Replacing rice as the world's most consumed food

[Steve Wagar]

I agree also that in some cases it might be more efficient for farmers to save seed on site, and to license the technology year by year and manufacture their own seeds for personal use (so they pay a fee rather than buy new seed, to save transportation costs etc.). It's possible that monsanto offers a contract like this. However, due to cross-pollination, the seeds a farmer saves may not be a pure strain so might not be as disease resistant or have as good yield. Farmers probably prefer to start fresh to prevent those issues and ensure good quality seed rather than risk the harvest. It doesn't take much seed to grow a lot of food, so the costs of buying new seed wouldn't be much different from licensing your own saved seed from Monsanto.

Yes, this all makes sense. I'm only pointing out how counterintuitive it is at first. I was introduced to this subject by articles/movies that villainized Monsanto, and I guess I fell for it.

And they have at time used their power to ruin farmers who did nothing wrong.

That one is a myth, it's based on Percy Schmeiser:

That one is interesting. As you say, it is a mathematical certainty that Schmeiser was lying. I think I recall hearing about this one:

Monsanto has also successfully sued grain elevators that clean seeds for farmers to replant of inducing patent infringement. For example, Monsanto sued the Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator in Pilot Grove, Missouri, which had been cleaning conventional seeds for decades before the issuance of the patent that covered genetically engineered seeds. Similarly, a seed cleaner from Indiana, Maurice Parr, was sued by Monsanto for inducing farmers to save seeds in violation of Monsanto’s patent rights. Parr told his customers that cleaning patented seeds for replanting was not infringing activity. The case was settled and in exchange for paying no monetary damages, Parr agreed to an injunction requiring Parr to obtain certification from his clients that their seeds were not Monsanto patented seeds and to advise clients that seed-saving of patented seeds is illegal. Mr. Parr was featured in a documentary, Food, Inc.

As I said, it seemed so reasonable to me at the time that people should be allowed to plant seeds they themselves grew. But clearly I was wrong on that score.

The problem is that capitalism needs to be regulated by mechanisms that preserve the public good, and representative democracy as we know it is not particularly good at that because it rests on 3 bad assumptions: (a) that representatives represent the interests of their constituents instead of moneyed interests, (b) that elected representatives with no qualifications are now experts, and (c) that voters with no qualifications are qualified to elect their representatives. The biggest flaw in all of these assumptions is not so much that people are ignorant as that they presume people will act rationally, when the truth is that the truth is easily obscured and thus people are easily manipulated.

I agree it's a problem in many industries. I think the GM industry is pretty benign,

Before I completely give the GM industry a pass, let's take a look at some of the risks of corruption. It is a new growth industry with a lot in common with the pharmaceutical industry. I would suggest that just like most pharmaceuticals most of the time (90% of them 90% of the time), GMs are the wrong way to go for sustainability, which is all that matters in the long term. Consider this: the Netherlands feeds the world with no GMOs, see http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/09/holland-agriculture-sustainable-farming/: "Dutch firms are among the world leaders in the seed business, with close to $1.7 billion worth of exports in 2016. Yet they market no GMO products. A new seed variety in Europe’s heavily regulated GMO arena can cost a hundred million dollars and require 12 to 14 years of research and development, according to KeyGene’s Arjen van Tunen. By contrast, the latest achievements in the venerable science of molecular breeding—which introduces no foreign genes—can deliver remarkable gains in five to 10 years, with development costs as low as $100,000 and seldom more than a million dollars. It is a direct descendant of methods employed by farmers in the Fertile Crescent 10,000 years ago." Now, I think you are probably right that farmers are not as gullible as consumers and are less likely to buy every new GMO that comes along as quickly as consumers by every advertised pharmaceutical (in the US and New Zealand at least, the only two countries that allow them to be advertised). But they will do everything in their power to manipulate things to increase GMO use and decrease non-GMO use; as I said, I'm afraid their lobbies are getting more representation than our interests. And there is monopoly risk as well, e.g. http://inthesetimes.com/rural-america/entry/20366/corporate-agriculture-monsanto-bayer-dow-dupont-monopoly-antitrust.

