14
62

[–] markrod420 14 points 62 points (+76|-14) ago 

Watch the internet crusade against it regardless.

7
35

[–] Fuzzy_Dunlop 7 points 35 points (+42|-7) ago 

And/or activists burn down the test fields.

7
35

[–] weezkitty 7 points 35 points (+42|-7) ago 

*terrorists

9
14

[–] HitlerIsBlack 9 points 14 points (+23|-9) ago 

The thing about GMO's is that, while they may only change one gene for a specific trait, single genes control many traits and many of those traits are unknown.

2
49

[–] Dalroc 2 points 49 points (+51|-2) ago 

Which is why you test them rigorously.

3
13

[–] casper 3 points 13 points (+16|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Which is also a principle that applies to new conventional crops which are usually created by mass random mutagenesis. Except in that case you aren't changing just one gene but hundreds to thousands all at the same time, each of which may control many traits. This is why new conventional potatoes and tomatoes are sometimes lethally toxic.

0
3

[–] RobintheDungGatherer 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Yeah, lets stick to the good ol' blasting radiation at it to see what sticks.

0
2

[–] Penguinkeith 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Seriously the "it's a gmo therefore it's bad " mentality is sickening...

0
1

[–] notawhitesupremacist 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Watch anti GMO campaigners pay local farmers to trash it, then claim the farmers didn't want it contaminating their crops.

5
25

[–] alviator 5 points 25 points (+30|-5) ago 

Yea, but is it gluten free?

[–] [deleted] 1 points 14 points (+15|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

3
17

[–] Broc_Lia 3 points 17 points (+20|-3) ago 

I think that was a joke at the expense of the kind of people who freak out over "chemicals" and "oxygen dihydrate"

1
6

[–] alviator 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Ok I was being sarcastic but that makes total sense.

7
19

[–] tobasoft 7 points 19 points (+26|-7) ago 

......sounds good...more food...less greenhouse gas...roundu.. wait....monsanto....MONSANTO!!!! ERMAHGERD!! GEREMOHHSS!!!

DAIII GREGOH MENDAHL!!!

fuck yo seedless what-a-melons!

(I will never be able to downvoat. ever.)

2
15

[–] DamoclesRising 2 points 15 points (+17|-2) ago 

I think the idea is that maybe the poster thought that this site would be against GMOs outright, and it wanted you going into the article with an open mind?

I mean, it basically says they put an aspect of barley into rice. "It made rice production better in every way." In a sense. Skeptics would've thought "well of course it has benefits when you sacrifice nature and whatnot"

2
24

[–] anaximander 2 points 24 points (+26|-2) ago 

Are people here against GMOs? I've seen a lot of Monsanto hate, but criticism of Monsanto isn't the same thing as being outright against GMOs.

Lots of people here also seem to be in favor of mandatory labeling of GMOs, but I don't see what's unreasonable about wanting to know what you're eating.

1
19

[–] didntsayeeeee 1 points 19 points (+20|-1) ago 

I would prefer to think that people here have a diversity of opinion.

1
16

[–] FPSFairy 1 points 16 points (+17|-1) ago  (edited ago)

If someone is, I'd actually like to hear an opinion against GMOs. Most anti-GMO people, when I ask them why they hate GMOs, will talk about how Monsanto engaged in X, Y and Z (admittedly very) crappy business practices. Which is fine, I hate unethical businesses practices too, but that doesn't really explain why GMOs are bad, just why Monsanto is bad.

Edit: Thanks for the POVs, everyone. Upvoats for all!

2
6

[–] 1530071? [S] 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

I want GMO labels to say what the modification was, not simply that it's GMO. I suppose the GMO part can be mandated and product producers can add additional information if they want, such as "for drought resistance" if they wanted to.

2
4

[–] warpdesign 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

Yes, I've definitely found Voat to be an anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, pseudo science woo haven. Which is really disappointing. Especially when it's in /v/science. Really my only complaint about Voat so far.

1
13

[–] 1530033? [S] 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago 

Exactly. GMO by itself is a technique that can be used for good, but not all GMO are good. This is why you have people saying "GMO is good" Yeah, it can be good. It can also be bad. If I didn't make the distinction in the title it would have been instantly downvoted. Hawaii also has a GMO Papaya, but it has nothing to do with increased use of glyphosphate or other poisons.

0
1

[–] casper 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The benefit or detriment of glyphosate is certainly arguable but I totally agree with your point that GM is just a tool, and like any tool can be used for good or bad purposes.

5
13

[–] Acerebral 5 points 13 points (+18|-5) ago 

Again and again, people link articles showing that GMO crops grow better, produce higher yields, more nurtients, are safe to eat, etc... The problem with GMO crops is not that they don't accomplish their stated goals, or that they are toxic to humans (they aren't). The problem is monoculture.

