it would be a much better world for all of us if you were inspired to do the same.

I'm not saying you should download "The Complete Geoff Lawton Permaculture DVD Collection" off the pirate bay or anything, you should definitely buy a legitimate copy... but everything you need to know to get the ball rolling is in there ;)

Re:Surprised?

[ShieldW0lf]

"Plant evolves defense."

Stop right there ! There's no such thing as evolution. Pests didn't evolve defense, God created new resistant pests. All those farmers who used GMO crops are obviously gay and are punished for it. *That's the only explanation.*

Did you know, intelligent people are capable of designing systems that evolve?

Here's a tutorial for you:

http://www.gp-field-guide.org....

The correct response to the whole "God hates Fags" controversy is to simply point out "If God didn't hate Fags, he wouldn't have Created Evolution to weed them out of the gene pool. He dealt with it already, so shut up about it."

Re:Surprised?

[taiwanjohn]

You can't harvest from a complex ecosystem with a petrol driven combine.

Depends on what system you use. Pasture cropping, for example, is well suited to standard row-cropping equipment.

increase our population into the trillions

Hm... I think you're exaggerating a tad there. ;-) Certainly we can easily support the current projected population growth with these methods.

download "The Complete Geoff Lawton Permaculture DVD Collection" off the pirate bay

I already did that a couple of years ago. ;-) If you haven't yet, get over to his website and sign up for his latest videos. He's been coming out with a new one each week for the last few months. Good stuff! (You'll have to provide an email address, but they don't abuse it, at least they haven't so far.)

Re:Surprised?

[C0R1D4N]

No the correct response is to explain that god actually hates figs. Easy mistake to make.

Re:Surprised?

[N1AK]

If God didn't hate Fags, he wouldn't have Created Evolution to weed them out of the gene pool.

So you're suggesting he's incompetent and homophobic and that this somehow was the motivation for him 'designing' evolution? Yeah, that sounds persuasive...

Re:Surprised?

[ShieldW0lf]

Yep, I'm on there.

I don't think I'm exaggerating. There are 36.7 trillion acres of land on earth.

Re:Surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the earth is overpopulated. Consider the energy resources available and how do we get rid of the waste products, CO2, etc. We're already screwed and yet people are still breeding like maggots. We've either got to stop fucking or use more birth control. China had it right.

Re:Surprised?

[Rich0]

But, for it to work, people need to stop thinking of food as something that comes from the store, and start thinking of it as something that comes from the forest. People need to go pick their food themselves...It's not more work. It won't take more time out of your day than the way you gather food now.

Uh, right now I can buy a found of steak in shrink-wrap. How exactly is walking through a forest supposed to be easier than that? I can buy enough food for a week in 30min of shopping.

And where is this forest going to be? Are we going to just plant it in the middle of our suburban housing developments? Will my neighbor mind me spearing some antelope in his back yard? If it is going to be in some designated area, then how is accessing that going to be easier than going to the local supermarket? If the food is unpreserved, then you'd need to basically go there daily.

I don't think the solution to the current ecological problems is to return to a hunter-gatherer state.

Re:Surprised?

[morgauxo]

Naturlly, It takes a lot longer.

Re:Surprised?

[dcollins]

"It's not more work. It won't take more time out of your day than the way you gather food now."

Sounds very nice, but this is easily falsifiable. I order my groceries online (takes about 5 min per week), and receive them by delivery (about 2 min to unbox and put in the fridge). That's less time than it even takes to get dressed to go outside.

Re:Surprised?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Does your "36.7 trillion acres" figure include all that wonderful arable land in Antarctica? Is that where you're building your food forest?

Because 9.3% of the world's land area is considered arable. You may want to shift that decimal place over to the left, as you're an order of magnitude off.

Also, many people enjoy eating plants year round. They're not likely to find your food forest idea very appealing.

Re:Surprised?

[ShieldW0lf]

But, for it to work, people need to stop thinking of food as something that comes from the store, and start thinking of it as something that comes from the forest. People need to go pick their food themselves...It's not more work. It won't take more time out of your day than the way you gather food now.

Uh, right now I can buy a found of steak in shrink-wrap. How exactly is walking through a forest supposed to be easier than that? I can buy enough food for a week in 30min of shopping.

And where is this forest going to be? Are we going to just plant it in the middle of our suburban housing developments? Will my neighbor mind me spearing some antelope in his back yard? If it is going to be in some designated area, then how is accessing that going to be easier than going to the local supermarket? If the food is unpreserved, then you'd need to basically go there daily.

I don't think the solution to the current ecological problems is to return to a hunter-gatherer state.

I pointed you right at the answers to your questions. It's a new concept to you and you clearly haven't investigated the resources that would answer these questions for you. Which makes me curious; why do you think you're qualified to have any opinion on the feasibility of the concept?

Re:Surprised?

[dcollins]

"Male Homosexuality Study: Gay Men Have Evolutionary Benefit For Their Families, New Research Suggests"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/why-are-there-gay-men_n_1590501.html

Re:Surprised?

[taiwanjohn]

There's actually quite a bit you can do in urban and suburban environments. Check your local regulations, of course, but basically anyplace you can put a garden is viable for permaculture. Here's a video that documents a suburban yard transformation in Australia. It's quite detailed.

There's also a movement to do "edible landscaping" on school grounds and campuses. We already invest a lot of resources to maintain plants to make these places look nice, why not spend the same amount and get plants that look nice and also produce food?

I'm in an urban high-rise, but I'm lucky to have a generous patio. This year I'm finally starting work on my aquaponics system.

We don't have to all become farmers living off the land. But if we factor in all the health benefits, it's quite economical to invest a bit more in our food supply chain. Just increase the number of farmers from 1% to 3% of the population, and we'd all get a much better diet while doing far less damage to the environment.

Re:Surprised?

[rhazz]

it's my intention to build such a forest, build a home within it for myself, and another for my daughter and each of my future children.

And as you slowly replace your forest with your children's homes, and your children build more homes for their children, etc, etc... you end up with overpopulation. You are proposing the same solution as every one else - more efficient use of existing resources. The problem is that eventually you will maximize your usage of those resources but your progeny will continue to propagate.

Re:Surprised?

[Jmc23]

I plan on doing this everywhere.

Unfortunately, most people can't even recognise a carrot when it's in the ground. This is a good thing, because any big upset to the food supply and all the people that can't take care of themselves will go bye-bye.

Re:Surprised?

[ShieldW0lf]

Does your "36.7 trillion acres" figure include all that wonderful arable land in Antarctica? Is that where you're building your food forest?

No, I'm not intending to build a food forest in Antarctica, smartass.

I asserted that we could support trillions of humans.

If we had 3 trillion people, that would mean 12.2 acres of land to feed each person. You should easily be able to thrive on one acre.

I helped build an urban farm using these principles in an abandoned lot next to a hospital, and last year that farm fed everyone who volunteered, and produced 2 metric tons of food for the food bank, and produced fresh fruit and vegetables for the various restaurants that helped sponsor the project, which they serve to their customers.

I no longer live in the area, and am no longer involved, but if you like, you can show your financial support for the project here:

http://partnersforcare.ca/urba...

Again, that's off one parking lot, in the middle of a city.

Because 9.3% of the world's land area is considered arable. You may want to shift that decimal place over to the left, as you're an order of magnitude off.

So, do the people who gave you that number consider the desert of the Dead Sea Valley arable?

Because the same people who published the DVD set I pointed you at have been successfully building a food forest right smack dab in the middle of it, in an effort to give you the evidence you need to be swayed.

http://permaculturenews.org/20...

Also, many people enjoy eating plants year round. They're not likely to find your food forest idea very appealing.

Setting aside the fact that we could all fit just fine inside the zones that never see sub-zero temperatures, there are many other options available to overcome this obstacle. It's a complex enough problem that I can't give you a one paragraph answer that will be a resilient enough argument for you not to pick it apart, therefore, I will not invite you to make me look stupid by attempting to do so.

Nevertheless, I have done this. Other people have done this. This is sustainable. What we are doing is not sustainable. It's fine to be skeptical, but there is ample evidence that this is a functional solution to a problem that threatens us all if you make even the slightest effort to look.

And man, I'll tell you... it's NICE. The food tastes better. It looks better. It crunches when it's supposed to crunch. It's a pleasant environment to be in. It makes you want to skip carrying the food to the kitchen table and just have a picnic with your family. You know where it came from. You know that even if you're broke, even if there's civil unrest and the grocery stores are empty, it's always there when you need it. You feel a sense of ease. An absence of fear. A sense of being in control of your own life.

You shouldn't knock it till you've tried it.

Re:Surprised?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Look, I'm not knocking your idea. I think growing your own food is great. I make my own pasta sauce from scratch, including growing the tomatoes and herbs myself.