There's no real risk of farmers being duped or controlled by GM companies because they're well informed and in control.

As I said, I concede this. And it is not the farmers' fault if the techniques they use and what they grow is unsustainable, it is our fault for not regulating them better. A government more rationally weighted by expert opinion would immediately recommend a mass reeducation program which would lead to a dramatic shift in the size of animal agriculture and unsustainable factory farming techniques. While we do already listen to what the scientists say, we only listen with one ear while the stereo is blaring.

It's like, why would you use a first generation iphone for "free" when the newest one is so much better and not really that expensive? It would be false economy to use the old seeds.

A good analogy, makes sense, and will only make more sense as time goes on.

Even if they weren't available, you could make them if you really wanted them. It's not just the seed, but the technology to make the seed which is patented. Once those technology patents expire, it's relatively easy to engineer the traits (or better). It would be a big investment for a single farmer, but graduate students do this kind of thing and a farmer's collective could easily fund it if they wanted a particular GM trait.

Another good point that makes sense that I didn't think of.

And while Monsanto may not sell pesticide-ready seeds to promote pesticide sales, they do sell them because farmers like them, and that is not good news for the planet. We need ways to encourage farmers to stop using dangerous pesticides.

I think enforcement at the government level is the best way. The EPA and FDA already regulate these things pretty well.

Just like they regulate for climate change pretty well? I think in both areas the level of regulation that was good enough in the past is not nearly good enough for the future. Future shock is going to keep hitting us in the head and lagging regulation is going to be the reason. And since we put regulation in the hands of our C team, we have little hope of fixing this. Fixing climate change and ensuring sustainability forever could be solved pretty trivially with no shock to the world economy if policy were changed now, but instead there is an ignorant resistance to change that just won't go away. I think there is a good chance it will be our downfall.

[brimstoneSalad]

It is a new growth industry with a lot in common with the pharmaceutical industry. I would suggest that just like most pharmaceuticals most of the time (90% of them 90% of the time), GMs are the wrong way to go for sustainability, which is all that matters in the long term.

Have you looked at the current menu of genetic traits?

Sure, there's roundup resistance, which may not be great (although hypothetical roundup runoff doesn't really have the level of global effect as greenhouse gases).

But then there's bt corn/cotton/etc. in which the plant produces its own highly targeted pesticide in the leaves and means no spraying is necessary.
There's also drought resistance (essential to adapting to climate change).
And there's resistance to plant viruses.
There are also plants produced to work better with no-till farming (which is the greatest environmental innovation in farming, possibly ever).

The majority of traits themselves on the market are innately sustainable and superior to their alternatives.

So, I have to disagree with the medication comparison. Usually when GM saves farmers' crops and yields, it's also more sustainable. Remember, Monsanto makes the most money and can charge the most for the seed when farmers have to spend less money on pesticides, gasoline, fertilizer, etc. It's quite the opposite of motive in pharmaceuticals, where people want pills that let them avoid making sustainable lifestyle changes. Farmers don't want to till or spray the crops, they just want to seed, harvest, and make money with zero effort, and in this case that laziness (or stinginess) is all good for the environment, and most GM traits provide that (roundup ready is the only exception I know of, which is why it's the one complained about despite it being in a minority).

Consider this: the Netherlands feeds the world with no GMOs, see http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/09/holland-agriculture-sustainable-farming/: "Dutch firms are among the world leaders in the seed business, with close to $1.7 billion worth of exports in 2016. Yet they market no GMO products. A new seed variety in Europe’s heavily regulated GMO arena can cost a hundred million dollars and require 12 to 14 years of research and development, according to KeyGene’s Arjen van Tunen. By contrast, the latest achievements in the venerable science of molecular breeding—which introduces no foreign genes—can deliver remarkable gains in five to 10 years, with development costs as low as $100,000 and seldom more than a million dollars.

Monsanto and other GM firms use many of those same methods. They're not married to GM, they use whatever science works and gets things done faster, they use GM because it's more efficient to make large changes, and they use conventional breeding to breed those changes into new strains among other things.

I would complain that the cost and delay of GM is largely due to unnecessary government mandated testing. We shouldn't say that GM is bad due to the cost and delays when it's opponents of GM who have caused those high costs and delays.

I think we need an express lane for GM crops which just move genes from edible plant to edible plant or do things that conventional breeding could do but faster.
I'm really not worried about people putting carrot genes in my quinoa or whatever. Both edible, very unlikely to be dangerous. Conventional breeding can result in poisonous plants too: https://www.thedailymeal.com/heidelberg-germany-zucchini-toxin-poison/82315 Whether a little wild squash DNA blown in on the wind, or a mutation that increases the amount of some defense chemical.

All new plants should be tested, but it need not be a very lengthy or expensive process. A simple quantitative assay would do the trick, then a short trial.
If a rat ate it for a month and didn't get sick, and a few volunteers ate it for a few weeks in increasing amounts and didn't get sick, I'm fine with it.

Now, I think you are probably right that farmers are not as gullible as consumers and are less likely to buy every new GMO that comes along as quickly as consumers by every advertised pharmaceutical (in the US and New Zealand at least, the only two countries that allow them to be advertised).

That, and as I said the motivations are totally different. Laziness in a farmer is probably good for the environment, laziness in a patient is not.

But they will do everything in their power to manipulate things to increase GMO use and decrease non-GMO use;

Well, their best play is making good plants that fend off pests on their own, grow despite drought and other conditions, fix their own nitrogen, don't require tilling, etc.
To make money, they just have to make better plants that one-up the previous generation and require less agricultural input and provide more yield per amount of input.

as I said, I'm afraid their lobbies are getting more representation than our interests. And there is monopoly risk as well, e.g. http://inthesetimes.com/rural-america/entry/20366/corporate-agriculture-monsanto-bayer-dow-dupont-monopoly-antitrust.

Monopolies primarily pose problems due to barrier to entry, but barrier to entry is very low in genetic engineering. The technology is coming down to the level where an enthusiastic amateur can buy some of this stuff and do it in his or her garage/basement.

Good read:
https://gizmodo.com/the-fda-is-cracking-down-on-rogue-genetic-engineers-1791760888

The only serious barriers now are being created not by the GM giants, but by the anti-GMO lobbies who are pushing the government to require more testing (and the FDA which is starting to crack down based on those rules, apparently). All fine for Monsanto which can burn millions on that, and the oppressive regulation snuffs out competition. But to be clear the only real threat to a free market in genetic engineering is coming from the opponents of GM technology using government to stifle it.

Just like they regulate for climate change pretty well?

Currently the head is a climate change denier thanks to the Republicans. So, I don't think we'll see anything like that until we have Democrats in power again. Obama didn't move on this fast enough, but that may have been because his term was ending, or because there wasn't enough political will yet (he didn't have the legislature anymore).
The president is going to have to direct the EPA to do that, and congress will probably have to be involved because there's going to be a lot of resistance.


Regulating greenhouse gases is a serious problem, and I don't know when we'll be able to tackle that.
There's pretty decent bipartisan support for regulating pesticides, though; it's just not a very politicized issue, and the EPA is doing its job on that one.

[Steve Wagar]

It is a new growth industry with a lot in common with the pharmaceutical industry. I would suggest that just like most pharmaceuticals most of the time (90% of them 90% of the time), GMs are the wrong way to go for sustainability, which is all that matters in the long term.

... So, I have to disagree with the medication comparison. ... It's quite the opposite of motive in pharmaceuticals, where people want pills that let them avoid making sustainable lifestyle changes.

