19 ms·

I find it hard reading articles like this. I agree with its main premise, but it fails to mention the valid points of the other side. And there are two: 1. Som

by ozy 10y ago

I find it hard reading articles like this. I agree with its main premise, but it fails to mention the valid points of the other side. And there are two: 1. Some GMO has a plant produce extra chemicals, specifically, pesticides 2. There is a unknown side to GMO, perhaps it can lead to super species that we can never get rid of in the future and will destroy bio diversity. (1) are banned in the EU for human consumption, a reasonable choice I think until we have more data. (2) is a much lower risk than most would thing. But it is one of those things where the naive/amateur answer is far from reality, and that naive answer is scary. (Like nuclear, or more rules vs more responsibility.) When done responsibly, GMOs are fine. And even necessary if we want to feed 8 billion people and more in the future. But an article that fails to mention valid (remember the eu) downsides, and discuss the tradeoff, will have a polarizing effect: Those pro GMO will think score and think anti GMO is stupid. But anti GMO will see their biggest concerns not mentioned, and will declare fail and conclude their position is well grounded.

searine 10y ago
>But an article that fails to mention valid (remember the eu) downsides, Except that the bans in the EU aren't based on scientific data, and are thus not valid in a scientific discussion.
mikeash 10y ago
Is 1 really a valid point of the other side, when it applies just as well to many non-GMO plants we consume?
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  Yes. The difference is between applying and producing pesticides. Several GMO crop strains are specifically designed to produce pesticides or fungicides themselves, which offers more powerful effects and saves the effort of applying those chemicals to the growing plants. This is generally valuable for crop yields and profit margins, but it's appreciably different from external application. The main concern is that producing these pesticides/herbicides inside the plant may include the chemical inside the parts we consume - you can't just stop application prior to harvest or wash off the surface before consumption. There's a lot of conflicting data here: the GMO designers have generally concluded that the chemicals are only produced in leaves/stalks and not the edible parts, but other studies have suggested that the chemicals might be getting passed on at levels which could be relevant to pregnant mothers.
  - initram 10y ago
    There are 2 major assumptions with your argument: 1) That the pesticides/fungicides are bad for humans. You haven't shown that. Some fungi are bad for humans, so it might be better to eat something with a fungicide but no fungus than to eat it with a fungus 2) You're assuming that applied pesticides/fungicides can just be washed off. But it's also possible that the plants absorb them and that the man-made ones are worse than the genetically engineered ones.
    - pluma 10y ago
      To play devil's avocado: you don't have to assume pesticides/fungicides are bad for humans. You just have to assume they may have unpredicted side-effects. For example, if those pesticides result in a drastic reduction of the populations of pollinating insects this may lead to ecological changes beyond the intended crops. It's not hard to imagine other things susceptible to fungicides and pesticides that might be beneficial but can get caught in the crossfire and would suffer, especially from spill-over.
      - Kalium 10y ago
        Some GMOs result in lower use of applied pesticides. Bt corn comes to mind. Such crops reduce the risk of unpredicted side-effects from spill-over.
        geggam 10y ago
        seems the bugs are gaining immunity... whats next ? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/farmers-say-gmo-corn-no-longer-resistant-to-pests/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/farmers-say-gmo-c...
        jrock08 10y ago
        This appears to be from 2014. Prior to 2014, using GMO seeds "required" farmers to plant an in-field refuge of non-resistant crops. Since farmers could, short term, get better yields if they didn't plant these refuge plants, they often chose not to. In 2014 companies started mixing in non-resistant seeds, known as "refuge in bag". It's seen some mixed results, but for the most part, it looks like it has helped.
- ozy 10y ago
  Well some plants are just poisonous and not fit for consumption. Specifically adding poison is a risk. And that makes it a tradeoff. But add to that these plants did not need to survive on their on in nature for millions of years. Instead are cultivated/protected very specifically. The eu judgement is not the result of a public scare, I don't think.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Few if any of the plants grown in modern agriculture survived on their own in nature for millions of years. Everything we eat is modified, it's just a question of whether the modifications were done slowly with breeding or quickly with advanced tools.
    - ozy 10y ago
      You are absolutely right. Also, I cannot find anything but sensationalist articles on this pesticide thing I referenced. It allows mon810 which falls under this definition. It just regulates all GMOs and disallows them by default.
- bryanlarsen 10y ago
  capsaicin (peppers) and allicin (onions) are effective and tasty pesticides.
  - mitchty 10y ago
    And coffee.
    - takingflac 10y ago
      Yes, caffeine found in coffee and tea is a pesticide Edit: missed an e
stale2002 10y ago
GMO doesn't really do anything that nature can't do. Any risks in GMO could also arise naturally via evolution. If evolution could produce super plants, then it would have done so.
- m0th87 10y ago
  Sure, but on an evolutionary scale, humans and other dependent species have time to catch up to the changes. That's not true for changes wrought from GM.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Plant breeding has brought many adverse emergent properties. It involves selecting for a few alleles while having no way to prevent unintended alleles from being bred in. Introduction of invasive species have permanently degraded many ecosystems. The current method of mass-farming agriculture spreads purpose-bred plants around the world. The current method of agriculture is also high risk.
  - pluma 10y ago