However, your numbers are simply misleading. There are 36.7 trillion acres of land area on this planet, sure. However, that does include Antarctica, the Himalayas, the Sahara, and other locations generally considered to be unsuitable for agriculture. Of course, you can grow food crops in these locations, but there's a reason why your food forest is not located in Antarctica. If we had 3 trillion people, that would mean 12.2 acres of land for each person. Of course, not all 12.2 acres could be allocated to agriculture, since people need land to live, to work, and to extract mineral resources from. And really, only 1.13 acres of this land is arable anyway, now just barely enough to squeeze by on. Of course, food can be grown on the other 11 acres, but at great cost. The picture you paint of people walking around picking apples from trees looks a little different when the setting is a heated, artificial-light-augmented, high-tech greenhouse of sorts. Not exactly sustainable now, it seems. When you talk of squeezing everyone into the tropics to avoid freezing temperatures, you don't realize that this would further decrease available land area by an order of magnitude. Any other solutions consisting primarily of restricting the population to a smaller land area only exacerbates the problem. Meanwhile, solutions relying on technology take us further away from your sustainable "food forest" idea.

I'm all for people regaining a sense of where their food comes from by getting involved in agriculture themselves. There's nothing like having fresh vegetables that you grew yourself. However, to suggest that every person on the planet can be a subsistence farmer (while supporting a population in the trillions) without incurring significant financial hardship is simply out of touch with reality. We simply don't have the space or the cash for this to be realistic.

Re:Surprised?

[ShieldW0lf]

Even if the hypothesis were true, it is irrelevant to the point. A gay mans sister successfully reproducing does not propagate that gay mans DNA.

Re:Surprised?

[ShieldW0lf]

I did not suggest that gay people were going to be wiped out as a whole. I simply stated that a gay person is not going to successfully propagate themselves. I'm not trolling at all. I'm simply trying to cut through the politics and mumbo jumbo and lay out the facts so we can move past the endless politically motivated conflict. I don't hate homosexuals any more than I hate women who have had hysterectomies. I feel a sense of compassion for their circumstances.

Besides, do you know how much fun it is when you're talking to a genuinely homophobic, hardcore evolution denying bible thumper on a rant about gay people and you calmly agree that "Yes, God hates fags, that's why he invented evolution."? Their head spins like that little girl in the Exorcist. It's delicious to watch.

Re:Surprised?

[ShieldW0lf]

So, where shall we compromise? Does half a trillion people work for you?

Re:Surprised?

[Khyber]

"These forests deliver way, way more food per acre than any conventional farming method, by a huge margin."

Not even close to vertical farming. I can cram 8-20x more crop per acre than some forest setup.

Your forest setup, at best, maybe does 3x.

Re:Surprised?

[Gr8Apes]

How about 2B?

Re:Surprised?

[taiwanjohn]

There are 36.7 trillion acres of land area on this planet, sure.

First, it's actually 36.7 BILLION acres, not trillion. (That's been bugging me through this whole thread, so I finally checked the math...)

Still, ShieldW0lf's basic idea that the earth could support a lot more than the current population holds true... just a few orders of magnitude less than he thinks.

Of course, food can be grown on the other 11 acres, but at great cost.

It all depends on how you manage the land. As Allan Savory has shown it's possible to reclaim a whole lot of land that had previously been written off as non-arable. And as a side-benefit, reversing desertification on these lands would also sequester gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere, while using it to enrich and build up the soil. It's a win-win-win all around.

Personally, I don't think we need that many people. But it's nice to know that it's at least possible to feed everybody, far into the future, without any need to degrade the environment... on the contrary, we can do so in a way that's beneficial to the environment.

Re:Surprised?

[taiwanjohn]

Not even close to vertical farming.

Permaculture food forests are vertical farms, by definition. If you're not using all available "layers" you're not doing it right.

Re:Surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it doesn't propagate that individual's DNA. However, it *does* further assist in the propagation of the *parents'* DNA.

Evolution isn't about propagating an *individual's* DNA, it's about the *species* as a whole adapting to continue it's existence.
Take, as an example, a bee hive. According to your apparent position, worker bees are an evolutionary dead-end because they will *never* propagate their own DNA. However, they are distinctly necessary for the existence and continued propagation of the queen bee's DNA.

Re:Surprised?

[Bing Tsher E]

Believe me, the food you describe is literally rooted in place. If there's major civil unrest the people who discover the supermarket is empty will quickly find your garden.

Re:Surprised?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Perhaps half a trillion could work, in theory.

Let's look at the United States. If we ignore Alaska (not exactly prime farmland), there's about 6.4 acres of land per person, total (it would be 7.7 acres if we include Alaska). If we look at current land use statistics, however, there's already 2.9 acres of farmland per person. That is, nearly half of our available land (available, not arable) is already used for agriculture, despite that agriculture accounts for less than 2% of the economy. This is with highly efficient, disgusting, industrial farming practices that are widespread today. We are a net exporter of food, but I can't find any statistics on what percentage of our food production is destined for the domestic market.

Your proposal seems like it would increase the amount of land used for agriculture (since it's unlikely that subsistence farmers will enjoy the same economy of scale common for industrial farms), perhaps significantly so. Even if we have the land to support such an undertaking, it would result in a dramatic increase in demand for land. Since land is a finite resource, this would necessarily drive up land costs, which would have significant effects throughout the economy.

I'm willing to compromise to some extent. I'll grant that your proposal is feasible. But I still don't think it's practical.

Re:Surprised?

[Bing Tsher E]

Apparently only people who are so steeped in the concept that they've totally bought into it are qualified to have an opinion.

Re:Surprised?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Thank you. That actually brings us down to 3 billion people @ 12.2 acres per person, or 3 billion people @ 1.13 arable acres per person, barely enough. But then of course, global population is already more than double that, so it seems that the food forest idea is a non-starter until we figure out how to grow apples at the south pole.

Re:Surprised?

[HeckRuler]

Because you fill all the available ecological niches with food bearing plants, you never have to weed, and you never have to use pesticides.

Are you fucking with me?
Do you know what an "ecological niche" is?
Here's one: It eats banana's. It can get to the fruit of a banana tree, it can get through the banana skin, and it can process the fruit of the banana to sustain itself.
As long as there are bananas, it has it's niche it can live in. It might not do so well with other fruit, and probably less so with meat or tubers, but it's ok because it has bananas.

And you think that you can fill that ecological niche with another food bearing plant? Wut? And this will mean you never have to use pesticides? Double wut?

Seriously, there are fruit trees, how the hell do you keep fruit flies from eating them?

Re:Surprised?

[pnutjam]

Greetings from America, we have plenty of land over here. I assume you are in Asia, Europe maybe?

Re:Surprised?

[dcollins]

Incorrect. Half of his DNA (on average) is copied in his sister. Therefore if the "male gay gene" as expressed in women causes them to have about twice as many children (as per the article), then just as much of his DNA gets into the next generation as if he himself had kids.

Re:Surprised?

[Rich0]

So, where would these forests be? All around us? Can you grow enough food to sustain a family for a year in a typical suburban back yard? The whole reason farming was created thousands of years ago is that it is far more productive in terms of yield/productivity/etc per acre of land consumed. Prior to automation a full 50% of the population was employed on farms, and I suspect that it would have taken almost 100% of the population to pick food off of random bushes/etc.

Almost all of civilization sprang up after the invention of agriculture. Most anthropologists I've heard suggest that this was the transformation that actually gave people time to do something other than survive.

It is a pretty hard-sell to suggest that this is workable.

Re:Surprised?

[rahvin112]

No, just about 6 billion works. We're already strained on production and harvest and no change in practice that makes it harder to grow and harvest is going to do anything but reduce food output (which is exactly what you just suggested) Any jackass can quote all the land area on the planet, but very little of that area is arable for human food crops. Few acres have the water available to grow the crops. And probably than half or more of the areas that meet the water requirement don't have the right climate, have too short of a growing season or don't get enough sunshine or are currently occupied with people.

We've got nearly every producible acre on the planet in production. If you increased the effectiveness to western levels you might be able to add another billion or two population to the planet but a single incident that results in a significant area of the planet experiencing crop failure would doom a large number of people to starvation. This doesn't even take into account that if you put a trillion people on this planet every acre you could grow crops on would be taken by people living on them. That is unless you're suggesting everyone live underground or in space.

I seriously can't believe this was even mod'd up unless only idiots or 12 year olds have mod power today.

Re: Surprised?

[ShieldW0lf]

I stand corrected

Well evolution at work

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder when will we learn that fighting the Nature is not the best path to survival.

Re:Well evolution at work

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder when will we learn that fighting the Nature is not the best path to survival.

What does that mean in practice in this context, should we just let the rootworms have the corn?

Re:Well evolution at work

[Alioth]

Plant a certain percentage of GMO crop toxic to rootworm along with unmodified, so the rootworm have an environment where they can live and reduce the selective pressure to become resistant. It will lower the yield but you can still avoid pesticides.

Re:Well evolution at work

[Sique]

In a natural world, plants defend against pests by producing toxins themselves that keep enough of the pests away for survival. But in a natural world, you don't have the big feast of hundreds of acres of food for a single species (ok, for two species, one being Homo sapiens sapiens L.) without anything else getting in the way. Corn rootworms have a literal field day in a corn field, and anything the corn plant has evolved itself to keep rootworms at bay is outnumbered by the sheer amount of rootworms. The easiest way to get the number of rootworms down is to get the number of corn plants down, and that means fruit change. If there is a generation of rootworms which doesn't find a single corn plant to feed on, the population will simply die out.