If everybody starts growing this miracle grain, what happens when a disease shows up that targets that specific strain of rice? The world's rice supply dies, that's what. Unless you make dozens, or hundreds of different types of rice with this gene, then allow farmers to replant using seed from the previous years' harvests, the lack of genetic diversity will eventually lead to ruin and famine.

Solve the monoculture problem, and I'll be the biggest GMO supporter of the bunch.

4
17

[–] Broc_Lia 4 points 17 points (+21|-4) ago 

Solve the monoculture problem, and I'll be the biggest GMO supporter of the bunch.

You do realise this is exactly the same issue with every other crop, right?

1
6

[–] warpdesign 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

I can't upvoat this enough.

2
1

[–] AgriGrunt 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

"Take my unreasonable burdens and FIX ALL OF MY PROBLEMS!"

0
0

[–] Balrogic 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Guess we better get started on the problem, then. It's not like we can ignore it out of existence. Quick question, though... Why is it unreasonable to want to use GMO techniques to come up with large numbers of functionally equivalent strains in order to reduce the odds all the crops will get wiped out in one shot? Seems to me that genetic modification is the ideal tool for the job. As such, GMO labs should do exactly as suggested.

1
0

[–] harebrane 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Yeah, that particular set of issues is more likely to be solved by automation. We can engage in all kinds of interesting planting patterns if we have efficient ways of harvesting plants individually when they're planted in a mosaic. Or just say "bugger it" and move all our food production to aquaculture (edit:) aquaponics and such, and be done with it.

6
2

[–] 1530106? [S] 6 points 2 points (+8|-6) ago  (edited ago)

Monoculture is achieved when you buy out all the other seed producers just to put them out of business, and you arrange things so that only your herbicide loving plants will grow, since everyone is spraying herbicide everywhere and it'll kill your crops unless you are also using herbicide loving crops, so you end up with a monoculture. This particular rice I have no idea how it will be distributed, if ever, but there is no intrinsic reason why it can't be used as starting material to make many hybrids with other rice strains.

If you have a GMO engineered plant that simply adds to the diversity of potential seeds that can be used, that's not necessarily monoculture. The vast majority of seeds used commercially are essentially monoculture even if not GMO, otherwise you don't know what you're getting. This is true for citrus plants or any commercial crop, and GMO is not synonymous with monoculture.

0
14

[–] Tarhun 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Monoculture is achieved when you buy out all the other seed producers just to put them out of business, and you arrange things so that only your herbicide loving plants will grow

That is not monoculture. Not even close. Monoculture is simply growing a large amount of a single type of crop; traditional, hybrid, GMO or Organic crops can all be grown in a monoculture.

Edit: forgot sentence.

2
9

[–] Acerebral 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago 

Point by point:

Monoculture is achieved when you buy out all the other seed producers just to put them out of business

No. Monoculture is achieved when everybody plants seeds of the same species, and in particular with the same genes. Lack of genetic diversity = monoculture, and GMO seeds all have the same genes.

there is no intrinsic reason why it can't be used as starting material to make many hybrids with other rice strains.

The seed will be produced by a company that is motivated by profit. Why make 100 different species if it won't result in higher sales than a single variety? Current GMO farming practices support this assertion.

The vast majority of seeds used commercially are essentially monoculture even if not GMO, otherwise you don't know what you're getting.

You are right, up to a point. Traditionally, farmers have saved seeds from previous harvests to plant the following year. The seeds produced by this process result in slight variations between farmers as a result of natural selection. Seeds become adapted to a region, climate, or other local variable. Even slight changes decrease the possibility of a single disease wiping out all crops of that species. GMO seed producers prevent farmers from saving seeds to make sure these farmers have to buy seed again next year.

With extreme regulation, we may be able to avoid these problems, but no such regulations exist, nor will they exist with our current government. So taking into account a realistic view of our regulatory environment as well as corporate motivations, GMOs produce monoculture as surely as night follows day.

0
0

[–] ShinyVoater 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Hawaii nearly lost the ability to grow papayas thanks to the ringspot virus, but clever genetic engineering stopped it dead in its tracks. That potentially fewer strains might be grown isn't an argument against genetic engineering; if anything it lets us better handle the consequences of monoculture. This is especially important for the banana, which is seeing a new strain of Panama disease the targets the Cavendish banana that we currently enjoy and simply can't be stopped, only slowed, using other techniques due to the fact that commercial banana varieties have always been clonal.

0
0

[–] localbum 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Okay, I get where you're coming from. You know, we could be hit by a really big rock, at any time, from that big ol' black emptiness that surrounds us. That could affect a whole bunch of crops, too. If our climate patterns went all wonky for, say, half a decade at the most - that would affect a whole bunch of crops, too.

