World News

The huge difference is who holds the patent. The example you gave involves Monsanto, the patent holder for several GMO crops, and a terrible company that does everything in its power to make money by exploiting people. Golden Rice, however, is patented by the scientists who designed it, who likely only patented it so that a company like Monsanto couldn't just make some similar GMO and patent it instead, using it to exploit people even more.

This same thing happened back when genes themselves were able to be patented; some companies like Myriad Genetics would patent genes like the BRCA gene, a common source of inherited breast cancer predisposition, so that they could charge an arm and a leg for testing. So, researchers and non-profits would patent genes that they found just ensure they could be fairly studied and tested for.

The GM crop was Roundup Ready. Unlike non-GM crops, it won't be killed by a Roundup, an herbicide. So unless you are using GM seeds, it would be madness to spray Roundup on your crops.

All of those farmers were sued when they used Roundup on their fields. Why would they do so if they didn't secretly plant Roundup Ready seeds?

Oh hey. I didn't realize anyone was still pushing that long since debunked canard.

The guy in question was a lying hack, who purposefully set up his fields next to a farmer who grew the GM crop and then purposefully harvested the crops that were along the connecting edge of the field so he could replant them without having to have bought them. When he was called out on that, he lied and blamed cross-contamination, but there was no way for his subsequent harvest to be 99+% the GM crop from cross-contamination unless he had collected and planted them on purpose.

So, yeah, he was sued. Including by his neighboring farmer for theft.

Nah read into it, the guy had planned all-GM and had kicked up a shitstorm with the "cross-pollination" theory to try and get away with it. Unfortunately reality matters in court so he hit sued (Greenpeace never told you that part)

Selection technically isn't modification, since the modification had to have already occurred for it to be selected for. However, modification certainly did occur, and all crops are genetically modified. Indeed, all living creatures are genetically modified, as without modification, evolution can't occur.

The public fear of GMO's is largely due to Monsanto, who aggressively protect their GMO crop patents to the point where farmers who just happened to have some seeds blow into their fields have been sued.

The issue with GMO's isn't the modification, it's the lax patent laws that allow companies like Monsanto to exploit people for profit, giving a bad name to the field as a whole, in spite of the immense potential good it can do, for which Golden Rice is a prime example.

It all depends what your definition of genetic modification is.

No it doesn't.

It's a completely disingenuous argument and a false equivalency. We know that we are referring to GMO vs selective breeding. These are completely different mechanisms and in the latter case we understand the consequences and implications because humans have been doing it for millennia. In the former case we have not been doing it very long at all and do not yet fully understand the consequences and implications. I'm not saying that makes it inherently wrong, but it is a vast area of unknown ramifications. And given human's already long history of fucking with nature and finding out my money is on those ramifications being less than ideal.