    You can't speak of an "evolutionary scale" when there are literally intelligent designers at work, carefully cross-breeding each generation for optimal results. It's a slower process than direct genetic manipulation, sure, but "evolutionary" implies thousands or even millions of years when the reality is closer to decades.
    - Bartweiss 10y ago
      This is true enough, but even decades is a far different time frame from the average GMO. 30 years of directed breeding generally means a one-off cultivar being bred into something new and then popularized. The current GMO cycle involves a 1-5 years of test plantings, followed by national distribution. So agreed, the evolutionary scale isn't applicable here, but it's still worth noting that GMOs represent a substantial acceleration from the directed-breeding scale.
Kalium 10y ago
I am listening to you and your concerns. You are afraid that what we don't know could have disastrous consequences for us all. You want to see it demonstrated that serious people are taking these real, serious concerns seriously. After all, taking people's concerns seriously is the best way to make people feel validated and thus you can calm their fears, right? We all know that taking arbitrary concerns seriously never validates them. > (1) are banned in the EU for human consumption, a reasonable choice I think until we have more data. Seems very reasonable. How much data is enough? How will we know when we've got so much data that we can start just ignoring those who call for more study as unreasonable? When they're convinced, perhaps? > (2) is a much lower risk than most would thing. But it is one of those things where the naive/amateur answer is far from reality, and that naive answer is scary. (Like nuclear, or more rules vs more responsibility.) Seems reasonable. How do you propose to address these unknowns? And are you aware that non-GMO plants can product dangerous super species we can never get rid of? Purple loosestrife comes to mind. Having listened to your concerns and seriously pondered them, all I see is fear. Unbounded fear. Nothing in here leads me to think these fears will be calmed by study. The nature of science is that there's always another unknown to point to, and GMOs are seen by many as inherently scary - unlike safe, cuddly natural plants, obviously. What I see is people who have a fundamentally emotional position and think that study will validate them. They will continue to want more study until their fears are validated, and every result that fails to do so only feeds their fears.
- EpicWaves 10y ago
  "How much data is enough?" Double blind study spanning over 100 years.
  - Kalium 10y ago
    Clearly, we should also apply the same safety standard to non-GMO crops as well.
    - yessql 10y ago
      Nature is out there randomly mutating genes without any oversight. We need to test each plant for 100 years to make sure it didn't have any dangerous mutations.
joggery 10y ago
All new technologies have unintended consequences and we have to solve those problems. They are seldom the problems that people are initially concerned about. If we are too cautious we make it harder to get things done, solve other problems and survive future crises, including environmental crises. Being too cautious has been the default position throughout history and pre-history. It used to be about not offending the gods or deviating from tribal customs (e.g. a tribe goes extinct from starvation next to a river full of fish, because they can't or won't conceive of eating fish) The same impulse is nowadays wrapped in scientific clothing.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nickbauman 10y ago
Whenever I read about claims of "nutritional equivalency" of GMOs to their non-GMO counterparts, I am reminded of scientists in the 50's claiming that baby formula will replace the need for breastfeeding for the same reason. Today we still know very little about human nutrition so claims like nutritional equivalence are not terribly meaningful. And as far as "feed 8 billion people", I hate to say this because it's unpopular, but when has pouring gasoline on a fire ever extinguished it? The goal of feeding the world will annihilate it.
appleiigs 10y ago
Great post. Seeing both sides is skill that many don't have. On another note, I see GMO as similar to global warming. Avoiding the catastrophic risk doesn't seem to have a huge cost, so why don't we just avoid it. Regarding nuclear: when the Fukushima Disaster was just starting, a senior engineer/executive at my company was so certain nothing would happen. He gave a presentation on all the technology and safety mechanisms and how the engineers thought of everything... Yes, the naive answer is scary.
- cmurf 10y ago
  I see GMO as similar to climate change in that in both cases scientists are overwhelmingly making recommendations that are being ignored by significant percentages of the population. And I find it particularly interesting that at least anecdotally large numbers of anti-GMO folks believe in climate change; the common theme appears to be a willingness to believe big business greed translates into overt fraud and manipulation of markets.
  - mark_l_watson 10y ago
    The trouble is that many of us who think gmo foods are OK if an individual chooses to eat them, we get upset when scientists, possible whose paycheck depends on gmo, write articles critical of honest labeling.
linkregister 10y ago
Your concerns are valid and I agree they should have been discussed in the article. Had they discussed them and explained/refuted them, then you would have the choice whether to believe them or discount them. (Most GMOs target yield, shelf-life, and appearance, or are resistant to a proprietary herbicide, rather than introducing pesticides; the effects are well-studied). I included the uncited explanation as a parenthetical remark because I don't see the actual facts as central to your comment, which more stated that the anti-GMO viewpoint should be respected. I think the goal of the piece was to address the feelings portion of GMO avoidance. The use of "moms" and the attention to the butterfly logo highlight this emotional appeal. I think this piece was written to address an audience that approaches these decisions from a different level. Many consumers don't approach GMO avoidance with your concerns; they see prominent non-GMO labeling and make an emotional decision from that. The article intends to discuss that aspect. I'm not using emotional decision making as a pejorative; it is the default when a person doesn't have time to learn about a subject in-depth. Many people simply do not have the bandwidth to look up GMO articles while at work or while taking care of their families.
jernfrost 10y ago
