General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: GMOs are bad for biodiversity, bad for non-corporate farming, bad for the public's right to natural [View all]NickB79
(19,653 posts)The environmental damage we're currently seeing is inherent in industrial agriculture as a whole, not specifically because of GM crops. It doesn't really matter all that much what kind of seed you plant when you're planting it on thousand-acre monocrop fields with almost no wild vegetation left in between the rows (either from cultivation or herbicide application). When you plow from fenceline to fenceline, biodiversity is non-existent no matter what crop you plant.
Agricultural biodiversity and property rights also apply to non-GM hybrid seeds: they are patented and have been since the Green Revolution of the 1970's. And just like GM crops, you can't plant hybrid seed from your fields the following year, but for different reasons. Where it is illegal to grow GM crops from saved seed, it is simply horribly uneconomical to grow saved seed from hybrid crops since they don't breed true from generation to generation and your yields would suffer greatly.
Even if all GM crops were to magically disappear tomorrow, the vast majority of food produced in developed nations today (the US, China, India, Brazil, and all of Europe) would STILL be controlled by seed monopolies, because the fallback from GM crops is patented hybrid seed. There are very, very few farmers who practice modern farming practices and use open-pollinated seed suitable for saving generation to generation, and the tradeoff for OP seed is a significant drop in crop yield over hybrids.
Our problems with how we generate food on this planet go far deeper than just GM seed. There are far too many of us, consuming far too many resources, and we have no idea how we can pull back from the precipice we've found ourselves on.