Ok, I suggested it, and I was wrong again. GM's themselves are generally good, and getting better and cheaper all the time, especially with CRISPR on the scene. And yes, genes are innately sustainable (individually, but not necessarily systemically, see below). The GM industry is generally motivated to do good, as opposed to the pharmaceutical industry, which is motivated to find chemical solutions to problems chemistry can't cure. But I have two other concerns for the GM industry. The first is factory farming, which while is not in itself a consequence of GMs, is possibly expanded because of it. Of course, as long as what you are farming is not sentient, the more automated and monocultural you can make it the better, unless it leads to trampling the last vestiges of nature. Unfortunately, this happens a lot, and it isn't always the best way to go. The second is the risk of playing God. Now, of course, the cat is out of the bag and probably can't be put back in, but it is not an unlikely scenario that genetic engineering will create environmental imbalances that will make things like rabbits and cane toads in Australia look tame. We could inadvertently design ourselves out of existence. But I'll concede that the GM industry itself is unlikely to be the source of such problems. But more on this below.

Monsanto and other GM firms use many of those same methods. They're not married to GM, they use whatever science works and gets things done faster, they use GM because it's more efficient to make large changes, and they use conventional breeding to breed those changes into new strains among other things.

Well, yes, it makes sense that Monsanto, Holland, and all the players will use the techniques that work best.

I would complain that the cost and delay of GM is largely due to unnecessary government mandated testing. We shouldn't say that GM is bad due to the cost and delays when it's opponents of GM who have caused those high costs and delays.

I think the fear of GMs ties back to the risk I mentioned of playing God. While it is true that every sexual union creates an untested genome, all the genes involved have been tested for millennia (except for new mutations) and so one is unlikely to get a chimera that will kill off the species or bring about the inadvertent collapse of an ecosystem in time. But any gene introduced into a plant could do that if it interacted with the native habitat. The risk is hypothetical and hard to quantify. But we shouldn't be too surprised if the bits of nature we carefully preserve lose their ability to survive on their own. But sure, this is probably an insignificant risk compared to the wholesale destruction of habitats.

Good read:
https://gizmodo.com/the-fda-is-cracking-down-on-rogue-genetic-engineers-1791760888

I read this. I guess it was inevitable. Of course, we could fix all sorts of problems cheaply if we could all work on them in our garage, just as we changed the world writing software in our garages. Until people invented computer viruses. So yes, you have to go way out of your way to use the technology for evil, but it is only a matter of time now, and regulation won't help us. It's probably the biggest existential threat out there, worse even than gray goo because we have replicating viruses already but not replicating nanomachines. Well, Musk says AI is the biggest risk, but with CRISPR here, bioterror is probably the biggest risk. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risk.

Currently the head is a climate change denier thanks to the Republicans. So, I don't think we'll see anything like that until we have Democrats in power again. Obama didn't move on this fast enough, but that may have been because his term was ending, or because there wasn't enough political will yet (he didn't have the legislature anymore).
The president is going to have to direct the EPA to do that, and congress will probably have to be involved because there's going to be a lot of resistance.

Regulating greenhouse gases is a serious problem, and I don't know when we'll be able to tackle that.
There's pretty decent bipartisan support for regulating pesticides, though; it's just not a very politicized issue, and the EPA is doing its job on that one.

I agree, pesticides are managed fairly well. The climate is another story. As I just read today in https://news.yale.edu/2017/10/12/things-are-dire-fight-earth-not-over-says-bill-mckibben?utm_source=YNemail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ynalumni-10-16-17

“Each day, the carbon that we put into the atmosphere traps the heat equivalent of 400,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs,” McKibben told a full audience in Woolsey Hall.

So much damage has already been done, said McKibben, that even if every participating nation kept to the promises it made to mitigate global climate change as part of the 2015 Paris Agreement, the Earth’s temperature would still rise by about 6 degrees Fahrenheit during the lifetime of most of his audience members.

“If that happens, then we can’t have civilizations like the ones we are used to having,” McKibben said. “That is the bottom line.”

Because our government is not set up to move quickly enough (or even in the right direction!), that will probably happen and civilization as we know it will not be possible.