1. That is a non issue when most GMO food specifically allow us to do the opposite, use less pesticide. We can't vilify over something which is a more serious problem to non-GMO foods. 2. The alternative to GMO is mutagenesis which has been used for decades and means massive random mutations through radiation. This is how a lot of non-GMO food is developed. It can even be labeled organic. Obviously this is far more dangerous than doing a controlled changed of specific genes. This fact alone demonstrates how the anti-GMO crowd is scientific illiterate people engaging in scaremongering. There is no scientific basis for the anti-GMO position. (1) No it isn't reasonable as it allows uncontrolled mutations to be utilized rather than safe and controlled genetic changes. The concern and safety steps taking towards GMO is hysterical. Every day plants like potatoes would be illegal to eat today if they were required the same testing regime as GMO food. The real valid concern I think is the commercial aspect. Especially in the US with its insane patent laws one allows companies to take control over too much of what is important for society and life.
- tomp 10y ago
  > Obviously this is far more dangerous than doing a controlled changed of specific genes. This is not "obvious". Actually, I think it's obviously wrong. That's like saying, "Oh, nuclear research doesn't matter, nature could just randomly create a nuclear bomb." Well, no. (Although nuclear reactors do happen naturally.) If you're trying to create super-organisms/weapons, chances are, you'll succeed.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    That jernfrost wrote that it "has been used for decades" implies they're not talking about natural events, but human action.
  - jernfrost 10y ago
    I am NOT talking about NATURE I was specifically talking about mutagenesis. That is scientists purposefully subjecting seeds to radiation to cause random mutations in the hope of causing beneficial changes to the plant. If you are going to attack my argument at least take the time to understand it.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
You know, I find it odd that you say, "extra chemicals" specifically pointing out pesticides. From what I can find, there are some that produce a protein that is toxic to some organisms. But so is chocolate, caffeine, and other things in nature. Some things are toxic to humans, but not other organisms. The upside to this is less sprayed pesticides. 2. This side effect is something we have been dealing with for a very long time. A hybrid - manual GMO sort of plant - runs the same risk. Furthermore, GMOs aren't exactly banned in the EU. In 2014, 49 were approved. Countries can restrict futher, but not all do. Spain is the biggest producer here. [1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modified_organisms_in_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modi...
- ozy 10y ago
  I did not want to use the word banned, but I see I left it there. You are right, regulated is the word. Also I did not mean all GMOs are "banned" but those that specifically produce some kind of pesticide are more strictly regulated. (Though I cannot find it on google, except from news articles, so it might not actually be the case. Actually mon810, a maize with a herbicide is doing exactly this.) It was however not the point. The point is there are tradeoffs to GMOs. Very valid ones with arguments to both sides. Not presenting those is polarizing the discussion, not adding to it.
sampo 10y ago
> 1. Some GMO has a plant produce extra chemicals, specifically, pesticides You are referring to GMO varieties of potato, corn, cotton and soybean. These plants have been engineered to produce Bt Cry proteins. These proteins become toxic in the alkaline (basic, pH > 7) digestive systems of certain insects [1]. No signs of toxicity has ever been found for these proteins in the acidic (pH < 7) digestive systems of mammals, including humans [2]. Also, these Bt toxins are naturally produced by a species of bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis. And either bacterial spores or extracted Bt toxins have been used as pesticides in agriculture since the 1920s. Also, as the Bt toxin is produced by bacteria, not a chemical factory, it is considered a natural product and is approved and widely used as a pesticide in organic farming [3]. Your fear of GMO based Bt-producing crops as "plants which produce chemicals" is wrong and misguided in two levels. Bt is not toxic to humans, and you cannot avoid digesting some Bt proteins by avoiding just GMO crops, as Bt is also used in non-GMO farming and also in organic farming. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Mechanism_of_insecticidal_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Mechani... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Safety_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Safety_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Use_of_spores_and_proteins_in_pest_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Use_of_...
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  >widely used as a pesticide in organic farming Given that external application means it can be largely washed off; yet a possibly lesser amount may be required for GMOs, in which scenario do we consume more?
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    Depending on the environmental impact of what gets washed off, it might be better if we ate it rather than allowing some critical piece of a food chain to be killed by it, or for it to be concentrated in the flesh of some fish that we eat. How would you have a chance to find that out without long-term testing?
- MattJ100 10y ago
Kurtz79 10y ago
(1) are banned in the EU for human consumption, a reasonable choice I think until we have more data. I thought so as well, but after a quick search my understanding is that they are not, they are subject to approval at EU level, and the member states have the final word whether to prohibit them or not (opt-out): http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/authorisation_en http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/authorisation_en http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/authorisation/decision_making_process_en http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/authorisation/decision_ma... There is a database of the ones currently approved : http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm Handy reference I just found for current legislation in various countries : https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/ https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/
