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

FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

modernfarmer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 339 posts

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#111

Post by kawsper »

koonsolo wrote: post #57

In Belgium we have cows specifically breaded for meat, which are called "dikbil" =(fatbutt). It's extremely unnatural, so I'm very afraid what kind of monstrosity the industry can come up with when using gene manipulation. https://www.google.com/search?q=dikbil

Denmark have been breeding pigs to have a higher amount of piglets, but it makes the death rate higher, about 25.000 piglets die a day, and the pre-wean mortality rate is ~21%.

We're also exporting the technology and knowledge of breeding pigs.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/30/danish-b...

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#112

Post by pueblito »

netizen-936824 wrote: post #76
epgui wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a biochemist, and I’d feed GMOs to my kids all day if I had any. Or to my mom. They’re totally fine.

Same here. Also a biochemist, I'm totally fine with GMO stuff. There's nothing wrong with it at all

I’m a farmer. I vehemently disagree.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#113

Post by sdflhasjd »

koonsolo wrote: post #57

In Belgium we have cows specifically breaded for meat, which are called "dikbil" =(fatbutt). It's extremely unnatural, so I'm very afraid what kind of monstrosity the industry can come up with when using gene manipulation. https://www.google.com/search?q=dikbil

"Breaded" means coated in breadcrumbs. I assume they weren't bred like that.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#114

Post by mrfusion »

microjim wrote: post #56

Would count this categorically as one of the ways we do not want to be using technology in the context of climate change, as it’s bypassing the negative feedback loop that already wasn’t strong enough to prevent us getting to this point in the first place.

We need to be punished for our sins against the environment.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#115

Post by notafraudster »

mping wrote: post #50
klondike_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't provide any argument for why you dislike GMO food here. What bothers you so much about GMO food? The fact is that humans have been breeding plants and animals to increase efficiency and palatability for thousands of years, and GMO is the next technological step.

Unknown unknowns

What is the epistemological framework you use to identify possible sources of unknown unknowns and bound their harms? In the absence of any framework you basically have a sort of nihilistic solipsism.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#116

Post by [deleted] »

simulate-me wrote: post #100
klondike_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't provide any argument for why you dislike GMO food here. What bothers you so much about GMO food? The fact is that humans have been breeding plants and animals to increase efficiency and palatability for thousands of years, and GMO is the next technological step.

GMO, as a technique, is not inherently bad. However, one common use case is to create pesticide resistant plants, which allows for higher pesticide usage, especially as resistance develops to the pesticide increases: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-471... Basically, if you’re fine with your kids ingesting higher levels of pesticides, then go for it!

[deleted]

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#117

Post by rincebrain »

pueblito wrote: post #112
netizen-936824 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. Also a biochemist, I'm totally fine with GMO stuff. There's nothing wrong with it at all

I’m a farmer. I vehemently disagree.

I personally interpreted the GP and grand-GP commenter's statement as "there is nothing wrong from a health perspective about consuming GMO products", not "there is nothing wrong with the utterly bonkers legal convolutions surrounding GMO seed control".

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#118

Post by codingdave »

epgui wrote: post #21
ksec wrote: post #8

From the 12+ Years on HN I know this is an unpopular opinion. I dont like GMO / Genome-edited cattle / food or crops. Even if it could theoretically occur through a natural breeding process. You can cross breed all you want. GMO is not cross breed as many on HN somehow believes last time we had this discussions. You can do Data Science and other controlled environment in providing better yield as in EUR ( Or specific…

I’m a biochemist, and I’d feed GMOs to my kids all day if I had any. Or to my mom. They’re totally fine.

The problem with GMOs isn't the GMO itself - it is the practices that surround them. Patents, pesticides, and the resulting monoculture in large agricultural operations.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#119

Post by bluGill »

simulate-me wrote: post #100
klondike_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't provide any argument for why you dislike GMO food here. What bothers you so much about GMO food? The fact is that humans have been breeding plants and animals to increase efficiency and palatability for thousands of years, and GMO is the next technological step.

GMO, as a technique, is not inherently bad. However, one common use case is to create pesticide resistant plants, which allows for higher pesticide usage, especially as resistance develops to the pesticide increases: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-471... Basically, if you’re fine with your kids ingesting higher levels of pesticides, then go for it!

Pesticide resistance plants mean a lot less CO2.is.emitted running plows through the earth. Soil that doesn't get disturbed with all those plows also holds absorbed CO2 better. While it is more chemical used, they generally harmless.

Your position is a major environmental disaster.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#120

Post by bluGill »

klondike_ wrote: post #27
Thorrez wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And we may soon have Cattle labeled as GMO / Genome-Edit Free as selling point A lot of food I buy has labels saying GMO-free on it. Although maybe that's just to distinguish from GMO plants currently.

There are actually very few GMO crops available commercially. Mostly corn and wheat. The "No GMO" label is meaningless for most products that don't use these ingredients

There is no GMO wheat available. Lots of corn and a few. Others, but so far no wheet
Post reply on HN