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

61–70 of 128 posts

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

#61

Post by api »

mikeash wrote: post #53
api wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's difficult to respond to your core point when you just list off a bunch of kookiness and try to use that as a basis for saying that nearly every recent change in food has been bad. 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.

You aren't even comprehending it. Even if every single claim I listed is completely wrong, the social phenomenon I am describing exists and must be understood if culture is to become more rational.

I've tried to point out the perception-of-expertise problem before in threads like this, and skeptics always get angry and defensive and dismissive.

MSG is fine. GMOs are fine. There is no housing bubble. That's what the experts say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10...

How many people do you know whose financial well-being was destroyed by the housing bubble?

Bernanke graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University, among other accolades. You don't get more credentialed expertise than that. What conclusion are people supposed to draw here?

I'm simply pointing out the obvious one, and the one that many people do in fact draw: expertise is bullshit. I don't personally believe that -- I think the reality is far more nuanced -- but I can see how someone could draw that conclusion and I am not convinced that doing so makes them an idiot.

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

#62

Post by chm »

smsm42 wrote: post #56
chm wrote: post #47

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.…

It would be nice but useless as 99.999% of people protesting against GMO couldn't care less about science. They don't know the first thing about what GMO are and where they come from, all the know it's some scary stuff that "contains genes" and since it comes from the large corporation it would kill us all unless we march on the streets with slogans. More science helps when there's no information, when there's no int…

This does accurately describes the status quo, but I think it is Monsanto's (and others') duty to change it. The tremendous advances that have been made in science in the past century haven't percolated down to the populace yet. It takes time and sustained effort, but the level of scientific literacy could increase.

Actually, I think we're at the stage where people know a lot of new terms, but don't really understand the concepts behind them. Like genes.

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

#63

Post by criley »

asdfaf wrote: post #60
criley wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We don't know what we don't know. Asswholes like you who think they know better are the problem. Genetically modified foods could end up causing problems in the future, maybe 10, 30, 50 years from now. When that happens a moron like you will simply say, we never saw it coming. I rather be ultra-conservative than to believe I know better. By the way, I have a degree in genetic engineering and I still am worried about…

It goes to show you, even adults with degress can act like children.

If you had engaged me in discussion, you would have realized that the assumptions you made were incorrect.

Instead, you're the jerk who flew off the handle based solely on assuming my positions instead of asking me about them.

You'll notice I didn't mention GMO once in my post, and yet you attacked me as if I worked for Monsanto.

Weak show, dude.

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

#64

Post by smsm42 »

Good. If EU wants to have inferior crops, let them have it. Actually, I wonder why won't they go the full scale and sow original, unmodified plants - like wild emmer - and also eschew use of pesticides and herbicides. Of course, there's no chance they could feed the Europe population then, but I'm sure US would be able to sell them all the crops they need, while they enjoy that nice fuzzy feeling of not being contaminated by the nasty modern science.

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

#65

Post by 205guy »

ihsw wrote: post #4

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…

There are many, many reasons to oppose GMOs:

1) The IP system and the companies who exploit it to essentially disrupt agriculture (licences to grow seeds, cannot replant, must buy seeds annually, aggressive lobbying, regulatory capture). This is upsetting to the agricultural status quo (political and economical) in Europe (their farm subsidies would essentially be funnelled to foreign corporations). There is also the use of courts to abuse the IP system, where farmers who unknowingly grow patented seeds (pollen drift or seed stock contamination) get sued, instead of the other way around (farmers should be able to sue--and win against--GMO companies for contaminating their farm with unwanted plants).

2) The issue of eating the produce of GMO plants. On the health side, many (industry-funded) studies show no effect (surprise, surprise), watchdog groups say the industry covers up any bad results, while some independent long-term studies are starting to uncover problems (though results and methods are controversial). Then there is labeling and the fundamental right of people to know what they buy and ingest.

3) Huge but not mentioned yet: the environmental impact of the large (and growing) herbicide applications required by GMO crops (the glycophosphate-resistant varieties, but ther are other herbicides and pesticides involved). Again, this is a multifaceted impact: water runoff and groundwater contamination, impact on the polinators and other sub-ecosystems, evolution of resistent "super-weeds," escalation to other herbicides such as derivatives of Agent Orange. The fact that Monsanto sells the herbicides as well further muddies the problem (it is biased towards not seeing any environmental impacts). The problem is that environmental impacts take years to build up, become significant, and be pinpointed through studies--and by then it's too late.

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

#66

Post by jrs99 »

stephengoodwin wrote: post #34
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…

The issue that I have is that Monsanto and other food companies fight very hard against GMO labeling. That's a big red flag to me.

Monsanto rightfully believes that if GMO products are labeled, and there is one single instance of a GMO product killing a person (even from some kind of rare allergy), then the market will fall since GMOs will be able to be avoided by consumers.

GMOs can have a staggering amount of benefits to this world. But to say that they are safe across the board is extremely dishonest. We simply can't see all the long-term consequences of the new forms of life that we ingest. With enough knowledge, we can theoretically do whatever we want with DNA, including make cells in apples produce prions that eventually cause Alzheimer's. And we can do so accidentally.

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

#67

Post by smsm42 »

genwin wrote: post #38
manmal wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

True. See "The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops" at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genoc...

This article commits journalistic fraud - it attributes the fact that crops failed due to pests (which can happen to any crop, GM or not) solely to the fact that the crops were GM, and making a false impression that suicides were caused not by crop failures but by the fact that the crops were GM. They imply that "after" means "because", and that's the fraud.

Of course, even GM crops can not protect from all causes of crop failure. But blaming them on every cause of failure is wrong.

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

#68

Post by smsm42 »

genwin wrote: post #29
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…

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 th…

>>> If GMO saves a million children it will next need to save ten million children

Are you advocating population control by starving off the poor?

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

#69

Post by baby »

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…

I think the danger here is that Monsanto is a private company and is doing shady stuff.

I'm from France and we have to take a course on that at one point in university.

IIRC Monsanto launched several products without testing them and was later forced to stop selling them since they were tested dangerous for health. Seeing that they weren't really testing their products and using biased studies sometimes, Europe just decided to make a lot of laws about testing before using GMOs.

IMO a technology as important as GMOs should never be in the hands of a private company motivated by money and share holders. It should be in the hands of an international association (like the UN).

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

#70

Post by smsm42 »

stephengoodwin wrote: post #34
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…

The issue that I have is that Monsanto and other food companies fight very hard against GMO labeling. That's a big red flag to me.

GMO labeling is as stupid as California prop 65 labeling, only more harmful. Every commercial food we eat is "genetically modified", it's how we manage to survive and feed 7 billion people - since the dawn of civilization, men found organisms useful to them and "genetically modified" them to be more useful. Trying to scare people off some methods of doing this would only lead to less productive agriculture and raising food costs - which would do little for the golden billion but have them spend a little more on food and little less on iphone apps, but would be very harmful for those that still live on the edge.
Post reply on HN