following that, the most prevalent use for GM crops is herbicide tolerance, where glyphosate is the most common herbicide targeted [1].
If you posted on Hacker News eight years ago that you thought it was a good idea for GM foods to be labeled, you'd be roundly mocked with all the data showing genetic modification is safe (as I'm sure is about to happen here anyway).
That was never what the debate was about and it was a straw man. The debate was over things like this. Why GM was being pushed so hard, by whom, and what that genetic modification implies about the food its associated with. Consumers should have the right to opt out, or at least be aware, of when they are participating in these agricultural markets.
Well go on, don't just eldude to it. Spell it out.
My understanding is that GM is pushed so hard because while farming is the most necessary thing humans do, it's also highly undesirable labor and the pay is shit. It's also risky business, on a long enough timeline every crop fails.
Consumers should grow their own food if they are worried. See how hard it is.
My experience is that 99% of the people who are agasinst Roundup haven't ever done a day's farming.
Monsanto introduced proprietary GMO crops that were resistant to Roundup so you could easily wipe out every plant that wasn’t the crop (aka “weeds”). It was a package deal.
> In 1996, Monsanto introduced the Roundup Ready soybean, a genetically engineered crop resistant to glyphosate. In the few years after, Roundup Ready cotton, maize, and various other crops also made their debut.
Is there a shortage of farm workers ? I live in a rural agricultural town, farms have plenty of workers here who largely come from central and South America . That's like a big part of the economy here. The work being hard / low paying isn't why Monsanto pushed GM so hard, they pushed it so they could patent seeds and sell license fees, as well as a ton of glyphosate.
> My experience is that 99% of the people who are agasinst Roundup haven't ever done a day's farming.
Sounds about right[0].
> Direct on-farm employment accounted for about 2.6 million of these jobs, or 1.3 percent of U.S. employment.
Are farmers somehow not susceptible to conflicts of interest? You suggested it yourself: The work is hard enough as it is, so the last thing farmers have time for is to pressure godlike multinational corporations into investing into alternatives. Who else is supposed to complain?
If you posted on Hacker News eight years ago that you thought it was a good idea for GM foods to be labeled, you'd be roundly mocked with all the data showing genetic modification is safe (as I'm sure is about to happen here anyway).
That was never what the debate was about and it was a straw man. The debate was over things like this. Why GM was being pushed so hard, by whom, and what that genetic modification implies about the food its associated with. Consumers should have the right to opt out, or at least be aware, of when they are participating in these agricultural markets.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops#Gly...