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

131–140 of 339 posts

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#131

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

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.

Are you seriously arguing for more use of pesticides on the plants that become our food? Maybe I misunderstand?

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#132

Post by nicoburns »

ben_w wrote: post #108
danielovichdk wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is polluting the world ? Why are we breeding cattle which has modified genes for not sweating ? You say resources are plentiful but apploud (?) modified cattle so they don't sweat, so they don't pollute and so we all can keep eating meat. You really don't see a flaw in that ? Of course we are too many people. Denying that is really naive.

The number of humans that can live on this planet simultaneously is a function of technology. If we all lived like hunters and gatherers, the population limit would be a mere few tens of millions. Conversely, if we imagine arbitrary technology, the maximum population that can live simultaneously and sustainably on this world is somewhere in the trillions. Technology such as the stuff you’re trying to use as evidence…

It's also a function of the finite resources available to us. You also need to factor in that we don't have arbitrary technology and never will. There will always be limits to our technology. I think the gist of the GP argument is something like:

Our use of technology is using increasing amounts of our planets resources (e.g. land), and is often questionably ethical (exploiting the other creatures we share our planet with). At which point you have to ask the question: is an expanded human population worth that cost?

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#133

Post by gruez »

yucky wrote: post #125
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.

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.

If they go rogue with their patent portfolio, you’re still free to go back to non-GMO varieties, leaving you no worse off than before.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#135

Post by gruez »

Eduard wrote: post #99
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.

You don't provide any argument for why you like GMO food here. What bothers you so much about food?

1. Just because he’s anti-anti-GMO, doesn’t mean he views conventional foods with disgust and buys GMO whenever he can

2. The benefits are clear: GMO foods are more cost effective, hence why farmers choose them over conventional

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#136

Post by sokoloff »

i_am_proteus wrote: post #128
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…

That depends in large part on whether a world population of 8B can be fed at the lower per-acre yields.

If the alternative is “everyone eats, but food is a little more expensive”, that’s OK. If the alternative is “billions live with insufficient food and 100s of millions die”, then I think the balance of the risk equation shifts.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#137

Post by rocqua »

amelius wrote: post #134

Why is this for the FDA to decide, not the electorate? We've had discussions about abortion for ages, yet here the FDA okays a human intervention just like that?

This is about suitability of meat as food. That falls squarely within the purview of the FDA.

Whether this is allowed to do to animals is not determined by the FDA. I am not sure what law does cover this.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#138

Post by gruez »

vanattab wrote: post #22
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 am not a big fan of idea of GMO beef ether, not because I fear it will be dangerous but because I fear it will taste like crap and be unhealthy for the cows. Today they will make the cows hair shorter so they stay cooler for when they edit them tomorrow to grow an extra couple of hundred pounds of rapidly grown muscle.

> because I fear it will taste like crap

OTOH I can plausibility imagine engineering to improve marbling for instance.

> and be unhealthy for the cows

Todays cows are already really unhealthy because of feedlots.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#139

Post by sokoloff »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #131
bluGill wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you seriously arguing for more use of pesticides on the plants that become our food? Maybe I misunderstand?

This topic is complex and multi-variate. Focusing only on one (whether that’s CO2 or pesticide usage) is not going to lead to generally productive debate.

We might both agree that pesticide usage alone should have a negative coefficient on whatever global fitness function we consider, but that a usage of zero pesticide is still sub-optimal.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#140

Post by netizen-936824 »

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.

So what's the problem with it?

In my opinion, health-wise and biochemically its fine

The patent situation, market capture, and change in biodiversity are issues secondary to the issues most are generally worried about when consuming and purchasing GMO foods and could be fixed with changes in law/regulation rather than having to do with whatever proteins the organism is expressing

Post reply on HN