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

151–160 of 339 posts

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#151

Post by jlokier »

gruez wrote: post #133
yucky wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That might not apply to Monsanto.

Monsanto is infamous for contaminating non-GMO crops on neighbour farms then suing the neighbour for growing the GMO variety, and for "drift" of their special herbicide which happens to destroy neighbour farm crops - for which the only solution is, you guessed it, buy Monsanto GMO varieties to grow instead of the non-GMO varieties you wanted to grow.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#152

Post by microjim »

atemerev wrote: post #126
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.

At the risk of us getting too abstract here, the trouble with said loop being weak is that it is difficult to link our actions and their impact on our environment. It is weak because the forces in question operate on a very long time scale, and the system hasn’t self corrected as early as one would hope.

We are indeed very adaptive! It’s simply a case of us adapting our behaviour to mitigate the consequences, rather than just adapting to live with them.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#153

Post by 34679 »

datavirtue wrote: post #122
mrfusion wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"the gene-edited cattle are the same—as far as a consumer is concerned."

For me, that statement invokes thoughts of "counterfeit cattle". By that logic, there's no harm to the consumer when someone sells a knock-off purse or watch, as long as it functions the same as the original. Taken a step further, there's no harm in stealing from someone if the victim doesn't know they've been robbed.

I'm not against using advances in technology to feed more people. I believe the suffering of a hungry human outweighs the suffering of that human's potential next meal. I don't think it's wrong or immoral for a lion to eat an antelope.

But I do believe honesty and openness are important. I want consumers to be able to make educated decisions on what they consume. It should be easy for someone who can afford an all-organic diet to purchase products that are in fact organic.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#154

Post by mbg721 »

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

The US has Dolly-Parton-esque chickens too, it's not a new phenomenon.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#155

Post by jlokier »

naoqj wrote: post #75
koonsolo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also eat meat, so not going to play the saint here. But it seems you have absolutely no remorse of what happens to those animals that end up on your plate. Or you do and try to cover it up by playing the tough guy. I try to cut back on meat as much as I can. I also enjoy some ribs, but I don't eat meat every day. And when I do, I try to stick with fish or poultry. I suggest you watch some slaughterhouse videos, so…

That video is slowed down in the most shocking moments to make it look like the suffering of the animals lasts for longer.

Acute suffering and fear tends to last longer, subjectively, for humans. Psychological time stretches. Perhaps slowing it down is a more accurate portrayal of the animal's experience than not doing so.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#156

Post by scoopertrooper »

strainer wrote: post #123
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.

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…

This is a pretty poor form of argument. You can't just make blanket statements like this without evidence.

What evidence do you have that our understanding of CRISPR and genetic modification today is on par of our understanding of CFCs and CJD in the 20th century?

It's like saying that we shouldn't release any new drugs because of the thalidomide catastrophe.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#157

Post by runeks »

xbmcuser wrote: post #144
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

Most livestock, fruits, grains and vegetable that exist today and we buy in our store shelves are all the result of selective breeding by humans over the last 100-200 years. More recently as the science and ability to do selective breeding has improved. Genetic manipulation is going to accelerate something that is already happening. For me genetic manipulation of livestock and grains is not as problematic as the west…

> Most livestock, fruits, grains and vegetable that exist today and we buy in our store shelves are all the result of selective breeding by humans over the last 100-200 years.

More like thousands of years.

Also, before humans were selectively breeding, animals were “unconsciously breeding” e.g. fruits by eating the tastiest ones and thereby spreading their seeds.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#158

Post by runeks »

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.

Sounds delicious

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#159

Post by gruez »

jlokier wrote: post #151
gruez wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That might not apply to Monsanto. Monsanto is infamous for contaminating non-GMO crops on neighbour farms then suing the neighbour for growing the GMO variety, and for "drift" of their special herbicide which happens to destroy neighbour farm crops - for which the only solution is, you guessed it, buy Monsanto GMO varieties to grow instead of the non-GMO varieties you wanted to grow.

>Monsanto is infamous for contaminating non-GMO crops on neighbour farms then suing the neighbour for growing the GMO variety, and for "drift" of their special herbicide which happens to destroy neighbour farm crops - for which the only solution is, you guessed it, buy Monsanto GMO varieties to grow instead of the non-GMO varieties you wanted to grow.

1. in the context of this discussion (ie. GMO cows) this is basically a non-issue. GMO sperm isn't going to "drift" from one pasture to another.

2. Can you substantiate that claim? The Wikipedia article lists a bunch of cases where the farmers were intentionally trying to breed monsanto seeds, which is different than the narrative you presented, which imply farmers being sued for accidental contamination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaint...

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#160

Post by softwaredoug »

I don’t want to argue you should be vegetarian, but I hope at least people might consider eating _much less_ meat. I’m trying to save it for special occasions. It’s not always possible, but I try and do my best.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eating-less-red-m...

Post reply on HN