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

Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

dw.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 128 posts

Re: Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

#21

Post by genwin »

api wrote: post #13
Anonazon wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this statement is it is assuming that there are no health concerns.

A lot of people see opposition to GMOs as irrational, but I don't think it is. It's perfectly rational, especially if you don't really understand genetics (which most people don't... it's an esoteric subject). The reason it's rational is this: were GMOs to be found to be unhealthy, it would be a continuation of a well-established pattern. Nearly all food "innovations" of the last 100 years are unhealthy. - Trans-fats…

Absolutely. Cigarettes were good for health too. Pretty much anything that makes an industry is good for you, until it's not. I highly doubt that GMO is different.

Re: Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

#22

Post by nas »

pod4369 wrote: post #10
api wrote: post #2

I really think there'd be less opposition to GMOs were it not for the fact that this one company -- a firm with a history of somewhat scummy and antagonistic behavior -- didn't control the entire industry.

They don't control the entire industry. Way to give in to blatant propaganda.

No kidding. How about Bayer, BASF, Syngenta, Pioneer, Dow Agro? There are many players in agriculture, it's a huge industry.

Re: Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

#23

Post by talmand »

_pmf_ wrote: post #11
deweller wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the problem IS with GMO plants in Europe. > ...among those [Europeans] who know what GMOs are, 59 percent of surveyed citizens believe they are unhealthy, with only 22 percent believing they are not. > In its history, the European Union has only approved two genetically modified organisms for cultivation: Monsanto’s MON810 maize, in 1998 (which was renewed in 2009), and BASF’s Amflora potatoes, in 2010.

> > ...among those [Europeans] who know what GMOs are, 59 percent of surveyed citizens believe they are unhealthy, with only 22 percent believing they are not. It would be nice to correlate this with the percentage of people who are considering dihydrogen monoxide to be unhealthy.

You shouldn't joke about that stuff. I know for a fact that every single creature that has ever consumed it later dies.

Re: Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

#24

Post by manmal »

pvnick wrote: post #15
api wrote: post #2

I really think there'd be less opposition to GMOs were it not for the fact that this one company -- a firm with a history of somewhat scummy and antagonistic behavior -- didn't control the entire industry.

>didn't control the entire industry While this is obvious hyperbole, I agree with your general sentiment. In fact, GMOs, perhaps more-so than any other modern technology, have an unprecedented potential to save billions of lives. Golden Rice alone could save the lives of one million children every year. As a biochem major, GMOs are something I'm passionate about, and it really aggravates me when I see armchair scient…

>unprecedented potential to save billions of lives

Potential, yes; but not with massive financial interests behind it. In a world where shiploads of wheat are held back in order to game the wheat market, things need to change before GMOs can cure 3rd world hunger.

I've read that GMOs have to be bought anew for every season because the harvested crops can't be used as seeds. Is that actually true?

Re: Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

#25

Post by criley »

api wrote: post #13
Anonazon wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this statement is it is assuming that there are no health concerns.

A lot of people see opposition to GMOs as irrational, but I don't think it is. It's perfectly rational, especially if you don't really understand genetics (which most people don't... it's an esoteric subject). The reason it's rational is this: were GMOs to be found to be unhealthy, it would be a continuation of a well-established pattern. Nearly all food "innovations" of the last 100 years are unhealthy. - Trans-fats…

Hey, just jumping in, I have a BS in Biology and api's post here is full of non-scientific and pseudoscientific garbage.

I believe he suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect and his completely unsourced post should create a huge red flag in any readers mind.

I'm not going to go point by point as the average HNer should be able to research for themselves, but I will respond to this gem that generated the largest facepalm:

> Nearly all food "innovations" of the last 100 years are unhealthy ... The only beneficial modification to the food system from a nutritional perspective has been fortification with certain key nutrients,

This is such a shockingly misguided statement that it hurts to read it. This is why I believe he suffers from illusory superiority, because I think his utter inexperience with agrology is leading him to think that he actually understands this field and can speak with expertise on it.

For a counter-point that "all innovation has been bad", one should only have to look at Norman Borlaug, known colloquially as "the man who saved a billion lives" and "the father of the green revolution". Norman Borlaug was Nobel laureate and agrologist whose research changed agriculture around the world and is credited with preventing billions from starvation.

The innovations of the past century directly allowed nations to increase wheat and rice yields by 2-10X, saving more than one nation from mass famine. I certainly would not label that "unbeneficial" or "unhealthy".

And this is just the elephant in the room in terms of examples, believe me when I say you could write books on the subject of the benefits of agricultural development of the past century. Entire schools are devoted to this study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_revolution

Re: Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

#26

Post by api »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #16
api wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people see opposition to GMOs as irrational, but I don't think it is. It's perfectly rational, especially if you don't really understand genetics (which most people don't... it's an esoteric subject). The reason it's rational is this: were GMOs to be found to be unhealthy, it would be a continuation of a well-established pattern. Nearly all food "innovations" of the last 100 years are unhealthy. - Trans-fats…

- MSG is fine. Denying this is basically anti-scientific. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate#Safety ) - Preservatives -- it's hard to know what you're referring to without you being more specific. Something being "suspect" is basically a comment about human paranoia, not actual health effects. - Nitrites -- again, weak evidence that they may be carcinogens in some circumstances. Nothing epidemiologic…

"Anti-scientific"

Herein lies the problem. Science is a method, not a dogma or a series of religious pronouncements. Trans-fat and even cigarettes were once considered healthy according to the science of the day.

As far as suspicion of new food items goes, there's a scientific argument to be made there too. Human beings are the outcome of hundreds of millions of years of mammalian evolution that has optimized us to metabolize certain nutrients in certain ratios. In a healthy individual, this diet is likely to be optimal since evolution has been optimizing for it in a feedback loop for thousands of generations. Any deviation from this diet is likely to be neutral to suboptimal, and anything not present in this diet likewise.

Don't get me wrong... far worse than anything I mentioned in my original post above is the way we eat: tons of simple carbs and sugars. Drinking soda and eating empty calories is likely a lot worse for you than GMOs would ever be likely to be.

I do know a bit about genetics too, and I personally think that GMOs are probably safe in most cases. The only legitimate health issue I'm aware of is the possibility of allergies. I was talking more about the social context of opposition to them, and pointing out that it's based on reasonable extrapolations of a trend.

Re: Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

#28

Post by mikeash »

talmand wrote: post #23
_pmf_ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > ...among those [Europeans] who know what GMOs are, 59 percent of surveyed citizens believe they are unhealthy, with only 22 percent believing they are not. It would be nice to correlate this with the percentage of people who are considering dihydrogen monoxide to be unhealthy.

You shouldn't joke about that stuff. I know for a fact that every single creature that has ever consumed it later dies.

That's just plain wrong. Only about 90% of humans who have consumed it have died.

Re: Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

#29

Post by genwin »

pvnick wrote: post #15
api wrote: post #2

I really think there'd be less opposition to GMOs were it not for the fact that this one company -- a firm with a history of somewhat scummy and antagonistic behavior -- didn't control the entire industry.

>didn't control the entire industry While this is obvious hyperbole, I agree with your general sentiment. In fact, GMOs, perhaps more-so than any other modern technology, have an unprecedented potential to save billions of lives. Golden Rice alone could save the lives of one million children every year. As a biochem major, GMOs are something I'm passionate about, and it really aggravates me when I see armchair scient…

api's comment in this thread sums up the rationale behind the public's opposition: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5800001

People don't need to become experts on any particular food innovation to have a very good chance of serving their best interests in opposing it. The people have been continuously misled about health risks.

If GMO saves a million children it will next need to save ten million children, and then a hundred million and so on, until it fails and then there will be greater suffering. Culture and religion are the root cause of the problem; it's better addressed from that angle.

Re: Monsanto gives up fight for genetically modified plants in Europe

#30

Post by qwertzlcoatl »

manmal wrote: post #24
pvnick wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>didn't control the entire industry While this is obvious hyperbole, I agree with your general sentiment. In fact, GMOs, perhaps more-so than any other modern technology, have an unprecedented potential to save billions of lives. Golden Rice alone could save the lives of one million children every year. As a biochem major, GMOs are something I'm passionate about, and it really aggravates me when I see armchair scient…

>unprecedented potential to save billions of lives Potential, yes; but not with massive financial interests behind it. In a world where shiploads of wheat are held back in order to game the wheat market, things need to change before GMOs can cure 3rd world hunger. I've read that GMOs have to be bought anew for every season because the harvested crops can't be used as seeds. Is that actually true?

> Potential, yes; but not with massive financial interests behind it.

This is not necessarily true in every case. pvnick mentioned Golden Rice. The Co-inventor of the genetically engineered, vitamin-A-rich strain of rice Potrykus has spearheaded an effort to have golden rice distributed for free to poor farmers. This required several companies which had intellectual property rights to the results of Beyer's research to license it for free. In fact, Monsanto was one of the first companies to grant free licenses. If the substinence farmer doesn't make more than $10,000 per year, he is freed from paying any royalities. The farmers are even permitted to keep and replant the seeds.

This is in the specific case of Golden Rice. Maybe somebody can jump in and tell a horrific Monsanto story.

Post reply on HN