- ozy 10y ago
  You are correct, as a matter of fact mon810 is a counter example. Also it is unfortunate I left the word banned in there, I meant to say regulated.
holri 10y ago
"And even necessary if we want to feed 8 billion people and more in the future." It is necessary to reduce or not grow animal product production and favor vegetable diet. Animals are a terrible inefficient food source.
- mark_l_watson 10y ago
  +1 I would give you +10 if I could because you are correct: cutting way back on beef consumption, favoring chicken or fish, or even better vegan food, saves a huge amount of resources, and helps fix global warming (yes, methane belching cows, I am looking at you!)
soufron 10y ago
There is no point in gmo "done responsibly". The question is do we want more or less industrial agriculture? Given what we've learnt in the past 50 years, we should want less industrial agriculture. And gmos are not the way to go. They're useless, potentially harmful, and industrial-level shit products.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  Saying that genetically modified agricultural product are useless is objectively a lie. Saying they are potentially harmful is a weasel accusation. The last bit is just an straight insult. Did you have a point to the rant that you forgot to work in? You served some pretty thin soup here.
sampo 10y ago
> There is a unknown side to GMO, perhaps it can lead to super species that we can never get rid of in the future and will destroy bio diversity. I can see how this kind of fear stems from watching scifi-movies, but it is totally unfounded. When we breed super-productive or super-muscular beef cattle, for example the Belgian Blue [1], absolutely no one is afraid that these bodybuilder-looking muscular cows could survive alone in the wild, kicking the ass of natural populations of deer, elk, wolf and bear, and take over the ecosystems. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=Belgian+Blue&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=Belgian+Blue&tbm=isch Yet somehow, when breeding high-yield crops, people mistake the high productivity in the controlled, pest-controlled, fertilized, irrigated farming conditions to some kind of general life vigor, ready to spread outside the farm and outcompete the natural vegetation. Nothing could be further from the truth. No crop plant, GMO or non-GMO, could ever stand a change outside the farmer's care.
- mafuy 10y ago
  Cattle is easy to control. It does not pollinate across a fence. If it happens to escape, it is relatively easy to find it. Neither of these points apply to plants. So I think that part your comparison is entirely invalid.
  - sampo 10y ago
    > It does not pollinate across a fence. There is no wild corn or wild soybean or wild potatoes in the forest or meadow across the fence which the farmer's crop could pollinate. Also it has never happened that a potato (or any crop plant) escaped into the wild and survived there.
  - partiallypro 10y ago
    Some GMO plants don't produce spores or seeds at all for this very reason, and because Monsanto, etc have an incentive to keep their IP on a tight leech.
smrtinsert 10y ago
How about taste vs yield? Non GMO always seems to taste better to me.
partykid92 10y ago
The most infuriating argument against GMO's (2) might the "unknown unknowns" argument, because it sounds so reasonable. Hey, the just say the Jury's still out, so its best to be cautious yes? But the truth be said, by not eating GMO's, you are too making a decision. And we don't know what we're doing eating good old fashioned food either. And the argument from historical data "we've been doing this for thousands of years, so it must be ok" is a pretty weak one. We've been smoking for over 7000 years now. We've filled our guts with carcinogens, practiced sham medicines and doing plenty of stupid things for a long time now. We did it not because it was "healthy", or out of some ancient wisdom, we did it because it was we knew, and we were making the best of a strange situation.
curun1r 10y ago
You didn't mention my main objection to GMO products. I'd add: 3: Many of the companies behind GMO products are what I'd call bad actors. Monsanto rightly gets a lot of the focus for the unconscionable stuff they do, but there are others as well. These companies, to my mind, make the world a worse place to live and I don't want to support them. And since there's no way to trace the provenance of the resulting food to determine who is supported by purchasing it, I have to avoid all GMO food.
- jamez1 10y ago
  That's your prerogative and fair enough. Thankfully, GMO will thrive without your support and produce better food to feed the world.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Do you think GMO foods should be labeled so gp can be allowed to make their choice?
    - NhanH 10y ago
      Let's do it the otherway round and mandate label of non-gmo food instead. Same effect in allowing consumer to make their choices, what do you think about it?
      - grzm 10y ago
        You're right. Labeling is labeling and it has the same effect. I've reread your comment a number of times and am having a hard time figuring out why you posted it, as I don't see the restatement as adding much to the discussion. Would you expand on this? I'm feeling I'm missing something.
        NhanH 10y ago
        I wasn't sure which point you were making either, so that's why I rephrase it. Basically one issue that GMO proponent has with labeling is that any labeling has an implicit meaning in it, either as a warning, or boasting ("handmade" is a boasting labeling, "gmo" might be considered a warning).
partiallypro 10y ago
A lot of the EU ban is directly related to lobbying, not actual science.
- matt4077 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure your 'lobbying' is more appropriately called 'democracy' in this case, considering there is without a doubt more money on the pro-GMO side of the argument, and far more than 50% of the population are anti-GMO.
usgroup 10y ago
[facetiously] I do wonder if there was ever a scientist mums group promoting the scientific consensus for the safety of cigarettes. I find the label-galore a bit cringe but that aside, unlike church-state-judiciary, science is not independent from politics and Id call deep conflict of interest here on both sides of the argument. It'd be great to have a full provenance system where it was possible to see how studies were financed in the matter, if bills were lobbied and how it overlaps with independent research. It'd also be good to see an international debate.

