5 ms·

The tricky thing is it's very hard to really be on top of all the evidence, so we rely on some signaling. The "granola" crowd tends to place unearned trust in

The tricky thing is it's very hard to really be on top of all the evidence, so we rely on some signaling. The "granola" crowd tends to place unearned trust in organic or non-GMO products, but the "science" crowd tends to place unearned trust in methodologically suspect corporate studies with a clear conflict of interest. I'm pretty much right down the middle on this stuff, but I tend to regard the latter as a bigger problem simply because the amount of money and lobbying involved. Think of the amount of money to be made by increasing grain yields by 1%, can we really expect industry to determine objectively that a higher yield grain is nutritionally equivalent?

drvdevd 10y ago
Your comment gave me an interesting thought: how would a labeling system that describes exactly which modifications were made to the organism in question work?
- thefalcon 10y ago
  And where does it end? What if the main product isn't GMO, but some small part of the additives in the product were GMO?
  - drvdevd 10y ago
    To be quite clear, personally I'm 100% pro-GMO. But that's because I believe the benefits that can be realized outweigh the risks. However, in this case I'm simply curious from both a packaging/product design and regulatory point of view: how would this work? I agree it would have to stop somewhere. Part of my biggest issue is that a company can patent the gene modifications they make and then say, "You're eating our proprietary cucumber now." I understand their business model, but I think if anything should be "open source", it should be our food.
    - sampo 10y ago
      > Part of my biggest issue is that a company can patent the gene modifications they make Also the results of non-GMO breeding can be, and have been patented.
- blacksmith_tb 10y ago
  There current argument du jour about GM has to do with things like the Arctic apple, which doesn't turn brown when it's sliced, due to silencing several genes[1] - this sidesteps the usual "but now there are fish genes in my tomato!" as nothing has been added, just removed. 1: http://www.arcticapples.com/how-did-we-make-nonbrowning-apple/ http://www.arcticapples.com/how-did-we-make-nonbrowning-appl...
  - drvdevd 10y ago
    Interesting post, thanks. This certainly begs the questions of if/how it would be possible to concisely (or even not so concisely) convey this information to consumers.
  - gnud 10y ago
    But.. there's no "save the earth" argument for this GMO modification, just a mild convenience. I achieve the same thing by slicing apples with ceramic instead of metal. Think of how much I saved on R&D!
    - dothts 10y ago
      I think the non-browning modification also helps protect the apples during transportation, which in turn reduces waste (since fewer apples will reach the store in a damaged, non-consumer friendly state). Reducing waste _is_ "saving the earth" :)
- texuf 10y ago
  This work for me. Why do all the rebuttals here consist of throwing hands in air and exhaspirating, "Where will it end?" We are talking about the future of our food and the huge profits that stand to be made. We should never stop testing these products.
tonmoy 10y ago
In regards to organic produce, imagine how much money the producer can make by charging a lot extra. Organic does not necessarily mean better for health or environment, in fact in some cases organic may be even be worse https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  >Organic does not necessarily mean better for health or environment // I don't see how you can say that for the later case - most of the requirements mentioned here (for example) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/index_en http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/index_en for Organic food seem like they would be better for the environment. In take of less potent and lower quantities of non-food chemicals used as pesticides, herbicides and reduced presence of antibiotics seem like things that would lead to better human health (either directly or indirectly) too. Can you explain how focus on a local supply chain, say, as one element of Organic farming practice is detrimental to either of those things, [human] health or environment?
  - tropo 10y ago
    Example: some GMO crops are more tolerant of compacted soil and weed competition, reducing the need to till the soil. Tilling the soil requires enormous amounts of diesel fuel, with obvious bad environmental implications. By reducing the use of diesel, the GMO crops help the environment. Oh, you don't even have to accept global warming to see how using diesel to till the soil can cause harm. Particulate matter in the air is really harmful. (both the diesel exhaust and the soil getting churned up into the air) Disturbed soil runs off into streams, leading to dead zones. Competition for crude oil seems to support war, which has lots of bad effects on the environment. So... eat GMO to save the environment.
    - MustrumRidcully 10y ago
      Tilling the soil is not needed if you practice organic permaculture farming.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jernfrost 10y ago
I think that is unfair to the science crowd. I consider myself part of them, and I am highly suspicious of corporate interests. Of course with the commercialization of public institutions and the insane pressure to publish, one can not trust scientific publications as well as before. What is it 60% of life science publications can't be reproduced? There is a real need for change in system, so we can trust research more. I think the capitalistic thinking has ruined science. One looks at science as some production process which needs to increase yield. Thus one ends up focusing on quantity rather than quality. I'd rather see a lot fewer publications and stuff of actual quality which can be reproduced than what is going on now.
weberc2 10y ago
You talk like the "GMO industry" unilaterally makes decisions. They put out studies, these studies can be (and are) critiqued by public scientists. Further, no "industry" is charged with regulating the quality and safety of our food--that's the job of the FDA. The science camp is at least making evidence-based decisions, whereas the "granola" folks are dismissing everything for fear of hypothetical methodological errors (all the while ignoring that the organic food industry is still an industry complete with its own incentives). As far as I'm concerned, this debate is a mirror of the vaccination debate or the climate debate with (perhaps) lower stakes.
- dasil003 10y ago
  Why are you quoting "GMO industry" when that's not even a phrase I used?
  - weberc2 10y ago
    I put it in quotes because I'm not sure if this is a recognized term or if I just coined it. I didn't intend to misrepresent you, but I can see how it could be read as such. Apologies.
- curun1r 10y ago
  > this debate is a mirror of the vaccination debate The two seem to be polar opposites to me. In the case of vaccines, you have thousands of years of history that demonstrates the danger of diseases and recent history showing how effective vaccines are. Those arguing against vaccines need to show serious harm caused before it would cancel out the benefits. In the case of GMO foods, history argues against the technology. We know that non-GMO food is healthy. We have thousands of years of evidence to support that fact. The problems GMO are solving are on the producer's side, not the consumer's. You can argue that the problem being solved is providing enough food to feed everyone and that history also shows the devastating effects of famine and starvation, but there are other ways to solve that problem that have none of the risks of GMO foods (less reliance on meats, for example, would make much more efficient use of our agricultural resources). Show me an alternative way of dealing with measles, flu, tetanus, hep and all the other illnesses we vaccinate that's even half as effective as vaccines and I'll concede that the two debates are similar.
hx87 10y ago
> but I tend to regard the latter as a bigger problem simply because the amount of money and lobbying involved As the current US presidential election has shown, when money and lobbying collides with emotions and FUD, the latter wins every time, and thus I consider the latter a bigger problem.
BurningFrog 10y ago
Think of all the lives to be saved by increasing grain yields by 1%.