I dunno, consider me a glass-half-full kinda guy, but I think we should concentrate on feeding people moreso than worrying about a super bug coming in and wiping out the new super rice. Worry about the super bug, absolutely, sure - but I think that stunting cultivation of a new, high-yield crop because something could ruin the crops is like opting to not go outside anymore, cause it could be the day you get hit by a bus.

1
0

[–] Acerebral 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Natural disasters are not a.matter of 'if' but of 'when'. If we plant a monoculture, there will eventually be a disease that targets it.

We can mitigate or eliminate this threat by requiring biodiversity be engineered into GMO crops. This would cost relatively little for the benefit it provides. But because it costs something, Monsanto will lobby (successfully) to prevent this.

I am only opposed to GMO in its current form and in the current regulatory environment. If we call it 'good enough' as it is now, we will never get the biodiversity we need.

As for meteors, that is outside our control. Monoculture is not.

5
3

[–] Broc_Lia 5 points 3 points (+8|-5) ago 

Developed at a university, not a corporation

Why is this relevant?

2
3

[–] casper 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

Because people often try to rationalize their irrational hatred of GMOs by conflating it with the fascism of big government/big business collaboration.

0
1

[–] Balrogic 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I tend to conflate university greed with corporate greed so it makes absolutely no difference to me. Universities are a big business and tend to own a lot of intellectual property that they leverage for immense profit at the expense of everyone else, including inventors. So... Yeah. Who knows? Maybe it will make enough money to motivate the university to ensure a key grad student gets their next degree so they keep toiling in the university's lab and paying for the privilege.

4
3

[–] 1530607? [S] 4 points 3 points (+7|-4) ago 

Because it's true?

5
2

[–] Broc_Lia 5 points 2 points (+7|-5) ago 

Lots of things are true, but if they have no relevance then they don't belong in the title, or the article. "One of the labtechs who worked on this was called bob" "The rice was first sown on Louis XIV's birthday" "'Rice' rhymes with 'Nice'"

7
2

[–] Farseli 7 points 2 points (+9|-7) ago 

It's only relevant if you think corporation=evil and if that's the case you probably can't be reasoned with anyway.

0
0

[–] Balrogic 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Depends on the corporation. Namely, the corporation's size and how it maintains it's power. Small corporations busting their ass to make a buck? Not evil. Huge conglomerate engaged in bribery, regulatory capture and exploitation of legalistic processes to extract maximum wealth from the serfs beneath them? Off with their heads.

6
-2

[–] dart200 6 points -2 points (+4|-6) ago 

You know, there's a reason that academic science stays away from for-profit research. There's a reason peer reviewers aren't paid to do their work. For profit decision making always adds a conflict of interest I haven't seen resisted.

1
0

[–] TheBeesTrees 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

It may disassociate this particular GMO from a corporation like Monsanto which has produced significant levels of hatred in the past. Hopefully for the reason that we can have a reasonable discussion about it.

2
-2

[–] Broc_Lia 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

From a machievellian POV, I respect the strategy, but somehow I suspect Ars is actually buying into it rather than just pretending it's a relevant distinction.

1
2

[–] shinybedpan 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

I don't see positive GMO posts very often. I'm upvoating this for that alone.

1
2

[–] YellyYuropoor 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Making people depended on western inventions regardless of who it created is not good. The problem is not that they do not have enough food, the problem is variety in their diets. It's about making money. It's about securing a place in forgein markets. It's creating a demand that is nonexcisted now. Less greenhouse gas? ofcourse let's have rice eaters adjust their ways so we, the western people can live like we do without out concience nagging. If you care so much about the ozon stop driving a car. It's that simple. Stop forcing other countries to pay for our contributions. Fix domestic things. Assuming an American is OP I will say your food is banned in most other countries. Maybe look into that before trying to shove it down other peopels troaths. It's sickening.

1
1

[–] guitarcorndog 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Who said anything about forcing this rice on anyone? It's simply being presented as a methane-friendlier alternative to regular rice. You don't have to stop driving and using all fossil fuels to support a technology which limits their emissions, a practical change. As the climate affects us all and not just the western world, there's no reason to act like this only benefits us.

I'm so sick of the, "but Europe banned it..." argument. That logic is shit. And remember, this rice came from a Swedish university.

0
0

[–] Balrogic 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

'Murican here, agree with you. I'd rather we all cooperate and share knowledge and progress freely with one another for the mutual benefit of all humanity. The exploitation model isn't good for you and it's certainly not good for me, either. It benefits a small handful of international elite at the expense of everyone else. My world won't end if your standard of living improves.

load more comments ▼ (15 remaining)