3 ms·

This is like saying “100 years of data confirms coal provides lots of power cheaply!” Yeah, we know. That was never the issue and it’s a red herring from the r

by ebbv 9y ago

This is like saying “100 years of data confirms coal provides lots of power cheaply!” Yeah, we know. That was never the issue and it’s a red herring from the real issues. For GMOs there’s multiple issues with the licensing programs and how it affects farmers. But more importantly to me is the potential side effects in terms of these new strains going wild or interbreeding or being a monoculture that is potentially extremely succeptible to future problems and in the long run makes our food supply weaker instead of stronger. (See banana fungus problems, which is not due to GMO but due to the banana supply being a monoculture.) Also saying broadly “GMOs are safe to eat!” seems as naive to me as broadly saying “GMOs are not safe to eat.” It totally depends on what is being modified and how.

kickout 9y ago
Although i disagree with your undertone (GMOs are unsafe), i think you bring up valid points--Wide range in what is being modified, and how, makes all the difference in the world
- Klathmon 9y ago
  See I didn't get that from their comment (that GMOs are unsafe), I understood it as the user is worried about unknown unknowns with it. Even the best things in life have downsides, and GMOs are no exception. I think there is a literal solution to world hunger here, but it needs to be done carefully and with a lot of oversight. The last thing I want is DRM in my potatoes...
  - kickout 9y ago
    Correct. At the scale of the world and feeding it, there will be drawbacks to whatever solutions. I agree there needs to be oversight and proper regulations. But GMOs, to me, unfairly suffer compared to every other technology. Nobody was calling for bans on cell phones in the early 2000s because they might cause brain cancer (and are an environmental disaster). Silicon valley type tech seems to get the benefit of the doubt, while agriculture innovation is still fighting perception with already accepted truths (GMOs are safe)
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      > Nobody was calling for bans on cell phones in the early 2000s because they might cause brain cancer Actually, plenty of people were and even now there are studies being done in order to 'prove the negative'.
antris 9y ago
>This is like saying “100 years of data confirms coal provides lots of power cheaply!” Yeah, we know. That was never the issue and it’s a red herring from the real issues Did you read the article? The yield of GMOs has been attacked by New York Times and organic food lobby. If that's a red herring, maybe you should be angry at the organic food advocates for this instead of research that proves this anti-GMO propaganda wrong. It's kind of like trying to prove evolution to evolution-deniers. If you don't respond to their red herring arguments, they will go "gotcha, you can't prove us wrong!" and when you do, they just move on to another subject because "that's not an important issue".
- yorwba 9y ago
  The "gotcha" people and the "not important, I already knew that" people are usually not the same. Thinking that there are only two sides to any issue is usually quite shortsighted. (Same for being angry at the NYT instead of TFA: you can be angry about both.)
  - antris 9y ago
    Of course, but we need all of these people to be educated about this. More scientific information is not bad, even if you think it's not important to you.
yahyaheee 9y ago
Yeah I think the point here is the reductionist mentality that we can just change one part of a system and everything else is uneffected. You see it in western medicine and GMO farming is just an extension. Our ecosystems are incredibly complex and we understand barely a fraction of how they work. When you mess with one part of the ecosystem it can have potentially catastrophic effects down line.

by ebbv 9y ago

kickout 9y ago

Although i disagree with your undertone (GMOs are unsafe), i think you bring up valid points--Wide range in what is being modified, and how, makes all the difference in the world

Klathmon 9y ago
See I didn't get that from their comment (that GMOs are unsafe), I understood it as the user is worried about unknown unknowns with it. Even the best things in life have downsides, and GMOs are no exception. I think there is a literal solution to world hunger here, but it needs to be done carefully and with a lot of oversight. The last thing I want is DRM in my potatoes...
- kickout 9y ago
  Correct. At the scale of the world and feeding it, there will be drawbacks to whatever solutions. I agree there needs to be oversight and proper regulations. But GMOs, to me, unfairly suffer compared to every other technology. Nobody was calling for bans on cell phones in the early 2000s because they might cause brain cancer (and are an environmental disaster). Silicon valley type tech seems to get the benefit of the doubt, while agriculture innovation is still fighting perception with already accepted truths (GMOs are safe)
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > Nobody was calling for bans on cell phones in the early 2000s because they might cause brain cancer Actually, plenty of people were and even now there are studies being done in order to 'prove the negative'.

antris 9y ago

>This is like saying “100 years of data confirms coal provides lots of power cheaply!” Yeah, we know. That was never the issue and it’s a red herring from the real issues Did you read the article? The yield of GMOs has been attacked by New York Times and organic food lobby. If that's a red herring, maybe you should be angry at the organic food advocates for this instead of research that proves this anti-GMO propaganda wrong. It's kind of like trying to prove evolution to evolution-deniers. If you don't respond to their red herring arguments, they will go "gotcha, you can't prove us wrong!" and when you do, they just move on to another subject because "that's not an important issue".

yorwba 9y ago
The "gotcha" people and the "not important, I already knew that" people are usually not the same. Thinking that there are only two sides to any issue is usually quite shortsighted. (Same for being angry at the NYT instead of TFA: you can be angry about both.)
- antris 9y ago
  Of course, but we need all of these people to be educated about this. More scientific information is not bad, even if you think it's not important to you.

yahyaheee 9y ago

Yeah I think the point here is the reductionist mentality that we can just change one part of a system and everything else is uneffected. You see it in western medicine and GMO farming is just an extension. Our ecosystems are incredibly complex and we understand barely a fraction of how they work. When you mess with one part of the ecosystem it can have potentially catastrophic effects down line.