3 ms·

One is using a self-safe system that has been tuned for balance for 1000000 of years and have a proven track record and no agenda. The second one is made by a f

One is using a self-safe system that has been tuned for balance for 1000000 of years and have a proven track record and no agenda. The second one is made by a few smart people for only 20 years for money. The second one has to prove to be safe. It's funny that all of HN hold boing so responsible for demonstrating things are safe when it affect only a few hundred people. But we have to be taking the word of people playing with new high tech toys for their own benefit that have the potential to affect the entire humanity because... ?

shawnz 7y ago
Why do those principles which make natural evolution safe not also apply to GMOs?
- sametmax 7y ago
  In the same way that a tiger killing a rabit is not the same thing than a human with a nuclear weapon. Power, scale, agenda and synergies matter.
daeken 7y ago
How do you figure it's self-safe? That implies that selectively bred crops can't be harmful, but that's nonsensical. Many selectively bred crops carry higher than natural carcinogen quantities, for instance (potatoes). And that's ignoring plants that are straight-up deadly. And which category does seed irradiation fall into? If exposing seeds to high radiation in order to randomly mutate them is an acceptable "non-GMO" mechanism, clearly something is wrong.
- sametmax 7y ago
  Because it worked for a lot longer than 20 years. In 100 years, without GMO problems, we can label them safe too. Plus evolution doesn't have an agenda that would make it creates things like the terminator gene. We are in a very peculiar situation. I'm open to see how it plays out, as long as we don't arrogantly pretend we know for sure everything will be ok. Because we heard this one before, and it was always stated by people that wanted to sound trustworthy or smart, never the ones that wanted to make sure we are all happy. Besides, how asking for severe and regular audits is even a bad thing ? If one is against that, I trust their judgment even less.
  - daeken 7y ago
    Seed irradiation hasn't yet been in use for 100 years -- the first commercial crop to use it was ~80 years ago -- but we consider it safe, despite that it consists of forcing completely random changes to occur. Why? Because we don't talk about the safety of the process; we talk about the safety of the result. There's no way we can ever say "GMOs are safe" because it's like saying "crops grown during the 14th week of the year are safe". It's a technique, not a product.
    - sametmax 7y ago
      Food irradiation in general is yet another issue, that deserves a different threat.
      - joshyeager 7y ago
        The parent isn’t talking about food irradiation, they’re talking about atomic gardening: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening
- YjSe2GMQ 7y ago
  Anthrax is "self-safe" too. It's an organism made by evolution.
  - sametmax 7y ago
    Anthrax is not cultivated by the most invasive specy of the planet, given artificial characteristics to be optimized only for economic incentive, and would have never be allowed by natural selection to have such things as the terminator gene. I'm not saying nature is good and benevolent, I'm saying there is a difference in having uranium in the ground or in a bomb. I don't think asking for serious, regular, transparent, independant audit for decades is a bad thing. Or would you let any company deal with uranium without serious follow up ?
    - daeken 7y ago
      > I don't think asking for serious, regular, transparent, independant audit for decades is a bad thing. You're right! It's a great thing, in fact. That's why there are over 3000 studies on GMO crops so far, with hundreds more happening each year. Also, I'm a touch baffled by the mention of Terminator genes. 1) They've never existed. There's a patent on it, owned by a company who has pledged to never use it or allow any other company to do so. 2) It solves all the issues regarding drift, which is often a thing anti-GMO folks are concerned about. Never quite understood that.
      - nprateem 7y ago
        > That's why there are over 3000 studies on GMO crops so far, with hundreds more happening each year. How many are funded by the GMO industry?
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        How many chemistry studies are funded by chemical companies? Studies are usually not answers to public concern questions, but a way people working in a domain figure things out about that domain.

shawnz 7y ago

Why do those principles which make natural evolution safe not also apply to GMOs?

sametmax 7y ago
In the same way that a tiger killing a rabit is not the same thing than a human with a nuclear weapon. Power, scale, agenda and synergies matter.

daeken 7y ago

How do you figure it's self-safe? That implies that selectively bred crops can't be harmful, but that's nonsensical. Many selectively bred crops carry higher than natural carcinogen quantities, for instance (potatoes). And that's ignoring plants that are straight-up deadly. And which category does seed irradiation fall into? If exposing seeds to high radiation in order to randomly mutate them is an acceptable "non-GMO" mechanism, clearly something is wrong.

sametmax 7y ago
Because it worked for a lot longer than 20 years. In 100 years, without GMO problems, we can label them safe too. Plus evolution doesn't have an agenda that would make it creates things like the terminator gene. We are in a very peculiar situation. I'm open to see how it plays out, as long as we don't arrogantly pretend we know for sure everything will be ok. Because we heard this one before, and it was always stated by people that wanted to sound trustworthy or smart, never the ones that wanted to make sure we are all happy. Besides, how asking for severe and regular audits is even a bad thing ? If one is against that, I trust their judgment even less.
- daeken 7y ago
  Seed irradiation hasn't yet been in use for 100 years -- the first commercial crop to use it was ~80 years ago -- but we consider it safe, despite that it consists of forcing completely random changes to occur. Why? Because we don't talk about the safety of the process; we talk about the safety of the result. There's no way we can ever say "GMOs are safe" because it's like saying "crops grown during the 14th week of the year are safe". It's a technique, not a product.
  - sametmax 7y ago
    Food irradiation in general is yet another issue, that deserves a different threat.
    - joshyeager 7y ago
      The parent isn’t talking about food irradiation, they’re talking about atomic gardening: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening
YjSe2GMQ 7y ago
Anthrax is "self-safe" too. It's an organism made by evolution.
- sametmax 7y ago
  Anthrax is not cultivated by the most invasive specy of the planet, given artificial characteristics to be optimized only for economic incentive, and would have never be allowed by natural selection to have such things as the terminator gene. I'm not saying nature is good and benevolent, I'm saying there is a difference in having uranium in the ground or in a bomb. I don't think asking for serious, regular, transparent, independant audit for decades is a bad thing. Or would you let any company deal with uranium without serious follow up ?
  - daeken 7y ago
    > I don't think asking for serious, regular, transparent, independant audit for decades is a bad thing. You're right! It's a great thing, in fact. That's why there are over 3000 studies on GMO crops so far, with hundreds more happening each year. Also, I'm a touch baffled by the mention of Terminator genes. 1) They've never existed. There's a patent on it, owned by a company who has pledged to never use it or allow any other company to do so. 2) It solves all the issues regarding drift, which is often a thing anti-GMO folks are concerned about. Never quite understood that.
    - nprateem 7y ago
      > That's why there are over 3000 studies on GMO crops so far, with hundreds more happening each year. How many are funded by the GMO industry?
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        How many chemistry studies are funded by chemical companies? Studies are usually not answers to public concern questions, but a way people working in a domain figure things out about that domain.