4 ms·

How GMOs can save civilization (and probably already have)

9 points by okket 9y ago

_emacsomancer_ 9y ago
Sure. But the corporations behind some of them seem to do their damnedest to try to doom it. (We just need to make it illegal to patent plants.)
- mcv 9y ago
  Much of the resistance against GMOs is not so much against purely nutritional genetic modification (like golden rice - rice with added beta-carotene for vitamin A), but to genetic modification to prop up business models, like terminator genes, roundup-ready and Bt genes.
  - behindmyscreen 9y ago
    Terminator genes aren't used is any commercial crop. The last two make farming easier and more productive so they are very popular amoung the farmers (even the family farms)
- behindmyscreen 9y ago
  Patents exist outside GMOs. Honey crisp Apple's we're under patent for example. The patent claim against GMO is a canard.
  - _emacsomancer_ 9y ago
    Right, that's why I stated my parenthetical the way I did.
2a0c40 9y ago
Please also consider the risks: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/PrecautionaryPrinciple.html http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/PrecautionaryPrinciple.htm...
- dozzie 9y ago
  > By GMOs we mean transgenics, a gene transfer process that is markedly in a distinct risk class from conventional breeding and other "modifications". ...the "other modifications" including radiative genome modification, used to achieve the very same genome as developed for GMO, but since the former method is used for more than half a century (close to whole century, I think), it's much more difficult to suddenly make it scary than it was with genetic engineering. It's funny how the modified food we've been eating for decades suddenly got (vaguely) dangerous in the last twenty years, and only if the newer methods were used to modify it.
- behindmyscreen 9y ago
  Please, no. The Anti-GMO movement has no science behind it what so ever.
badrabbit 9y ago
The current global food supply from what I have heard is more than enough to support much more than the current population of the planet. The resistance to labeling gmo foods is essentially using the poor and working class as guinea pigs. GMO will be cheaper,this means they can overprice natural foods. Poor peoplle will consume GMO while the affluent consume natural and organic foods. A similar tend can be observed on how whole foods is mostly found in well-to-do neighborhoods and walmart is found in poor neighborhoods. Natural foods can be grown at a rate that sustains the planets population for a very long time to come. I firmly believe this is about profit margins. At leat let the people that will be affected by it the most have a say.
- mcv 9y ago
  Exactly. I find the article very misleading, and intentionally muddying the issue. A quote: > And livestock, a pillar of our food system for millenia, are major culprits in climate change, water shortages, biodiversity losses and massive degradation and destruction of forests and other ecosystems — compelling us to quickly move to a predominantly plant-based diet. > To meet these challenges, we must employ all of the technological tools at our disposal. Actually, if we were to move to a predominantly plant-based diet, that would solve a major part of our food problem. At the moment, we're choosing to feed cattle and even throw away food, rather than feed the hungry. World hunger is in a large part an economic choice stemming from economic inequality. But where the article really muddies the issue is here: > It is safe to say that, without systemic genetic modification of crops and livestock, civilization would not exist. and: > But the process of genetic modification, central to progress in agriculture throughout history, has become controversial. The article pretends that selective breeding and genetic engineering are the same thing, and claims that the thing that people have been doing for centuries is suddenly controversial. They are different things, and the one that's been going on for centuries and forms the basis for modern agriculture is not remotely controversial. But he wants his genetic engineering to piggy-back on the accomplishments of selective breeding. Whatever your opinion on the necessity or danger of genetic engineering is, the above is a dishonest argument that doesn't help the discussion at all.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  What are natural foods? There isn’t a single “natural” strain of wheat, rice, soy or maze on the planet in mass use today. Only a few decades ago we gave a geneticist, Normal Borlaug a noble peace prize for helping to reduce world hunger by creating semi-dwarf wheat which was resistant to disease and pesticide and it was the first mass application of genetic engineering driven cultivation in the world.
X6S1x6Okd1st 9y ago
It would be nice to outline more of the history that shows the gradient we have gone through from selective breeding, to scientific plant breeding[1] to even accelerating mutations through radiation[2], one of my favorite fruits (ruby red rio star grapefruit) came from this! It's not just a handful of examples that have gone beyond selective breeding and occasional crosses and the efforts have only been increasing! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_plant_breeding#Scientific_plant_breeding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_plant_breeding#Scie... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening#cite_note-:0-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening#cite_note-:0-...
X6S1x6Okd1st 9y ago
I've found the impossible burger to be the closest to animal free burger, although it's not perfect. Unfortunately at the moment it's still much more expensive, at one of the burger places I go to the cost to swap in impossible burger brings the total up by almost 50%. It'll be really interesting to see how adoption looks when it's cheaper.