by ozy 10y ago

searine 10y ago

>But an article that fails to mention valid (remember the eu) downsides, Except that the bans in the EU aren't based on scientific data, and are thus not valid in a scientific discussion.

mikeash 10y ago

Is 1 really a valid point of the other side, when it applies just as well to many non-GMO plants we consume?

Bartweiss 10y ago
Yes. The difference is between applying and producing pesticides. Several GMO crop strains are specifically designed to produce pesticides or fungicides themselves, which offers more powerful effects and saves the effort of applying those chemicals to the growing plants. This is generally valuable for crop yields and profit margins, but it's appreciably different from external application. The main concern is that producing these pesticides/herbicides inside the plant may include the chemical inside the parts we consume - you can't just stop application prior to harvest or wash off the surface before consumption. There's a lot of conflicting data here: the GMO designers have generally concluded that the chemicals are only produced in leaves/stalks and not the edible parts, but other studies have suggested that the chemicals might be getting passed on at levels which could be relevant to pregnant mothers.
- initram 10y ago
  There are 2 major assumptions with your argument: 1) That the pesticides/fungicides are bad for humans. You haven't shown that. Some fungi are bad for humans, so it might be better to eat something with a fungicide but no fungus than to eat it with a fungus 2) You're assuming that applied pesticides/fungicides can just be washed off. But it's also possible that the plants absorb them and that the man-made ones are worse than the genetically engineered ones.
  - pluma 10y ago
    To play devil's avocado: you don't have to assume pesticides/fungicides are bad for humans. You just have to assume they may have unpredicted side-effects. For example, if those pesticides result in a drastic reduction of the populations of pollinating insects this may lead to ecological changes beyond the intended crops. It's not hard to imagine other things susceptible to fungicides and pesticides that might be beneficial but can get caught in the crossfire and would suffer, especially from spill-over.
    - Kalium 10y ago
      Some GMOs result in lower use of applied pesticides. Bt corn comes to mind. Such crops reduce the risk of unpredicted side-effects from spill-over.
      - geggam 10y ago
        seems the bugs are gaining immunity... whats next ? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/farmers-say-gmo-corn-no-longer-resistant-to-pests/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/farmers-say-gmo-c...
        jrock08 10y ago
        This appears to be from 2014. Prior to 2014, using GMO seeds "required" farmers to plant an in-field refuge of non-resistant crops. Since farmers could, short term, get better yields if they didn't plant these refuge plants, they often chose not to. In 2014 companies started mixing in non-resistant seeds, known as "refuge in bag". It's seen some mixed results, but for the most part, it looks like it has helped.
ozy 10y ago
Well some plants are just poisonous and not fit for consumption. Specifically adding poison is a risk. And that makes it a tradeoff. But add to that these plants did not need to survive on their on in nature for millions of years. Instead are cultivated/protected very specifically. The eu judgement is not the result of a public scare, I don't think.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Few if any of the plants grown in modern agriculture survived on their own in nature for millions of years. Everything we eat is modified, it's just a question of whether the modifications were done slowly with breeding or quickly with advanced tools.
  - ozy 10y ago
    You are absolutely right. Also, I cannot find anything but sensationalist articles on this pesticide thing I referenced. It allows mon810 which falls under this definition. It just regulates all GMOs and disallows them by default.
bryanlarsen 10y ago
capsaicin (peppers) and allicin (onions) are effective and tasty pesticides.
- mitchty 10y ago
  And coffee.
  - takingflac 10y ago
    Yes, caffeine found in coffee and tea is a pesticide Edit: missed an e

stale2002 10y ago

GMO doesn't really do anything that nature can't do. Any risks in GMO could also arise naturally via evolution. If evolution could produce super plants, then it would have done so.

m0th87 10y ago
Sure, but on an evolutionary scale, humans and other dependent species have time to catch up to the changes. That's not true for changes wrought from GM.
- linkregister 10y ago
  Plant breeding has brought many adverse emergent properties. It involves selecting for a few alleles while having no way to prevent unintended alleles from being bred in. Introduction of invasive species have permanently degraded many ecosystems. The current method of mass-farming agriculture spreads purpose-bred plants around the world. The current method of agriculture is also high risk.
- pluma 10y ago
  You can't speak of an "evolutionary scale" when there are literally intelligent designers at work, carefully cross-breeding each generation for optimal results. It's a slower process than direct genetic manipulation, sure, but "evolutionary" implies thousands or even millions of years when the reality is closer to decades.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    This is true enough, but even decades is a far different time frame from the average GMO. 30 years of directed breeding generally means a one-off cultivar being bred into something new and then popularized. The current GMO cycle involves a 1-5 years of test plantings, followed by national distribution. So agreed, the evolutionary scale isn't applicable here, but it's still worth noting that GMOs represent a substantial acceleration from the directed-breeding scale.