Re:Well evolution at work

[228e2]

It means we should find what eats or infects rootworms, what "is in rootworm business" and work from there.

I think the Simpsons have shown that this is a very bad idea.

Re:Well evolution at work

[hink]

I wonder when will we learn that fighting the Nature is not the best path to survival.

What does that mean in practice in this context, should we just let the rootworms have the corn?

Before the genetic engineering the rootworms didn't "have" all the corn. The existing pesticides, used prudently, and other practices were working. The pesticides are not the only course for fighting the rootworms, crop rotation and other practices can work. The pesticides were the most common method. But pesticides are scary chemicals, and Jenny McBunny swears they cause "-insert disorder here-", so "think of the children" shenanigans happened.

As others have mentioned, there was very little altruism behind the sale of the modified corn.

Re:Well evolution at work

[morgauxo]

But in a natural world, you don't have the big feast of hundreds of acres of food for a single species

Actually forrests often grow that way. If not a single species of tree then a small number of species all in close proximity. Actually... better yet, how about grasslands? Yes, I'm sure there are multiple species of grass in there but there have to be many many of the same species in close proximtiy across the whole area.

Re:Well evolution at work

[Sique]

In a natural forrest (we don't have many of them left), you seldom have the same species of trees close together, and a natural forrest never consists only of trees, there are shrubs and herbs, mushrooms and grass. The shrubs often provide the space for birds to nest, and they in turn keep beetles at bay. Actually, you can kill a forrest by removing all shrubs because then insects take over and they or their larvae kill off the trees.

The same is valid for grasslands. There are shrubs and trees inbetween (not close together though), and lots of flowering plants. Grasslands usually only stay open if there are large grazing animals living there, stomping out the seeds of other plants, otherwise shrubs and trees would take over and turn the grassland into a forrest.

Creationists

[jlebrech]

Are those bioengineers creationists who didn't think nature would adapt to those new genes? crazy.

Re:Creationists

[Stem_Cell_Brad]

The bioengineers knew this would happen if their new seeds were overused.

Re:Creationists

[morgauxo]

No. I'm sure they were counting on it. Or more accurately their employers are. Patents last too long but they still don't last forever!

Re:Creationists

[Jmc23]

No, they're myopic scientists who can't see past the past, being directed by money grubbing capitalists.

Re:O RLY

[marcello_dl]

YA RLY
And the corporations selling this stuff cannot care less about it, all they care about is that we transition to patented and sterile seeds so we perpetually depend on them. All the fuss surrounding GMO is about this.

Needless to say, the corporations should be prosecuted as fraudsters unless those buying the seeds sign a contract which clearly states they assume all responsibility for what the seeds do to their environment and the nearby fields. Because if something bad happens it's the fault of either one.

The most damning aspect of this affair

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

is this: agricultural scientists weren't allowed by seed companies to study the engineered corn until 2010.

surely with the help of our corrupt lawmakers.

How in the hell can scientists NOT be allowed to study IN DETAIL, and from the get-go, something as fundamentally groundbreaking and new as genetic engineering applied on a planet-wide scale for the first time ever in the history of life itself?

We need a revolution to overthrow the current government structures the world over, and sooner rather than later, if only because some day, Something Bad[tm] will happen that'll cause genuine harm to humanity.

Re:The most damning aspect of this affair

[Anonymous Coward]

is this: agricultural scientists weren't allowed by seed companies to study the engineered corn until 2010.

surely with the help of our corrupt lawmakers.

How in the hell can scientists NOT be allowed to study IN DETAIL, and from the get-go, something as fundamentally groundbreaking and new as genetic engineering applied on a planet-wide scale for the first time ever in the history of life itself?

We need a revolution to overthrow the current government structures the world over, and sooner rather than later, if only because some day, Something Bad[tm] will happen that'll cause genuine harm to humanity.

Given the current situation we're facing today, what in the hell makes you think that Something Bad has not already happened.

The global infection that Monsanto is driving may be irreversible in a few years. It may be there already.

And yeah, I have no problem calling out those cocksuckers by name. If you want to know why scientists were not allowed to study this problem for over a decade, try and talk to one of their fucking lawyers.

Re:The most damning aspect of this affair

[Jawnn]

We do (need that revolution), but it wont' happen because most people do not, or just refuse, to understand how bad things are. Science is hard, after all. Better to worry about things like abortion and gay marriage.

Re:The most damning aspect of this affair

[alexhs]

What about focusing the greatest minds and resources on conquering hair loss and prolonging erections ?

Re:The most damning aspect of this affair

[spikenerd]

If legitimate, this "scientists weren't allowed" statement is indeed alarming. However, it was also given without details, basis, or evidence. I am a scientist, and I don't give a damn about what my industry wants me to study. Who are these pansy agricultural scientists that ask companies for permission about what to study? Was a scientist actually sued? Can anyone document any details of a possible threat, even a subtle or implied one? How did these companies manange to distribute these seeds so widely to farmers while completely preventing all scientists from obtaining a single sample? Come on, evidence please! Until then, I really want to be inflamed by this story. Can anyone with some real details help me out?

Re:The most damning aspect of this affair

[DarkOx]

The trouble is these things come with what amounts to a EULA. Look how things worked out for that farmer who bought GM soy from a grain silo and tried to use it for seed: law suit city.

I am sure the farmers were forbidden from furnishing the plants to anyone who was not going to be using them for animal or human consumption. So its not that nobody could study it but that there would have been nothing but pain associated with doing so. As soon as they went to publish or even just talk about it, they would have with little doubt been trampled by an army of lawyers.

Re:The most damning aspect of this affair

[StormReaver]

Our corrupt government allows corporations to poison our food in order to poison the bugs that eat it.
The bugs evolve to resist the poison, making the poison pointless.
Our government allows corporations to continue poisoning our food because the corporations have become dependent on the income the poisoning provides.
We are still being poisoned, and will continue to be poisoned.

Yet genetically altering our food is somehow still considered a good thing by the clueless. Sadly, the clueless are the ones making the decisions and supporting those making the decisions.

Re:The most damning aspect of this affair

[Lloyd_Bryant]

If legitimate, this "scientists weren't allowed" statement is indeed alarming. However, it was also given without details, basis, or evidence. I am a scientist, and I don't give a damn about what my industry wants me to study. Who are these pansy agricultural scientists that ask companies for permission about what to study? Was a scientist actually sued? Can anyone document any details of a possible threat, even a subtle or implied one? How did these companies manange to distribute these seeds so widely to farmers while completely preventing all scientists from obtaining a single sample? Come on, evidence please! Until then, I really want to be inflamed by this story. Can anyone with some real details help me out?

Here's the explanation. There was no Grand Consipracy to prevent scientists from obtaining and studying the seeds. What wasn't allowed was for scientists to have access to the fields where the plants were being commercially grown.

They *could* have obtained the seeds, planted them, and done their studies on those crops. But they couldn't possibly reproduce the sheer scale of Mega-agrobusiness. Since evolution involves lots of random chance, there would be a lot more chances for resistance to develop in the millions of acres of commercial fields than there would be in the much smaller scale fields available to researchers.

About the onlly thing to be alarmed about is the fact that the EPA didn't require monitoring of GMO-planted fields for such changes. But while that might be alarming, it's not particularly surprising, given the way the US goverment caters to corporations.

Re:The most damning aspect of this affair

[Billly Gates]

The Tea Party is counter revolution of more corporate control and less goverment and liberalism.

The Tea Party is winning. Expect more corruption and more power to the big boys and the citizens are all brainwashed and in line thinking less government is really for them lol

Re:The most damning aspect of this affair

[JWW]

Of course the reverse of this is less corporate control and more government control.

Please tell me, whats the scarier proposition, bunches of really big and wealthy companies that we can often choose to deal with or not, or a huge massive government that has many times the resources of these companies and can jail you or worse?

It boggles my mind that someone could actually argue that the solution to us having too many powerful companies is making our massively powerful government even more powerful.

As counterintuitive as it is, the real reason so many of these companies have so much power is that the government has given it to them (see copyright, patents, handouts, and tax breaks). This is why small government is needed. A smaller government does not have the massive power of corrupting business that a large government has. You are fooling yourself if you think that a massive government's regulations won't revolve around special treatment of a select few instead of protecting the little guy. Government can't even see the little guy anymore.

Re:The most damning aspect of this affair

[Jmc23]

Are they really the greatest minds when all they care about is money?

I saw a researcher who was doing good research into the negative aspects of nicotine easily lured away by a tabacco company for 10x the salary.

