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

31–40 of 112 posts

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

#31

Post by ScottBurson »

randomdata wrote: post #29
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…

> So on the one hand I'm very concerned about Roundup Ready crops, not specifically because they're GMOs, but because I'm concerned about long-term glyphosate toxicity. For what it is worth, I grow non-GMO soybeans and they still often get sprayed with glyphosate towards the end of the growing cycle in addition to a host of other chemicals earlier in the season. Not being roundup ready doesn't mean no roundup.

Fair enough, but my understanding is that the quantities of glyphosate sprayed on Roundup Ready crops tends to be much larger.

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

#32

Post by [deleted] »

sampo wrote: post #30
nodata wrote: post #15

Looking at the comments, the pro-GMOers are just as blindsided as the anti-GMOers. Shame on us all. One of the anti-GMO arguments is that you don't want to get a knock on your door (and a lawsuit) from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour.

> knock on your door (and a lawsuit) from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour This is pure FUD and has never happened. If you are ready to stop spreading false propaganda, you can go to Wikipedia and read what really happened in those cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases

[deleted]

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

#33

Post by fragmede »

sampo wrote: post #30
nodata wrote: post #15

Looking at the comments, the pro-GMOers are just as blindsided as the anti-GMOers. Shame on us all. One of the anti-GMO arguments is that you don't want to get a knock on your door (and a lawsuit) from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour.

> knock on your door (and a lawsuit) from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour This is pure FUD and has never happened. If you are ready to stop spreading false propaganda, you can go to Wikipedia and read what really happened in those cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases

From that Wikipedia page:

In 2002, Monsanto mistakenly sued Gary Rinehart of Eagleville, Missouri for patent violation. Rinehart was not a farmer or seed dealer

which seems to contradict your claim that it has "never happened".

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

#34

Post by daeken »

nodata wrote: post #21
daeken wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of the anti-GMO arguments is that you don't want to get a knock on your door from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour. Except that it's never happened, to my knowledge. Monsanto has sued farmers for using their seeds illegally, and in those cases it was shown that the farmers did so knowingly -- accidental cross-contamination has never been sued over. For instance, in…

> this is pure, unadulterated bullshit. You mean it's wrong, let's not exaggerate here. I'm just saying what I saw on a documentary featuring three farmers.

Wrong is me miscalculating some figures; bullshit is people spreading FUD that can be debunked with 2 minutes of Googling. This myth didn't start as a misconception or simple wrongness -- it was created to persuade people that Monsanto is a big bad company that's doing horrible things.

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

#35

Post by breatheoften »

the anti-gmo labeling advocates express the concern that requiring gmo labeling will undermine the market price for gmo products due to consumer fear and that this is bad because gmo products have $benefits. A commonly cited $benefit is that gmo crops can require fewer harmful pesticides.

A good compromise: require food be labeled as gmo or not -- and also require that food be labelled with all pesticides used.

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

#36

Post by daeken »

fragmede wrote: post #33
sampo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> knock on your door (and a lawsuit) from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour This is pure FUD and has never happened. If you are ready to stop spreading false propaganda, you can go to Wikipedia and read what really happened in those cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases

From that Wikipedia page: In 2002, Monsanto mistakenly sued Gary Rinehart of Eagleville, Missouri for patent violation. Rinehart was not a farmer or seed dealer which seems to contradict your claim that it has "never happened".

They mistakenly sued him -- that part is the mistake. The mistake was not them suing at all, because the people actually operating the land were, in fact, violating their patents; they just mistakenly thought that he was one of the people using that land at the time.

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

#37

Post by sampo »

fragmede wrote: post #33
sampo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> knock on your door (and a lawsuit) from Monsanto for accidentally having a field next to your Monsanto-loving neighbour This is pure FUD and has never happened. If you are ready to stop spreading false propaganda, you can go to Wikipedia and read what really happened in those cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases

From that Wikipedia page: In 2002, Monsanto mistakenly sued Gary Rinehart of Eagleville, Missouri for patent violation. Rinehart was not a farmer or seed dealer which seems to contradict your claim that it has "never happened".

Oh, you even stopped quoting in mid-sentence. Isn't that a bit dirty?

Let me quote a bit more:

"In 2002, Monsanto mistakenly sued Gary Rinehart of Eagleville, Missouri for patent violation. Rinehart was not a farmer or seed dealer, but sharecropped land with his brother and nephew, who were violating the patent. Monsanto dropped the lawsuit against him when it discovered the mistake."

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

#38

Post by sb057 »

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 hinder our ability to invest in research and development to create new products to help farmers. We currently invest over $2.6 million per day to develop and bring new products to market.

3) it would be unfair to the farmers that honor their agreements to let others get away with getting it for free. Farming, like any other business, is competitive and farmers need a level playing field.

I'll let you make your own conclusions, but...

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

2) Monsanto currently pulls in around $10 million dollars per day in profit, meaning that such an investment hit would not exactly hurt their bottom line.

3) This is dependent on the practice being a constructive one.

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

#39

Post by zsombor »

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 (1849-1926), a pioneer in agricultural science. He had spent the better part of his life arguing for a means to protect his achievements. Finally the Plant Patent Act was passed in 1930, some years before his death. As it stands now "life was patented" for 85 years already, while the first GMO appeared in 1994 only.

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

#40

Post by daeken »

tptacek wrote: post #25
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.

Here's another source: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-carcino... A couple other important things to note: 1. The 2A classification is based on things like mouse models; epidemiological studies --- which have been done, on people with exceptional exposure to glyphosate --- don't support it. 2. There are a lot of 2A carcinogens that you're exposed to far more routinely. For instance, do you also a…

The biggest thing that focusing on the IARC classification misses is this: the dose makes the poison. I will gladly have a gram of a known carcinogen if I know that I'll need 10 tons of the substance to increase my risk of cancer substantially. We simply can't know anything about this without knowing 1) what we're exposed to (realistically), and 2) what the actual risks are. Given the observed results, it evidently can't be too terrible.
Post reply on HN