9 points by okket 9y ago

Sure. But the corporations behind some of them seem to do their damnedest to try to doom it. (We just need to make it illegal to patent plants.)

mcv 9y ago
Much of the resistance against GMOs is not so much against purely nutritional genetic modification (like golden rice - rice with added beta-carotene for vitamin A), but to genetic modification to prop up business models, like terminator genes, roundup-ready and Bt genes.
- behindmyscreen 9y ago
  Terminator genes aren't used is any commercial crop. The last two make farming easier and more productive so they are very popular amoung the farmers (even the family farms)
behindmyscreen 9y ago
Patents exist outside GMOs. Honey crisp Apple's we're under patent for example. The patent claim against GMO is a canard.
- _emacsomancer_ 9y ago
  Right, that's why I stated my parenthetical the way I did.

2a0c40 9y ago

Please also consider the risks: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/PrecautionaryPrinciple.html http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/PrecautionaryPrinciple.htm...

dozzie 9y ago
> By GMOs we mean transgenics, a gene transfer process that is markedly in a distinct risk class from conventional breeding and other "modifications". ...the "other modifications" including radiative genome modification, used to achieve the very same genome as developed for GMO, but since the former method is used for more than half a century (close to whole century, I think), it's much more difficult to suddenly make it scary than it was with genetic engineering. It's funny how the modified food we've been eating for decades suddenly got (vaguely) dangerous in the last twenty years, and only if the newer methods were used to modify it.
behindmyscreen 9y ago
Please, no. The Anti-GMO movement has no science behind it what so ever.

badrabbit 9y ago

The current global food supply from what I have heard is more than enough to support much more than the current population of the planet. The resistance to labeling gmo foods is essentially using the poor and working class as guinea pigs. GMO will be cheaper,this means they can overprice natural foods. Poor peoplle will consume GMO while the affluent consume natural and organic foods. A similar tend can be observed on how whole foods is mostly found in well-to-do neighborhoods and walmart is found in poor neighborhoods. Natural foods can be grown at a rate that sustains the planets population for a very long time to come. I firmly believe this is about profit margins. At leat let the people that will be affected by it the most have a say.

mcv 9y ago
Exactly. I find the article very misleading, and intentionally muddying the issue. A quote: > And livestock, a pillar of our food system for millenia, are major culprits in climate change, water shortages, biodiversity losses and massive degradation and destruction of forests and other ecosystems — compelling us to quickly move to a predominantly plant-based diet. > To meet these challenges, we must employ all of the technological tools at our disposal. Actually, if we were to move to a predominantly plant-based diet, that would solve a major part of our food problem. At the moment, we're choosing to feed cattle and even throw away food, rather than feed the hungry. World hunger is in a large part an economic choice stemming from economic inequality. But where the article really muddies the issue is here: > It is safe to say that, without systemic genetic modification of crops and livestock, civilization would not exist. and: > But the process of genetic modification, central to progress in agriculture throughout history, has become controversial. The article pretends that selective breeding and genetic engineering are the same thing, and claims that the thing that people have been doing for centuries is suddenly controversial. They are different things, and the one that's been going on for centuries and forms the basis for modern agriculture is not remotely controversial. But he wants his genetic engineering to piggy-back on the accomplishments of selective breeding. Whatever your opinion on the necessity or danger of genetic engineering is, the above is a dishonest argument that doesn't help the discussion at all.
dogma1138 9y ago
What are natural foods? There isn’t a single “natural” strain of wheat, rice, soy or maze on the planet in mass use today. Only a few decades ago we gave a geneticist, Normal Borlaug a noble peace prize for helping to reduce world hunger by creating semi-dwarf wheat which was resistant to disease and pesticide and it was the first mass application of genetic engineering driven cultivation in the world.

X6S1x6Okd1st 9y ago

It would be nice to outline more of the history that shows the gradient we have gone through from selective breeding, to scientific plant breeding[1] to even accelerating mutations through radiation[2], one of my favorite fruits (ruby red rio star grapefruit) came from this! It's not just a handful of examples that have gone beyond selective breeding and occasional crosses and the efforts have only been increasing! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_plant_breeding#Scientific_plant_breeding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_plant_breeding#Scie... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening#cite_note-:0-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening#cite_note-:0-...

X6S1x6Okd1st 9y ago

I've found the impossible burger to be the closest to animal free burger, although it's not perfect. Unfortunately at the moment it's still much more expensive, at one of the burger places I go to the cost to swap in impossible burger brings the total up by almost 50%. It'll be really interesting to see how adoption looks when it's cheaper.