How GMO lobbyists taught me we're winning

[GreatGazoo]

3. Maybe they never expected to win a public debate over GMO crops.

GMO crops offer no benefits to the consumer -- potatoes that can be pre-cut with less bruising, longer shelf life, more pesticides.

Even if Monsanto thought they could win with that, McDonald's didn't. They rejected a GMO potato likely because they didn't want to be part of public debate about acrylamide or how long their food sits around before you buy it.

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/11/mcdonalds-refuses-buy-genetically-modified-potatoes-fries/

At a time when consumers can't afford to get sick and want fresh, healthier and better tasting ingredients, GMO crops offer just the opposite: longer shelf life, more pesticide residue and no consideration for taste.

GMO beets are now being rejected by major US food companies like Hershey and Unilever, and farmers are switching back to non-GMO sugar beets but seed stock for non-GMO is low:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sugar-gmo-insight-idUSKCN0SN0C720151029

It seems like part of the GMO marketing strategy was to contaminate the whole supply chain so that GMO and non-GMO could not be separated. That strategy has cost American farmers and taxpayers dearly, about $8 billion for FY2014.

https://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2014/10/corn-farmers-say-syngentas-gmos-have-cost-them-chinese-market

Lastly, "gene editing" seems too precise a term for a process which involves gene expression. The presence of absence of one gene can turn off or on the expression of other genes in unpredictable ways. In the fields, GMO crop systems that pair seeds with RoundUp have led to the development of RoundUp Ready weeds. This makes the GMO creation process less like editing and more like billiards.