It has on multiple occasions as linked elsewhere in this discussion, made usage of anything other than a specific vendor's strain unusable. That is a textbook type 1.B. mono-supplier condition.
Yeah, I call bullshit on that claim. The only way something like this could become required would be if it's so much more performant that farmers would have no choice. But that would mean it's creating so much extra value the farmers still come out ahead. How is this a bad thing? In no scenario is it possible for the introduction of a new variety to force farmers to make a decision that leaves them worse off than some other decision they could make.
It's been mentioned about a dozen times already, you should have read it already. Again: It is the _combination_ of a custom crop and pest/herbicides which has a clear tendency to contaminate nearby farms, making the only viable crop the custom crop which has been engineered to withstand that specific treatment.
OH MY GOD! Today I learned that I, who generally like GMO, is actually exhibiting "irrational GMO hatred" when I don't even argue against the usage of GMO, but instead argue against the problematic usage of herbicide and pesticide which has externalities which are not properly accounted for and guarded against! You have also convinced me that facts and studies on the subject matters not, and that your, let me count them, zero sources, are better!
Do you have any other wisdom to spare from below the bridge?
