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

281–290 of 339 posts

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#281

Post by radu_floricica »

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.

I never found a satisfactory answer to this question: if we stop eating domestic animals, they won't frolic forever in an idyllic wilderness - they'll just stop existing, completely. Do you prefer them not existing, to being eaten by people?

And once you've answered - how would you feel about hyper advanced aliens coming to our corner of the universe and being horrified of all the pain and misery on earth, with a finger on a button that'll painlessly stop us from existing.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#282

Post by cercatrova »

sweetheart wrote: post #278
yesco wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, provide me the sources if you want to use them as a part of your argument.

Okay. https://youaretheirvoice.com/pages/the-clear-consensus Enjoy.

In an argument, if you're trying to convince the other person to support your beliefs, you wouldn't use clearly biased sources like you did here. I have no argument with you specifically but just pointing it out for the future that people will dismiss any biased sources you give them, which is probably not what you want the outcome to be in an argumentative fashion.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#283

Post by epgui »

netizen-936824 wrote: post #140
pueblito wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Bingo.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#284

Post by jimbob45 »

kickout wrote: post #217
foobiekr wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, I agree with you, I think there's not necessarily a problem with CRISPR or GMOs or mutagenic selective breeding, or whatever. But there are real issues: novel introductions make it harder to define how we talk about food safety in general, since almost all of it is based on both a very poor science (nutrition science is a dumpster fire) and long-term use by humans (GRAS) where previous generations were test…

All good points. Another topic lost in these debates is _very real alternatives_. People lament fields soaked in glyphosate or neonics. True, there are real problems with these actives. Unfortunately, these chemicals largely replaced _even more dangerous_ chemicals like DDT and other nasty organs-phosphates (I think sarin gas was discovered while searching for pesticides?). It's unfortunate people don't have complete…

DDT was never that dangerous. Rachel Carson was simply the Andrew Wakefield of her generation and her sackless colleagues in the field wouldn’t call her out, unlike the medical field coming together to stand up to Wakefield’s racket today. Hell, she had a degree in Marine Science, not Biochemistry.

https://studiomatters.com/the-toxic-legacy-of-rachel-carson

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#285

Post by jlokier »

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…

On the first claim, looks like you're right and I learned something. It is interesting to see the Canada Supreme Court were split 5-4 on the Schmeiser decision and did not award any damages to Monsanto, (but that doesn't mean they believed the second year of crop growth was by accidental contamination).

On the second claim, it's briefly described in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#Dicamba). The second claim isn't about GMO spreading directly, but rather about how you may have no choice but to grow the GMO variety (and pay for it, and lose revenue if you were growing something more profitable) when in the neighbourhood of other farms growing it, which has a similar practical effect on individual farmers regarding "you’re still free to go back to non-GMO varieties".

Lengthier article here (https://investigatemidwest.org/2020/12/04/buy-it-or-else-ins...) "‘Buy it or else’: Inside Monsanto and BASF’s moves to force dicamba on farmers" [...] [...] "His neighbors who spray dicamba are frustrated with him, he said. There’s an easy solution to avoid damage, they tell him: Buy Monsanto’s seeds" [...] "As the damage has continued, he said, more and more of his clients are “feeling bullied into” buying the dicamba-tolerant crops. Others tell him, they have to spray dicamba or else they can’t control the weeds."

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#286

Post by yucky »

driverdan wrote: post #244
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.

The issue of patents is separate from the issue of GMO technology.

Well the GMO technology gets patented, and patents are routinely abused. That is unacceptable for our food sources.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#287

Post by scoopertrooper »

strainer wrote: post #239
scoopertrooper wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I did reply to a blanket statement based on a bare claim of professional expertise - and with examples to plentiful historical evidence of premature confidences in technological understanding. There is no evidence that this fallibility has not carried into this century. My argument was not like saying "we should never do anything like this because of past grave accidents in comparable novel products and practices" It…

> premature confidences in technological understanding

CRISPR-Cas9 (the method used here) was first successfully used seven years ago. According to the article, the meat may go to market in two years pending a safety review. So that's nine years from lab to table. How soon is too soon? What makes you think doing it now would be premature as opposed to ten years from now?

> It was to be measured and wary of bare professional and institutional assurances.

From where would you like to get assurances? Do you have to conduct the study yourself?

> Regarding the characteristics of plants and animals that we should feed to our children and mass rear in our environment - I am of the mind that the characteristics should be as well evidenced by the long history of life as we can afford.

That's all well and good till climate change reduces arable land and we have to extract as much as we can from the remainder.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#288

Post by Turing_Machine »

wyre wrote: post #265
dehrmann wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> with cows kept in small cages I don't think this is common practice. My dairy knowledge is somewhat dated, but they they're usually kept in large corrals (possibly crowded) with many other cows.

They have to keep the cow in a cage or else she will look for her offspring.

No, they're not "kept in cages".

You may be thinking of the stanchions they're put into for milking, but they're only put in those during the actual milking process, which only takes a few minutes with modern milking machinery.

Usually they're fed something tasty while being milked... makes it easier to get them to go into the dairy barn.

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#289

Post by Turing_Machine »

Nbox9 wrote: post #235
yesco wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your appeal to emotion is unconvincing

That’s because it’s a logical appeal. The argument is: Eating meat causes suffering to the animal. Eating meat is unnecessary for a human life. Eating meat causes unnecessary suffering.

> Eating meat is unnecessary for a human life

There are a lot of things that are "unnecessary for human life", such as using electricity.

Making electricity harms the environment, causing suffering.

Therefore, you should stop using your computer.

Right?

Re: FDA Approves First CRISPR Cows for Beef

#290

Post by kickout »

jimbob45 wrote: post #284
kickout wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All good points. Another topic lost in these debates is _very real alternatives_. People lament fields soaked in glyphosate or neonics. True, there are real problems with these actives. Unfortunately, these chemicals largely replaced _even more dangerous_ chemicals like DDT and other nasty organs-phosphates (I think sarin gas was discovered while searching for pesticides?). It's unfortunate people don't have complete…

DDT was never that dangerous. Rachel Carson was simply the Andrew Wakefield of her generation and her sackless colleagues in the field wouldn’t call her out, unlike the medical field coming together to stand up to Wakefield’s racket today. Hell, she had a degree in Marine Science, not Biochemistry. https://studiomatters.com/the-toxic-legacy-of-rachel-carson

Eh, slight disagree. DDT at that scale is problematic. No comment on silent spring, but to clearly struck a cord with public perception— real or baseless
Post reply on HN