Re:The most damning aspect of this affair

[neonKow]

You seem confused about how the government works:
1) A big government is what keeps companies in check. More regulations = bigger government. Fewer regulations = big companies have more power. Read up on the Square Deal and President Theodore Roosevelt and see what happens when there are not enough regulations. Monopolies are very, very bad.
2) Copyright and patents came about because it protects the artist/inventor who could be run out of business by someone copying his own creation. The fact that IP law abuses are occurring is a flaw/loophole in the system that can be fixed, but IP law is and has always been about protecting the little guy and they are the only reason the Industrial Revolution could even happen.
3) The term "handouts" is a generally derogatory term and doesn't refer to anything specific. If you're talking about bailouts of companies during the recession, you're again mistaken. The collapse happened in the first place because big systems get too complex for most people to understand, so the few people who did actually understand the house of cards we had set up made off with a ton of money at the expense of a lot of other people.
4) Most of the problems you bring up are with a corrupt government, not a big government. And unlike a corrupt corporation, you have the option to elect people and impeach people in a government (and we will barring some major collapse of the government), and the public sector is required to withstand scrutiny, current NSA bullshit notwithstanding.

I share your current dissatisfaction of how our current elected officials are running things, but I don't think the solution is returning to time that history has demonstrated DOES NOT WORK.

Re:The most damning aspect of this affair

[ArcadeMan]

The human race will disappear not because of war, not because of an epidemic, not because of a natural or cosmic disaster, but because of Monsanto Corp.

Re:The most damning aspect of this affair

[LongearedBat]

Also... Those with the greatest numbers have the greatest potential power, but those who are more organised have the greatest actual power.

We (the common people) are not organised enough to stand up to governments, especially those governments that are able to keep tabs on what we're doing/organising.

Feature, not bug

[Warbothong]

We need to start outsourcing our problems to Nature. How about we genetically engineer corn which can only be eaten by organisms which excrete efficient batteries, BitCoins and flying cars?

Re:Feature, not bug

[R4D4R]

How about some rootworm ethanol?

So you say you want a revolution?

[dbIII]

Such counter-revolutionary feeling is only happening due to yours being a matter of breaking away from a foreign power that was very busy at the time and so didn't come in to wash the streets of New York with blood. You clearly cannot imagine the price. Take a look at revolutions against strong and established governments based where the revolution has happened and you'll get a good idea of the cost. Take a look at the outcomes of those and compare it to what George Washington's revolution gave you.
Do you really think you will get something better and what is wrong with George Washington's ideas in the first place that another revolution is required to replace them?
Why do you think it will turn out better than what Egypt is dealing with now?

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[DarkOx]

I think it *could* work better than the Arab spring has. The major reason being Americans still have a vague cultural memory of what Washington and Jeffersonian democracy looked like.

If they ever do remove the blinders enough to see what is really going on in the first place, it won't be as easy to sell them a Plutocracy or Military dictatorship gussied up to look like a Republic at least not right after their brothers, sons, and daughters have just got done bleeding for freedom again.

Most people here are to comfortable though, so its not going to happen in the first place. As long as they have money for beer and football is on TV they won't bother looking around to see what has been and is being taken from them.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[rmdingler]

Well done.

You are more likely to get a Putin than a Gorbachev, and there are many more Ted Cruz-like asshats out there than there are George Washingtons.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[Billly Gates]

Ukraine just had a revolution. Look what happened? Woe to you if you live in Crimea. You are now Russian with Putin spies all over and will dissapear if you do not watch what you say or act carefully. Sounds better under the corrupt Ukraine dictatorship if you ask me.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[morgauxo]

George Washington's revolution? Yeah, he started it, he lead it and he shaped the ideas that came out of it. All by himself! And over 200 years later those ideas are still what our government today runs on!

May I buy you a history book?

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[dbIII]

Very literal to the point of utter uselessness today I see - sorry I didn't provide a roll of a few thousand names but it's supposed to be assumed by the context. Or is the above supposed to be a joke based on us finding your pretended poor comprehension of what is written above supposed to be funny or something?

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[LongearedBat]

Revolutions don't need to be violent. I think in some countries, and especially if done in the right way, they can be peaceful.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[rmdingler]

I am neither a Democrat or Republican in the current state of the Parties, falling into the conservative camp on some issues, into the liberal camp on others, and questioning behavior on both sides of the aisle more and more regularly. If you don't accept the problems with our governance is on the donkeys and the elephants, then I have wasted a post.

Rather than argue ideologies, I'll simply point out the obvious: Ted Cruz is an extremist. He's a Tea Party darling who's not even accepted broadly by his own party. As his ambitions seem Presidential I will leave you with this. Regardless of your political tilt, you do not want extremist candidates for primary winners. They are a tough sell in a national election.

99 out of 100 Democrats surveyed preferred a live Cruz to a dead Washington as the opposition candidate, and the Republicans have some incriminating photos of the lone dissenter.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[morgauxo]

Well... you could just call it the American Revolution and refer to them as the founding fathers or something like that which pretty much everyone else does. Usually when one names something as you did it's to belittle, like only George Washington wanted a revolution. That war was all his fault...

Also, my understanding is that George Washington was very much against political parties and the two party system in particular. It's my personal opinion that he was absolutely right and the two party system is a huge part of the reason our 'democratic republic' has gotten so far out of the people's control. I think it's a big contributor to the people's apathy. The two parties just play the voters against each other, everyone votes for one of them even though they don't like it just to try to keep the other out while they both are totally corrupt. Individual politicians get away with murder since the voters only choice is to back the other party.

That being said I would argue that this is NOT the system that George Washington fought for and all the more reason not to call it his revolution.

And then there is the fact that for his time during the revolution he is mostly famous for losing battles... And the fact that it is an entirely different small handful of people that are famous for their roles in the declaration of independance, surely a more defining role in the revolution. Oh.. and then of course there is the constitutional convention which was practically a revolution itself thus driving home the point that this is not the system created by "George Washington's Revolution"

Yah, mentioning the nations entire history would be rather silly but calling it George Washington's revolution? That's kind of like calling the automobile "Rudolf Diesel's vehicles"

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[dbIII]

Well... you could just call it the American Revolution

You are clearly bright enough to work that out for yourself as should everyone here - so I really do not think you have a point.

Yah, mentioning the nations entire history

No. Please stop trying to build up a strawman from your own baggage that you've inserted between the lines. In general terms it is the system from back then. You don't get to just change specifics in a revolution since the old system is thrown out wholesale. Do you get at least that much?

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[strikethree]

Do you really think you will get something better and what is wrong with George Washington's ideas in the first place that another revolution is required to replace them?

Except we are not living in George Washington's ideas any more. I suspect the revolution being proposed is to actually get back to Mr Washington's and Mr. Jefferson's (and others) ideas.

Moo

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[dbIII]

Please consider that a revolution is not fine tuning but instead lots of babies as well as the bath water. In general terms it is still the state from back then. So there's two parties now - that doesn't change that you still get to vote does it?

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[dbIII]

Fair enough - but consider how in the last few decades large initially peaceful protests in the US have turned into riots and have been put down with force. Unless something changes drasticly I can't see the above posters call for revolution happening in a peaceful way in places such as the USA. Maybe a bloodless military coup but I certainly wouldn't want to live in the sort of state that would come out of that (see examples from Argentinian and Chilean history for a couple of obvious cases).

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[strikethree]

Please consider that a revolution is not fine tuning but instead lots of babies as well as the bath water.

Keep in mind that I am not the one advocating revolution. I am aware of how bad it will be. I have seen war up close and personal.

In general terms it is still the state from back then.

No. No it is not. Back then, they knew what an authoritarian government would do if it had certain powers. The current government has taken those powers on despite the words in the Constitution. The surveillance state is here with parallel construction to legitimize the data they gather. It will only get worse from here. There is no way to legally and peacefully reign in agencies that effectively have no oversight. No senator can touch them. No president can change them. They have blackmail data on everyone and if that is insufficient, they have the tools and the knowledge of who to "remove". Game over.

So there's two parties now - that doesn't change that you still get to vote does it?

What good is voting when the people we vote for effectively have no control over what was created? What good is voting when all of the candidates are already owned completely? I have been voting for close to 40 years and it has made zero difference.

I am not advocating revolution. I am saying that I see it as an inevitable outcome no less than Thomas Jefferson did over 200 years ago. When it will happen is the hot button question.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[dbIII]

That's a depressing viewpoint. I hope the military junta you are expecting to replace the current democracy is a relatively benevolent one then.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[strikethree]

Read my .sig some time.

For some reason, there is a portion of the population that wants liberty for themselves and are willing to cooperate with other people. For some reason, there is a portion of the population that wants freedom and are unwilling to cooperate. There are other types of people but it is not necessary to discuss them at this point.

For some reason, when there are groups of humans, there is a need for leadership. The larger the group, the larger the need. For some reason, these leaders always want liberty for themselves.

When leaders who want freedom are willing to cooperate, we see things like the founding of America. When leaders are unwilling to cooperate, we see things like current America, or Russia.

For some reason, in a society where the leaders have freedom but the general population does not, a general consensus will occur amongst the population. When this consensus occurs, protests can result and it may even lead to revolution.

Occupy Wall Street was clearly a consensus. It was successfully broken with an intensive psyops campaign but it was still a clear and unequivocal consensus. The message is clear, the amount of liberty that the general population wants is not even close to what they have. More specifically, the economic shackles are too tight.

