Mark Lynas, environmentalist who opposed GMOs, admits he was wrong. • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by graeme » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 3:28 AM UTC

cpeterso wrote: post #23

DanBC wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weed-killer resistance transfers to a weed, helping boost it to invasive species? Some mutation makes crop more vulnerable to a particular plant virus, destroying 80% of that crop in EU or US? A huge multinational wants to include "TERMINATOR GENES" in their crops to make sure the cropped seed cannot grow; environmentalists freak out at the name and oppose that; the multinational doesn't include that gene but now ins…

> Some mutation makes crop more vulnerable to a particular plant virus, destroying 80% of that crop in EU or US? This is already a risk because industrial agriculture is optimized for monocrops.

This is like arguing that it's ok to build houses that won't resist hurricanes, because they're already vulnerable to fire.

GMO risks present an additional risk over already problematic agricultural practices.

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

#62

Post by DanBC » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 3:28 AM UTC

maratd wrote: post #33

pyre wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

> 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.

I understood the post to mean the cumulative effects of eating that plant.

One cigarette is not going to do much, but smoking 40 a day for 30 years is probably going to cause a few problems.

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

#63

Post by graeme » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 3:33 AM UTC

cheeseprocedure wrote: post #32

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 plent…

You make a good point. I have no idea what the risks to mutation breeding are.

That said, the fact that it's potentially problematic doesn't make GMOs safe. It just means they're both potentially unsafe. I don't know enough to say.

By incremental gains, I meant that GMO crops will at best add some percentage growth to total food production. This will be partly a wash, as increased food tends to increase birth/survival rates. Our food boom has helped create the population boom.

So on balance, GMOs will provide a benefit, but it is unlikely to be a kind of 'end hunger forever benefit'.

Meanwhile, the system accumulates hidden risk. Once food supplies are created, we become dependent on their persistence. If anything unforeseen and catastrophic happened that lopped a percentage off world food production, we would be ill placed to bear the shock.

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

#64

Post by graeme » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 3:37 AM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #21

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'…

When we mess with it, we make incremental visible gains, and run the risk of large, invisible losses. There are uncountable ways in which we all "mess with" Nature on a daily basis, both individually and as a society. Why single out this one?

Because of the way we run our agricultural system. We tend to use monocultures, or 'ogilopolies' of certain plant varieties.

Past plant varieties were more likely to be safe from hidden vulnerabilities due to the process that created them. Even so, some plants were wiped out by a single surprise event, such as during the Irish potato famine.

If, as I argue, GMO crops present more hidden risks, then we are increasing the odds of a catastrophic failure of a staple crop.

Growth in the food supply tends to produce a growth in population. This new population is dependent on food supply staying at least at it's current level. If a staple crop fails, then the consequences will be dire. There is little slack in the system.

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

#65

Post by andylei » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 3:38 AM UTC

politician wrote: post #5

If he's changed his mind based on facts, then I'm happy for him. However, the implications of Monsanto's Terminator seed technology (DRM for plants) is so sweeping and, frankly, frightening that whatever time society wasted due to the anti-GMO activism was worth it. Does anyone really think that if we didn't make a stink about GMO that they wouldn't have gone full steam ahead? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic…

> the implications of Monsanto's Terminator seed technology (DRM for plants)

what do intellectual property laws have to do with being pro or con GMOs?

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

#66

Post by andylei » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 3:49 AM UTC

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'…

> Nature is a VERY complex system. When we mess with it, we make incremental visible gains, and run the risk of large, invisible losses.

this is an argument against literally any kind of technology. electricity, medicine, computers, steam engines, light bulbs, animal husbandry, farming, ...

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

#67

Post by DanBC » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 3:51 AM UTC

cheeseprocedure wrote: post #32

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 plent…

> 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.

The problem is that in some parts of the world people are too poor to farm. GMO seed - produced by a company who will lock in farmers to that seed and prevent them from growing on from the crop - is not going to help that.

Kenya has barriers to free trade, which makes its food too expensive for many people to buy. (http://medilinkz.org/east-africa/kenya/37195-kenya-urban-poo...)

Some regions waste too much food, maybe as much as 33% (http://spam.irinnews.org/Report/96485/In-Brief-Southeast-Asi...)

Some more information about food insecurity (http://www.irinnews.org/In-depth/77872/72/A-global-food-cris...) - GMO isn't going to do much against war, HIV, natural disaster, etc.

Better weather forecasting (and education) may help - (http://medilinkz.org/africa/38139-climate-data-has-helped-af...)

This used to be a slide show, but they've broken it. :-/ (http://irinnews.org/Photo/Default.aspx?id=43)

Here's one image, but it's worth noodling through the others. (http://irinnews.org/Photo/Details/201202241150420779/HIV-AID...)

(http://irinnews.org/Photo/Result.aspx?id=43&CountryID=LS)

I'm not anti GMO; I'm just very cautious about allowing huge industry the opportunity to exploit starving children to make massive profits. We heard how agro-chemicals were going to feed the world. They don't. Now I'm hearing how GMOs are going to feed the world. Well, fix the other stuff and maybe I'd be more sympathetic to letting them sell their seed.

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

#68

Post by CamperBob2 » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 3:59 AM UTC

graeme wrote: post #64

CamperBob2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we mess with it, we make incremental visible gains, and run the risk of large, invisible losses. There are uncountable ways in which we all "mess with" Nature on a daily basis, both individually and as a society. Why single out this one?

Because of the way we run our agricultural system. We tend to use monocultures, or 'ogilopolies' of certain plant varieties. Past plant varieties were more likely to be safe from hidden vulnerabilities due to the process that created them. Even so, some plants were wiped out by a single surprise event, such as during the Irish potato famine. If, as I argue, GMO crops present more hidden risks, then we are increasing…

Hmm. I don't see a reason to assume that GMO crops present "more" hidden risks -- since by definition any such risks are hidden in both the GMO and non-GMO cases -- and you certainly haven't provided any such reasons in your post. If we want to avoid future unpleasant surprises like the Potato Famine, it seems to me that the best strategy is to gain the greatest possible mastery of plant genetics.

There will be unpleasant surprises along the way but science, like life itself, offers no guarantees. Meanwhile I haven't seen any potato famines lately.

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

#69

Post by cheeseprocedure » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 4:01 AM UTC

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #48

cheeseprocedure wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 plent…

> 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. You can argue about many benefits, but genetic engineered crops is hardly a solution to poverty and malnutrition.

Apologies if I'm off base, but can you correct my logic?

If GMOs[1] can enable the growth of more productive and nutritious food crops, it follows that they can enable more efficient agriculture. Lower inputs of resources (including time) and higher output (meaning, hopefully, less hunger and lower food prices) would seem to translate to the higher availability of resources to allocate to other ventures.

If communities are freed from the pressure of scraping together their next meal, doesn't that fundamentally change their health and economic prospects?

[1] Or any specialized cultivar, for that matter.

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

#70

Post by graeme » Sat, Jan 05, 2013, 4:21 AM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #68

graeme wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the way we run our agricultural system. We tend to use monocultures, or 'ogilopolies' of certain plant varieties. Past plant varieties were more likely to be safe from hidden vulnerabilities due to the process that created them. Even so, some plants were wiped out by a single surprise event, such as during the Irish potato famine. If, as I argue, GMO crops present more hidden risks, then we are increasing…

Hmm. I don't see a reason to assume that GMO crops present "more" hidden risks -- since by definition any such risks are hidden in both the GMO and non-GMO cases -- and you certainly haven't provided any such reasons in your post. If we want to avoid future unpleasant surprises like the Potato Famine, it seems to me that the best strategy is to gain the greatest possible mastery of plant genetics. There will be unple…

The reason there are more hidden risks is because we're creating breeds that couldn't occur in nature. We can't understand the full effects of modifications.

Natural plants have been tested over time so that we can be somewhat sure they don't have that many unknown weaknesses.