4 ms·

What is the claim here? That yields increase? Ok, sure. That it reduces specific contaminants? Maybe. That it provides health BENEFITS? Definitely not. That

What is the claim here? That yields increase? Ok, sure. That it reduces specific contaminants? Maybe. That it provides health BENEFITS? Definitely not. That it is SAFE in the long run? Definitely not.

oarfish 9y ago
Do you have sources for your final statement?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
kickout 9y ago
Uh, are we just making stuff up now? Most accepted scientific consensus is GMOs are safe...
- yorwba 9y ago
  It all comes down to your standard for safety. Potatoes that produce significantly more alkaloids would be more resistant to pests, but might become too poisonous for humans to eat. I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't call those GMOs safe. But of course that can also happen with classic selective breeding, so GMOs are not automatically less safe. See e.g. this story about the Lenape potato: https://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html https://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-pot...
dna_polymerase 9y ago
You don't have any source for your final claims. Here [0] is for you an open letter from 129 Nobel laureates in support of Precision Agriculture or how most people put it: GMOs. [0]: http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-le...
- sampo 9y ago
  Who would win the argument, 129 Nobel price scientist, or one anonymous Hacker News boi? According to most of the comments here, it's the Hacker News boi. :-(
forgingahead 9y ago
To all you chaps asking for "proof", just think about it from the precautionary principle perspective: it's incumbent on those introducing large change into a complex system to prove the lack of harm, instead of us proving that there definitely will be harm. A simple analogy: We don't know for a fact that climate change can result in catastrophic disaster for the earth. But from a precautionary perspective, we need to do what we can to minimize our impact on the environment. Similarly, the first few years of smoking a cigarette will show "no harm". However in the long run that is not the case. GMOs are frankly too new, and too risky a proposition to blindly accept, even given so-called "expert" opinions. I also don't buy the sensational title, that GMOs "provide health benefits". The article makes claim about reducing contaminants, but it's a bridge too far to go all the way into "health benefits" territory. I fully expect the down-voting from the Monsanto and GMO shills, but for the reasonable, independent readers, hopefully some of the above points make sense.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- slavik81 9y ago
  To be clear, you support GMOs that have only had small changes made to them, but are opposed to those with large changes? Or are you opposed to all GMOs regardless of how large the change is?
AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
> That it provides health BENEFITS? Definitely not. We can engineer genes for producing vitamins not found in the original strain of the crop, thus increasing their nutrition value. See Golden Rice[0]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice

oarfish 9y ago

Do you have sources for your final statement?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

kickout 9y ago

Uh, are we just making stuff up now? Most accepted scientific consensus is GMOs are safe...

yorwba 9y ago
It all comes down to your standard for safety. Potatoes that produce significantly more alkaloids would be more resistant to pests, but might become too poisonous for humans to eat. I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't call those GMOs safe. But of course that can also happen with classic selective breeding, so GMOs are not automatically less safe. See e.g. this story about the Lenape potato: https://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html https://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-pot...

dna_polymerase 9y ago

You don't have any source for your final claims. Here [0] is for you an open letter from 129 Nobel laureates in support of Precision Agriculture or how most people put it: GMOs. [0]: http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-le...

sampo 9y ago
Who would win the argument, 129 Nobel price scientist, or one anonymous Hacker News boi? According to most of the comments here, it's the Hacker News boi. :-(

forgingahead 9y ago

To all you chaps asking for "proof", just think about it from the precautionary principle perspective: it's incumbent on those introducing large change into a complex system to prove the lack of harm, instead of us proving that there definitely will be harm. A simple analogy: We don't know for a fact that climate change can result in catastrophic disaster for the earth. But from a precautionary perspective, we need to do what we can to minimize our impact on the environment. Similarly, the first few years of smoking a cigarette will show "no harm". However in the long run that is not the case. GMOs are frankly too new, and too risky a proposition to blindly accept, even given so-called "expert" opinions. I also don't buy the sensational title, that GMOs "provide health benefits". The article makes claim about reducing contaminants, but it's a bridge too far to go all the way into "health benefits" territory. I fully expect the down-voting from the Monsanto and GMO shills, but for the reasonable, independent readers, hopefully some of the above points make sense.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
slavik81 9y ago
To be clear, you support GMOs that have only had small changes made to them, but are opposed to those with large changes? Or are you opposed to all GMOs regardless of how large the change is?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago

> That it provides health BENEFITS? Definitely not. We can engineer genes for producing vitamins not found in the original strain of the crop, thus increasing their nutrition value. See Golden Rice[0]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice