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

121–130 of 339 posts

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#121

Post by codingdave »

epgui wrote: post #71
karmakurtisaani wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the idea that a company can claim intellectual property rights to a genome sounds pretty awful. To be fair, I don't know if that's a real threat or not, but I could totally see it happening.

Yeah I agree, but I also feel the same way about software patents. I think it’s important to distinguish that objection from health scares, technophobia and such: imagine if the public’s objections were targeted at the real problems instead, how much more productive it would be!

Yes, but posting "They're totally fine" is hardly distinguishing those problems.

If you are going to use your credentials to explain why you do not have a problem with GMOs, but then put in a blanket "Everything is fine" vibe... that doesn't do justice to the problems.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#122

Post by datavirtue »

mrfusion wrote: post #114
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.

I think we should go a step further and self-flagulate, honestly. Seriously though, this quote made me laugh: "the gene-edited cattle are the same—as far as a consumer is concerned." They should peek in on the anti-vaccine crowd for a glimpse at consumer reality. I'm sure more than a few normies are going to want to see this on the label as well.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#123

Post by strainer »

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.

Everything is totally fine until it bites hard enough to beat the marketing and legal campaigns run to promote and protect it. "Totally fine" is simply the orthodox professional position towards new potentially lucrative practices. Because it is a burden on the career opportunities to those who think otherwise.

Putting cattle remains in cattle feed was fine until CJD was discovered, mass producing CFCs was fine until the chemisty of the ozone damage was understood. More chemists assured leaded petrol was fine and the few who complained were attacked... this list is huge. Its totally fine to mass produce plastics still. So to assure the generally well informed about the safety and wisdom of a technological proposition - you would need to be able to carry more detail than just adding 'I am a related professional - this is fine'

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#124

Post by speed_spread »

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #104
epgui wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I agree, but I also feel the same way about software patents. I think it’s important to distinguish that objection from health scares, technophobia and such: imagine if the public’s objections were targeted at the real problems instead, how much more productive it would be!

That gives me a pretty cynical idea: the companies pushing GMOs should start funding and supporting groups who are vocal about the claimed adverse health effects of GMOs. That opposition is easy to argue against in public debate, and the resulting noise conveniently drowns out the real problems. Controlled opposition I think it's called. Not surprisingly, I've learned about this concept from the Russian government.

I believe that's exactly what they are doing. They're drowning the big political issues of their model into the noise produced by the scientifically debatable issues. Ultimately, it's about bringing back up a feudal regime that can't be bypassed.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#125

Post by yucky »

klondike_ wrote: post #30
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…

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.

Do companies like Monsanto hold patents on their GMO products and techniques?

Because trusting a company (like Monsanto for instance) to play nice with their patents as it relates to our food supply is a non-starter.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#126

Post by atemerev »

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.

But if the loop is eventually not strong enough to have negative effects, why should we reinforce it? I am quite optimistic that the climate change crisis will be eventually resolved by the combination of engineering to restore the environment and adapting our existing technologies to damage it less (like it’s already happening). Humans are very adaptive.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#127

Post by nicoburns »

bluGill wrote: post #119
simulate-me wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While it's important, CO2 isn't everything. The use of pesticides (and monocrops) leads to dramatic loss of biodiversity, and that is an environmental disaster.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#128

Post by i_am_proteus »

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…

Further your assertion by discussing the real concern: uncertainty.

It seems to take generations for health problems with novel products that humans ingest to materialize.

We have millennia of experience with cross breeding, animal husbandry, etc.

Why trust these salesmen of genetically modified organisms, the same gentlemen who gleefully introduce pesticides into the environment, when we know that traditional hybrid crops and selectively-bred livestock provide ample nourishment?

Is optimizing for per-acre yields at the risk hazard the environment and human health worthwhile?

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#129

Post by cik2e »

sdflhasjd wrote: post #113
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.

I pictured a whole live cow covered in breadcrumbs instead of fur when I read that. The southern US would be a huge importer.
Post reply on HN