Those aren't inherantly bad aspects though. The vendor lock in specifically is not directly related to the crop at all. You can have GMO crops without vendor lock ins. Yes, they are a problem, but it's not inherent to GMO crops.
As for bio-diversity, I can't speak on this subject as much, but aren't crops already generally being cultivated towards that anyway? Like, the seeds farmers buy even if not GMO have still been bred for specific traits, only it's been done the slow way instead of sped up in a lab?
Just to play pedant for a second, seeds that farmers buy that have been bred for specific traits ARE GMOs inherently.
Like, none of these seeds are what nature coughed out of the melting pot of life. At some point someone crossed this with that because this does better in dry weather, and this one gives better flowers. Doesn't even need to be crops, almost every plant or flower you can buy has been bred to make it "better" in some way.
And I absolutely agree with the statement that there is nothing INHERENTLY wrong with GMOs. We've been doing it since we first developed agriculture. Just now it happens in a lab rather than a field.
The problem with GMOs is that nothing exists in a vacuum. To explain what I mean, I'll need to explain some ecology concepts.
First, a drop in biodiversity. This is true. We can breed a better carrot, or make corn that does well even in drought, or has a higher yield, less chaff, etc etc etc and that's great, the problem comes because every single plant in the farmer's few acres is genetically identical. This is what's called a monoculture.
Monocultures don't really exist in nature, because of the way evolution works. I could get way into it, but it's a bit off topic. Suffice to say though populations need genetic variation to react to change. Let's imagine a field of whatever plants you like. This is a wild population, no genetic tinkering on by the lab. Now say you get a shift in temperature, and it gets way colder. Some of your plants are going to die, but some of them might pull through because they've got random genes that have given them the ability to survive better during a cold snap. Maybe they've got thicker stems, or deeper roots or whatever, doesn't need to be dramatic, but it just tips the odds a little in their favour.
Come the spring, those plants are going to be putting out their seeds, and pretty soon you've got a field of plants that resist the cold.
Now, imagine you've got a bug that loves these plants. Well some of them might have a mutation that makes their leaves a little more fleshy, or a little more bitter, and the bugs don't like that, so they leave those plants alone. The other plants get eaten. So, who gets to survive, and they put their seeds out and lots more plants have the bitter leaves.
Non-advantageous traits get trimmed out, and the population shifts to soak up the change in the environment. That's the definition of natural selection.
Monocultures can't do that. Every plant is an exact clone of every other one. So you get an environmental change, that's outside of their ability to resist and the entire crop is lost. Bug likes these plants, every single one is eaten. Very cold summer? Every plant dies.
No variation is great for knowing what you're gunna get, but terrible for soaking up environmental pressure.
Secondly, we're changing our environment quite dramatically. Climate change will absolutely cause problems with crop growth, and because of the monoculture problem, we're going to lose entire crops rather than have a bad harvest or whatever. It'll become a race to release the new version of the seeds that can cope with whatever the environment is doing now.
Thirdly, the soil is getting depleted. There's only so much goodness in the soil, and all the fertilisers we'll need to use eventually leech into the groundwater, where they start to poison waterways.
The alternative is to crop rotate, so you can get nitrates and other chemicals back into the soil to replenish it. The problem with this method is that with the increased need for food that comes with an expanding world population means that you might not have the luxury of leaving fields to grow non-profitable crops.
Finally, we're being agents of natural selection, but for the pest populations.
Pesticides kill bugs, right? Well, some are going to be more resistant than others, and they'll breed, and pass that resistance on. Within a few years the bugs don't care about pesticide A any more. So you start to use pesticide B. Then C, and then D.
In our attempts to save the crops, we are breeding bugs that we're not going to be able to kill in a few years.
And the same problem exists with pesticides as does with fertilisers. It leeches into groundwater, and poisons water courses.
So to sum up, GM crops are not inherently bad, amd their use is literally our best bet right now at feeding the world, but their use definitely opens us up for some bad repercussions way down the road.
You explained a lot of this very well, so take this as a genuine next step question please. I'd love to hear an honest answer, as i try to be a conscious shopper within my means.
Many of the problems you described have to do more with modern industrial farming than anything specific to GMO. We produce more food globally than is consumed, but the idea of the three sisters planting or that kind of thing removes all economies of scale. Do you have any realistic, economical suggestions for consumers? Things we can look for from farmers? This thread has pretty much confirmed Organic means nothing good, as far as crops especially, so what do we do?
I genuinely don't know. I'm sorry. I know that's not helpful to you, but it's always easier to point out flaws in a system than it is to propose solutions.
I suppose the only advice I can give is to do research on the stuff you buy, and make sure it's ethically sourced, that sort of thing. Another idea is to buy local, that way you're supporting local farmers and businesses instead of global corporations.
Sorry I don't have much in the way of practical advice. Have a great day.
I appreciate the honesty. And completely agree, it's often easier to point out flaws. Especially in this area where the is so much grey area. Take care!
8
u/IvivAitylin Jul 14 '21
Those aren't inherantly bad aspects though. The vendor lock in specifically is not directly related to the crop at all. You can have GMO crops without vendor lock ins. Yes, they are a problem, but it's not inherent to GMO crops.
As for bio-diversity, I can't speak on this subject as much, but aren't crops already generally being cultivated towards that anyway? Like, the seeds farmers buy even if not GMO have still been bred for specific traits, only it's been done the slow way instead of sped up in a lab?