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

71–80 of 112 posts

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

#71

Post by ScottBurson »

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

The erosion of organic standards under political pressure from agribusiness is a very valid area of concern. But that's another conversation.

And anyway I'm not sure rotenone is an example of that. Yes, it's quite toxic, but it degrades pretty rapidly [0]. And it's a carbohydrate, with none of the chlorine-carbon bonds that tend to be biochemically problematic in many synthetic pesticides (though glyphosate is an exception here).

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone#Toxicity

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

#72

Post by ScottBurson »

archimedespi wrote: post #65
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 agree with you emphatically, except for one point: > what could be dangerous about removing an enzyme? Tons of things - you don't necessarily know that there's not some other cell process that depends on it.

That's true, and I'm not saying we shouldn't still be careful and do some testing, but I certainly won't be surprised if it turns out there's no cause for concern with the non-browning apples.

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

#73

Post by sampo »

sickpig wrote: post #57

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 scientif…

The act of publishing a book or an article (edit: or a cartoon), has occasionally led to far-reaching, sometimes violent, unforeseen and unpredictable systemic consequences, sometimes bringing down governments.

Yet Taleb has published several, apparently with no concern whatsoever about his own precautionary principle.

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

#74

Post by kerny »

Monsanto - the creator and producer of Agent Orange is responsible for suffering and deaths of millions of people. In China and Vietnam, hundreds of people are born with serious health issues even to these days.

GMO are created with barbaric methods with unknown long term effects on human or environment. AFAIK, GMO are created by infecting DNA with a virus and mixing 'terminator' genes to be sure, that species won't have offspring.

Now, please somebody tell me, why should I trust the very same company, that was manufacturing Agent Orange, with my food. Monsanto officially stated that: "reliable scientific evidence indicates that Agent Orange is not the cause of serious long-term health effects". Now, they are saying that GMO poses no risk to health or environment. Thanks, no but thanks.

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

#75

Post by sampo »

georgemcbay wrote: post #68
russellspitzer wrote: post #63

I'm always amazed how many people who would balk at a single corporation controlling their operating systems are amazingly complacent when it comes to corporations copyrighting and controlling their food supply.

I don't think this piece does that...? The problem is there are two separate issues related to GMOs. One is that the companies who are behind them are mostly evil from a business practice/IP sense (yes, I am talking primarily of Monsanto). The other is that there are a lot of people who think GMOs are inherently "toxins" that are going to give us all cancer or whatever. It tends to be difficult to have a rational con…

There are also patented non-GMO varieties, so the patent argument is not really relevant in GMO discussion.

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

#76

Post by BurningFrog »

widowlark wrote: post #52

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…

I'm glad we didn't address those problems by banning computers.

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

#77

Post by thaumasiotes »

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…

> what could be dangerous about removing an enzyme?

You might stop being able to process some raw material in your diet into a more useful form, giving you a deficiency disease.

The absence of the enzyme might mean that a toxic substance in the same food stays toxic, poisoning you.

All kinds of different stuff. It's like asking "what harm could come from removing a line of code?"

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

#78

Post by sampo »

widowlark wrote: post #52

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…

> we have 3 or 4 major companies controlling the distribution, creation, and production of GMO's

One reason for that is that the legislation and regulations on GMO's are so much heavier and more expensive that other crops, that only bigcorps can afford the legal process of trying to bring GMO varieties to market.

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

#79

Post by DanBC »

kerny wrote: post #74

Monsanto - the creator and producer of Agent Orange is responsible for suffering and deaths of millions of people. In China and Vietnam, hundreds of people are born with serious health issues even to these days. GMO are created with barbaric methods with unknown long term effects on human or environment. AFAIK, GMO are created by infecting DNA with a virus and mixing 'terminator' genes to be sure, that species won't…

Monsanto are evil. But even Monsanto are giving away licences to grow their yellow rice - it's free for farmers earning less than $10,000 per year. The rice doesn't have terminator genes and Monsanto have said that seed collection and re-sowing is allowed for free.

And it's not just Monsanto calling the yellow rice safe. Plenty of other studies have shown it to be safe.

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

#80

Post by coroutines »

kerny wrote: post #74

Monsanto - the creator and producer of Agent Orange is responsible for suffering and deaths of millions of people. In China and Vietnam, hundreds of people are born with serious health issues even to these days. GMO are created with barbaric methods with unknown long term effects on human or environment. AFAIK, GMO are created by infecting DNA with a virus and mixing 'terminator' genes to be sure, that species won't…

I'm very skeptical of Monsanto being the only reason "hundreds of people" are born with serious health issues in China and Vietnam.

Anyway, the reason I don't take anti-GMO people very seriously is I get the same vibes from the anti-vaccination sort. Refusing to ingest GMO food is perfectly acceptable if you're worried about the health concerns, I would happily welcome more study - I just have trouble believing these crops pose a direct risks to humans. We don't worry about blood-borne diseases from plants. As I understand it, plant DNA is incompatible with our own. I'm not a scientist but I'm pretty sure what they modify can't modify us. I would worry about environmental impact - how these crops affect soil acidity or something else.

I want to stand with the anti-GMO people but it just comes off as blind fear. I'll support study of long-term effects but not much else ~

Post reply on HN