drvdevd 10y ago

Your comment gave me an interesting thought: how would a labeling system that describes exactly which modifications were made to the organism in question work?

thefalcon 10y ago
And where does it end? What if the main product isn't GMO, but some small part of the additives in the product were GMO?
- drvdevd 10y ago
  To be quite clear, personally I'm 100% pro-GMO. But that's because I believe the benefits that can be realized outweigh the risks. However, in this case I'm simply curious from both a packaging/product design and regulatory point of view: how would this work? I agree it would have to stop somewhere. Part of my biggest issue is that a company can patent the gene modifications they make and then say, "You're eating our proprietary cucumber now." I understand their business model, but I think if anything should be "open source", it should be our food.
  - sampo 10y ago
    > Part of my biggest issue is that a company can patent the gene modifications they make Also the results of non-GMO breeding can be, and have been patented.
blacksmith_tb 10y ago
There current argument du jour about GM has to do with things like the Arctic apple, which doesn't turn brown when it's sliced, due to silencing several genes[1] - this sidesteps the usual "but now there are fish genes in my tomato!" as nothing has been added, just removed. 1: http://www.arcticapples.com/how-did-we-make-nonbrowning-apple/ http://www.arcticapples.com/how-did-we-make-nonbrowning-appl...
- drvdevd 10y ago
  Interesting post, thanks. This certainly begs the questions of if/how it would be possible to concisely (or even not so concisely) convey this information to consumers.
- gnud 10y ago
  But.. there's no "save the earth" argument for this GMO modification, just a mild convenience. I achieve the same thing by slicing apples with ceramic instead of metal. Think of how much I saved on R&D!
  - dothts 10y ago
    I think the non-browning modification also helps protect the apples during transportation, which in turn reduces waste (since fewer apples will reach the store in a damaged, non-consumer friendly state). Reducing waste _is_ "saving the earth" :)
texuf 10y ago
This work for me. Why do all the rebuttals here consist of throwing hands in air and exhaspirating, "Where will it end?" We are talking about the future of our food and the huge profits that stand to be made. We should never stop testing these products.

