9 ms·

I often see the opinion on HN that opposing GMO food is anti-science. I know this article is not about GMOs, but can we really say with confidence that the scie

I often see the opinion on HN that opposing GMO food is anti-science. I know this article is not about GMOs, but can we really say with confidence that the scientific research done on GMO food hasn't been influenced in the same way?

Alex3917 10y ago
How is this article in any way not about GMOs? The whole point of roundup is that you can douse food crops with enormous quantities that would normally kill them, thanks to genetic modifications.
- cm2012 10y ago
  Roundup vastly reduces pesticide quantity.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    It takes a lot more water than bleach, when imbibed, to kill someone .. bleach for everyone?
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      The addition of appropriate amounts of chlorine to drinking water may well be the single thing that has most impacted human health.
      - kuschku 10y ago
        And it’s something that’s never been done in large parts of Europe, without any issues.
- the_af 10y ago
  I would separate GMO, the technology and field of research, from Monsanto. I don't see why corporate corruption and dishonesty must go hand in hand with GMOs. Even glyphosate itself is not the whole story about GMOs.
- Teever 10y ago
  roundup predates GMOs
- randomdata 10y ago
  The whole point? We still spray roundup on many of our non-GMO crops. It's inconsequential, if not desirable, to kill the crop near harvest. Roundup had a couple of decades of use in food production before GMOs arrived on the scene. Also, most of what you see coming out of the sprayer is water. The actual amount of glyphosate used in an application is minimal.
  - jmnicolas 10y ago
    Yeah but glyphosate is not an aliment. Why would you eat something that is not an aliment ?
- DanBC 10y ago
  The whole point of roundup is that you can use it earlier in the growing cycle, when weeds and non-GMO crops are more vulnerable. This should mean that farmers can use less chemical so long as they're using GMO crop. "Buy our product, you'll spend more on inputs" would be a fucking stupid USP for Monsanto.
  - 09bjb 10y ago
    It _should_...until the pests attaching the crops develop resistance to the chosen combination of agrichemical/genetically-induced resistance to said agrichemical. Here's a 2010 article--it's gotten significantly worse since then. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environmen...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > How is this article in any way not about GMOs? The whole point of roundup is that you can douse food crops with enormous quantities that would normally kill them, thanks to genetic modifications. No, it's not. RoundUp was around and commercially used as a weedkiller, including in agriculture, before transgenic RoundUp Ready traits were developed. It's true that RoundUp Ready and similar traits increase the demand for and use of the herbicides they provide resistance to, but the safety of the herbicides is orthogonal to the safety of the herbicide resistant crops.
thinkmilitant 10y ago
No offense intended, but you could say this about anything. -I often see the opinion on HN that opposing vaccination is anti-science. I know this article is not about vaccines, but can we really say with confidence that the scientific research done on vaccination hasn't been influenced in the same way?-
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Well, Monsanto does GMOs, and this article is about Monsanto hiding the scientific evidence in a blizzard of PR. So saying we should question GMOs based on this article is reasonable. But, so far as I know, Monsanto doesn't do vaccines.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    There's no evidence here of Monsanto hiding scientific evidence relating to GMOs; there is evidence of Monsanto and allies in government to hiding scientific evidence relating to chemicals, which face a different regulatory regime. Now, this might reasonably lead one to want to close regulatory gaps that provide insufficient oversight to prevent similar actions relating to GMOs, but none of the evidence here directly implicates the safety of GMOs as such. (It does implicate the safety of an herbicide whose use is a major motivation for the use of some of Monsanto's flagship GMO traits, but it's the herbicide, not the GMO, whose safety is implicated.)
    - stagbeetle 10y ago
      But there is still the association of: "if they hide scientific evidence for X, what's stopping them from hiding scientific evidence for Y?" In layman's example, it's like having a friend that steals other people's things, what's stopping him from stealing your things when you're not looking?
- gregwtmtno 10y ago
colordrops 10y ago
Most opinions like this are either sock puppets or people who drank the GMO koolaid without knowing it. For a while it was even taboo to question GMOs, and you'd get labeled "anti-science" with almost the same hatred as "anti-semitism". The propaganda campaign has been strong.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> I often see the opinion on HN that opposing GMO food is anti-science. Opposing GMO food, in the abstract, may or may not be anti-science. In concrete terms, many of the specific criticisms of GMO foods (especially those of GMO foods qua GMO foods, rather than of specific foods that happen to.be GMOs) actually made are factually unfounded and reveal.a gross ignorance of the basic relevant facts (like what "GMOs" are and how they differ from modern crops that are not "GMOs", and the regulatory environment facing both types of crops), and suggest that the criticism is originally from someone who is at best disinterested in science and facts if not actively opposed to them.
battlebot 10y ago
Every time I ask the same question regarding 'climate science' I get downvoted into oblivion. Also, I thought it was quite amusing that Monsanto was asked to prove a negative. I'm no fan of Roundup or of Monsanto, but unless we depopulate the world by say half, I'm not sure we have much choice.
wnevets 10y ago
A lot of those who are anti-GMO behave very much like those who are anti-vaccines. They rely heavily on scare tactics, half truths and even out right lies all while completely ignoring the science. There is nothing scientific about the frankenfood[0] propaganda against GMOs. [0] http://lmgtfy.com/?q=frankenfood http://lmgtfy.com/?q=frankenfood

