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

51–60 of 112 posts

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

#51

Post by sampo »

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.

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

How do you actually go on about avoiding glyphosate? If you buy organic, your food crop may have been treated with e.g. rotenone, which is a notably nastier poison than anyone has claimed glyphosate to be.

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

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

#52

Post by widowlark »

To me, it seems that there are two sides to the GMO coin. On one, we have a technology and a science that can clearly benefit everyone, especially helping combat malnutrition and disease in developing countries. On the other, we have 3 or 4 major companies controlling the distribution, creation, and production of GMO's both physically and legally. If we want GMO's to be effective with their intended purpose, we have to figure out how to dethrone Monsanto and Syngenta. This whole system seems eerily analogous to Computer Software and Hardware monopolization in the early 70's. IIRC, we solved that monopolization with the Open Sourced movement...

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

#53

Post by UweSchmidt »

sampo wrote: post #11
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,…

Ah yes, science says it's safe and who wants to be a climate change denier? Case closed!

Here in Germany rabbits are dying a gruesome death by overeating genetically modified rape. Supposedy the bitter taste that told them to "stop" was removed and now they eat until the die.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13522441.html (Article in German)

So the food is of course "safe" as in you can eat it without any direct harm; examining complex biological interactions however is far beyond the scope of lobbyists and companies that want to bring products to the market.

So now we already have fruits that look "fresh" even if they are already a bit old, tomatoes that are just huge bags of water without any taste (eating someone's homegrown variants are a huge revelation), stuff genererally optimized for size, looks, and a superficial taste. To me that is not progress at all.

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

#54

Post by lbenes »

sb057 wrote: post #38
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…

Relating to Roundup Ready crops: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-su... Straight from Monsanto's mouth: they sue farmers who replant Monsanto seeds. If you buy Monsanto's seeds, you are not allowed to plant the seed from those crops. Otherwise Monsanto will sue. Why? As they explain, verbatim: 1) no business can survive without being paid for its product 2) the loss of this revenue would hind…

I don't think the issue with Monsanto is how they're paid, I think it's what modifications they make. If a company makes golden rice, insect resistant crops, or adds nitro-fixing genes, I have no issue with the being rewarded for their effort. The real problem with Monsanto is that the business is based on turning or farmland into a barren wasteland that can only grow their crops.

Roundup is carcingenic to human[1], killing the monarch butterfly[2], and the monoculture practices it encourages is causing massive soil erosion in our nation's farm belt. [3] Without grasses or other groundcover, erosion is certain.

[1] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/roundup-ingredient-proba...

[2] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...

[3] http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/03/slow-insidious-s...

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

#55

Post by mturmon »

jcoffland wrote: post #50

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 cry…

Regarding this irrationality, my pet theory is that the arena of "food" is an attractor for superstition.

Maybe it has something to do with the mysterious process by which you are built from the stuff you eat.

From fad diets, to religious diet restrictions, to diet-based "studies have shown" trends (antioxidants!), to made up allergies. It's no accident that most established religions have dietary rules. (Yes, I know some of these allergies are real. And some of the diets have merit.)

Diet attracts all kinds of attention, and only a small part of it is based in reality. It's like a projector screen where other anxieties play out.

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

#56

Post by PythonicAlpha »

BurningFrog wrote: post #28
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…

Patents and GMO are entirely separate issues, and far from all GMOs are patented. I agree that the patent system is seriously flawed, but that doesn't mean we should ban the internet because of software patents.

In theory you are right, but in practice most of the GMOs are created by big corporations and they patent the stuff.

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

#57

Post by sickpig »

Strange nobody mentioned Nassim Taleb and his work on that matter: The Precautionary Principle - www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf

Quoting the first paragraph of the paper:

The precautionary principle (PP) states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing severe harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the environment globally), the action should not be taken in the absence of scientific near-certainty about its safety. Under these conditions, the burden of proof about absence of harm falls on those proposing an action, not those opposing it. PP is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of evidence and the incompleteness of scientific knowledge carries profound implications and in the presence of risks of "black swans", unforeseen and unforeseable events of extreme consequence.

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

#58

Post by PythonicAlpha »

zsombor wrote: post #39
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…

Seems a bit patronizing to assume that farmers will buy a product that does not work, then continue to do so after it had proven that it yields no advantage. If it were the case that the advantage lasts only two years, then nobody will buy the product on the fourth year. Lastly the "patented life" argument is incorrectly attributed to GMOs. First proponent of patents in this field was no other than Luther Burbank (18…

Not at all. We speak of farmers of third world countries, where many barely can read and write and are not schooled in economics or corporation trickery.

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

#59

Post by ricardobeat »

sampo wrote: post #51
ScottBurson wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> For the time being, I plan to do my best to avoid the stuff. How do you actually go on about avoiding glyphosate? If you buy organic, your food crop may have been treated with e.g. rotenone, which is a notably nastier poison than anyone has claimed glyphosate to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone

> If you buy organic

Where I come from, organic crops means no pesticides / insecticides except natural ones. What would make food grown with pesticides "organic"?

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

#60

Post by sampo »

lbenes wrote: post #54
sb057 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relating to Roundup Ready crops: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-su... Straight from Monsanto's mouth: they sue farmers who replant Monsanto seeds. If you buy Monsanto's seeds, you are not allowed to plant the seed from those crops. Otherwise Monsanto will sue. Why? As they explain, verbatim: 1) no business can survive without being paid for its product 2) the loss of this revenue would hind…

I don't think the issue with Monsanto is how they're paid, I think it's what modifications they make. If a company makes golden rice, insect resistant crops, or adds nitro-fixing genes, I have no issue with the being rewarded for their effort. The real problem with Monsanto is that the business is based on turning or farmland into a barren wasteland that can only grow their crops. Roundup is carcingenic to human[1],…

> Without grasses or other groundcover, erosion is certain.

Spraying herbicides is actually the less disruptive method for fighting weeds. The other option is tilling the soil, which leads to much higher erosion.

Post reply on HN