5 ms·

As always, the lede is buried near the end of the article: Before the seeds can be sold as food or feed, they'll need approval from the Food and Drug Administr

As always, the lede is buried near the end of the article: Before the seeds can be sold as food or feed, they'll need approval from the Food and Drug Administration I'm honestly tired of nonsense headlines like this -- officially the FDA has not approved Cottonseed for human consumption, the only thing that has happened is that the US Dept of Agriculture has deregulated the growing of it.[0] Now, aside from the fact that most people here on HN would be shouting about the nasty effects that deregulation can have, we have an irresponsible headline from NPR of all places about how it is "safe". This is patently false -- nobody has declared this safe except for the typist who wrote this article. [0]: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/brs-news-and-information/2018_brs_news/texas_am_low_gossypol_cotton https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/brs-...

marcoperaza 8y ago
I think you have the concepts upside down here. Safe food is safe even without FDA approval, it is even safe if the FDA explicitly rejects it (e.g. for political reasons or by mistake). Safety is not something granted by a bureaucracy but by the laws of nature. This article merely explains that a new strain of cotton has been developed that does not have the qualities that typically make cottonseed poisonous. FDA approval is still needed, but that doesn’t make the article a lie.
- bad_user 8y ago
  Unsafe is the default. Until a third party confirms its safety, then it’s not safe because safety needs evidence. If you like to think in probabilities, the likelihood that this is unsafe is far greater, if you judge based on other modern, engineered foods. Heck, judging by the damage of vegetable oils which are still considered to be “heart healthy”, I wouldn’t be surprised if this were approved only to discover it was a poison, a decade or two from now, which is about the time it takes to see the effects at large. Plus another two decades for health professionals to finally acknowledge it. The burden of proof is on the inventor, not on the FDA or other organizations. Given the complete clusterfuck that is nutrition, the though that this new cottonseed could be fed to the livestock we eat is terrifying.
  - your-nanny 8y ago
    could you discuss further why you believe vegetable oils to be ubhealthy? foods?
    - deialtrous 8y ago
      Because all available evidence shows that seed oils, which have only been consumed for 100 years and were previously used for paints, lubricants, water-proofing, etc., are highly correlated with a number of inflammatory disease processes, including type 2 diabetes. Which makes sense, as polyunsaturated fats undergo lipid peroxidation in our bodies, which releases free radicals.
      - your-nanny 8y ago
        how are these different than consuming seeds and nuts directly? eg walnuts, sunflower, peanuts etc
        deialtrous 8y ago
        Sorry, I didn't notice your reply before. It is different in that you're getting fewer of the antioxidants naturally found in nuts and seeds to slow down the rancidification process. You are also getting it in all kinds of things from bread to seasonings to supposed "dairy" products, so your exposure is much higher. And finally, nuts in shell are protected from oxidation by a skin and the shell, so they are less rancid when you eat them. Seed oils tend to be quite rancid already when you purchase them. I am not sure that eating nuts is a good idea in the first place though. Things that plants don't want to be eaten and put toxins in to prevent from being eaten aren't high on my list of "probably good eating".
    - calvano915 8y ago
      Humans require n-3 and n-6 fats in our diet. These tended to be consumed in equal ratios until the advent of vegetable oils which increased the n-6 intake dramatically. As the other post mentions, research has found that this intake pattern leads to high levels of inflammation, which contribute to cardiovascular disease and other ailments.
- justtopost 8y ago
  Perhaps legally, but as for actual effictive safety, the default is not to declare everything safe barring counterevidince without due dilligence. Known unknowns and all that.
- ddebernardy 8y ago
  You can't just assume some piece of food is safe. You need a credible and dependable 3rd party - be it a bureaucracy like the FDA or something else - to let you know if it is. And there's no shortage of food that was assumed to be safe to eat in the past but turned out to be toxic. Bidaou (aka Tricholoma auratum), for instance, grows in south-western France, and was rated as delicious in some mushroom books as recently as 20 years ago. Selling it has only been banned since 2005. The last recorded death it caused was in 2009. [1] [2] Fools webcap [3] and Deadly webcap [4] were likewise thought to be edible until last century. [1]: https://www.mycodb.fr/fiche.php?genre=Tricholoma&espece=auratum https://www.mycodb.fr/fiche.php?genre=Tricholoma&espece=aura... [French] [2]: https://www.mycofrance.fr/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Lettre-13-mars-2008.pdf https://www.mycofrance.fr/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Lettre-... [French] [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortinarius_orellanus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortinarius_orellanus [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortinarius_rubellus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortinarius_rubellus

