poid wrote:The main issue I have with GM crops is not whether they are harmful or not, but whether it means farmers will become dependent on GM seed producers in the future. A GM seed provider will make money by ensuring you need to buy seed from them, not get seed from your crops. If we get ourselves into a situation where we are reliant on overseas supply and can't get seeds if the supply chain is disrupted that's a really bad idea (as the current situation shows).
The other one is whether we start to lose some crop diversity because of it.
I think we would do better through smarter land use than using funky seeds.
You raise some bloody good points there Poid...well, to me anyway...
I just assume the crop would be modified for yield, i hadnt even thought about whether they could be modified so as to make the yield into non-viable seed as well...
If thats the case it could certainly be a trap for those attracted purely to a quick boost in profits, by ultimately being rail-roaded into buying from a dictated source...
The crop diversity is a good point also...
That all poses the question in my mind, that if seed is better suited to certain areas, & not to others (in yield), would that then give the bigger players a far greater advantage over the small farmer running his 4000 acres in land not as ideally suited to the seeds genetics...
Which could easily see the big takeovers (that i guess already happening now), like that of the smaller supermarkets & "service stations" that dont
'serve' any more & whove been taken over by the big companies...
Then, just to keep an element of shooting in here, i wonder if us 17 & 20 cal teeny weeny explosive bullet fox shooters will have to upgrade to heavier cals so we dont loose penetration through thicker stubble...
It could make for the standard fox outfit morphing from a 22 cal centrefire & 240 Blitz, to a thermal topped 45-70 thumping out cast lead or FMJ's...
The man who knows everything, doesnt really know everything...he's just stopped learning...