FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef • Hacker News Board

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#171

Post by ticviking » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 3:00 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #159

jlokier wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 basica…

Til the GMO bull gets into your heifer's pen, or onto your land for a few days.

There used to be range wars over "strange breeds" much less gene-edited breeds where I grew up, where the cows still largely wander federal land and get rounded up seasonally.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#172

Post by ticviking » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 3:04 PM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #12

viswd wrote: post #5

More patented life and another food product I plan to avoid. I wonder if the average consumer will be as disgusted and turned off by the idea of eating genetically modfied meat as I am.

> average consumer will be as disgusted and turned off by the idea of eating genetically modfied meat as I am. And yet people seem to be interested in lab-produced meat alternatives that use synthetic blood-like formula to make it taste like actual meat?

Most meat alternatives sit on the shelves around here even when we have people stocking up for severe weather and there's nothing else left.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#173

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 3:08 PM UTC

Taywee wrote: post #161

jlokier wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You have been misled by Food Inc. I was as well. Reading up on the case and finding out how disingenuous it was really made me angry.

[deleted]

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#174

Post by koonsolo » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 3:10 PM UTC

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…

I don't fully agree with that timeline, at least not when you consider it more broadly.

My granddad was a farmer (he was born around 1920). Back then, animals were still treated fairly well, and the animals themselves were also still natural. The real industrialization of livestock came after that, when he was already retired.

Having raised and killed animals all of his life, he actually wasn't too fond of how animals were raised and treated after that. For sure he regarded all specifically bred animals as unnatural.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#175

Post by naoqj » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 3:10 PM UTC

koonsolo wrote: post #166

naoqj wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ok, fair enough. Can you provide a video that is more realistic then?

Watching videos of slaughterhouses is not one of my hobbies so I don't know of any other video like that.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#176

Post by imtringued » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 3:19 PM UTC

I sure hope that these cows can reproduce without the authorization of a mega corporation.

Everyone loves talking about how their genetic engineering technique is the best and that at worst it is only as bad as selective breeding yet they completely dismiss the fact that you cannot apply selective breeding on a lot of these GMOs.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#177

Post by phendrenad2 » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 3:22 PM UTC

danielovichdk wrote: post #36

histriosum wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we were to accept that fact as stated (I don't, but let's assume we do..) What are you proposing, exactly? It sounds like "address the real problem" here means you are suggesting killing people off. That definitely doesn't seem like a good answer. China tried the one child policy, and it didn't turn out very well. The second order effects were pretty awful, and will be felt for generations. What would you sug…

Based on how we exploit our resources and the amount of people that are wealthy enough to live a good-standard life, we are definitely too many people on earth. Of course I don't suggest killing people, why would you even suggest such a thing ? I suggest people start to educate themselves and eachother. Instead of having kids, adopt. Instead of eating meat 5 days a week, eat it twice. Start using a bike and not a car…

I think you're right about the outcome, but unfortunately I think it's inevitable. The increasing population allows the government to print money now, knowing that future tax revenue will make up for it. It's a source of power that doesn't easily go away. Any attempt to resist population growth, such as by paying people to NOT have children, would go against the entire pyramid scheme.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#178

Post by kickout » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 3:26 PM UTC

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.

They play about as nice as Microsoft and Google and other big tech on protecting patents. Also, Monsanto was purchased by Bayer (a German company).

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#179

Post by kickout » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 3:28 PM UTC

Thorrez wrote: post #18

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…

>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.

Other have also commented, but this is mostly a marketing ploy. Non-GMO is not a regulated term and most things we eat have do not have a 'GMO' alternative.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#180

Post by imtringued » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 3:29 PM UTC

rocqua wrote: post #143

i_am_proteus wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To avoid malthusian traps we do need per-acre yields to be higher and higher. Increasing yields is not just about farmers profits, also about feeding the world. That does not mean it is a good idea to trade long term damage for short term yields. But yields are still important.

>To avoid malthusian traps we do need per-acre yields to be higher and higher. Increasing yields is not just about farmers profits, also about feeding the world.

This is illogical. The only places that experience excessive population growth are those that haven't developed their basic agricultural sectors and rely on labor intensive subsistence farming which means having children who work on your farm is not a drag on your household. The reason why those people do subsistence farming is actually quite ironic, because they cannot afford to run commercial farms as those would have to compete with hyper optimized western farms so instead every poor nation is forced to sell its raw resources and cash crops and then buy food from developed countries.

You can't sustain a population on vanilla but since western and asian countries cannot compete on e.g. coffee or vanilla production in Madagascar that nation can use the proceeds to import rice. The problem isn't an inability to grow rice, after all, people do subsistence farming and live off it their entire life.