4 ms·

> GMO food saves millions of people from malnutrition in the 3rd world. Kindly provide evidence for such assertions.

asdsa5325 9y ago
https://share.america.gov/scientists-genetically-modified-foods-save-lives/ https://share.america.gov/scientists-genetically-modified-fo...
- mPeriodFRESH 9y ago
  you honestly believe the BS on that site counts as scientific evidence?
  - SlowBro 9y ago
    Well it is a USA government website so it holds some credence. Let's not commit a genetic fallacy. (Hah, pun totally not intended.) The article points to an open letter signed by a number of scientists (are they all food/agricultural/health-related scientists?) who evidence Golden Rice, which in my opinion is thin evidence. But I am definitely not a food/agricultural/health-related scientist, so my opinion counts for a hill of non-GMO beans.
  - asdsa5325 9y ago
    A US government run website is not credible? But the article isn't the thing, anyway. The letter that the article refers to, if you bothered to read the article, is why I posted it.
    - SlowBro 9y ago
      More importantly, it is not actual evidence that "GMO food saves millions of people from malnutrition in the 3rd world" as you asserted. So as to avoid repeating myself, please look here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16703874 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16703874
- SlowBro 9y ago
  So I read the open letter linked to in the article.[1] The only evidence given there that GMOs could (potentially) save millions of lives is centered around 'Golden Rice', a crop whose beta carotene has not yet been proven to be usable by the human body[2], and which is not even available for sale yet because an effective crop has not yet been produced.[2] Also it is believed (if gut absorption could ever be evidenced) that a child would need to eat 27 bowls of the stuff per day to satisfy his minimum requirement for vitamin A.[3] Also, a lot of the signatories are those who received the Chemistry, Physics, Medicine, Economics, and Peace awards.[4] I'm not sure which Nobel award would be given for agricultural scientists, so many of those receiving the award could indeed be specialists in that field. But I could only find one agricultural scientist who received an award for anything, and he is dead now, so he couldn't have signed this, and indeed he did not.[5] Best I can tell, this open letter was signed by people who aren't specialists in this field, who gave as their evidence for support a crop whose value (or even safety?) has not yet been proven. A lot of smart people to be sure, but not experts on this topic. I welcome evidence to the contrary. [1] http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-le... [2] https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden-rice-falls-short-lifesaving-promises/ https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden... [3] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/gmo-food_b_914968.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/gmo-food_b_91496... [4] http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/view-signatures_rjr.html http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/view-signatures_rjr.h... [5] https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-bio.html https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970...
  - sampo 9y ago
    You are correct that there is no Nobel prize in agriculture, and the Nobel prize winners are not subject specialists in crop science, plant breeding, nutrition and plant biotechnology. But if you ask from the scientists from those fields, you are going to get the same answer. "the study committee found no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between currently commercialized genetically engineered (GE) crops and conventionally bred crops, nor did it ﬁnd conclusive cause-and-effect evidence of environmental problems from the GE crops." http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/2016/05/16/report-in-brief/ http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/2016/05/16/report-in-brief/ http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/category/committee/ http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/category/committee/

https://share.america.gov/scientists-genetically-modified-foods-save-lives/ https://share.america.gov/scientists-genetically-modified-fo...

mPeriodFRESH 9y ago
you honestly believe the BS on that site counts as scientific evidence?
- SlowBro 9y ago
  Well it is a USA government website so it holds some credence. Let's not commit a genetic fallacy. (Hah, pun totally not intended.) The article points to an open letter signed by a number of scientists (are they all food/agricultural/health-related scientists?) who evidence Golden Rice, which in my opinion is thin evidence. But I am definitely not a food/agricultural/health-related scientist, so my opinion counts for a hill of non-GMO beans.
- asdsa5325 9y ago
  A US government run website is not credible? But the article isn't the thing, anyway. The letter that the article refers to, if you bothered to read the article, is why I posted it.
  - SlowBro 9y ago
    More importantly, it is not actual evidence that "GMO food saves millions of people from malnutrition in the 3rd world" as you asserted. So as to avoid repeating myself, please look here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16703874 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16703874
SlowBro 9y ago
So I read the open letter linked to in the article.[1] The only evidence given there that GMOs could (potentially) save millions of lives is centered around 'Golden Rice', a crop whose beta carotene has not yet been proven to be usable by the human body[2], and which is not even available for sale yet because an effective crop has not yet been produced.[2] Also it is believed (if gut absorption could ever be evidenced) that a child would need to eat 27 bowls of the stuff per day to satisfy his minimum requirement for vitamin A.[3] Also, a lot of the signatories are those who received the Chemistry, Physics, Medicine, Economics, and Peace awards.[4] I'm not sure which Nobel award would be given for agricultural scientists, so many of those receiving the award could indeed be specialists in that field. But I could only find one agricultural scientist who received an award for anything, and he is dead now, so he couldn't have signed this, and indeed he did not.[5] Best I can tell, this open letter was signed by people who aren't specialists in this field, who gave as their evidence for support a crop whose value (or even safety?) has not yet been proven. A lot of smart people to be sure, but not experts on this topic. I welcome evidence to the contrary. [1] http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-le... [2] https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden-rice-falls-short-lifesaving-promises/ https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden... [3] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/gmo-food_b_914968.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/gmo-food_b_91496... [4] http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/view-signatures_rjr.html http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/view-signatures_rjr.h... [5] https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-bio.html https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970...
- sampo 9y ago
  You are correct that there is no Nobel prize in agriculture, and the Nobel prize winners are not subject specialists in crop science, plant breeding, nutrition and plant biotechnology. But if you ask from the scientists from those fields, you are going to get the same answer. "the study committee found no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between currently commercialized genetically engineered (GE) crops and conventionally bred crops, nor did it ﬁnd conclusive cause-and-effect evidence of environmental problems from the GE crops." http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/2016/05/16/report-in-brief/ http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/2016/05/16/report-in-brief/ http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/category/committee/ http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/category/committee/