Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Lynas, environmentalist who opposed GMOs, admits he was wrong.

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 85 posts

Re: Mark Lynas, environmentalist who opposed GMOs, admits he was wrong.

#31

Post by dizzystar »

droithomme wrote: post #12

Never heard of this guy. Along the line of the argument, "John Smith, leading health care reform advocate, admits health care reform is unnecessary." And "Renowned atheist, on deathbed, admits atheism was a mistake." At least with the atheist guy I had heard of him. So it is an 'appeal to authority' argument, but it's not even an authority who many people have heard of, and fewer still have ever thought of as an auth…

Just because you never heard of him doesn't mean the kings in Africa who banned GMOs have not.

Re: Mark Lynas, environmentalist who opposed GMOs, admits he was wrong.

#32

Post by cheeseprocedure »

graeme wrote: post #4

His views are insubstantial. His main argument is that his previous ad hominem positions were not sufficient to condemn GMOs (correct) and that GMOs haven't caused any problems yet. He has not presented evidence that GMO's are safe. He has two main arguments: 1. Trial and error crossbreeding affects entire genes. 2. Viruses sometimes spread genes from one organism to another. First, trial and error crossbreeding isn'…

> Current techniques may be more risky, but generally speaking it should be hard for plants to produce a horrid mutation based on natural interbreeding mechanisms.

What about the (widespread) practice of mutation breeding? [1] Blasting seeds with X-rays and gamma rays in an attempt to generate new cultivars is a genetic wrecking ball compared to performing genetic engineering.

Conventional breeding has given us plenty of Oopses. The modern kiwifruit, whose progenitor (the smaller and less tasty Chinese gooseberry) may have been safely snacked upon by many folks who would today suffer a lethal allergic reaction after eating a kiwi. In the 1980s, a mutant variety of zucchini began producing enough cucurbitacin toxin to hospitalize a number of people. [2]

> If such transfers have occurred in nature for a long, long time, then it's safe to say that nature has created pathways that are safe. Our pathways are new.

We're still playing by nature's fundamental biological rules, and nature has had hundreds of millions of years to develop resiliency inside that same framework. One example: bacterial mechanisms to mitigate the damage from undesirable horizontal gene transfers by recognizing and deactivating to foreign genetic material: [3]

> I'm making a Talebian argument here. Nature is a VERY complex system. When we mess with it, we make incremental visible gains, and run the risk of large, invisible losses.

I think "incremental" is a bit of an understatement if we can, for example, feed tens of millions of humans in parts of the world where conventional crops cannot (yet?) provide reliable and sufficient nutrition, a critical step in reducing poverty.

Having said all this, I think crop monoculture is a serious problem, but I think it's an issue that needs to be solved through sound policy, not just through science.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding

[2] http://books.google.ca/books?id=Jcq1wTe_93UC&lpg=PP1&#38...

[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17575047

Re: Mark Lynas, environmentalist who opposed GMOs, admits he was wrong.

#33

Post by maratd »

pyre wrote: post #22
enraged_camel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I'm making a Talebian argument here. Nature is a VERY complex system. When we mess with it, we make incremental visible gains, and run the risk of large, invisible losses. I've never understood this argument. It basically amounts to "yes, there are advantages to GMOs, but we haven't found any disadvantages yet, therefore they are unsafe!" This is basically the equivalent of early seafarers being afraid of uncharted…

If an early seafarer went down with his/her ship, it didn't affect a significant portion of the population. GMO foods are more like, "Hey look! I invented this new banana in a test tube! It looks safe, so it must be! Here eat it! Does it cause problems when you eat these types of bananas for 20 or 30 years? Who knows! Just eat it, it looks safe!"

You could say that about any new product. Here! Use this cellphone! What? The battery can explode when it overheats? Don't worry about it! Almost never happens!

And with cellphones ... that's already happened. Yet you still have one in your pocket.