With the Snowden revelations, we are seeing some of the tools that are being used to prevent liberty amongst the general population. What is funny is that those tools have been used against the leaders who authorized those tools. That indicates to me that revolution is closer than it ever has been. When the leaders of a group begin to feel their liberty threatened, they will act... and it will be ugly.

That is what we are facing right now.

The federal government actually provides many useful and needed services. As long as these services are being performed adequately, there is still little chance for revolution, despite everything that I said above.

The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was a confidence killing event. There can not be many more of those types of failures or revolution will be ignited.

In short, the seeds of revolution have been sown (as they always are). Water has been poured on them (Katrina is an example (cute at that)). The ground has been fertilized (OWS). And finally, the sun is shining (Snowden). What do you think the results will be?

What I want and what you want is irrelevant. We are neither leaders nor significant players. The situation is deeply complex and incredibly subtle in numerous ways, so exact prediction is difficult. I would rather a transition back to the Constitution be a smooth and peaceful affair. Knowing what I know of human nature and knowing what I know of the situation, I am not entirely certain such a transition is possible.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[dbIII]

You just don't get it. What's so wrong with democracy that you want it to go away? A revolt is not going to replace a democracy with a different one. You need something a lot more subtle for that.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[dbIII]

I would rather a transition back to the Constitution

A revolt is going to provide a transition away from the Constitution to whatever the last group standing with the most guns wants - which is never going to be democracy because that gives the bunch with less guns more power than the winners want to give them.

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[strikethree]

I do not think you understand. I DO NOT WANT A REVOLUTION. I am saying that I am seeing it as inevitable. There is nothing you or I can do to stop it.

Will it be painful and dreadful? Certainly. Will it become a less democratic military junta? I am not so sure. Sometimes, it can turn out better, like it did in 1776. Is the outcome predictable? No. The cynic in me agrees with your assessment of the upcoming revolution.

Creepiest CAPTCHA ever, "sagittal".

Re:So you say you want a revolution?

[dbIII]

Will it be a way to get back to 1776 - fuck no. More like 1984.

Re:O RLY

[SeeSchloss]

unless those buying the seeds sign a contract which clearly states they assume all responsibility for what the seeds do to their environment

Well, I might not have the same perspective on "muh freedom", but you shouldn't be allowed to sign such a contract at all, because the scope obviously surpasses you. In an ideal world with an ideal justice system, such a contract should be void and both those who sold and those who used the seeds are responsible for the damage.

Sterile seeds have little to do with that, by the way, as they have been easy to produce and have been used for a long time already (sterility can be either desired or undesired depending on the crop, but usually it's just a side effect from hybridisation).

A bit slanted?

[Lando]

Okay, I can be pretty dense when it comes to reading between the lines, but even I notice a heavy dose of agenda in this summary. It's a good thing the anti-GMO folks have a crystal ball to see the future clearly.

I guess we need our daily dose of propaganda though.

Re:A bit slanted?

[quantaman]

Okay, I can be pretty dense when it comes to reading between the lines, but even I notice a heavy dose of agenda in this summary. It's a good thing the anti-GMO folks have a crystal ball to see the future clearly.

I guess we need our daily dose of propaganda though.

I'm pro-GMO but I think this is one of the legitimate issues. If you engineer something to resist a pest the pest is going to evolve a response, we've learned that lesson countless times with anti-biotics but the pests evolve faster than human nature.

Re:A bit slanted?

[bloodhawk]

Okay, I can be pretty dense when it comes to reading between the lines, but even I notice a heavy dose of agenda in this summary. It's a good thing the anti-GMO folks have a crystal ball to see the future clearly.

I guess we need our daily dose of propaganda though.

I'm pro-GMO but I think this is one of the legitimate issues. If you engineer something to resist a pest the pest is going to evolve a response, we've learned that lesson countless times with anti-biotics but the pests evolve faster than human nature.

Perhaps I am missing something but I fail to see the issue? it was completely expected for the pests to overcome it, GE corn was never going to be a solution forever, it doesn't negate all the years of use they got out of not having to use a heap of chemicals to kill the pests. Now they have to go back to chemicals again though, at least until they find the next method to counter them.

Re:A bit slanted?

[Talderas]

So previous to this seed we use pesticides to combat rootworms because farmers grow the same crop year after year permitting rootworm populations to rapidly grow. The seed is introduced which the corn produces its own pesticide. The seed is used, once again year after year. The rootworms become resistant. Farmers are now required to use pesticides once again.

We've returned to where we were about five years ago and about the worst thing you could say happened is that this particular modification of corn to combat root worms would need to be shelved and a new one found. As long as farmers engage in mono-crop farming this is going to happen and that's not even getting into the issues of nitrogen levels in soil.

Re:A bit slanted?

[Lando]

My problem isn't with the information provided, my problem is how they are framing the summary. It comes across as an emotional plea rather than actually providing knowledge/data. The message is getting lost in the rhetoric, imo.

Re:A bit slanted?

[Jmc23]

What you're missing seems to be a piece of your brain that would prevent your myopic vision.

Re:A bit slanted?

[sjames]

They would have gotten many more years out of it through more prudent management based on actually understanding that resistance would evolve.

Re:A bit slanted?

[quantaman]

There's two parts, first I'm not sure it's easy to replace the BT corn, I don't know a lot about pesticides but the combination might not be that easy to recreate, and depending how the pesticides work the current resistance might give the worms a head start on the next chemical.

But the other concern is about the industry and particularly the EPA failing to avoid what should have been an obvious problem. If they couldn't dodge this obvious bullet what other concerns are the ignoring?

Re:A bit slanted?

[bloodhawk]

refuges would NOT have prevented resistance, it may have slowed the development of the resistances but only by a few years at most.

Nothing new

[Errol backfiring]

Years ago (10 years or more)? There was a study about the arms race in agricultural pest control. The subject of this study was a genetically engineered crop that made its own poison, but that was not really relevant to the outcome of the study. Traditional spraying would have the same effect.

It was discovered that poison did not only fight pests, it also helps pests. The non-resistant pest bugs were killed, but the resistant pest bugs were given a predator-free environment. This was important, because the poison resistance often comes with lower chances of survival in non-poisoned environments. For example, one poison had an impact on the nerve system, paralysing non-resistant bugs. Resistant bugs had a nerve system that worked much slower, so they would be a "sitting duck" in a natural environment.

the study showed that if a certain portion of the land (recommended was 15% to 20%, which sound like a lot, but is peanuts compared to the 60% loss often found due to resistant pests) was planted with non-poisoned crops, the whole arms race could actually be stopped. The bugs would move between plants, and if they came on a poisoned plant they would be attacked by the poison, and if they came on a natural plant, they would be attacked by their natural predators.

Re:Nothing new

[hibiki_r]

Yep, it's called refuge. And that's why you will find, today, that the recommendation is to do exactly as you say. You'll even find Monsanto, BASF and Pioneer telling you to do that, and even selling the seeds for both. If you find a farmer that doesn't know that, he's not paying attention.

Now, good luck finding people that know this unless they have farmers or agronomists in the family.

Re:Nothing new

[dbc]

In Iowa, refuge rows are required. I forget if it is 10% or 20% refuge rows, but anyway, they are required by law. I guess this is not a requirement in other states?

example monoculture and sexual reproduction

[fonske]

Phytophthora infestans A1 type created famine in 1845 in Ireland and Flanders.
Blight was largely under control in 20th century until the Oömycete got the chance to sexually reproduce with the A2 type imported from latin America to Europe around the 1980's.
Potatoes are largely from the "bintje" variety because consumer wants so. And potatoes are "cloned" by planting tubers from previous harvest.

Re:example monoculture and sexual reproduction

[Whorhay]

An interesting factoid about the irish potato famine is that while the potato crops were failing 75% of farmland was being used for food exports. During the years of the famine Ireland was exporting ever more food, including meat and butter, to England. The Brittish actually sent troops to guard the food in case any serfs got uppity and tried to feed their children.

In the end the potato crop failure didn't cause the famine, it was just the conveinent excuse. What caused the famine was the greed of the wealthy who lobbied to keep exporting food while their workers starved to death.

Been to a seminar on this

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to a seminar about a year ago at Clemson U. The presenter went over all of the protocols that farmers are supposed to follow, which included growing non-modified corn in a certain proportion of their acreage. This was to prevent this very thing happening. The idea is that pests thrive in the non-modified crop and spawn non-resistant offspring, and since their numbers are much larger than the bugs in the modified crop, they pollute the resistant DNA and they don't develop herd immunity to the modified corn.

He basically said that the pests are becoming resistant because farmers are not following the protocol, because the non-modified crops basically get obliterated as a honeypot for pests to thrive and multiply, and the farmers don't make any money off of that acreage.

So, don't blame the corn. Blame big agro for failing to follow the rules in the name of greed and profit.

Re:O RLY

[Anonymous Coward]

It's their business model. Now, with the altered pests, they'll make another type of corn, and sell it for the next 5 years. And keep at it until the corn becomes too poisonous for humans or livestock to consume or the farmers/government wiseup.

