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

101–110 of 112 posts

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

#101

Post by wdr1 »

coldtea wrote: post #100
wdr1 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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…

> 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".

This is the same "you can't trust scientists" rhetoric from climate change deniers.

Please show me peer reviewed evidence that GMO are dangers & we can talk. Until then, I'm simply point to the MOUNTAIN of peer review evidence saying they don't.

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

#102

Post by wglb »

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…

Well before there were GMO, there was the fertilizer bloom at the mouth of the Mississippi that is a clear disaster: http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/living-oc....

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

#103

Post by thaumasiotes »

DanBC wrote: post #43
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 p…

It doesn't sound particularly calm and rational to me. We already know that rice isn't nutritionally adequate (that's why it's usually combined with beans). Why should a new variety of rice need to be more nutritionally adequate than older varieties?

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

#104

Post by ChrisLomont »

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.

Show the citation for a single legal case. This has not happened, despite the pop beliefs it has.

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

#105

Post by coldtea »

wdr1 wrote: post #101
coldtea wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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…

>This is the same "you can't trust scientists" rhetoric from climate change deniers.

While I'm not a "climate change denier" (in fact, I believe the opposite), that's not an counter-argument (as it doesn't address the arguments made or the core of the matter).

There's a mystical idea about science, as some pure field, that works in abstracto outside of financial, political, commercial and ideological influences, and that because of "peer review" the end result will always converge rapidly to the truth (e.g. we would never get BS ideas prevailing for 10 or 50 years before we get to the truth). I don't ascribe to that.

>Please show me peer reviewed evidence that GMO are dangers & we can talk. Until then, I'm simply point to the MOUNTAIN of peer review evidence saying they don't.

You can publish Markov generated BS in a peer reviewed journals:

http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120...

http://www.naturalnews.com/028194_Scott_Reuben_research_frau...

But, here's some non-markov generated paper, that provides some healthy scepticism:

>The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; _when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice_; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply _accurate measures of the prevailing bias_.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

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

#106

Post by [deleted] »

wdr1 wrote: post #101
coldtea wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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…

[deleted]

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

#107

Post by adulau »

tptacek wrote: post #14
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 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 main issue is that the microbiology of soil is largely under estimated by the industries selling glyphosate-based products. It's much more than an herbicide, the impact is on the metabolisms of the biofilm organisms. That's one of the main factor that kills the soils and force the agriculture to use synthesized-fertilizer.

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

#108

Post by DanBC »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #103
DanBC wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

It doesn't sound particularly calm and rational to me. We already know that rice isn't nutritionally adequate (that's why it's usually combined with beans). Why should a new variety of rice need to be more nutritionally adequate than older varieties?

Because it's being sold as a solution to malnutrition. Part of that money will come from poor farmers and part of it will come from the budgets of aid organisations. But it's not a solution to malnutrition. It is a solution to only a single aspect of malnutrition, leaving the children affected with unknown but probably sufficient amounts of Vit A but still probably inadaquate amounts of iron, iodine, and zinc which need to be supplemented. Since you're supplementing iron zinc and iodine, and others, why not also supplement with a known dose of vit A instead of allowing companies to target poor people in the developing world. And, yes, poor people in the developing world do need protecting. The companies selling multivitamins as cures for AIDS, or Nestlé aggressively pushing formula milk, sometimes as better than breast milk, show that there are some companies who put profit above human lives.

http://irinnews.org/Report/73039/SOUTH-AFRICA-Quackery-hinde...

http://www.badscience.net/category/matthias-rath/

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nestle-baby-...

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

#109

Post by thaumasiotes »

DanBC wrote: post #108
thaumasiotes wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't sound particularly calm and rational to me. We already know that rice isn't nutritionally adequate (that's why it's usually combined with beans). Why should a new variety of rice need to be more nutritionally adequate than older varieties?

Because it's being sold as a solution to malnutrition. Part of that money will come from poor farmers and part of it will come from the budgets of aid organisations. But it's not a solution to malnutrition. It is a solution to only a single aspect of malnutrition, leaving the children affected with unknown but probably sufficient amounts of Vit A but still probably inadaquate amounts of iron, iodine, and zinc which n…

"We've got a new variety of rice. It solves a problem we have right now."

"We can't allow it to replace any of our normal rice crop, because it doesn't also solve several other problems."

There's no protection here.

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

#110

Post by DanBC »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #109
DanBC wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's being sold as a solution to malnutrition. Part of that money will come from poor farmers and part of it will come from the budgets of aid organisations. But it's not a solution to malnutrition. It is a solution to only a single aspect of malnutrition, leaving the children affected with unknown but probably sufficient amounts of Vit A but still probably inadaquate amounts of iron, iodine, and zinc which n…

"We've got a new variety of rice. It solves a problem we have right now." "We can't allow it to replace any of our normal rice crop, because it doesn't also solve several other problems." There's no protection here.

It doesn't solve the problem. It partially solved a problem, but introduced significant risk.

It partially solves vitamin A deficiency, but we didn't know how well until better tests had been done.

It also carries risks.

* Monsanto were including terminator genes or prosecuting farmers for re-using seed that didn't have terminator genes. After intervention by orgs like WFP and WHO Monsanto agreed not to use terminator genes and agreed to allow farmers to collect and reuse seed. This one rice product has 70 patents from 30 different organisations. At the time the WHO and WFP were objecting the licencing situation was unclear.

* Vitamin A is toxic in overdose. So, if people are getting vitamin A from rice you need to re-formulate your micronutrient supplement products to lower the vitamin A content. That means you now have two versions (one with and one without vitamin A) (because the rice can't be used everywhere) which complicates the entire chain from manufacture to end user supply.

Post reply on HN