> Does it cause problems when you eat these types of bananas for 20 or 30 years?

Bananas didn't evolve with "being good for you 20 or 30 years from now" ethos. That doesn't help the spread of their seeds. They just needed to taste sweet, so you would eat them now and spit out their seed somewhere else.

Is there even a plant out there that has harmful side-effects two decades after you eat it? If we make one, that would be one hell of an achievement.

Re: Mark Lynas, environmentalist who opposed GMOs, admits he was wrong.

#35

Post by kjackson2012 »

bascule wrote: post #8
graeme wrote: post #4

His views are insubstantial. His main argument is that his previous ad hominem positions were not sufficient to condemn GMOs (correct) and that GMOs haven't caused any problems yet. He has not presented evidence that GMO's are safe. He has two main arguments: 1. Trial and error crossbreeding affects entire genes. 2. Viruses sometimes spread genes from one organism to another. First, trial and error crossbreeding isn'…

I'm curious what sort of realistic disaster scenario you think might occur due to cross-species gene transfer (and for that matter, purely synthetic genes) in GMOs, and how the existing safeguards are inadequate against it. Normally I'm against FUD, but please, go nuts, so long as there's a reasonable chance of it occurring (i.e. we're not talking about a mad scientist who wants to create man-eating plants)

300,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide in the past 15 years because of the monopoly that GMO companies have over seeds with patents. What used to be previously free now costs farmers a huge amount of money with promises of great returns. However, in the past few years, these GMO crops have had tremendous crop failures, and have instead bankrupted the farmers that used them.

Hundreds of thousands of farmers taken advantage of by a monopolistic GMO company and ruins the lives of countless families sounds like a real-life disaster scenario to me.

http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2012/11/why-are-in...

Re: Mark Lynas, environmentalist who opposed GMOs, admits he was wrong.

#36

Post by Ygg2 »

bascule wrote: post #8
graeme wrote: post #4

His views are insubstantial. His main argument is that his previous ad hominem positions were not sufficient to condemn GMOs (correct) and that GMOs haven't caused any problems yet. He has not presented evidence that GMO's are safe. He has two main arguments: 1. Trial and error crossbreeding affects entire genes. 2. Viruses sometimes spread genes from one organism to another. First, trial and error crossbreeding isn'…

I'm curious what sort of realistic disaster scenario you think might occur due to cross-species gene transfer (and for that matter, purely synthetic genes) in GMOs, and how the existing safeguards are inadequate against it. Normally I'm against FUD, but please, go nuts, so long as there's a reasonable chance of it occurring (i.e. we're not talking about a mad scientist who wants to create man-eating plants)

Their seeds are known to mingle with domestic corn varieties creating corn that is unusable for consumption. That to me seems like a legit reason to be careful around them.

Basically if you a corn farmer, have people around you start planting Monsanto Corn, you have two options: change to Monsanto or switch professions.

Re: Mark Lynas, environmentalist who opposed GMOs, admits he was wrong.

#37

Post by cheeseprocedure »

noiv wrote: post #24

I was fascinated by reading Marc's 'Six Degrees' and would still recommend it. Now I wonder how far he is away from saying climate change isn't happening at all.

I take it you didn't actually read his paper.

"What you don’t have the right to do is to stand in the way of others who hope and strive for ways of doing things differently, and hopefully better. Farmers who understand the pressures of a growing population and a warming world. Who understand that yields per hectare are the most important environmental metric. And who understand that technology never stops developing, and that even the fridge and the humble potato were new and scary once."

http://www.ofc.org.uk/files/ofc/papers/mark-lynas-lecture-ox...

Re: Mark Lynas, environmentalist who opposed GMOs, admits he was wrong.

