Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto? (2014)

modernfarmer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto? (2014)

#51

Post by OMFGscience »

cowmix wrote: post #28
OMFGscience wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that there's no scientific reason to be opposed to GMOs. They're perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment. The organic lobby has successfully demonized GMOs to the general population, and now they want to have them labeled to scare people away from eating them. Do you really think we should be legally requiring the labeling of something that doesn't actually matter, in response to a succes…

Safe or not, I do not want to buy or support GMO food because I know there's probably a patent behind the seeds that can screw over farmers (and by proxy everyone else).

There's nothing specific to GMOs that makes them patentable. Hybrid seeds can be patented, irradiated seeds can be patented, both of which are allowed to be labeled as organic.

Re: Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto? (2014)

#52

Post by yummyfajitas »

danbruc wrote: post #42
unchocked wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with labeling GMO's is that you're taking what ought to be a regulatory issue (is this GMO objectively safe?) and kicking it down I to the team of popular culture (do I the consumer think buying this GMO is safe for me?). Consumers are ill-equipped to make this decision, and if continually confronted by warning labels many will choose to avoid GMO containing foods "just to be safe". When a critical mass o…

80 % of the world population has - more or less freely - decided to believe in invisible gods guiding the fate of mankind, sometimes with dire consequences, and we protect their right to do so. Should we force them to abandon this irrational nonsense for some greater good? I may not like the consequences of people acting irrationally but I like the idea of forcing people to believe The Right Thing™ even less. They fe…

I don't believe anything prevents a seller from honestly producing,marketing and selling GMO free foods. However, demanding that the rest of the world participate in their marketing scheme is silly.

Similarly you can put "contains no functional programming" on your software if you like. But it's unreasonable to insist that I put "warning: free monads" on mine, particularly if it's logistically difficult and expensive (as it would be with both FP and GMO) to actually determine the truth.

Also, I suppose corn, tomato, potato, peppers and most other selectively bred crops are can never have the "non-GMO" label?

Re: Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto? (2014)

#53

Post by pdkl95 »

danbruc wrote: post #46
pdkl95 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should we force them to abandon this irrational nonsense No. Nor should we support their delusions. > both sides strongly believe to be on the right one What they believe is irrelevant. Having "strong beliefs" doesn't make those beliefs rational or worthy of respect. Labeling should be based on facts .

»Contains [no] GMOs« would totally be based on facts. It should be an informational label, not a warning label.

> informational

If this is supposed to be informational, what useful information is it providing? Can you name a single utility that will, in practice, be gained from a "GMO" label that isn't based on ignorance, delusion, fear of the unknown, or fundamental attribution error?

If there is some legitimate use, them I would fully support "GMO" labels. Until strong evidence is presented, presenting the "GMO" label as "informative" is an attempt to mislead. It confuses consumers and encourages delusional behavior.

Re: Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto? (2014)

#54

Post by danbruc »

pdkl95 wrote: post #53
danbruc wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

»Contains [no] GMOs« would totally be based on facts. It should be an informational label, not a warning label.

> informational If this is supposed to be informational, what useful information is it providing? Can you name a single utility that will, in practice, be gained from a "GMO" label that isn't based on ignorance, delusion, fear of the unknown, or fundamental attribution error? If there is some legitimate use, them I would fully support "GMO" labels. Until strong evidence is presented, presenting the "GMO" label as "in…

Don't you consider free choice for consumers about what they want to eat something useful? Products are labeled as vegan so that people can avoid, for example, milk in their groceries. Cows living in captivity for milk production vs some supposedly small risk for health or environment from GMOs. At least to me it is not obvious which of both is the better reason to put a label on products.

I and probably many people in first world nations would certainly feel different if we desperately needed GMOs to feed our people, but we don't. What do have to gain that justifies taking any additional risk however small? Less usage of biocides? More beautiful and homogeneous products? Less work for farmers?

We have produced harmful things - drugs, foods, building materials - before even though we did more or less our best to avoid it. Why not let people stick with things that we know are not harmful because they are time tested?

Re: Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto? (2014)

#55

Post by sdjhgfskuy »

OMFGscience wrote: post #49
sdjhgfskuy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They're perfectly safe to eat and not worse for the environment" Absolutely not. It _completely_ depends on the organism in question. An organism is a complex chemical reaction, nothing like human engineered artifacts. You simply cannot declare _all_ GM organisms to be safe, in all contexts, ever. One has to take them on a case-by-case basis. Some GM organisms are perfectly safe (in certain contexts), others can be…

I didn't. But there's no evidence that any approved GMOs are harmful in any way.

the way you wrote it, that's what it sounds like, thanks for the clarification

Re: Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto? (2014)

#56

Post by danbruc »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #52
danbruc wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80 % of the world population has - more or less freely - decided to believe in invisible gods guiding the fate of mankind, sometimes with dire consequences, and we protect their right to do so. Should we force them to abandon this irrational nonsense for some greater good? I may not like the consequences of people acting irrationally but I like the idea of forcing people to believe The Right Thing™ even less. They fe…

I don't believe anything prevents a seller from honestly producing,marketing and selling GMO free foods. However, demanding that the rest of the world participate in their marketing scheme is silly. Similarly you can put "contains no functional programming" on your software if you like. But it's unreasonable to insist that I put "warning: free monads" on mine, particularly if it's logistically difficult and expensive…

I am from Europe and here it is mandatory to label products produced with GMOs with some exceptions like meat from animals fed with GMOs. It is not the case that a handful people demanded that, it is a nonnegligible fraction of the population.

