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

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

#91

Post by lbenes » Sat, May 09, 2015, 9:00 PM UTC

sampo wrote: post #60

lbenes wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The USDA's scientist Robert Kremer's research does not back Monsato's claims about reducing erosion.[1]

What is clear from the research is that roundup:

* causes damage to beneficial microbes in the soil increasing the likelihood of infection of a crop by soil pathogens

* interference with nutrient uptake by the plant

* reduced efficiency of symbiotic nitrogen fixation

* overall lower-than-expected plant productivity [2]

Not to mention that superweeds have already caused thousands of acres of US farmland to be abandoned. [3]

Instead of using GMO for good like golden rice, Monsanto uses it to turn farmers in toxic chemical addicts at the both the expense of our heath and that of our nation's farmland.

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/13/us-usa-gmos-regula...

[2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/11610301?oldURL...

[3] http://grist.org/article/the-chemical-treadmill-breaks-down-...

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

#92

Post by tzs » Sat, May 09, 2015, 9:05 PM UTC

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,…

> 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)

Given two samples of some food F, where one sample was produced by GMO techniques, and one was produced by traditional breeding methods, they will be equally safe. In that sense, GMO is safe, and there is almost no serious scientific disagreement over that.

The concern of many, including myself, over GMO is that it greatly increases the range and rapidity of modifications that can be done to food compared to traditional methods. If/when someone produces a GMO food that harms people, it is not going to be because GMO is unsafe. It is going to be because they were given sharper and faster tools, and they did not have adequate internal and/or regulator oversight to use them wisely.

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

#93

Post by tptacek » Sat, May 09, 2015, 9:05 PM UTC

lbenes wrote: post #91

sampo wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The USDA's scientist Robert Kremer's research does not back Monsato's claims about reducing erosion.[1] What is clear from the research is that roundup: * causes damage to beneficial microbes in the soil increasing the likelihood of infection of a crop by soil pathogens * interference with nutrient uptake by the plant * reduced efficiency of symbiotic nitrogen fixation * overall lower-than-expected plant productivity…

Contrary to popular opinion, farmers in 2015 are not particularly dumb; over the last 30-40 years, agriculture has been transformed into an analytical and technology-centered enterprise. If glyphosate isn't as productive for farmers as Monsanto claims, why is it so overwhelmingly widely used in modern agriculture?

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

#94

Post by wdr1 » Sat, May 09, 2015, 9:20 PM UTC

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…

> (All that said, I do still support GMO labelling laws. People should be able to know what they're eating, even if they overreact to that information.)

Why do there have to be laws?

Kosher food isn't handled by federal inspectors. Why should GMO labeling?

Listen, if a bunch of people want to get together, found an organization for a GMO-free labeling, and you can choose to only buy products that go through that inspection process, go nuts. I have no problem with that.

But if you're saying you want to take my money, my tax dollars, to do something based on anti-science lunacy, excuse my french, but no fucking way.

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

#95

Post by tptacek » Sat, May 09, 2015, 9:26 PM UTC

KingMob wrote: post #82

sampo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a point of view that seems to rest on the idea that "conventional" human agriculture isn't a disaster for the planet. But it manifestly is.

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

#96

Post by lbenes » Sat, May 09, 2015, 9:26 PM UTC

jqm wrote: post #87

lbenes wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... cultivat…

Sure you can claim there's no "smoking gun" between Roundup use and the loss of the Monarch just like the FDA refused to acknowledge the link between antibiotics in livestock and superbugs in humans in the 1970s. [1] Or you can look at it as a clear sign from nature that we're causing serious harm to our ecosystem.

As a kid, I grew up with Monarch as part of my summer experience. So much so, that we only mow the back meadow in the fall to allow the milkweed to grow. Yet, last year I didn't see a single Monarch. And may be the last generation in my family to see them.

Humans are amazing at adapting to short term changes and terrible at planning for the long term survival of our ourselves and those we share the planet with.

[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/health-science-techn...

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

#97

Post by tptacek » Sat, May 09, 2015, 9:31 PM UTC

KingMob wrote: post #85

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 h…

Yes, you could; GMO crops are studied far more carefully than the grab-bag of interventions routinely used in conventional farming is. GMO crops are more efficient --- that being the point of spending more money on GMO stock than on conventional plants --- and so require fewer pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, which in conventional agriculture also contaminate the land and food supply with carcinogens and endocrine disruptors.

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

#98

Post by adamauckland » Sat, May 09, 2015, 9:47 PM UTC

ChrisLomont wrote: post #88

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…

> 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 Mon…

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

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

Problem not solved. Seeds from a neighbouring farm are naturally dispersed through wind or animals into a farmers ground. Now he is breaking the law and will be sued. This has happened.

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

#99

Post by daeken » Sat, May 09, 2015, 10:24 PM UTC

adamauckland wrote: post #98

ChrisLomont wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Mon…

> And they still can. Farmers can still use them also - no one is forcing them buy Monsanto. > If you don't want to pay for them, don't use them. Problem solved. Problem not solved. Seeds from a neighbouring farm are naturally dispersed through wind or animals into a farmers ground. Now he is breaking the law and will be sued. This has happened.

This has never happened. Not even once. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9517150

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

#100

Post by coldtea » Sat, May 09, 2015, 10:47 PM UTC

wdr1 wrote: post #94

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…

> (All that said, I do still support GMO labelling laws. People should be able to know what they're eating, even if they overreact to that information.) Why do there have to be laws? Kosher food isn't handled by federal inspectors. Why should GMO labeling? Listen, if a bunch of people want to get together, found an organization for a GMO-free labeling, and you can choose to only buy products that go through that insp…

>Kosher food isn't handled by federal inspectors. Why should GMO labeling?

Because corporations would sell cyanide labeled as children food if it was allowed and they could make a profit out of it.

In fact, even with laws, they frequently break them worldwide, lowering quality inspections below standards, etc.

>to do something based on anti-science lunacy, excuse my french, but no fucking way.

Well, if the majority asks for it, fucking way. Besides, with all the big tobacco sponsored research in the 50's to 70's, one could be led believe that "scientifically" smoke is good for you too.

It's neither empirical nor scientific to believe that scientists don't lie, and facts can't be distorted to sell stuff to huge markets. It doesn't have to be some big conspiracy, after all scientists working in the field have an inherent bias to consider the stuff that gives them a paycheck as "safe". "Thalidomide? Sure, it's great, release it already".