tonmoy 10y ago

In regards to organic produce, imagine how much money the producer can make by charging a lot extra. Organic does not necessarily mean better for health or environment, in fact in some cases organic may be even be worse https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
>Organic does not necessarily mean better for health or environment // I don't see how you can say that for the later case - most of the requirements mentioned here (for example) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/index_en http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/index_en for Organic food seem like they would be better for the environment. In take of less potent and lower quantities of non-food chemicals used as pesticides, herbicides and reduced presence of antibiotics seem like things that would lead to better human health (either directly or indirectly) too. Can you explain how focus on a local supply chain, say, as one element of Organic farming practice is detrimental to either of those things, [human] health or environment?
- tropo 10y ago
  Example: some GMO crops are more tolerant of compacted soil and weed competition, reducing the need to till the soil. Tilling the soil requires enormous amounts of diesel fuel, with obvious bad environmental implications. By reducing the use of diesel, the GMO crops help the environment. Oh, you don't even have to accept global warming to see how using diesel to till the soil can cause harm. Particulate matter in the air is really harmful. (both the diesel exhaust and the soil getting churned up into the air) Disturbed soil runs off into streams, leading to dead zones. Competition for crude oil seems to support war, which has lots of bad effects on the environment. So... eat GMO to save the environment.
  - MustrumRidcully 10y ago
    Tilling the soil is not needed if you practice organic permaculture farming.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jernfrost 10y ago

I think that is unfair to the science crowd. I consider myself part of them, and I am highly suspicious of corporate interests. Of course with the commercialization of public institutions and the insane pressure to publish, one can not trust scientific publications as well as before. What is it 60% of life science publications can't be reproduced? There is a real need for change in system, so we can trust research more. I think the capitalistic thinking has ruined science. One looks at science as some production process which needs to increase yield. Thus one ends up focusing on quantity rather than quality. I'd rather see a lot fewer publications and stuff of actual quality which can be reproduced than what is going on now.

weberc2 10y ago

You talk like the "GMO industry" unilaterally makes decisions. They put out studies, these studies can be (and are) critiqued by public scientists. Further, no "industry" is charged with regulating the quality and safety of our food--that's the job of the FDA. The science camp is at least making evidence-based decisions, whereas the "granola" folks are dismissing everything for fear of hypothetical methodological errors (all the while ignoring that the organic food industry is still an industry complete with its own incentives). As far as I'm concerned, this debate is a mirror of the vaccination debate or the climate debate with (perhaps) lower stakes.

dasil003 10y ago
Why are you quoting "GMO industry" when that's not even a phrase I used?
- weberc2 10y ago
  I put it in quotes because I'm not sure if this is a recognized term or if I just coined it. I didn't intend to misrepresent you, but I can see how it could be read as such. Apologies.
curun1r 10y ago
> this debate is a mirror of the vaccination debate The two seem to be polar opposites to me. In the case of vaccines, you have thousands of years of history that demonstrates the danger of diseases and recent history showing how effective vaccines are. Those arguing against vaccines need to show serious harm caused before it would cancel out the benefits. In the case of GMO foods, history argues against the technology. We know that non-GMO food is healthy. We have thousands of years of evidence to support that fact. The problems GMO are solving are on the producer's side, not the consumer's. You can argue that the problem being solved is providing enough food to feed everyone and that history also shows the devastating effects of famine and starvation, but there are other ways to solve that problem that have none of the risks of GMO foods (less reliance on meats, for example, would make much more efficient use of our agricultural resources). Show me an alternative way of dealing with measles, flu, tetanus, hep and all the other illnesses we vaccinate that's even half as effective as vaccines and I'll concede that the two debates are similar.

hx87 10y ago

> but I tend to regard the latter as a bigger problem simply because the amount of money and lobbying involved As the current US presidential election has shown, when money and lobbying collides with emotions and FUD, the latter wins every time, and thus I consider the latter a bigger problem.

BurningFrog 10y ago

Think of all the lives to be saved by increasing grain yields by 1%.