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

How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 112 posts

Re: How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food

#11

Post by sampo »

Meai wrote: post #4

The single issue is whether it is safe or not. Articles telling me how great it would be for poor, despserate farmers in third world countries as a last resort choice is really a fringe issue that is - I suspect - cloaking the point on purpose.

> it is safe or not

Most of the major scientific and medical organizations have issued a statement that GMO food is safe (in the sense of being as safe as non-GMO food). This is just an image, but in most cases you can verify the statements back to the organizations' websites by googling.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9gJwulXnO_o/Ue8hgkh4YkI/AAAAAAABCT...

You can of course choose the same road as climate change deniers, and cry for global scientists' conspiracy.

Re: How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food

#12

Post by BurningFrog »

jrkelly wrote: post #3

If you would like to get deeply into the weeds on most important facets of the debate on GMO crops, this is the best set of articles: http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/

It really is. Nathaniel Johnson also writes the most informed articles about the California Water mess.

http://grist.org/author/nathanael-johnson/

Re: How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food

#13

Post by song »

I blame monsanto for the G.M.O. hysteria, they gave G.M.Os a bad name and now people who call themselves environmentalists behave irrationally because they can't be bothered to look past the name and actually look at the facts... In a lot of cases G.M.Os are safe and are actually better for the environment because they can reduce the amount of pesticides used (or reduce deficiencies in the target populations).

G.M.Os should be studied on a case by case basis.

It's the same with nuclear power. Banning nuclear power and all research on nuclear power (e.g. Thorium) is short-sighted.

Re: How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food

#14

Post by tptacek »

ScottBurson wrote: post #7

The point I think needs making about GMOs is that they aren't really a category. That is, there aren't any true, important statements one can make about all GMOs, except for the obvious one that they are produced by genetic manipulation. But as far as their benefits and their dangers, they have to be evaluated individually. So on the one hand I'm very concerned about Roundup Ready crops, not specifically because they…

I have a generally very high opinion of the Science Based Medicine blog, and the SBM editors have a very low opinion of glyphosate alarmism:

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-boge...

The short version of this post: there is a wealth of evidence to analyze from significant human exposure to glyphosate (from farmers, for instance) and none of it supports significant toxicity. Because glyphosate is so precisely targeted to the metabolism of plants and not animals, it is among the least toxic herbicides in use.

Re: How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food

#15

Post by nodata »

Looking at the comments, the pro-GMOers are just as blindsided as the anti-GMOers. Shame on us all.

One of the anti-GMO arguments is that you don't want to get a knock on your door (and a lawsuit) from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour.

Re: How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food

#16

Post by sampo »

DanBC wrote: post #9
pbreit wrote: post #5

You wouldn't know it from the article but I thought the anti-GMO argument went something like: sorta different from natural breeding; long term effects unknown; moving anecdotes notwhitstanding, necessity is modest; crates some unappealing situations due to the scope and dynamics of food production.

I thought some of the anti-GMO sentiment is because some agri-chemical companies are just evil.

> I thought some of the anti-GMO sentiment is because some agri-chemical companies are just evil.

Which is like being anti-software because some software companies are just evil.

Re: How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food

#17

Post by rhino369 »

song wrote: post #13

I blame monsanto for the G.M.O. hysteria, they gave G.M.Os a bad name and now people who call themselves environmentalists behave irrationally because they can't be bothered to look past the name and actually look at the facts... In a lot of cases G.M.Os are safe and are actually better for the environment because they can reduce the amount of pesticides used (or reduce deficiencies in the target populations). G.M.Os…

As far as I can tell Monstanto got a bad name because of GMO.

Re: How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food

#18

Post by daeken »

nodata wrote: post #15

Looking at the comments, the pro-GMOers are just as blindsided as the anti-GMOers. Shame on us all. One of the anti-GMO arguments is that you don't want to get a knock on your door (and a lawsuit) from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour.

> One of the anti-GMO arguments is that you don't want to get a knock on your door from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour.

Except that it's never happened, to my knowledge. Monsanto has sued farmers for using their seeds illegally, and in those cases it was shown that the farmers did so knowingly -- accidental cross-contamination has never been sued over. For instance, in one case a farmer claimed accidental cross-contamination while using Roundup on the same crops (which would've killed non-GM crops); in another, the field was found to be nearly 100% GM crops, a virtual impossibility unless seeds were explicitly and knowingly planted.

Monsanto does many things that people can take issue with (e.g. patenting seeds, which isn't reserved for GM crops, mind you), but this is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Edit: C.f. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-fi...

Re: How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food

#19

Post by gnud »

thirsteh wrote: post #2

Chipotle's "No more GMO food" announcement was the worst "great news" I'd heard in a long time. It was clearly just for PR and nothing else. It's good to see some sanity--this obsession with "clean/pristine nature" which has no rational basis has to stop. Related TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_ronald_the_case_for_enginee...

It has a very rational basis - the 'clean nature' fad is a reaction to various food manufacturers deliberately producing cheap but bad food, for a long time.

Now, that doesn't mean it's always the correct reaction. But it's a simpler proposition than 'you must thoughorly research each individual ingredient in everything you eat'.

Re: How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food

#20

Post by ScottBurson »

tptacek wrote: post #14
ScottBurson wrote: post #7

The point I think needs making about GMOs is that they aren't really a category. That is, there aren't any true, important statements one can make about all GMOs, except for the obvious one that they are produced by genetic manipulation. But as far as their benefits and their dangers, they have to be evaluated individually. So on the one hand I'm very concerned about Roundup Ready crops, not specifically because they…

I have a generally very high opinion of the Science Based Medicine blog, and the SBM editors have a very low opinion of glyphosate alarmism: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-boge... The short version of this post: there is a wealth of evidence to analyze from significant human exposure to glyphosate (from farmers, for instance) and none of it supports significant toxicity. Because glyphosate is…

The debate is ongoing. For example: http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-c...

For the time being, I plan to do my best to avoid the stuff.

Post reply on HN