marcoperaza 8y ago

I think you have the concepts upside down here. Safe food is safe even without FDA approval, it is even safe if the FDA explicitly rejects it (e.g. for political reasons or by mistake). Safety is not something granted by a bureaucracy but by the laws of nature. This article merely explains that a new strain of cotton has been developed that does not have the qualities that typically make cottonseed poisonous. FDA approval is still needed, but that doesn’t make the article a lie.

bad_user 8y ago
Unsafe is the default. Until a third party confirms its safety, then it’s not safe because safety needs evidence. If you like to think in probabilities, the likelihood that this is unsafe is far greater, if you judge based on other modern, engineered foods. Heck, judging by the damage of vegetable oils which are still considered to be “heart healthy”, I wouldn’t be surprised if this were approved only to discover it was a poison, a decade or two from now, which is about the time it takes to see the effects at large. Plus another two decades for health professionals to finally acknowledge it. The burden of proof is on the inventor, not on the FDA or other organizations. Given the complete clusterfuck that is nutrition, the though that this new cottonseed could be fed to the livestock we eat is terrifying.
- your-nanny 8y ago
  could you discuss further why you believe vegetable oils to be ubhealthy? foods?
  - deialtrous 8y ago
    Because all available evidence shows that seed oils, which have only been consumed for 100 years and were previously used for paints, lubricants, water-proofing, etc., are highly correlated with a number of inflammatory disease processes, including type 2 diabetes. Which makes sense, as polyunsaturated fats undergo lipid peroxidation in our bodies, which releases free radicals.
    - your-nanny 8y ago
      how are these different than consuming seeds and nuts directly? eg walnuts, sunflower, peanuts etc
      - deialtrous 8y ago
        Sorry, I didn't notice your reply before. It is different in that you're getting fewer of the antioxidants naturally found in nuts and seeds to slow down the rancidification process. You are also getting it in all kinds of things from bread to seasonings to supposed "dairy" products, so your exposure is much higher. And finally, nuts in shell are protected from oxidation by a skin and the shell, so they are less rancid when you eat them. Seed oils tend to be quite rancid already when you purchase them. I am not sure that eating nuts is a good idea in the first place though. Things that plants don't want to be eaten and put toxins in to prevent from being eaten aren't high on my list of "probably good eating".
  - calvano915 8y ago
    Humans require n-3 and n-6 fats in our diet. These tended to be consumed in equal ratios until the advent of vegetable oils which increased the n-6 intake dramatically. As the other post mentions, research has found that this intake pattern leads to high levels of inflammation, which contribute to cardiovascular disease and other ailments.
justtopost 8y ago
Perhaps legally, but as for actual effictive safety, the default is not to declare everything safe barring counterevidince without due dilligence. Known unknowns and all that.
ddebernardy 8y ago
You can't just assume some piece of food is safe. You need a credible and dependable 3rd party - be it a bureaucracy like the FDA or something else - to let you know if it is. And there's no shortage of food that was assumed to be safe to eat in the past but turned out to be toxic. Bidaou (aka Tricholoma auratum), for instance, grows in south-western France, and was rated as delicious in some mushroom books as recently as 20 years ago. Selling it has only been banned since 2005. The last recorded death it caused was in 2009. [1] [2] Fools webcap [3] and Deadly webcap [4] were likewise thought to be edible until last century. [1]: https://www.mycodb.fr/fiche.php?genre=Tricholoma&espece=auratum https://www.mycodb.fr/fiche.php?genre=Tricholoma&espece=aura... [French] [2]: https://www.mycofrance.fr/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Lettre-13-mars-2008.pdf https://www.mycofrance.fr/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Lettre-... [French] [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortinarius_orellanus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortinarius_orellanus [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortinarius_rubellus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortinarius_rubellus