How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by Oletros » Sat, May 09, 2015, 6:49 PM UTC

PythonicAlpha wrote: post #22

There is one big reason, I oppose G.M.O. Food: They are "patented life". Big corporations take life forms and make them patent-able and this way they make that that once belonged to all their "intellectual property". And don't forget one thing: GMO might help to stop hunger in some regions, but in the current state of it, it does not. Many farmers in poor regions where lured into the GMO trap, just to find out one or…

But this is not only a problem of GMO, it is a problem with the patenting system. Plants and breeds have been patented since the 30s

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

#42

Post by sampo » Sat, May 09, 2015, 6:49 PM UTC

fragmede wrote: post #33

sampo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> knock on your door (and a lawsuit) from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour This is pure FUD and has never happened. If you are ready to stop spreading false propaganda, you can go to Wikipedia and read what really happened in those cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases

From that Wikipedia page: In 2002, Monsanto mistakenly sued Gary Rinehart of Eagleville, Missouri for patent violation. Rinehart was not a farmer or seed dealer which seems to contradict your claim that it has "never happened".

> seems to contradict

No it does not. What /u/nodata wrote was: "...for accidentally having a field next to..." and Gary Rinehart was not sued for accidentally having his field next to whatever. He was sued for some other reason.

(Not a good reason, but other reason anyway.)

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

#43

Post by DanBC » Sat, May 09, 2015, 6:49 PM UTC

hyperion2010 wrote: post #8

One of the most rage inducing wikipedia articles you will ever read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice . People who block this stuff are nothing less than murderers in my opinion.

That's a bit hyperbolic when there are some reasonable concerns about golden rice. From the article you link:

> In 2008 WHO malnutrition expert Francesco Branca cited the lack of real-world studies and uncertainty about how many people will use golden rice, concluding "giving out supplements, fortifying existing foods with vitamin A, and teaching people to grow carrots or certain leafy vegetables are, for now, more promising ways to fight the problem"

Branca isn't some hippy idiot opposed to GMO for some stupid non-reason.

> In that respect, it is significant that vitamin A deficiency is rarely an isolated phenomenon, but usually coupled to a general lack of a balanced diet

So these children still need additional micronutrient fortification? Where are they getting iron, zinc and iodine?

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/2000/Number%2010/78(10)new...

> Dr Jorgen Schlundt, Coordinator for the Food Safety Programme at the World Health Organization, commented: ‘‘Before genetically modified rice can be widely introduced, scientific evidence will need to be provided to assure that the rice is safe and nutritionally adequate, does not pose unacceptable risks to the environment, and will provide the human health benefits suggested.’’ He added: ‘‘WHO, along with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the jointly sponsored FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission are developing the methods and criteria to be used for the international assessment and management of genetically modified foods, including requirements for the labelling of such foods and their products. WHO is studying possible human health hazards from the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment and, as a first step, the WHO Regional Office for Europe has organized a seminar on this topic for September 2000.’’

At the time (fifteen years ago) this was a calm rational statement made in the face of over 30 companies holding over 70 patents who were campaigning heavily to be able to sell this product to the developing world. After being challenged by WHO some of the patent owners gave reassurances such as free licensing for farmers making less than $10,000; and the ability to save and resow grain.

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

#44

Post by selimthegrim » Sat, May 09, 2015, 6:51 PM UTC

I thought a good reason to oppose them was the monocultures that often result from their use, knocking out species like bees that depend on a diverse array of pollen sources (hence the almond industry's woes with bee pollination)

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

#45

Post by arebop » Sat, May 09, 2015, 6:51 PM UTC

PythonicAlpha wrote: post #22

There is one big reason, I oppose G.M.O. Food: They are "patented life". Big corporations take life forms and make them patent-able and this way they make that that once belonged to all their "intellectual property". And don't forget one thing: GMO might help to stop hunger in some regions, but in the current state of it, it does not. Many farmers in poor regions where lured into the GMO trap, just to find out one or…

This is like opposing software because it is "copyrighted generally useful technical information". You should rather oppose patentability of life, or advocate for a hack analogous to copyleft, than oppose the technology.

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

#46

Post by DanBC » Sat, May 09, 2015, 6:53 PM UTC

ScottBurson wrote: post #20

tptacek wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They aren't talking about the glyphosate you eat when you eat food from a non-organic farm.

They're talking about the glyphosate you breathe in, year after year, when you're a worker on that non-organic farm handling glyphosate without proper safety equipment.

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

#47

Post by [deleted] » Sat, May 09, 2015, 6:53 PM UTC

ScottBurson wrote: post #20

tptacek wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#48

Post by jweir » Sat, May 09, 2015, 6:53 PM UTC

breatheoften wrote: post #35

the anti-gmo labeling advocates express the concern that requiring gmo labeling will undermine the market price for gmo products due to consumer fear and that this is bad because gmo products have $benefits. A commonly cited $benefit is that gmo crops can require fewer harmful pesticides. A good compromise: require food be labeled as gmo or not -- and also require that food be labelled with all pesticides used.

Don't forget herbicides. A GMO plant might require no pesticide but use more herbicide.

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agri_biotechnology/breeding_a...

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

#49

Post by randomdata » Sat, May 09, 2015, 6:53 PM UTC

PythonicAlpha wrote: post #22

There is one big reason, I oppose G.M.O. Food: They are "patented life". Big corporations take life forms and make them patent-able and this way they make that that once belonged to all their "intellectual property". And don't forget one thing: GMO might help to stop hunger in some regions, but in the current state of it, it does not. Many farmers in poor regions where lured into the GMO trap, just to find out one or…

> which before they could take from their own harvest.

Could. But didn't. There are many advantages to buying your seed even without the patent debate. Patented crops have been so successful in the marketplace because they have no real impact on farming operations.

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

#50

Post by jcoffland » Sat, May 09, 2015, 6:55 PM UTC

I live in Sonoma County California and I'm so sick of all the people around me just assuming that GMOs are obviously bad. It seems people here, a lot of them farmers, are not at all interested in facts. They are attracted to the anti-science, anti-corporation, anti-establishment aspects of the anti-GMO movement. Facts take a backseat. Granted, these are also people who believe in Biodynamics and its horns full of crystals which channel cosimic power. Perhaps an expectation of basic reasioning is too much.