#38

Post by ScottBurson »

enraged_camel wrote: post #16
graeme wrote: post #4

His views are insubstantial. His main argument is that his previous ad hominem positions were not sufficient to condemn GMOs (correct) and that GMOs haven't caused any problems yet. He has not presented evidence that GMO's are safe. He has two main arguments: 1. Trial and error crossbreeding affects entire genes. 2. Viruses sometimes spread genes from one organism to another. First, trial and error crossbreeding isn'…

>>I'm making a Talebian argument here. Nature is a VERY complex system. When we mess with it, we make incremental visible gains, and run the risk of large, invisible losses. I've never understood this argument. It basically amounts to "yes, there are advantages to GMOs, but we haven't found any disadvantages yet, therefore they are unsafe!" This is basically the equivalent of early seafarers being afraid of uncharted…

There's a huge middle ground between "proven safe" and "proven unsafe". People in this debate seem to forget that.

Personally, I want pretty good evidence that something is safe before putting it in my body. If the mere lack of evidence that it's unsafe is sufficient for you, well, that's your choice.

Re: Mark Lynas, environmentalist who opposed GMOs, admits he was wrong.

#39

Post by droithomme »

dizzystar wrote: post #31
droithomme wrote: post #12

Never heard of this guy. Along the line of the argument, "John Smith, leading health care reform advocate, admits health care reform is unnecessary." And "Renowned atheist, on deathbed, admits atheism was a mistake." At least with the atheist guy I had heard of him. So it is an 'appeal to authority' argument, but it's not even an authority who many people have heard of, and fewer still have ever thought of as an auth…

Just because you never heard of him doesn't mean the kings in Africa who banned GMOs have not.

What evidence is there that they have? This person is not the cult leader he claims to be.

These kings in Africa you mention generically with no specifics, perhaps they read journals? Even if it is established these scores of kings each met with this fellow personally, went elephant or cheetah hunting together and had some laughs, it indicates little about the motivations of these supposed and possibly fictional kings in passing their dictates, edicts and proclamations.

Vazquez et al. Intragastric and Intraperitoneal Administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice. Life Sci. 64, no. 21 (1999): 1897–1912.

Vazquez et al. Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice. Brazilian J. of Med. and Biol. Research 33 (2000): 147–155.

Vazquez et al. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant. Scandanavian J. of Immunology 49 (1999): 578–584.

Burns, J.M. 13-week dietary subchronic comparison study with MON 863 corn in rats preceded by a 1-week baseline food consumption determination with PMI certified rodent diet #5002. (Monsanto Co. report, Dec 17, 2002).

Assessment of additional scientific information concerning StarLink corn (FIFRA scientific advisory panel report, No. 2001–09, Jul 2001).

Seralini, G., Cellier, D., & Spiroux de Vendomois, J. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. J. archives of Env. Contam. and Toxicology (Springer, New York).

Malatesta, M. et al. Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct. Funct. 27 (2002): 173–180.

Vecchio, L. et al. Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur. J. of Histochem. 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.

Oliveri et al. Temporary depression of transcription in mouse pre-implantion embryos from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. (48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore, Italy, Sept 7–10, 2006).

Ermakova, I. Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies. Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.

Re: Mark Lynas, environmentalist who opposed GMOs, admits he was wrong.

#40

Post by [deleted] »

enraged_camel wrote: post #16
graeme wrote: post #4

His views are insubstantial. His main argument is that his previous ad hominem positions were not sufficient to condemn GMOs (correct) and that GMOs haven't caused any problems yet. He has not presented evidence that GMO's are safe. He has two main arguments: 1. Trial and error crossbreeding affects entire genes. 2. Viruses sometimes spread genes from one organism to another. First, trial and error crossbreeding isn'…

>>I'm making a Talebian argument here. Nature is a VERY complex system. When we mess with it, we make incremental visible gains, and run the risk of large, invisible losses. I've never understood this argument. It basically amounts to "yes, there are advantages to GMOs, but we haven't found any disadvantages yet, therefore they are unsafe!" This is basically the equivalent of early seafarers being afraid of uncharted…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN