51–60 of 128 posts
Imagine if a nation who had a significantly worse obesity epidemic going on that was way worse than in the US. And they were pushing to sell seeds to us. It's kind of like a hobo who is next to death trying to sell you some health pills while insisting that his poor health is not caused by the health pills he has been taking all the time.
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…
That's why I think this story is great news for the general population. It will hopefully push Monsanto to change its lobbying practices. It should, in my opinion, take some years to really educate (not propagandize) the people instead of spending the millions on a couple of political lobbies. It would have a longer lasting effect. And if they're not willing to educate the people because their product really is a health hazard, so be it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MSG? Really? What's next, the evils of vaccines?
So far nobody's responded to my core point, which is about human social behavior and inductive inference in the absence of deep subject matter understanding. People have also cherry picked this or that. I'll concede MSG. That's not the point. So far nobody's cherry picked margarine because there is now very strong evidence for the unhealthiness of trans fats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat#Health_risks For a…
You first need to demonstrate that food changes have been overall bad before we can even accept your core point, let alone respond to it.
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…
The fact is that we don't know what GMOs can do to you. They might be safe, they might not be. It has to be different in every single case, since in every single case, you're talking about different combinations of DNA. Can that possibly be dangerous in a particular case? It sure can. Both directly and indirectly.
This is a great "precedent" in both agricultural and patent law. Even if it wasn't a ruling, it sends a positive message. No matter how you look at it, the Americas are a huge agricultural laboratory, and we're the guinea pigs. Monsanto should disseminate knowledge about the science behind its products. Their current effort( http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/monsanto-science-and-... ) is too shallow and simple.…
The problem isn't GMO plants in Europe, it's the IP system surrounding them that's the problem. The massive upwelling of opposition to GMO's on the part of national governments isn't opposition to GMO, but instead it's opposition to Monsanto and the legal risks surrounding Monsanto's plants. Monsanto is predatory to the point of absurdity, and that is where opposition to GMO comes from. They throw lawyers at you unti…
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.
1. GMO is famous for making crop that produce herbicide or other sort of toxin, terminator seeds, or stuff that resist to things that you would not like to be sprayed on your food. Bad PR. "Technically cool" food is not a selling point in Europe.
2. Recently the industry has proven that they will fraud on actual existing regulation with the meat crisis in Europe and nobody has forgotten the other various food crisis from the 2 last decades. There is a massive distrust of the food industry, and the GMO has as much potential for good than for bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That antagonistic behavior being what? I ask because there's a commonly-held belief about Monsanto that they, in effect, wait for the wind to blow IP-encumbered seeds onto fields and then sue the farmers who manage those fields for royalties. The reality is that Monsanto sues farmers when they take Roundup-Ready crops, plant them, and then use Roundup on those crops. You can't do that innocently; if you spray Roundup…
I thought there was pretty much a whole movie (Food Inc) documenting that very thing (i.e. cross contamination). Please don't try and say that the hatred going towards Monsanto isn't deserved because it most assuredly is. http://www.damemagazine.com/2013/04/03/monsanto-six-truths-a...
Imagine if a nation who had a significantly worse obesity epidemic going on that was way worse than in the US. And they were pushing to sell seeds to us. It's kind of like a hobo who is next to death trying to sell you some health pills while insisting that his poor health is not caused by the health pills he has been taking all the time.
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…
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 facepa…