My take: there’s no GM story here. No-one’s saying the GM crops don’t work, no-one’s even saying they have negative externalities.

Instead, we’ve got a lousy product being sold by a large multinational that’s trying to suppress the evidence of the awfulness of its product.

So yeah, they deserve to be sued into the ground, but it doesn’t move the needle one jot on what I think about GM in general.

I believe it is a GM story. Monsanto's GM is to allow chemicals like dicambra, and glyphosate to be sprayed on these crops, their modifications make them resistant.

So, the GM application is mainly pesticide resistance, and the subsequent shitty pesticides they use which kill everything that hasn't been modified. The use of these pesticides is because they are growing GM crops.

First, you are talking about herbicides, not pesticides.

Secondly, GM opposition is a very odd thing. Every carton of milk I buy has a little sticker that it comes from non-GM cows, Every one of those stickers is a lie. We have selectively bred cattle for hundreds of years to build the modern dairy cow with specific genetics. It's been very scientifically done for a long time.

Third, the real issue here is not GM. It is IP. (I know Stallman would bristle at generically lumping it all under IP). But this new idea that one party can own a seed and just license it to others for planting is crazy. The idea that they can contaminate other crops and then claim ownership of those crops, too? Crazy.

Herbicides are included in the group of pesticides.

Genetic Manipulation is a form of breeding, but not all kinds of breeding fall under genetic manipulation. Genetic manipulation allows you to do things you cannot do with other breeding techniques such as horizontal gene transfer. You cannot produce medicine by breeding tobacco, but you can do with genetic manipulation (which is also being done).

>We have selectively bred cattle for hundreds of years to build the modern dairy cow with specific genetics.

I don't think it is a good idea to conflate selective breeding programs with gene splicing as they are very different.

> I don't think it is a good idea to conflate selective breeding programs with gene splicing as they are very different.

Yeah, we have a lot more specific control and selectivity with gene splicing than selective breeding.

What point are you trying to make?

NB: herbicides are considered a subset of pesticides.

Also, the idea that seed patenting is new is ludicrous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 Also the wind-contamination and lawsuit bullshit is a lie and clearly demonstrates that you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

Yes, but the issue is not the GM crops causing issues, but the pesticide they are engineered to survive.

If people just grew the GM crops, there wouldn't be a problem, but it's the use of the accompanying pesticide that is destroying innocent crops.

That's the externality.

If they didn't use the herbicide, they wouldn't want the GM crops.

Yet, GMO as a technology is in many ways inherently associated with an agricultural system dominated by large multinational actors who excert a great deal of power. This is for me the greatest problem with GMO - not any possible health implications (for which there is scant negative evidence). Greater reliance on seed that can't be reproduced locally and on highly specialised chemicals and packages of practice is a huge threat to many farmers (especially where I work - India).

Can anyone even remember a case where a large corporation has a big problem and they have secret evidence they won't provide actually does exonerate them?y 6 It must have happened at least a few times in history, but just like Windows Vista,

> I'll be interested to see how HN responds to this.

Why? This has no bearing on the validity or existence of claimed Monsanto research.

It has everything to do with politics, though. And that’s where this ultimately plays out.

Umm, no. Perhaps this is important to people who read news and need entertainment, but otherwise it is utterly relevant. In an eventual lawsuit evidence is far more important than hurt feelings.

We should trust Monsanto, they have a long term vested interest in keeping those farmers in business.

The farmers that are in trouble are those who are not using monsanto crops.

I wonder if the farmers are cheeping out and using the new stuff or the old illegal stuff also. When they got approval wouldn't they have had to submit the test plot data and methods?

They released the resistant crop seeds before the released the modified herbicide.

Then, they did not allow independent testing of the modified herbicide before making it commercially available.

I like how you break things down. But serious question, do you get accused of "overthinking it" a lot?

Mostly by myself, but yes, definitely.