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

191–200 of 339 posts

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#191

Post by colordrops »

softwaredoug wrote: post #160

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...

I do want to argue that you should be vegan. The meat industry is very cruel to animals, and it is nearly impossible to source truly "cruelty free" meat despite marketing saying otherwise. Dairy is far worse, with cows kept in small cages, constantly impregnated to keep producing milk, their calves pulled away from them and slaughtered for veal. Eggs are also horrible, with egg chickens living miserable lives, even "free range" ones, and the male chicks being culled by being thrown into a grinder.

Furthermore, water usage, water table pollution, and greenhouses gasses from animal husbandry are a significant chunk of the pie when it comes to climate change.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#192

Post by [deleted] »

softwaredoug wrote: post #160

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...

[deleted]

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#193

Post by imtringued »

ekianjo wrote: post #10
danielovichdk wrote: post #9

Address the real problem. We are too many people on the earth for the resources that we are naturally given. That's a fact.

> We are too many people on the earth for the resources that we are naturally given. The same old rant that we hear for like 100 years now "when we reach 1 billion people everyone will starve", "peak oil is just around the corner (back in the 70s)", and all this kind of bullshit. Resources are plentiful as long as you are ingenious when it comes to harvesting them.

>In the meantime, approximately 793 million people are starving around the world, according to the U.N. That makes up about 11 percent of the population.

https://borgenproject.org/how-many-people-are-starving-aroun...

It's true isn't it?

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#194

Post by qqtt »

sjmm1989 wrote: post #188
kickout wrote: post #184

My opinion continues to be tools like CRISPR and genome editing techniques are just that--tools. Can be used for good or bad purposes depending on your context and bias. Most people associate these genome modification tools as inherently bad because the first generation of them were tied to herbicide and pesticide resistance. Whether you agree with those applications or not, its clear those tools worked and were extr…

Anyone who has ever eaten bread or a banana, has already been technically in some fashion or another, eating GMO's. Norman Borlaug helped rid us of Wheat rust, which took a more 'natural' approach to gene editing. The banana has been a mutant for decades now.

Also lemons, broccoli, and pretty much any modern vegetable or fruit - humans have been selectively growing plants since humans have had the knowledge of how to grow things period.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#195

Post by colordrops »

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.

The genetic changes you get with direct gene manipulation are qualitatively different from those that arise through artificial selection. You won't get fish or tobacco genes in a cow from selectivd breeding. To constantly repeat this trope and claim that they are the same is intellectually dishonest.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#196

Post by baremetal »

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.

unintended consequences are what i dont like about GMO food

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#197

Post by mgerdts »

imtringued wrote: post #185
ben_w wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn’t expecting to ask this when I woke up this morning but: how much methane did bison burp relative to the same biomass of modern cattle?

Probably less because we are feeding the cheapest source of feed to cows, not what they can digest the best. The food that your body fails to digest will be digested in the big intestine which can lead to bloating.

> A number of past studies have found lower greenhouse gas emissions associated with the feedlot system. One reason is that grass-fed cows gain weight more slowly, so they produce more methane (mostly in the form of belches) over their longer lifespans.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is...

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#198

Post by kickout »

sjmm1989 wrote: post #188
kickout wrote: post #184

My opinion continues to be tools like CRISPR and genome editing techniques are just that--tools. Can be used for good or bad purposes depending on your context and bias. Most people associate these genome modification tools as inherently bad because the first generation of them were tied to herbicide and pesticide resistance. Whether you agree with those applications or not, its clear those tools worked and were extr…

Anyone who has ever eaten bread or a banana, has already been technically in some fashion or another, eating GMO's. Norman Borlaug helped rid us of Wheat rust, which took a more 'natural' approach to gene editing. The banana has been a mutant for decades now.

The banana is a seedless triploid (seeds don't form because they have an odd number of chromosome pairs). This is a common mechanism in fruits to achieve seedless varieties that can then be propagated vegetatively.

The term GMO has functionally lost all meaning to me as anyone can load up a straw man defining it how they need it to be defined at that point in time. Borlaug was a great plant breeder, but some of his inventions ushered in those tricky 2nd and 3rd order effects that I alluded to earlier. Namely, the response of (wheat) crops to synthetic fertilizer and how much synthetic fertilizer is both an economic boom and and environmental quagmire. Interesting debates no doubt

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#199

Post by datavirtue »

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.

I lived in a farming community most of my life and I haven't seen a plow dragged behind a tractor in over thirty years. No idea what you are talking about. Everyone is doing no-till, which includes dumping shit tons of nasty chemicals (created and shipped at great CO2 costs) all over the land and in the air. Living next to these fields, you experience allergies, sinus problems, watery eyes and other random problems depending on the person. Even harvest season is torture--from the dust alone. Anyone living next to a farm or eating the crops coming out of them is investing harsh chemicals. Half the things we do in the US are banned throughout the world. It results in greater yield for sure, but not without cost.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#200

Post by tastyfreeze »

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.

The amount of pesticide and herbicide used of crops is an environmental disaster on it's own. There is mounting evidence that glyphosate is responsible for increases in cancer and birth defects, lower fertility rates, and is implicated as a likely partial cause for celiac disease.
Post reply on HN