[brimstoneSalad]

I agree on the bioterrorism risk, and if we could choose to put the cat back in the bag that might be worth it, but alas we can't. Best make use of it to do good since no amount of anti-GMO consumerism is going to stop bioterrorism.

The same is the issue with nuclear technology. The world might be better off without any of it (and only maybe, since it's probably the only thing that can save us), and the risks of atomic bombs, but building nuclear power plants is the good that came from it and doesn't increase those risks (it probably reduces them).

The first is factory farming, which while is not in itself a consequence of GMs, is possibly expanded because of it.

Possibly in part due to lower prices of food which meant lower feed prices too. Non-GM modern agriculture is pretty efficient too, and even without GM I think we'd still see the prices low enough to be cheaper than raising animals the old fashioned ways (and even that method of raising animals to feed such a huge population any meaningful amount of meat wouldn't have saved us).
Most of it comes down to consumer preference, and I think that's something we have to tackle rather than being concerned about possible mitigation by tightening the food supply.

The second is the risk of playing God. [...] it is not an unlikely scenario that genetic engineering will create environmental imbalances that will make things like rabbits and cane toads in Australia look tame. We could inadvertently design ourselves out of existence. But I'll concede that the GM industry itself is unlikely to be the source of such problems. But more on this below.

Right, that's not going to happen due to roundup ready genes. All that does is useless to nature: roundup resistant weeds are only more fit in a human environment rich in roundup. And weeds are becoming resistant I think not due to cross-pollination but good old fashioned evolution.

I can't see any of the GM traits being useful for any organisms to take over wild environments, since what's more suitable for humans is often the opposite of what thrives in the wild.

But any gene introduced into a plant could do that if it interacted with the native habitat. The risk is hypothetical and hard to quantify. But we shouldn't be too surprised if the bits of nature we carefully preserve lose their ability to survive on their own. But sure, this is probably an insignificant risk compared to the wholesale destruction of habitats.

I think astronomically small. Like the worry that sending out probes into space might cause a tiny gravitational difference that would send a comet into the Earth.

[Canastenard]

Right, that's not going to happen due to roundup ready genes. All that does is useless to nature: roundup resistant weeds are only more fit in a human environment rich in roundup. And weeds are becoming resistant I think not due to cross-pollination but good old fashioned evolution.

I can't see any of the GM traits being useful for any organisms to take over wild environments, since what's more suitable for humans is often the opposite of what thrives in the wild.

Of course things like pesticide resistance and increased nutrient content are not going to give the plant any meaningful advantage in the wild, but I could see things like pest resistance or faster growth (http://bioscriptionblog.com/2017/04/03/inefficient-photosynthesis-modification/) doing so.

But to be fair that's just the theory and I guess seems unlikely in practice, as I guess domesticated plants have evolved over time to grow well in a man-made environment and are now not adapted to the wild, to the point they still wouldn't take over wild ecosystems even with those GM improvements. I haven't heard of Bt corn taking over the world after all. And even if these traits could give them an davantage in the wild, precautions could be taken by giving them other genes as well that would keep them in check if them ever try to invade the wild.

[Steve Wagar]

The same is the issue with nuclear technology. The world might be better off without any of it (and only maybe, since it's probably the only thing that can save us), and the risks of atomic bombs, but building nuclear power plants is the good that came from it and doesn't increase those risks (it probably reduces them).

Good analogy. So far we've had no nuclear terrorism (unless you count Hiroshima and Nagasaki), but the cost of entry is high. Also, I don't think it is an existential risk; it may level a few cities but the cost of entry is still high enough that it won't end civilization. The real risk of nuclear is from Russia/China/US. Aside from still having enough firepower to destroy the world many times over, we could inadvertently (say via an impulsive leader) use just a handful of weapons that could change the environment forever. Unfortunately, the cost of entry for bioterrorism is low. On the plus side, it would take much more than a casual effort to deliver a death blow to civilization. We can probably contain the early attempts at bioterrorism. But as it gets cheaper and better it will become harder to do so.