Re:O RLY

[erikkemperman]

The deeper problem, of which all this is a direct consequence, is allowing short term economic considerations of a tiny minority to outweigh the mid to long term environmental and health consequences (with associated dollar cost, of course) for society at large.

FTFS:

The corn was planted in 1996. The first reports of rootworm resistance were officially documented in 2011, though agricultural scientists weren't allowed by seed companies to study the engineered corn until 2010.

Same thing is happening around fracking, companies are disallowing scientists to scrutinize the many chemicals they're squirting down into the earth, because trade secrets.

In a democracy, everyone is responsible and accountable when, decade after decade, private profits are allowed to trump public well being, time and time again.

Re:O RLY

[lkcl]

YA RLY
And the corporations selling this stuff cannot care less about it, all they care about is that we transition to patented and sterile seeds so we perpetually depend on them.

my biggest concern is that they start creating what can only be described as "generation time-bomb crops", in a pathologically-insane effort to further save money. "time-bomb crops" would be those which you plant once, they grow, seed, plant twice, they grow, place a third time and they FAIL.

now imagine such insanely-dangerous crops pollenating and cross-pollenating world-wide and it's not so hard to imagine a scenario in which world famine occurs within a five to eight year period in which all food crops world-wide completely fail.

i was actually pretty shocked when i first heard of sterile seeds that even have a *single* generation planting. there's no guarantee that nature will not, through its own process of DNA evolution, *accidentally* come up with generation time-bomb crops.

i've said it once and i'll say it again: genetic modifications to crops are so insanely dangerous that i'm beyond understanding why people do not understand this. if there was even the *slightest* risk of killing 7 billion people *why would you even contemplate it*?

Does this mean pesticide works better now?

[swb]

So there was a switch to rootworm resistant corn, which I'd assume came with a declining use of pesticide. If the rootworms overcame resistance to the resistant corn, does this mean they may have lost some of their resistance to the pesticide?

Or are these resistances somehow retained or overlapping so that we have rootworms with high resistance to both?

Other than the nasty concept of pesticide use generally, it sounds like maybe this would allow for a switch back to pesticides which the rootworms may have lost resistance to.

Or will my cynicism be correct, that farmers will use both the resistant seed AND pesticide and develop a super-rootworm with strong resistance to both?

Re:Does this mean pesticide works better now?

[Lumpy]

as long as they have little S symbols on their chests so we can easily identify them.

Re:Does this mean pesticide works better now?

[N1AK]

I can't see what the actual issue with the situation put forwards by the article is. Farmers have been able to use considerably less pesticide for a decade, the effectiveness of that solution is falling so they'll have to go back to using pesticide. How is that worse than just having used pesticide throughout the whole period and have the rootworm build up a better resistance to that instead?

Re:Does this mean pesticide works better now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because now we are short one pesticide.

Intermittent spraying of BT only knocked back populations of rootworms, but still allowed a vector for non-resistant rootworms to stay in the genepool, and outcompete the resistant ones as the spray decomposed/leeched away.

BT corn produces BT toxin 24/7, and is always toxic to non-resistant pests. No such influx and competition in the field happens. The result will always be the same; complete resistance given sufficient time, as long as the crop is over used.

Again, if we had just stuck with pesticides, the resistance problem would not be as severe. We are now down one pesticide. We lost ground.

Re:Does this mean pesticide works better now?

[N1AK]

Again, if we had just stuck with pesticides, the resistance problem would not be as severe. We are now down one pesticide. We lost ground.

Thanks for the response. If rootworm becomes entirely resistant to BT then the need for BT resistant corn vanishes, so why would farmers keep paying a premium for it? Why would a GM producer intentionally allow their product to become redundant?

Re:Does this mean pesticide works better now?

[jwhitener]

Pesticide isn't persistent throughout the growing period. It is applied once or twice a season, and depending on which chemical was used, is gone in a few days. So resistance to pesticide is going to take much longer.

Re:O RLY

[Travis Mansbridge]

Corporations

Are any companies in the "Bt seed industry" other than Monsanto? I wonder why they hardly get a mention in the article.

buy hey!

[Connie_Lingus]

evolution isn't real, right? adaptation to environmental stresses just a theory...

tell that to these farmers.

Re:buy hey!

[Tablizer]

Who needs evolution when you can use Intelligent Greed Design.

Re:O RLY

[king neckbeard]

Fortunately, life finds a way, and time bombs are an evolutionary dead end. I'm not saying that GMOs shouldn't be scrutinized, but you don't seem to be looking at this properly, and also seem to be conflating what the GMO industry is doing right now with the underlying technology.

Re:O RLY

[Stormthirst]

But but but ... that might mean more government interference and then where would my Libertarian nonsense be? Shouldn't the free market sort this out? /sarcasm

Well, let's eat the root worms instead

[gatkinso]

Yummy.

Re:O RLY

[Stormthirst]

Because they are the biggest, and they invented it. Also everyone knows how big a bunch of cunts they are.

As long as the bottom line was good for a quarter

[mark_reh]

or two, it was well worth the experiment, at least to the CEO and shareholders. The CEO got his bonus and the shareholders got their bump in the price and that's all that matters.

When the CEO lays off all the genetic engineers because of this "problem" the shareholders will reward him with another bonus for being so proactive.

I don't know why you guys are getting so upset. It says right there in the Bible that God gave us all the plants and animals to do with as we see fit.

I strongly doubt it

[dbIII]

You don't end up with something almost the same but just a bit better after a revolution. You end up with whatever the person who can get together the most guns wants, and whatever wet dreams the NSA has that's not going to be civilians - it's going to be whoever promises the military the best deal. There's no "easy to sell them" involved for the rest.

Most people here are to comfortable though, so its not going to happen in the first place

Which is why I tried pointing out to the above poster that a revolution has already been won for him - IMHO tweaking the current situation instead of throwing it all away to be a dictatorship or whatever is frankly somewhat more sane.

Re:O RLY

[Travis Mansbridge]

Right, my question is why isn't Monsanto mentioned by name? I think you may have misunderstood my comment.

So this is a bad why?

[Maury Markowitz]

"1996. The first reports of root worm resistance were officially documented in 2011"

So we got 15 years of pesticide-free corn? And the downside is we have to return to what we used to do, until we get another variety?

If it's 15 years for that one too, I suspect we can out engineer the bugs continually.

Re:So this is a bad why?

[ledow]

Although I agree, the critical question really becomes: Did we get value for that corn over that timescale, enough to justify changing over to it.

Did the cost of not having to use pesticide X scale in comparison to the cost of finding new pesticide Y within 15 years (which, let's face it, is largely a random number determined by genetic mutation chance) and deploying it?

How much do farmers have invested in this? How much profit/loss would they have made just using the old pesticide or even suffering losses instead of having to buy this engineered corn?

The numbers have to pan out. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, I'm not a farmer so I have no idea. But if you want to "bet the farm" (quite literally) across the nation on the fact that you can out-engineer bugs constantly for at least the next generation or so (who can make their own decisions), while paying for for-profit engineered corn, that's not a decision to take on the basis of "it sounds good".

And you also have to think about the bigger picture - in the future do we want to be potentially spending more than healthcare costs on just how to get rid of bugs that we've dealt with for thousands of years? Redirecting all that effort to developing new corn and studying new bugs in order to do what maybe washing the corn or introducing a natural predator could do (which is not impactless in itself!)?

And do we want to guarantee that we'll ALWAYS out-strip nature? In this case, 15 years for something resistant occurred. But what's to say that in that time, next time around, we don't get 10 mutations of bugs that we can't stop for another 10 years each? Or that we don't get a mutation of bug that takes out ALL the crops for one year in a month (even if we then develop a pesticide the next week?)

When you're gambling with the food supply of a nation, it's not as simple as just letting private companies develop these things and leaving them to it. Monsanto pretty much have single-handedly proven that and take a significant chunk of money from everyone who grows crops - by patenting a gene that makes some crops immune to their own weedkiller - and even from people who didn't even know they were using Monsanto crops or never intended to (to the point where you get patent lawsuits against farmers for buying seeds from other farmers, or even because some seed blew into their land).

The question to ask is really about the longer-term costs, if ALL we get is 15 years of risky "safety". And even things like - is it sensible to replace crops, nationwide, with new varieties, entirely, over the course of 15 years just to avoid a particular pest?

Re:So this is a bad why?

[rahvin112]

Pesticide free Corn?

No. We got pesticide infused corn. The pesticide wasn't sprayed on the corn, it was part of the corn because the corn plant was producing the pesticide inside it's cellular structure.

Re:Scientists suprised by evolution....

[Maury Markowitz]

> dousing the entire countryside

Countryside?! They had trucks driving around cities and towns fogging it on everyone.

Re:O RLY

[gstoddart]

In a democracy, everyone is responsible and accountable when, decade after decade, private profits are allowed to trump public well being, time and time again.

Welcome to the dystpoian oligarchy, where the only thing which matters is corporate profits, and where you assume it's safe until someone proves otherwise -- all the while making it impossible for people to study it enough to find out.