And you software example. There are scenarios where certain certifications are required, some with respect to functionality, some with respect to the process the software was build with. For example US companies had to adhere to the Safe Harbor rules if they wanted to offer services in the European Union and they probably had to declare that in the terms of service.

Re: Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto? (2014)

#57

Post by yummyfajitas »

danbruc wrote: post #56
yummyfajitas wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe anything prevents a seller from honestly producing,marketing and selling GMO free foods. However, demanding that the rest of the world participate in their marketing scheme is silly. Similarly you can put "contains no functional programming" on your software if you like. But it's unreasonable to insist that I put "warning: free monads" on mine, particularly if it's logistically difficult and expensive…

I am from Europe and here it is mandatory to label products produced with GMOs with some exceptions like meat from animals fed with GMOs. It is not the case that a handful people demanded that, it is a nonnegligible fraction of the population. And you software example. There are scenarios where certain certifications are required, some with respect to functionality, some with respect to the process the software was b…

Suppose a non-negligible fraction of the population demands Islamic, Hindu or Christian food. Should that also be labelled according to some law (rather than the current voluntary label system)?

Certifications for software are a very different thing because they are based on actual safety and functionality, not a faith-based preference.

Re: Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto? (2014)

#58

Post by danbruc »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #57
danbruc wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am from Europe and here it is mandatory to label products produced with GMOs with some exceptions like meat from animals fed with GMOs. It is not the case that a handful people demanded that, it is a nonnegligible fraction of the population. And you software example. There are scenarios where certain certifications are required, some with respect to functionality, some with respect to the process the software was b…

Suppose a non-negligible fraction of the population demands Islamic, Hindu or Christian food. Should that also be labelled according to some law (rather than the current voluntary label system)? Certifications for software are a very different thing because they are based on actual safety and functionality, not a faith-based preference.

Why not? Consumers have a right to know what they eat. If half the population really wants to know whether products adhere to some religious practices, then so be it, print it on the box. In some cases businesses will voluntary do such things because they see it as beneficial, in some cases they won't and then you have to make into a law. I guess in your example with the religions they would do so voluntarily because what are the downsides? In case of GMOs they won't because they - probably rightly - fear reduced sales and so we need a law. And faith and objectivity, that may be a thin line. What about vegetarians and vegans? And even in case of GMOs there is still a small but non-zero risk of adverse (long-term) effects.

Re: Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto? (2014)

#59

Post by BinaryIdiot »

belorn wrote: post #26
Karunamon wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a combination of things: 1- the name. Monsanto sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon villain. 2- the whole concept of patenting a life form rubs many the wrong way 3- previous bad behavior, I.e. Agent orange. 4- self-reinforcing bad information That's no excuse for making things up whole cloth,but it at least explains some of it.

To expand on the patent issue, it not only about Monsanto patenting life but also how they go around and enforce it. Rather than selling a product that the farmer can use as they wish, monsanto demands payment for each harvest. Its if like a car manufacturer were to patent some new effective engine but then went to demand a cut each time the customer went and filled up the tank. Its not a deal that feels fair, and it…

>Rather than selling a product that the farmer can use as they wish, monsanto demands payment for each harvest.

"Demands"? Many GMO products don't create their own seeds so famers have to re-buy them. They do this before the harvest, not for each harvest. I've talked to farmers before and for some types of crops it's a freaking godsend for them.

I don't think "demands" is the right word. It's closer to a subscription service more than a "demand". Are you saying Google "demands" payment when you sign up to Google Apps? etc...

Re: Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto? (2014)

#60

Post by pdkl95 »

danbruc wrote: post #54
pdkl95 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> informational If this is supposed to be informational, what useful information is it providing? Can you name a single utility that will, in practice, be gained from a "GMO" label that isn't based on ignorance, delusion, fear of the unknown, or fundamental attribution error? If there is some legitimate use, them I would fully support "GMO" labels. Until strong evidence is presented, presenting the "GMO" label as "in…

Don't you consider free choice for consumers about what they want to eat something useful? Products are labeled as vegan so that people can avoid, for example, milk in their groceries. Cows living in captivity for milk production vs some supposedly small risk for health or environment from GMOs. At least to me it is not obvious which of both is the better reason to put a label on products. I and probably many people…

> some supposedly small risk for health or environment from GMOs

That's the part that's delusional.

> Cows living in captivity for milk production

That - and most of your other concerns - has nothing to do with genetic modification. Why do you believe a label about genetic origins will change farming practices? Monoculture farming, abuse of antibiotics, and other farming problems happen regardless of genetic origin.

Milk deserves a label because growth hormones and antibiotics have actual effects on humans. A similar label on Roundup Ready vegetables only encourages the delusional belief that they have "any additionnal risk, however small".

> needed GMOs to feed our people

We crossed that line a long time ago.

> Less usage of biocides?

YES. Roundup isn't perfect, but it is the least worse option compared to previous herbicides.

> they are time tested

Testing is always important, of course, but "old" does not mean "better" (or worse). This is the "appeal to nature" fallacy.

Also, about those crops you are calling "time tested". Does that include all the crops from before the field of genetics existed? Before we had the technology to make small, specific changes to the genome, we used to simply force mutations[1] with e.g. cobalt-60[2], x-rays, ethyl methanesulfonae[3]. Even though the results are random an often include multiple significant genetic changes that are completely unknown, many successful varieties created from mutation breeding are not only in the common food supply, they can also be labeled organic and often "non-GMO".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethyl_methanesulfonate

Post reply on HN