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

81–90 of 112 posts

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

#81

Post by sickpig »

sampo wrote: post #73
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.

Bringing down a government does not belong to the same group of consequences the precautionary principle is applied to.

PP is used when a system, in this case the humanity, is at risk of total failure, i.e. ruin.

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

#82

Post by KingMob »

sampo wrote: post #73
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.

Not at all. The point of his book is to educate people and reframe how they think about risk, so he achieved exactly what he intended. If one of those is to bring a more risk-based understanding of GMOs, which in turns makes people more cautious from a scientific perspective, then mission accomplished.

The fundamental problem with loosing GMOs into the environment is that there's no plan B for screwing up the earth or your health, so we have to be extra, extra conservative. Even if only 1 in a million GMOs turn out to have disastrous consequences, given enough development and use, eventually we will create something with unforeseen consequences that passes whatever standards for safety we have. But given the replicable nature of biology, it will be everyone's problem instead of a localized disaster.

The people claiming we have sufficient scientific evidence for GMOs don't understand this key point: our usual standards for evidence of safety must be orders of magnitude higher to risk the planet.

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

#83

Post by con-templative »

sampo wrote: post #73
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.

Who proposed the precautionary principle and whether they've acted in accordance with it is irrelevant when the considering the matter of whether it should apply to GMO food.

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

#84

Post by tptacek »

ScottBurson wrote: post #71
sampo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 exc…

Retenone is also carcinogenic in mouse models. If I had to choose exposure to retenone or glyphosate, I guess I'd go with glyphosate, which at least isn't neurotoxic.

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

#85

Post by KingMob »

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…

If you prefer a more scientific rationale to be cautious of GMOs, check out any of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's books on risk. The short version is, our standards for safety must match the potential dangers.

E.g., you're dying of cancer? No need to worry about minor (or even major) side effects of medication, because you're facing death. There's a 1 in a million chance of producing a GMO with worldwide consequences? You have to be absolutely positive, nearly 100% certain they're harmless. A handful of studies is nowhere near sufficient (without even addressing the inherent conflict of interest in investigating your own GMO for safety). Even if you had a couple dozen studies on one GMO, could you ensure that level of caution for all?

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

#86

Post by memracom »

The problem with GMO is that growers want to keep it secret. They are not proud of what they are doing and do not want to label their products as GMO. They believe that we, the consumers, are stupid and need to be protected by big brother (Communist party central planning committee) because we are not capable of making our own decisions.

But we do not want that. We believe in honesty, openness and freedom of choice. And if this means that it takes 10 generations to weed out the good parts of GMO from the bad, then so be it.

Nobody has to guarantee anybody else obscene profits from some clever idea. Most clever ideas are not that beneficial to the market, and therefore they either fade away or they fill some obscure niche which is less lucrative and glamorous than the founders had expected. So be it!

That is actually true capitalism and true market forces. Recently Elon Musk announced a home battery product that could actually cause the end of nuclear and the dominance of solar power generation. It came about, not through some central committee deciding what is good for us, but through pure capitalism and entrepreneurial spirit. And that is good.

So put a prominent label on any products containing GMO, and explain what you have in there and why it is good. The people will decide because that is their right. The right to make informed decisions is more important than any other right, because there is no liberty when your decisions are manipulated or when the rich and powerful keep you in ignorance and confusion.

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

#87

Post by jqm »

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],…

RE #2. _Possibly_ loss of milkweed is killing the Monarch, not necessarily Roundup. (Better weed control means less weeds). Weed sprays have been in use for decades. Roundup happens to be one of the safer ones. Claiming that Roundup is killing the Monarch is just.... silly. Farmers need to control weeds. That's the bottom line.

If people are (rightly) concerned about the Monarch they should do the obvious... cultivate some dedicated patches of milkweed rather than expecting farmers to have weeds in their fields. Put your money where your mouth is. Get a campaign together and pay farmers to grow a few acres of milkweed.

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

#88

Post by ChrisLomont »

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…

> Seed-sellers have survived hundreds of years without repayment each year.

And they still can. Farmers can still use them also - no one is forcing them buy Monsanto.

If paying for them each year did not benefit farmers, they would stop using them.

If you don't want to pay for them, don't use them. Problem solved.

The fact that such a huge amount of farmers chose them shows they must be profitable for farmers and Monsanto alike. Win-win, right?

This make believe fear is not a problem. Besides, the earliest Monsanto seeds come off patent protection very soon, then you can replant all you like.

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

#89

Post by jqm »

Like many things, I suspect many people are against the idea of GMO food _in principal_.

In practice, most of the people who are against in principal will have no problem eating a Twinkie that has GMO wheat in it so long as everyone else is eating one too.

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

#90

Post by tptacek »

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],…

Glyphosate (Roundup) is not known to be carcinogenic to humans. IARC has controversially classified it as a 2A "probable" carcinogen, but the best epidemiological studies of humans with extreme exposure to glyphosate have shown no link. Glyphosate has very low toxicity in mammals. It targets a metabolic pathway (shikimic acid) that does not exist in animals. It is among the most widely used herbicides in the world, and its deployment does not correlate well with cancer occurrence.
Post reply on HN