Alex3917 10y ago

How is this article in any way not about GMOs? The whole point of roundup is that you can douse food crops with enormous quantities that would normally kill them, thanks to genetic modifications.

cm2012 10y ago
Roundup vastly reduces pesticide quantity.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  It takes a lot more water than bleach, when imbibed, to kill someone .. bleach for everyone?
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The addition of appropriate amounts of chlorine to drinking water may well be the single thing that has most impacted human health.
    - kuschku 10y ago
      And it’s something that’s never been done in large parts of Europe, without any issues.
the_af 10y ago
I would separate GMO, the technology and field of research, from Monsanto. I don't see why corporate corruption and dishonesty must go hand in hand with GMOs. Even glyphosate itself is not the whole story about GMOs.
Teever 10y ago
roundup predates GMOs
randomdata 10y ago
The whole point? We still spray roundup on many of our non-GMO crops. It's inconsequential, if not desirable, to kill the crop near harvest. Roundup had a couple of decades of use in food production before GMOs arrived on the scene. Also, most of what you see coming out of the sprayer is water. The actual amount of glyphosate used in an application is minimal.
- jmnicolas 10y ago
  Yeah but glyphosate is not an aliment. Why would you eat something that is not an aliment ?
DanBC 10y ago
The whole point of roundup is that you can use it earlier in the growing cycle, when weeds and non-GMO crops are more vulnerable. This should mean that farmers can use less chemical so long as they're using GMO crop. "Buy our product, you'll spend more on inputs" would be a fucking stupid USP for Monsanto.
- 09bjb 10y ago
  It _should_...until the pests attaching the crops develop resistance to the chosen combination of agrichemical/genetically-induced resistance to said agrichemical. Here's a 2010 article--it's gotten significantly worse since then. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environmen...
dragonwriter 10y ago
> How is this article in any way not about GMOs? The whole point of roundup is that you can douse food crops with enormous quantities that would normally kill them, thanks to genetic modifications. No, it's not. RoundUp was around and commercially used as a weedkiller, including in agriculture, before transgenic RoundUp Ready traits were developed. It's true that RoundUp Ready and similar traits increase the demand for and use of the herbicides they provide resistance to, but the safety of the herbicides is orthogonal to the safety of the herbicide resistant crops.

thinkmilitant 10y ago

No offense intended, but you could say this about anything. -I often see the opinion on HN that opposing vaccination is anti-science. I know this article is not about vaccines, but can we really say with confidence that the scientific research done on vaccination hasn't been influenced in the same way?-

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Well, Monsanto does GMOs, and this article is about Monsanto hiding the scientific evidence in a blizzard of PR. So saying we should question GMOs based on this article is reasonable. But, so far as I know, Monsanto doesn't do vaccines.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  There's no evidence here of Monsanto hiding scientific evidence relating to GMOs; there is evidence of Monsanto and allies in government to hiding scientific evidence relating to chemicals, which face a different regulatory regime. Now, this might reasonably lead one to want to close regulatory gaps that provide insufficient oversight to prevent similar actions relating to GMOs, but none of the evidence here directly implicates the safety of GMOs as such. (It does implicate the safety of an herbicide whose use is a major motivation for the use of some of Monsanto's flagship GMO traits, but it's the herbicide, not the GMO, whose safety is implicated.)
  - stagbeetle 10y ago
    But there is still the association of: "if they hide scientific evidence for X, what's stopping them from hiding scientific evidence for Y?" In layman's example, it's like having a friend that steals other people's things, what's stopping him from stealing your things when you're not looking?
gregwtmtno 10y ago

colordrops 10y ago

Most opinions like this are either sock puppets or people who drank the GMO koolaid without knowing it. For a while it was even taboo to question GMOs, and you'd get labeled "anti-science" with almost the same hatred as "anti-semitism". The propaganda campaign has been strong.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> I often see the opinion on HN that opposing GMO food is anti-science. Opposing GMO food, in the abstract, may or may not be anti-science. In concrete terms, many of the specific criticisms of GMO foods (especially those of GMO foods qua GMO foods, rather than of specific foods that happen to.be GMOs) actually made are factually unfounded and reveal.a gross ignorance of the basic relevant facts (like what "GMOs" are and how they differ from modern crops that are not "GMOs", and the regulatory environment facing both types of crops), and suggest that the criticism is originally from someone who is at best disinterested in science and facts if not actively opposed to them.

battlebot 10y ago

Every time I ask the same question regarding 'climate science' I get downvoted into oblivion. Also, I thought it was quite amusing that Monsanto was asked to prove a negative. I'm no fan of Roundup or of Monsanto, but unless we depopulate the world by say half, I'm not sure we have much choice.

wnevets 10y ago

A lot of those who are anti-GMO behave very much like those who are anti-vaccines. They rely heavily on scare tactics, half truths and even out right lies all while completely ignoring the science. There is nothing scientific about the frankenfood[0] propaganda against GMOs. [0] http://lmgtfy.com/?q=frankenfood http://lmgtfy.com/?q=frankenfood