I can't see any of the GM traits being useful for any organisms to take over wild environments, since what's more suitable for humans is often the opposite of what thrives in the wild.

Yes, I agree with that... I guess what I am left with is the threat of encroachment, and the question then is whether GM encroachment is worse that conventional. If yields are better less land will be needed, so GM's win on that front. GM's don't intrinsically increase the need for pesticides, and should be expected to decrease it, so they win on that front, too. So in principle, GMs are better. It just comes back to responsible use. You say I should have more faith in farmers to be responsible, and I am hoping you are right. The profit motive doesn't always push people in that direction, and bad practices, once established, are hard to replace with more sound practices even if they are more profitable.

But any gene introduced into a plant could do that if it interacted with the native habitat. The risk is hypothetical and hard to quantify. But we shouldn't be too surprised if the bits of nature we carefully preserve lose their ability to survive on their own. But sure, this is probably an insignificant risk compared to the wholesale destruction of habitats.

I think astronomically small. Like the worry that sending out probes into space might cause a tiny gravitational difference that would send a comet into the Earth.

That's a funny analogy but not really fair; the odds of a comet hitting us are not increased because of probes as it is just as likely we inadvertently deflect a comet. The odds of causing harm by messing with genomes only goes up. But I will grant you that it is astronomically small compared to other more salient risks like invasive species and global warming.

From the standpoint of today's science nature is still fragile and can easily be thrown out of alignment, but we are going to become quite good at playing God with the environment over the next century until it reaches a point where we design and regulate ecosystems the same way we build cars. I just want us to get to that point without killing ourselves. Along these lines, using entirely natural forest ecosystems, many projects are underway to reforest cities using small to microforests, e.g. https://www.fastcompany.com/3037313/these-miniature-super-forests-can-green-cities-with-just-a-tiny-amount-of-
https://www.ted.com/talks/shubhendu_sharma_how_to_grow_a_forest_in_your_backyard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall
https://www.thebetterindia.com/104935/raipur-oxyzone-natural-forest/

[brimstoneSalad]

I could see things like pest resistance or faster growth (http://bioscriptionblog.com/2017/04/03/inefficient-photosynthesis-modification/) doing so.

Most wild plants are already pest resistant and incidentally tend to be inedible (at least in significant quantities).
I think it'd be hard to beat the evolutionary warfare already going on.
Human made cultivars are uniquely vulnerable because we have cultivated out most of the resistance they had in the wild, and made them nice and soft and rich in nutrients because that's how we like them -- and bugs like it that way too. I feel like we're probably just getting closer to parity with wild plants there.

Faster growth I'm pretty skeptical of, but you're right that might be possible.
Evolution has had a long time to fine tune photosynthesis and I'm not sure we can improve it (glad to be proven wrong though). It's very plausible that we've messed that up with selective breeding and could engineer them to achieve parity with wild plants... but wild plants also have adaptations to do things like grow up in the shade. Seems unlikely to result in anything that would out-compete wild plants in the wild.

But if it did, mightn't that be a good thing? It could increase the productivity of wild environments by having faster growing plants, increasing carbon capture and biomass.

We can probably contain the early attempts at bioterrorism. But as it gets cheaper and better it will become harder to do so.

We'll probably need to limit availability, unfortunately.

That's a funny analogy but not really fair; the odds of a comet hitting us are not increased because of probes as it is just as likely we inadvertently deflect a comet. The odds of causing harm by messing with genomes only goes up.

Not so, it could also do good.

https://www.wired.com/2011/02/good-invasives/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140724-invasive-species-conservation-biology-extinction-climate-science/

[Steve Wagar]

That's a funny analogy but not really fair; the odds of a comet hitting us are not increased because of probes as it is just as likely we inadvertently deflect a comet. The odds of causing harm by messing with genomes only goes up.

Not so, it could also do good.

