Talk:Genetic use restriction technology

message: The text made this claim
:In addition to potential biological and ecological harms, there is both an economic and normative concern that small farmers, indigenous peoples, and entire rural communities could be made dependent on agro-industry corporations for seed.  
I deleted it because:
1. The article has not established what the "potential biological and ecological harms" of the technology are.
2. It is not established how a ago-industry corporation could displace all the existing "open source" varieties. Simple supply and demand will ensure that this is never a problem. The company can either sell the seed at the price a farmer is willing to pay or they can over price it and have the farmer use her saved seed or buy "open source" seed from a neighbour. As soon as a company tries to gouge the community the farmer will just switch back to saved seed or "open source" seed.
You're making the assumption that all farmers will keep their 'open source' seeds. Basic economic theory dictates that if you can, you destroy all competitors before hiking prices. So in this context you would sell cheap terminators for a long time, hope that farmers get rid of their open source variety and then hike the prices.
I'll see if I can find some citations for the "potential biological and ecological harms" and add the text you deleted back in, unless there are any objections. Primary Antagonist (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  potential biological and ecological harms and comunity dependance on agro-industry corporations for seed 

message: The Daily Mail claims that Genetic use restriction technology is being used (or was, as of 2008) in India:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html
I'm not going to use this information if I can't find a better source than a British tabloid. superlusertc 2009 October 16, 00:02 (UTC)
:I've got a couple of dueling sources on the subject. On the one hand: An India Today story about the former managing director of Monsanto India doing some whistle blowing on the topic.  On the other hand: An NPR interview from March 2010 where a Monsanto rep not only denies selling non-replicators, but also says that the "terminator gene" never existed. Hope this helps.--Enwilson (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GURT in use today? 

message: Deciding to ignore an article in the Daily Mail is probably very sensible. While not relevant here, a report from IFPRI examined some of the factors associated with farmer-suicides in India, and found that while indebtedness is srongly linked to suicide, the uptake of GM seeds is not associated with indebtedness. I can link to that paper if needed.
JeremyCherfas (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very wise 

message: I do not feel that the citation for the assertion that "D&PL has long vowed to commercialize Terminator, targeting rice, wheat and soy in particular." from http://www.banterminator.org/content/view/full/602 is adequate to establish the fact. It comes from a fairly biased source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.48.47 (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation quality  

message: Terminator seeds essentially take control away from farmers and hand the reigns over to multi-million dollar corporations such as Monsanto, a company that is no stranger to controversy. Surely this is also a disadvantage? I'll wait a week from today and add this in, unless there are any objections Primary Antagonist (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disadvantages 

message: The opposition section makes it sound like someone has invented this technology, when no one has. --209.193.10.43 (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  opposition section makes it sound like the technology exists 

message: After reading this article, if I saw the CEO of Monsanto, I would run up to him and kick him in the nuts! How many here would do the same? 74.90.57.148 (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can anyone stoop so low?! 

message: It looks like most of this article is about V-GURT, and T-GURT is only mentioned in order to briefly define the term. Is this something we can easily fix, or is it an issue of source availability? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem appears to be that no proposed method of T-GURT has been commercially deployed, so no reliable sources significantly cover it. (We appear to have a similar problem with disc wobble as a copy-protection scheme.) Am I understanding correctly? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced? 

message: Reference/Citation/Link-y thingy #1 just redirects to a rather basic site (hah). A little digging later, I find that they've probably restructured their site. I'm guessing this was the article:
http://www.worldseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Genetic_Use_Restriction_Technologies_20030611_En1.pdf
I would edit all the citations but I don't know how to do that. 222.154.227.183 (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted. That one's fixed. If you want to discuss how to make edits yourself, you could contact me on my talk page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation #1 has vanished 

message: Substituted at 15:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: After extensive editing of the article, I am fairly sure that there is no conflict of interest: I want to see if anybody objects before I remove it. Thanks! IntegralPython (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest: remove? 

message: Hi  The short desc is now a lot shorter, which is better, but it's still 48 characters which is over the recommended 40. Could we make it more correct and also shorter (39) with "Methods for controlling the use of GMOs"? Note that it is less confusing than "restrict", because "control" is closer to what is actually happening: Companies that make these things want to control their creations. "Restrict" is unclear because it sounds like: Maybe governments/maybe companies/maybe someone else is trying to keep GMOs from being used. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, that looks good to me! I think restrict was just there because its in the name but control is more effective. Integral Python click here to argue with me 20:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Short description

message: https://fafdl.org/gmobb/the-myth-and-reality-of-terminator-seeds/ 18.29.29.88 (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation #16 has vanished