Kalium 10y ago

I am listening to you and your concerns. You are afraid that what we don't know could have disastrous consequences for us all. You want to see it demonstrated that serious people are taking these real, serious concerns seriously. After all, taking people's concerns seriously is the best way to make people feel validated and thus you can calm their fears, right? We all know that taking arbitrary concerns seriously never validates them. > (1) are banned in the EU for human consumption, a reasonable choice I think until we have more data. Seems very reasonable. How much data is enough? How will we know when we've got so much data that we can start just ignoring those who call for more study as unreasonable? When they're convinced, perhaps? > (2) is a much lower risk than most would thing. But it is one of those things where the naive/amateur answer is far from reality, and that naive answer is scary. (Like nuclear, or more rules vs more responsibility.) Seems reasonable. How do you propose to address these unknowns? And are you aware that non-GMO plants can product dangerous super species we can never get rid of? Purple loosestrife comes to mind. Having listened to your concerns and seriously pondered them, all I see is fear. Unbounded fear. Nothing in here leads me to think these fears will be calmed by study. The nature of science is that there's always another unknown to point to, and GMOs are seen by many as inherently scary - unlike safe, cuddly natural plants, obviously. What I see is people who have a fundamentally emotional position and think that study will validate them. They will continue to want more study until their fears are validated, and every result that fails to do so only feeds their fears.

EpicWaves 10y ago
"How much data is enough?" Double blind study spanning over 100 years.
- Kalium 10y ago
  Clearly, we should also apply the same safety standard to non-GMO crops as well.
  - yessql 10y ago
    Nature is out there randomly mutating genes without any oversight. We need to test each plant for 100 years to make sure it didn't have any dangerous mutations.

joggery 10y ago

All new technologies have unintended consequences and we have to solve those problems. They are seldom the problems that people are initially concerned about. If we are too cautious we make it harder to get things done, solve other problems and survive future crises, including environmental crises. Being too cautious has been the default position throughout history and pre-history. It used to be about not offending the gods or deviating from tribal customs (e.g. a tribe goes extinct from starvation next to a river full of fish, because they can't or won't conceive of eating fish) The same impulse is nowadays wrapped in scientific clothing.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nickbauman 10y ago

Whenever I read about claims of "nutritional equivalency" of GMOs to their non-GMO counterparts, I am reminded of scientists in the 50's claiming that baby formula will replace the need for breastfeeding for the same reason. Today we still know very little about human nutrition so claims like nutritional equivalence are not terribly meaningful. And as far as "feed 8 billion people", I hate to say this because it's unpopular, but when has pouring gasoline on a fire ever extinguished it? The goal of feeding the world will annihilate it.

appleiigs 10y ago

Great post. Seeing both sides is skill that many don't have. On another note, I see GMO as similar to global warming. Avoiding the catastrophic risk doesn't seem to have a huge cost, so why don't we just avoid it. Regarding nuclear: when the Fukushima Disaster was just starting, a senior engineer/executive at my company was so certain nothing would happen. He gave a presentation on all the technology and safety mechanisms and how the engineers thought of everything... Yes, the naive answer is scary.

cmurf 10y ago
I see GMO as similar to climate change in that in both cases scientists are overwhelmingly making recommendations that are being ignored by significant percentages of the population. And I find it particularly interesting that at least anecdotally large numbers of anti-GMO folks believe in climate change; the common theme appears to be a willingness to believe big business greed translates into overt fraud and manipulation of markets.
- mark_l_watson 10y ago
  The trouble is that many of us who think gmo foods are OK if an individual chooses to eat them, we get upset when scientists, possible whose paycheck depends on gmo, write articles critical of honest labeling.

linkregister 10y ago

Your concerns are valid and I agree they should have been discussed in the article. Had they discussed them and explained/refuted them, then you would have the choice whether to believe them or discount them. (Most GMOs target yield, shelf-life, and appearance, or are resistant to a proprietary herbicide, rather than introducing pesticides; the effects are well-studied). I included the uncited explanation as a parenthetical remark because I don't see the actual facts as central to your comment, which more stated that the anti-GMO viewpoint should be respected. I think the goal of the piece was to address the feelings portion of GMO avoidance. The use of "moms" and the attention to the butterfly logo highlight this emotional appeal. I think this piece was written to address an audience that approaches these decisions from a different level. Many consumers don't approach GMO avoidance with your concerns; they see prominent non-GMO labeling and make an emotional decision from that. The article intends to discuss that aspect. I'm not using emotional decision making as a pejorative; it is the default when a person doesn't have time to learn about a subject in-depth. Many people simply do not have the bandwidth to look up GMO articles while at work or while taking care of their families.