Re:O RLY

[gtall]

In your Libertarian nonsense, there are no public goods, or Commons. Everything is owned by somebody, including your grandmother. Every bit, byte, and nibble has a price. We have actuaries and accountants to keep track of it all, yep, even the data has a price, those actuaries and accountants do not work for free. In a Libertarian utopia, we'll all have Air Measures installed in our teeth and a monthly bill for how much air you breathe. And you'll have all the firearms and rocket launchers you need to prevent anyone from stealing from your pile of loot. And you'll need them too since not everyone will feel blessed in the Libertarian Paradise.

And when you die, don't forget to settle up or your heirs will be inheriting much more than your mold and spore collection.

Re:O RLY

[Stormthirst]

You're right - I did miss-read. /tin foil hat Monsanto bought the paper?

Re:O RLY

[morgauxo]

"and also seem to be conflating what the GMO industry is doing right now with the underlying technology."

There's a lot of that going around. Isn't that what pretty much every anti-GMO person does?

Evolution take care of that

[aepervius]

Seed with limited number of generation, simply kick themselves out of any gene pool which has no such limitation.

Re:Evolution take care of that

[Somebody Is Using My]

Seed with limited number of generation, simply kick themselves out of any gene pool which has no such limitation.

While in the long run this is true, in the short run the effects of this can be ruinous to an environment.

In a natural setting, such self-limiting organisms would never be able to get a strong foothold; when they inevitably die out, the rest of the plant kingdom easily makes up the slack. Unfortunately, due to human intervention it is quite possible for these suicidal genes to spread far, far beyond what their 'natural' reach. Thus, when plants infected with these genes inevitably die off, the gap they will leave behind could be much larger than would be otherwise expected. Ultimately, there will be other plants - either those never infected with the "suicide" genes or mutants that bypass this repressive bit of DNA - that will take over the rolls played by those limited by their genes. But in the meantime, the plants and animals (including humans and their civilization) would have a rough time of it as their food source suddenly shrivels up and die.

Yes, we - like the rest of the animal kingdom - would eventually adapt. But pity those caught in the period of disruption, no matter how "short-term" it is in the overall scheme of things.

It is like the argument against global warming. Yes, the planet has weathered periods where it was both warmer and colder than it is now, and yes, life will continue if the current conditions change. But our species - and our civilizations - have adapted to current conditions and the transitory periods would bring great hardship. It's all well and good to say "life will go on" but that ignores all the pain and suffering of those living during the transition, which is sort of contrary to the whole point of having a civilization to begin with.

We have the wisdom and ability to avoid these disruptions - whether caused by mismanagement of our seedcrop or the pollutants from our industry - and ignoring the dangers these cause simply because /life/ will surely survive the changing conditions is foolish. It's not just life that is important, but individual lives. It is all the more ridiculous since we are charging recklessly ahead with these dangerous technologies simply with the aim of increasing the shareholder value of a corporation.

GM species behave exactly like any other species

[Applehu Akbar]

There is noting weird and baleful about GM species that causes them to behave differently from non-GMOs in the environment, including how other species co-evolve in response to them. There was an early belief that transfer of genes between species was special manmade magic, until it was found that this happens in nature too: http://davesgarden.com/guides/...

Genetic engineering is nothing but a precisely targeted way of accomplishing changes that used to take generations of cross-breeding and culling.

Re:O RLY

[Applehu Akbar]

The whole terminator gene concept was designed to ALLAY fears that a GM species would get out into the environment and "take over" in some way, presumably evolving a mustache and a devilish laugh.

Re:O RLY

[neonKow]

It's called OVERuse for a reason. If you use these technologies in reasonable ways, you can control pest populations while maintaining the effectiveness of the toxin. If you ONLY use this corn and it's this effective, you are basically breading the corn rootworms for resistance.

If you stupidly sprint at the start of a marathon you burn up your resources too quickly, and the same thing is happening here.

But it's the panacea!

[ExecutorElassus]

Someone explain to me again how GMO crops are the only possible way human beings are going to solve all our agriculture problems, and people opposed to them are Luddites? Did they not think that natural selection more or less negates any gains reached through GM within a few generations?

Re:But it's the panacea!

[gzuckier]

Until we can GMO a weed that produces beef, our problems will continue.

Re:O RLY

[next_ghost]

my biggest concern is that they start creating what can only be described as "generation time-bomb crops", in a pathologically-insane effort to further save money. "time-bomb crops" would be those which you plant once, they grow, seed, plant twice, they grow, place a third time and they FAIL.

now imagine such insanely-dangerous crops pollenating and cross-pollenating world-wide and it's not so hard to imagine a scenario in which world famine occurs within a five to eight year period in which all food crops world-wide completely fail.

Sorry but you don't understand even the complete basics of genetics. Time-bomb crops wouldn't be that dangerous in the wild even if they actually existed. It's extremely unlikely that a significant portion of normal crop population would become contaminated by time-bomb genes in just a few years. And two plants with both normal and time-bomb genes still have 25% chance of producing completely clean offspring.

Also, the chance of infertile hybrid turning into multigeneration time-bomb is practically zero. It's much easier to simply break the reproductive system completely than to build a generation countdown into it.

Re:Free market economy, way to destroy us all...

[Jmc23]

Yeah, life as we know it would be over.

Scientists can't even lead themselves (hence how they always get tricked into destroying the world for money) what the hell makes you think they can lead the world let alone a country?

This is the whole thing with GMO

[WOOFYGOOFY]

It doesn't exempt itself from evolution. So the question we need to be asking ourselves is, WHEN pests evolve to thwart GMO "innovations" what might those pests be able to DO how BAD will THAT be and how are we going to deal with it and how quickly can we react what happens to the food supply if we CAN'T?
 

Re:O RLY

[Archangel Michael]

Free Market COULD sort this out. This is a matter of courts. IF you can prove the harm, and you should be able to, then we can use the courts to sue the corporations and their boards and CxOs for liablity, toss them in to Pound me in the ass prison, and confiscate their wealth, and finally, after all is done, give the shareholders absolutely nothing by revoking the corporate charter (including subsidiaries). THIS would create a free market result that things that are harmful are not done, because it isn't profitable. As it is right now, there is no responsibility for malfeasance anywhere in the Corporate / Government complex.

We don't need more "laws" we need people willing to execute the existing laws effectively. But it is more profitable for government to allow for this crap, and that is why the government doesn't do its job. This is what running deficits year after year provide, a need for more and more taxes to cover up the fact that government isn't doing the one job it is supposed to do.

AND people like yourself think more laws will solve the problem. It won't solve anything, but rather creates more problems to solve. How convenient.

Re:O RLY

[kilfarsnar]

The deeper problem, of which all this is a direct consequence, is allowing short term economic considerations of a tiny minority to outweigh the mid to long term environmental and health consequences (with associated dollar cost, of course) for society at large.

Hey, hey! This is America!

Evolution Surprisingly Still Works

[Arancaytar]

More on this unexpected development later.

Re:O RLY

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

While on the opposite end, everything is peaceful, everything is a public good, there is no price tag for anything, and people are randomly executed for anything. A single entity other than yourself control your life and your destiny. You can find one such country (Hint: it is located on the Korean Peninsula.)

John Brunner wrote that

[angel'o'sphere]

Either in "Stand on Sansibar" or "Sheep looking up" I think the latter one. Well at his time it was considered SF. However it was plausible. And I'm not surprised that it indeed worked. Now lets wait for the worms to really mutate and become nasty :D

Re:O RLY

[Gr8Apes]

Free Market COULD sort this out. This is a matter of courts. IF you can prove the harm, and you should be able to, then we can use the courts to sue the corporations and their boards and CxOs for liablity, toss them in to Pound me in the ass prison, and confiscate their wealth, and finally, after all is done, give the shareholders absolutely nothing by revoking the corporate charter (including subsidiaries).

Until ANY of those things happen at least once for corporate malfeasance, nothing will change. Much like gov employees documented lying under oath still walking free.

Re:O RLY

[fustakrakich]

I think the plan is to kill only 5 or 6 billion people.

Re:O RLY

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are confusing "resistant to pesticides" with "resistant to pests".

Unrealistic Idealism

[Tablizer]

We need a revolution to overthrow the...

There never will be a perfect government because governments are run & selected by humans, and humans have a lot of character flaws. If you want an AI government, then it could slip into a totalitarian government without humans noticing and we'd be imprisoned or discarded.

Better to suck 30% than suck 100%.

I smell unrealistic idealism: "because it's not perfect, bulldoze it down and start over."

Re:O RLY

[mspohr]

I'm glad you made reference to the "Corporate / Government" complex since this is the problem. Our government is completely corrupt since corporations can buy whatever laws they need to keep their profits. Corporations buy politicians who make the laws which benefit corporations.
I don't really agree that "it is more profitable for government to allow for this crap" since government doesn't make a profit but the politicians who make our laws certainly can benefit from making laws to benefit corporations or from not enforcing existing laws.
In the US, there really is no difference between corporations and government. They act together to serve each others interests. We have reached the point of a fascist state.
There is no possibility of a "free market" in the US. It's all corporate control through their corrupt politicians.

Re:O RLY

[mopower70]

All the fuss surrounding GMO is about this.