My comment was directed at GM's, not invasive species. As we have agreed, GM's used responsibly are nearly all good with low risk of harm. But whatever that level of risk is, it only increases the more we genetic engineering we do, particularly if it is done less responsibly or maliciously.

https://www.wired.com/2011/02/good-invasives/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140724-invasive-species-conservation-biology-extinction-climate-science/

These articles are amusing and certainly prove that the cat is out of the bag and it's a crap shoot whether we try to put it back in or leave it out. I think you have to make an educated guess in each case what will work the best. No matter how you slice it, though, diversity will continue to decline because of invasive species alone (ignoring habitat destruction) until every species has had a chance at existing in every environment. Perhaps the worst of the damage it causes is done. American chestnuts dominated eastern forests until wiped out by invasive species. "The chestnut blight was accidentally introduced to North America around 1904 when Chryphonectria parasitica was introduced into the United States from Japanese nursery stock." 4 billion trees with trunks 10 feet across gone and forgotten now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_chestnut

[brimstoneSalad]

My comment was directed at GM's, not invasive species.

Don't rogue genes (or crops as a whole, since gene transfer is less likely) effectively create an invasive species?

American chestnuts dominated eastern forests until wiped out by invasive species. "The chestnut blight was accidentally introduced to North America around 1904 when Chryphonectria parasitica was introduced into the United States from Japanese nursery stock." 4 billion trees with trunks 10 feet across gone and forgotten now.

Diseases and pests are the worst; they kind of take without giving. Whereas an introduced plant at least adds biomass, even if it's strangling the stuff that used to be there.

Take one of the often cited worst examples: Kudzu.
It's actually barely invasive. It also happens to be a very beneficial plant that controls soil erosion along roadsides (which is why people think it's everywhere, just because it's right next to roads so it's most of what people see, it's not actually in the forests, just coating them on the open side).
In fields it fixes nitrogen, pulls minerals up with its deep tap roots, and beyond that is nutritious.
It can't survive in forest; herbivores and shade prevent its growth, so it's just this thin layer along the roadside preventing erosion.

Diseases are terrible, but I've never seen an invasive plant species that wasn't also beneficial by filling an important niche or improving biomass. There may be some examples, but from what I've seen it's usually a mix of harm and benefit not one sided.

[Steve Wagar]

Don't rogue genes (or crops as a whole, since gene transfer is less likely) effectively create an invasive species?

Technically they both introduce genes where they weren't present before, and if GMs can't interbreed then they also do so as new species, but from an effective standpoint they are very different: GMO's are not designed to thrive in wild environments, while invasive species are, and the problematic invasive species do better in the new environment than the native species. So homogenizing the distribution of species across the planet has pushed many species into extinction or close to it, while GMO's have not, to my knowledge, threatened any species.

Diseases and pests are the worst; they kind of take without giving. Whereas an introduced plant at least adds biomass, even if it's strangling the stuff that used to be there.

Take one of the often cited worst examples: Kudzu.
It's actually barely invasive. It also happens to be a very beneficial plant that controls soil erosion along roadsides (which is why people think it's everywhere, just because it's right next to roads so it's most of what people see, it's not actually in the forests, just coating them on the open side).
In fields it fixes nitrogen, pulls minerals up with its deep tap roots, and beyond that is nutritious.
It can't survive in forest; herbivores and shade prevent its growth, so it's just this thin layer along the roadside preventing erosion.

Diseases are terrible, but I've never seen an invasive plant species that wasn't also beneficial by filling an important niche or improving biomass. There may be some examples, but from what I've seen it's usually a mix of harm and benefit not one sided.

Ok, if one rules out diseases and animals and focuses just on invasive plants, I think you're probably right; they aren't all bad. In the developed world it is almost pointless at this point to care about whether a plant is invasive or not; they are everywhere. Probably the only serious risk is on small islands, and the truth is that the species of small islands just aren't as adaptive and so can't be expected to make it in the long run anyway.

Diseases have been the most problematic invasive species, and animals have caused problems, too; again, mostly on islands.