jernfrost 10y ago

1. That is a non issue when most GMO food specifically allow us to do the opposite, use less pesticide. We can't vilify over something which is a more serious problem to non-GMO foods. 2. The alternative to GMO is mutagenesis which has been used for decades and means massive random mutations through radiation. This is how a lot of non-GMO food is developed. It can even be labeled organic. Obviously this is far more dangerous than doing a controlled changed of specific genes. This fact alone demonstrates how the anti-GMO crowd is scientific illiterate people engaging in scaremongering. There is no scientific basis for the anti-GMO position. (1) No it isn't reasonable as it allows uncontrolled mutations to be utilized rather than safe and controlled genetic changes. The concern and safety steps taking towards GMO is hysterical. Every day plants like potatoes would be illegal to eat today if they were required the same testing regime as GMO food. The real valid concern I think is the commercial aspect. Especially in the US with its insane patent laws one allows companies to take control over too much of what is important for society and life.

tomp 10y ago
> Obviously this is far more dangerous than doing a controlled changed of specific genes. This is not "obvious". Actually, I think it's obviously wrong. That's like saying, "Oh, nuclear research doesn't matter, nature could just randomly create a nuclear bomb." Well, no. (Although nuclear reactors do happen naturally.) If you're trying to create super-organisms/weapons, chances are, you'll succeed.
- icebraining 10y ago
  That jernfrost wrote that it "has been used for decades" implies they're not talking about natural events, but human action.
- jernfrost 10y ago
  I am NOT talking about NATURE I was specifically talking about mutagenesis. That is scientists purposefully subjecting seeds to radiation to cause random mutations in the hope of causing beneficial changes to the plant. If you are going to attack my argument at least take the time to understand it.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

You know, I find it odd that you say, "extra chemicals" specifically pointing out pesticides. From what I can find, there are some that produce a protein that is toxic to some organisms. But so is chocolate, caffeine, and other things in nature. Some things are toxic to humans, but not other organisms. The upside to this is less sprayed pesticides. 2. This side effect is something we have been dealing with for a very long time. A hybrid - manual GMO sort of plant - runs the same risk. Furthermore, GMOs aren't exactly banned in the EU. In 2014, 49 were approved. Countries can restrict futher, but not all do. Spain is the biggest producer here. [1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modified_organisms_in_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modi...

ozy 10y ago
I did not want to use the word banned, but I see I left it there. You are right, regulated is the word. Also I did not mean all GMOs are "banned" but those that specifically produce some kind of pesticide are more strictly regulated. (Though I cannot find it on google, except from news articles, so it might not actually be the case. Actually mon810, a maize with a herbicide is doing exactly this.) It was however not the point. The point is there are tradeoffs to GMOs. Very valid ones with arguments to both sides. Not presenting those is polarizing the discussion, not adding to it.

sampo 10y ago

> 1. Some GMO has a plant produce extra chemicals, specifically, pesticides You are referring to GMO varieties of potato, corn, cotton and soybean. These plants have been engineered to produce Bt Cry proteins. These proteins become toxic in the alkaline (basic, pH > 7) digestive systems of certain insects [1]. No signs of toxicity has ever been found for these proteins in the acidic (pH < 7) digestive systems of mammals, including humans [2]. Also, these Bt toxins are naturally produced by a species of bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis. And either bacterial spores or extracted Bt toxins have been used as pesticides in agriculture since the 1920s. Also, as the Bt toxin is produced by bacteria, not a chemical factory, it is considered a natural product and is approved and widely used as a pesticide in organic farming [3]. Your fear of GMO based Bt-producing crops as "plants which produce chemicals" is wrong and misguided in two levels. Bt is not toxic to humans, and you cannot avoid digesting some Bt proteins by avoiding just GMO crops, as Bt is also used in non-GMO farming and also in organic farming. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Mechanism_of_insecticidal_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Mechani... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Safety_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Safety_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Use_of_spores_and_proteins_in_pest_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis#Use_of_...

unclebucknasty 10y ago
>widely used as a pesticide in organic farming Given that external application means it can be largely washed off; yet a possibly lesser amount may be required for GMOs, in which scenario do we consume more?
- pessimizer 10y ago
  Depending on the environmental impact of what gets washed off, it might be better if we ate it rather than allowing some critical piece of a food chain to be killed by it, or for it to be concentrated in the flesh of some fish that we eat. How would you have a chance to find that out without long-term testing?
MattJ100 10y ago

Kurtz79 10y ago

(1) are banned in the EU for human consumption, a reasonable choice I think until we have more data. I thought so as well, but after a quick search my understanding is that they are not, they are subject to approval at EU level, and the member states have the final word whether to prohibit them or not (opt-out): http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/authorisation_en http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/authorisation_en http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/authorisation/decision_making_process_en http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/authorisation/decision_ma... There is a database of the ones currently approved : http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm Handy reference I just found for current legislation in various countries : https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/ https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/

ozy 10y ago
You are correct, as a matter of fact mon810 is a counter example. Also it is unfortunate I left the word banned in there, I meant to say regulated.

holri 10y ago

"And even necessary if we want to feed 8 billion people and more in the future." It is necessary to reduce or not grow animal product production and favor vegetable diet. Animals are a terrible inefficient food source.