YA, No. It's not. All the fuss surrounding GMO is about imagined illness and "unnatural" foods. I WISH it was about this because this is what the fuss should be about: Bad Farming Practices (tm). And Bad Farming Practices (tm) are not limited to GMOs, but also apply to the festering cesspool we call organics that poison hundreds of people every year.

Anyone who's arguing against GMOs because of where farmers get their seeds has no idea how modern agriculture works. Farmers have been buying seed from stores for nearly a century and that's not going to change any time soon. The economics of selecting, drying, and storing your own seed hasn't scaled in generations. This fantasy of the strapping farmer harvesting his crops and saving the seeds for next year's planting is just some Hakuna matata circle-of-life fantasy that doesn't exist in the real world business of agriculture.

Re:O RLY

[Nyder]

YA RLY
And the corporations selling this stuff cannot care less about it, all they care about is that we transition to patented and sterile seeds so we perpetually depend on them.

... if there was even the *slightest* risk of killing 7 billion people *why would you even contemplate it*?

Profit of course.

Re:O RLY

[delt0r]

No one wants your silly facts in this discussion. The only pertinent facts is that corporations are evil and care only about profits. GE crops are morally wrong.. for some reason. Anything or anyone promoting either is EVIL. Like shifty eyes evil.

Now take your facts elsewhere.

Re:O RLY

[mrchaotica]

Everyone seems to forget that the reasoning for these types of crops it to minimize spraying poison on our food sources.

If the farmers used more sustainable (organic, biodynamic, whatever) techniques it would never have become a problem in the first place!

Just another strawman

[BeekyOnSlashdot]

This article is just plain stupid. Pests will eventually develop resistance to anything. You can't turn off evolution! To assume that GMO plants somehow avoid this inevitability is just a strawman that can then be used to 'prove' how awful GMO plants and their associated producers are. If there is a villain it is mono-culture. But mono-culture is just another risk/reward tradeoff. Mono-culture makes farming much more economical but gives evolution a much larger population of genetically similar individuals to operate on.

Re:O RLY

[dryeo]

Are you getting confused between herbicides and insecticides? They engineer plants to be more resistant to herbicides such as round-up so they can go nuts spraying it to kill weeds which leads to a similar problem as in the article where weeds become round-up resistant but while similar and bad, is a different problem.

So the new treatment no longer works.

[Bing Tsher E]

The way I read it, they came out with this new strain of corn that prevented the pest from infesting it. The pest adapted. So we are no worse than before, but no better than before. What is the horrible crime that has been committed? The vendors of the new strain off corn just put themselves out of business by overselling.

I can see why the scientists who came up with the 'fix' would have bruised egos, from thinking their 'breakthrough' hasn't saved humanity, but butthurt scientists are nothing new. Humanity often routes around the scientists' miraculous fixes, cuz human populations are not scientifically controllable. Scientists who want complete control should stick to populations of white mice.
 

Re: O RLY

[kurzweilfreak]

As far as I know, there are no seeds at all on the market using so-called "Terminator" technology, and never have been. So everyone crying over sterile seeds just doesn't really know what they're talking about. Now, if they're talking about hybrid vigor and how second generation seeds don't perform as well as first-generation hybrids, that's just genetics for you, not some grand conspiracy to make farmers buy seeds year after year rather than saving them.

Re:O RLY

[meerling]

This is NOT a GMO issue, it's the same measure/counter-measure issue that's been plaguing agriculture since farming began.
It's an example of evolution in action as a species changes in response to a change in it's environment.
Stop trying to make it out to be more than it is.

Re: O RLY

[kurzweilfreak]

Hey now, don't be bringing facts into the anti-GMO discussion! They hate that shit.

If you read the info sheets...

[kurzweilfreak]

As far as I'm aware, the seeds you buy with these traits come with a "best practices" information sheet that tells you exactly this kind of shit. That farmers still ignore that advice, even knowing what the outcome will be, can hardly be blamed on the biotech companies. After all, the farmers are the ones ultimately putting the seed in the ground. But hey, anything to bitch about Monsanto and the rest, right?

Re: Well, make it better then

[kurzweilfreak]

[citation needed]

Re:O RLY

[pnutjam]

We're not quite fascist yet. The real problem is we aren't running a capitalist system, despite the frequent references.

We appear to be running some sort of managementist system. The wealth owners (stockholders) and wealth creators (employees) get bossed around by middle men who think they know what is best. They can be managers or bureaucrats. Even the voters get shafted by this system where someone put in place to work as part of the system, and do what citizens want, takes over the system.

Re:O RLY

[callmetheraven]

Fortunately, life finds a way,

"Indeed it does!", say the maggots and microbes eating the decomposing bodies.

Problem with bt GMO corn

[Hebetsubeach]

The problem with bt GMO corn is that the pesticide is present in the corn field 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Prudent use of a pesticide dictates that you use the pesticide as infrequently and as sparingly as possible. If you use it all the time, the insects you are trying to control will develop a resistance to it. But with a GMO plant which is producing the toxin continuously, you are providing the perfect environment for the insect to develop a resistance to it. Sadly, bt toxin is a pesticide that many organic farmers depend on. Since bt toxin is a naturally occurring toxin, it is allowed in organic farming. But, due to GMO crops like bt corn, organic farmers are going to lose a useful, natural pesticide as insects develop resistance to it because they are exposed to it all the time. But companies like Monsato will never be held liable for selling a product that is causing immense harm to organic farmers.

Re:O RLY

[whistlingtony]

The way I figure it, humanity has three potential futures:

Mad Max - We use up all the resources and plunge into Pure Freedom, although I like to call it Really Bad Shit.

Blade Runner - Corporations run the world, profit is everything, and the future is very very gritty for the folks at the bottom.

Star Trek - We invent ourselves into plenty, people can learn and grow as much as they desire or have the will to do.

I'd pick Star Trek. And let's face it, from where we're sitting, Star Treck looks pretty damn Commie. I'm OK with that, mostly because it's not commie at all and we're batshit insane. The point here is, you're restricting choices. Logical Fallacy: Black and White.

I'll take peaceful, everything is a public good, no price tag is stupid but lets call it a sane price tag, and no randomly killing people. It IS quite possible to do that. It is a viable option, and doesn't it sound pretty damn good? So stop inventing Scary Big Brother and help us build it.

P.S. Damnit, we're so CLOSE to Star Trek. Oh, not the spaceships, but universal education is a Khaaannnn! Academy away (I'm so sorry), We have a food distribution problem, not a food production problem, our tech is pretty impressive, our communications are practically free and instant, and damnit, the whole problem is one of culture and systems, not of possibility.

Re:O RLY

[geekoid]

ST is communist.
Once you have the technology that provides pretty much whatever you need, then Communist is the only choice.
Free food and materials, so you really don't need any money.

Re:O RLY

[geekoid]

You do realize that the VAST majority of thing Monsanto is accused of never happened, right?

Re:O RLY

[AlphaWolf_HK]

What evidence is there that it's becoming poisonous at all to humans?

And please don't cite one of those long since debunked stories claiming that GMOs cause cancer, because not one of those studies has ever made it past peer review, and all of them have been since discredited as junk science, even by other anti-GMO advocates.

Re:O RLY

[Hamsterdan]

"How exactly do you remove the poison if it is internal to the kernel?"

Recompile it from source?

Re:O RLY

[FirephoxRising]

Yes, they should plant this on a rotation with different varieties and using sprays on some fields.

Re:O RLY

[king neckbeard]

Not reproducing is by definition an evolutionary dead end, no matter how many times you do it. There's no way for that trait to become dominant because it does not spread itself well. The trait is literally "NOT COMING BACK", which is something that does not keep coming back BY DEFINITION. Evolution favors reproduction. The inevitable failure related to terminator crops is not that the terminator genes will spread, but that the other genes will.

Ponzi Scheme

[arthurstrang]

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the operator." --Wikipedia Or, in the case of engineered corn, the engineering generates its own demand. See also addiction. There is no sustainable value, only the false image of value, money, and only to one party, the engineer.

As Jurassic Park's chaos guy Malcom would say

[cubicleguy]

Nature finds a way.

industry says

[gzuckier]

"Uh, what's your point?"
See also: "we need to develop newer antibiotics for all the bacteria who have developed resistance to our old antibiotics, but they don't come cheap"

Re:GM species behave exactly like any other specie

[gzuckier]

There are different versions of genetic modification. Taking a specific gene and transferring it into another organism is not a heck of a lot different from breeding for a trait. In some ways, more predictable since you know what protein you're going to produce, whereas breeding can have all sorts of odd pleiotropic effects, selection for major things like paedomorphism, etc.
The other kind of genetic modification is the "shotgun" method; chop the total DNA of these insecticidal bacteria into manageable pieces, mix it up with plant embryos, grow a zillion of them up and grab any which have incorporated the insecticides. And who knows what else.....

Monoculture, subsidized crops, and

[ToddInSF]

people too stupid to know when they've been PR'd into psudo-scientific corporate submission.

But no, we shouldn't have the ability in the US to know what foods contain what so that we can make our own choices, because, like, people will stop buying the shit...