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

221–230 of 339 posts

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#221

Post by wincy »

colordrops wrote: post #191
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 "…

The happiest times in my life and the healthiest I’ve ever been are always when I eat mostly meat and very little of anything else.

I don’t care about the emotions of animals at all, and never will. I purposely show my daughter videos of how to slaughter farm animals to try to make sure she has a full understanding of what’s happening so she doesn’t one day realize what “pork” or “beef” means and becomes vegan. Her favorite food by far is steak.

I’m all for others reducing their consumption as hopefully that’ll drop prices so I can eat more meat and feed my children more meat. Which is the only actual end result people who advocate cutting meat consumption will ever achieve.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#222

Post by Jon_Lowtek »

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.

Are you trying to conflate "selective breeding" and "genetic modification" or do you mean "US Americans" when you say "anyone"?

If by "Anyone" you mean "US Americans", then you are probably referring to that vitamin A added GMO "golden banana" that is field tested there. But in that case there would be no need to say "technically in some fashion or another". (EDIT: i must have misinterpreted a single source, there is a lack of secondary sources confirming any large scale availability of this banana in the USA. Sorry! The field test is in Uganda not America)

The banana we are used to (Cavendish, ~99% world export market share) is not a GMO, because that term has a definition and a meaning, no matter how much people try to conflate "selective breeding" and "genetically modified organism".

What you are doing is called "muddying the water" and in general it is not helpful in serious debate, except when you aim for winning an argument, instead of reaching consent or discovering a deeper truth. I am not saying it is invalid to make a comparison between selective breeding and gene editing, highlighting the similarities. Doing that is perfectly fine. What is not ok, in my opinion, is trying to attempt to redefine and twist the words used by the other side of an argument to describe their position such that they can not express their position anymore. Note that sometimes word definitions are vague and reaching a common understanding can look similar to this pattern, but in this case the "technically in some fashion or another" gives the intention away.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#223

Post by s1artibartfast »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #187
s1artibartfast wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More specifically, it is a waste product from bacteria digesting the food. The food doesn't turn to methane without the bacteria. https://jasbsci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40104-01...

But genes to appear to modulate gut microbiota composition on other animals, so it's not impossible that there is some genetic modification (to cattle) that would have the desired effect.

oh, I totally agree that there could be some design space around this.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#224

Post by belorn »

colordrops wrote: post #191
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 "…

I want to argue that you should neither eat meat or an vegetarian diet, especially if either is produced through artificial fertilizers. As an Baltic ocean diver I am almost daily reminded of the destructiveness caused by farming, and I continuously witness the horror of asphyxia when low oxygen water get flown near the areas I dive, and when the visible-from-space algae bloom occurs. Artificial fertilizers is such a huge problem that practically every single fresh water lake in Europe is considered damaged by eutrophication. Sourcing food free of that is a major step to reducing ones personal climate footprint.

Eggs are actually great if you have your own flock of chickens. They work almost for free in keeping grass down without requiring fossil fuels or complex machinery. They are almost perfect in handling food waste, and they can reduce harmful insects and weed without using any herbicide or pesticide. For insects they are likely less cruel than poison, and do not spread the poison to bees or birds. They also fertilizer the garden in a very natural way. A fairly small flock can easily maintain the need of eggs for a small family, often producing so much that you want to give it away to friends and relatives.

A bit of an anecdotal but when the natural gas prices went up after Russian invasion of Ukraine, one food product that got hit hard was fresh tomatoes. Farming them during off-season is very energy intensive and so require a lot of electricity, which in most countries mean a lot of fossil fuel. Even if you use renewables, that is energy that would otherwise go to to displace fossil fuel. It is indirect, but fresh tomatoes is right now connected with fossil fuel and war. Meat is also effected, but analysts seem to argue that people can easier switch over to farm more animal feed than they can fix the energy dependence on Russian fossil fuels. People could stop eating fresh vegetables when its off season...

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#225

Post by ifyoubuildit »

bluGill wrote: post #220
datavirtue wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

Nobody has used a plow in 30 years because they are such an environmental disaster. Chemicals are the answer. Some CO2 is used for chemicals, but not nearly as much as a plow would use, and that is before we look at the other disasters of the plow. Dust from harvest causes allergies, but don't blame it on chemicals. Well other than everything is a chemical.

This is probably something I can google, but could you point me to some info about why the plow is a disaster? It seems like one of those things that made it possible for a huge increase in the number of people not starving before it became a disaster.

I imagine it has something to do with erosion, but I'd like to know more, and you seem to have a position on the topic.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#226

Post by taneq »

foobiekr wrote: post #216
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.

Start by asking yourself how humans have established that a given food, genetically engineered or not, is long-term safe?

We're pretty terrible at it, honestly. Look at half the crap we eat currently, I wouldn't describe much of it as "long-term safe."

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#227

Post by tengbretson »

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...

On the other hand, even if you want to regularly eat meat, between public land hunting and raising rabbits and chickens, the ability to take the production of the meat you eat into your own hands is a lot more accessible than you might think. Even if you live in an urban setting.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#228

Post by s1artibartfast »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #183
s1artibartfast wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The methane isn't from the cows, it is from the bacteria in their gut. It can be greatly reduced with supplemental feeding that changes the microbiome

I've read a lot about this, but is it being done at any scale? And how much extra does it cost?

Not that I am aware of, but I am far from an expert in the area.

This paper[1] suggests it would cost about ~20 cents per lb of beef

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#229

Post by sjmm1989 »

samatman wrote: post #205
sjmm1989 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Speaking as someone who has genetically modified several organisms, please don't do this. Genetic engineering is a distinctive and new technique for modifying the genomes of organisms, and the results of genetic engineering are referred to as GMOs. The rhetorical flourish of decompiling the acronym and pretending it is descriptive rather than nominal does no one any favors. It's disingenuous, and doesn't alleviate so…

No, I took the actual definition, and you just don't like it.

Just because other people are ignorant or arrogant, doesn't mean we should cater to their ignorance or arrogance. But it does mean we should make it easier to differentiate the key differences by not re-using the same acronym over and over again.

Instead of calling the 'new methods' GMO's, we should be calling them something else, instead of confusing the dummies. The new techniques folk like you are using should get a whole new acronym to go with it... Not just labelled GMO, yet again.

It just confuses the dummies. And we live in democracies mostly, so you should be concerned about that.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#230

Post by yesco »

sweetheart wrote: post #207
prepend wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d like to argue for eating healthy and sustainably produced animal protein. Commercial meat is really bad for the environment, but you don’t have to eat that. Animals are evolved to make the most of vegetables that humans can’t eat. There are sustainable sources that we can use to eat beef, pork, chicken, lamb, etc. I try and do my best by eating local sources that I know are well produced. I don’t hunt, but would…

Unnecessary violence that is sustainable is still unnecessary violence. You don't need to eat any animals to thrive, so choosing to do so is simply choosing to induce suffering for ephemeral, meaningless pleasure.

Your appeal to emotion is unconvincing
Post reply on HN