Actually, one of the biggest GMs from Monsanto is their 'Roundup ready' genetics, which makes the plant resistant to a potent herbicide called roundup (which they sell), which is a systemic herbicide containing glyphosate. They spray the whole field with that, and everything but the roundup-ready crops dies, including blow-over on the edges of fields. There are health controversies around this chemical, and it is now very prevalent in our food supply. In 2014, ~82% of soy cultivation is this particular GMO. You can imagine how little genetic diversity that gives us on an important staple crop, too. Soybeans aren't the only roundup ready crop, corn is another big one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_soybean

Overall, this leads to less herbicides being used because Roundup is so effective. Normally a farmer is forced to use many applications of a variety of herbicides (some with proven problems for humans.) In comparison a couple blanketings of Roundup is preferable.

The problem of Roundup resistance and decreasing genetic diversity is a serious concern though.

Initially, maybe, but i've read glyphosate resistant strains of pigweed quickly took over have been causing big problems. For many farmers, pigweed was the catalyst for them moving to roundup ready crops. Apparently Monsanto is trying to push Dicamba resistant crops now (see above).

Herbicides aren't the only solution for that problem. Some practices such a tilling, for example, churns up a bunch of weed seeds which exacerbates the problem (and others).

Oh yeah. I totally agree that we should be concerned about the long term consequences of herbicide resistance and that Roundup ready crops will contribute to that problem. We should probably have some national standards for sustainable agriculture that are backed by science and enforced by the government. Just like we should have a national strategy for handling antibiotics in order to minimize or slow resistance.

But this is not a problem unique to Monsanto, Roundup nor GMOs. If Monsanto was gone tomorrow, someone would just jump up in their place, different gene, different herbicide, same problem. Most people who work at Monsanto probably think they're doing something good for people. They're selling the most modern solution to an ancient problem and keeping the green revolution rolling. Are they aware about the concerns regarding their product? Probably, but just like most people they're a bit willfully ignorant of the consequences of how they earn their living.

In the end, I don't think the solution is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and get on the fast train to fruit loop town with the no GMO, Monsanto is evil, "organic" only, all natural kool-aid drinkers. Having a standards body in place that makes sure this technology is applied responsibly is the best solution in my mind. Of course ensuring regulatory bodies aren't overtaken by zealots or shills is always a problem but I'm not sure what else to do.

And your imagination regarding genetic diversity would be wrong: Roundup ready genetics have multiple generations, each with a smaller footprint in the genes of the host plant. Also, it's not as if this is being added to a single strain of soybeans or corn: There's quite a bit of genetic variation between different seeds with roundup ready genetics. It has to be, as the corn that has the highest yields in northern Montana is different than in Missouri: you have over a month in differences in relative maturity. Something similar happens in soybeans. If you want little genetic diversity, go look at plenty of non-gmo, completely Monsanto unrelated fruits (They just have a small veggie department).

Now, one has to be quite incompetent at spraying glyphosate to have significant blow over across the edges of fields: it's a very well behaved chemical in that regard. If you wanted to both make Monsanto look bad in this topic, you should forget about glyposate and think Dicamba. I won't bore HN with all the details, but even in Monsanto's new formulation, which supposedly makes the risk of hitting neighboring fields far lower, just picking a day where the weather isn't exactly right for the spray, or poor technique application, will lead to major damage in neighboring fields: The results might have been good in the lab, but they are not great in practice. It's arguably Monsanto's biggest piece of existential risk.

One or a few strains per region isn't exactly what I'd call a healthy amount of biodiversity.

I don't know much about the Dicamba topic, but it looks like a nasty herbicide and Monsanto is producing GM seeds that are resistant to that, probably to overcome the natural resistance to glyphosate that pigweed developed. It seems like there is a lot of controversy around it. Care to comment more on that topic? I think there are some interested readers that you won't bore.

Plants have been uniquely patentable since well before transgenic technology. Oddly enough, people weren't complaining about those greedy, evil plant breeders back in the 1930s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...

Perhaps there's some merit to the idea that spending 10, 15, or 20 years developing a new breed should come with a temporary monopoly on said breed? Maybe it's absurd to think you have a sacred right to use newly developed varieties?

Oh, but our food! Well, anything that's more than 20 or 25 years old is perfectly legal for anyone to grow. That's how patents work. Picturesque notions of old-timey agriculture are unaffected.

No, monopolys are awful.

Either everyone should have a monopoly or no one should.

Seeing how awful monopolies are for the world, no one should.

First to market + branding is a real thing. If a company is smart enough to develop something but cant figure out how to sell it for a profit, they arent that smart.

I'd note that the original patents on Roundup Ready crops have expired, and people have now produced patent- and license-free varieties.

I know the software world has a strongly negative view of patents, because of their abuse within it, and I don't personally have the expertise to know whether GMO-patents make sense, but from the outside this kind of seems like a textbook case of how patents are supposed to work?

Someone makes something new (glyphosate-resistant crops) and is granted a limited monopoly in exchange for making their methods public, and after a short period, their methods go into the public domain. This limited monopoly yields a profit that encourages further research and development.

This doesn't seem like copyrights, which are effectively permanent monopolies, or software patents, which are granted for relatively un-novel "inventions" or behaviors, and then used against people who independently re-invent a similar method or behavior.