mark_l_watson 10y ago
+1 I would give you +10 if I could because you are correct: cutting way back on beef consumption, favoring chicken or fish, or even better vegan food, saves a huge amount of resources, and helps fix global warming (yes, methane belching cows, I am looking at you!)

soufron 10y ago

There is no point in gmo "done responsibly". The question is do we want more or less industrial agriculture? Given what we've learnt in the past 50 years, we should want less industrial agriculture. And gmos are not the way to go. They're useless, potentially harmful, and industrial-level shit products.

oldmanjay 10y ago
Saying that genetically modified agricultural product are useless is objectively a lie. Saying they are potentially harmful is a weasel accusation. The last bit is just an straight insult. Did you have a point to the rant that you forgot to work in? You served some pretty thin soup here.

sampo 10y ago

> There is a unknown side to GMO, perhaps it can lead to super species that we can never get rid of in the future and will destroy bio diversity. I can see how this kind of fear stems from watching scifi-movies, but it is totally unfounded. When we breed super-productive or super-muscular beef cattle, for example the Belgian Blue [1], absolutely no one is afraid that these bodybuilder-looking muscular cows could survive alone in the wild, kicking the ass of natural populations of deer, elk, wolf and bear, and take over the ecosystems. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=Belgian+Blue&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=Belgian+Blue&tbm=isch Yet somehow, when breeding high-yield crops, people mistake the high productivity in the controlled, pest-controlled, fertilized, irrigated farming conditions to some kind of general life vigor, ready to spread outside the farm and outcompete the natural vegetation. Nothing could be further from the truth. No crop plant, GMO or non-GMO, could ever stand a change outside the farmer's care.

mafuy 10y ago
Cattle is easy to control. It does not pollinate across a fence. If it happens to escape, it is relatively easy to find it. Neither of these points apply to plants. So I think that part your comparison is entirely invalid.
- sampo 10y ago
  > It does not pollinate across a fence. There is no wild corn or wild soybean or wild potatoes in the forest or meadow across the fence which the farmer's crop could pollinate. Also it has never happened that a potato (or any crop plant) escaped into the wild and survived there.
- partiallypro 10y ago
  Some GMO plants don't produce spores or seeds at all for this very reason, and because Monsanto, etc have an incentive to keep their IP on a tight leech.

smrtinsert 10y ago

How about taste vs yield? Non GMO always seems to taste better to me.

partykid92 10y ago

The most infuriating argument against GMO's (2) might the "unknown unknowns" argument, because it sounds so reasonable. Hey, the just say the Jury's still out, so its best to be cautious yes? But the truth be said, by not eating GMO's, you are too making a decision. And we don't know what we're doing eating good old fashioned food either. And the argument from historical data "we've been doing this for thousands of years, so it must be ok" is a pretty weak one. We've been smoking for over 7000 years now. We've filled our guts with carcinogens, practiced sham medicines and doing plenty of stupid things for a long time now. We did it not because it was "healthy", or out of some ancient wisdom, we did it because it was we knew, and we were making the best of a strange situation.

curun1r 10y ago

You didn't mention my main objection to GMO products. I'd add: 3: Many of the companies behind GMO products are what I'd call bad actors. Monsanto rightly gets a lot of the focus for the unconscionable stuff they do, but there are others as well. These companies, to my mind, make the world a worse place to live and I don't want to support them. And since there's no way to trace the provenance of the resulting food to determine who is supported by purchasing it, I have to avoid all GMO food.

jamez1 10y ago
That's your prerogative and fair enough. Thankfully, GMO will thrive without your support and produce better food to feed the world.
- grzm 10y ago
  Do you think GMO foods should be labeled so gp can be allowed to make their choice?
  - NhanH 10y ago
    Let's do it the otherway round and mandate label of non-gmo food instead. Same effect in allowing consumer to make their choices, what do you think about it?
    - grzm 10y ago
      You're right. Labeling is labeling and it has the same effect. I've reread your comment a number of times and am having a hard time figuring out why you posted it, as I don't see the restatement as adding much to the discussion. Would you expand on this? I'm feeling I'm missing something.
      - NhanH 10y ago
        I wasn't sure which point you were making either, so that's why I rephrase it. Basically one issue that GMO proponent has with labeling is that any labeling has an implicit meaning in it, either as a warning, or boasting ("handmade" is a boasting labeling, "gmo" might be considered a warning).

partiallypro 10y ago

A lot of the EU ban is directly related to lobbying, not actual science.

matt4077 10y ago
I'm pretty sure your 'lobbying' is more appropriately called 'democracy' in this case, considering there is without a doubt more money on the pro-GMO side of the argument, and far more than 50% of the population are anti-GMO.

usgroup 10y ago

[facetiously] I do wonder if there was ever a scientist mums group promoting the scientific consensus for the safety of cigarettes. I find the label-galore a bit cringe but that aside, unlike church-state-judiciary, science is not independent from politics and Id call deep conflict of interest here on both sides of the argument. It'd be great to have a full provenance system where it was possible to see how studies were financed in the matter, if bills were lobbied and how it overlaps with independent research. It'd also be good to see an international debate.