14 ms·

Earth's population has more than quadrupled in the past century, and yet food scarcity is farther away than ever, and food prices are cheaper than ever. And som

by beat 7y ago

Earth's population has more than quadrupled in the past century, and yet food scarcity is farther away than ever, and food prices are cheaper than ever. And somehow, we did that without GMO. So I'm not convinced that GMO is the only way to solve the modest 25-30% population bump we'll get over the next century. (Before you flip out, I'm not saying GMO is a bad thing. I'm saying this is bad logic.) edit: Selective breeding is not GMO. If your argument is "We've always done GMO", you're wrong. Would you be willing to ban CRISPR and similar tech and do it all the old-fashioned way? No? Then GMO is not selective breeding.

rhacker 7y ago
Well it IS a bad thing if it isn't needed. You're basically saying we created frankenfood, but we didn't need to. but hey. EAT
gruez 7y ago
I'm sure that if you pour enough money into something, you'll always get what you want, especially for something like agriculture that's largely a solved problem (and just needs to scale). GMO might not be the only way, but it's probably the only economically viable way.
mogadsheu 7y ago
I agree and believe we’re seeing it now, and have been seeing it. Here are the other changes I can think of: -Greater prevalence of plant-based diets -Steroids and hormones in farmed animals -Pesticide development and usage -Vitamin/nutrient supplementation -Less whaling :)
izzydata 7y ago
Did we do it without GMO food? Isn't a lot of today's food the result of GMO? What exactly is the definition of GMO?
- sdfAcasf 7y ago
  "What exactly is the definition of GMO? " Good question. I won't answer that. "Did we do it without GMO food? " If we only consider GMO as targeted modification of a DNA sequence using methods other than selective breeding, no we didn't. That technology has been around for maybe 30 years. The world's pop hasn't gone up 30% since. "Isn't a lot of today's food the result of GMO?" In the West, yes. But despite the promises of lower water usage, more nutritious crops, GMO foods seems to be mostly adding Round Up resistance to crops to enable more mechanized agricultural practices (not necessarily cheaper for the end user). This is not necessarily robust and it promotes monoculture. Furthermore, financial considerations might make it more economical to farm something non-edible, or not farm at all [0]. [0] Yes, theoretically the price of food would increase to make it profitable again. However, the equilibrium would be at higher prices (pricing out the poorest) and lower Q.S. (i.e. it's good that the poor aren't eating, cause there ain't enough to go around). Besides, it takes time for the system to reach equilibrium, at which point there's a nice famine.
  - beat 7y ago
    Yeah, there's the rub I didn't want to get into in my original post. The problems with the food chain are more about sustainability than producing enough food, and GMO crops that we've seen so far tend to aggravate rather than solve the problems of monocropping, excessive tillage, etc. That's because the goal of GMO so far hasn't been to improve the food supply, but rather to improve vendor lock-in for megacorporation agribusiness and the associated financial interests. It isn't to solve the needs of either farmers or citizens.
- beat 7y ago
  The definition of GMO, for me at least, is laboratory manipulation of genes using tools like CRISPR. This allows cross-species genetic insertion. Selective breeding is not GMO, because it's not cross-species and happens through natural breeding, not laboratory genetic manipulation.
- ksec 7y ago
  GMO is defined per EU : “an organism, with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.” Which is sane definition in my view and accepted in most part of the world. Somehow only in some places (cough) is the definition arguable.
ShorsHammer 7y ago
Are you saying that humanity is living within it's means? It's like a 20yo with $500K in the bank simply giving up on everything and not working anymore thinking they'll be fine. As far as they are concerned "life is better than ever" at age 25. Just because you can't measure a debt certainly doesn't mean it's non-existent.
- beat 7y ago
  We aren't living within our means in energy terms - dependence on fossil fuel is a major problem. But as the economy converts to a renewable energy basis (and it inevitably will - it's already started and is accelerating), "living within our means" will become much less of a problem.
MichaelApproved 7y ago
> And somehow, we did that without GMO. I think you're confused. You probably eat genetically modified food on a daily basis. It's everywhere. The question isn't "should we genetically modified food?" because we already are and have been doing it for centuries. The question is "which GMO techniques should we use?"
- hycaria 7y ago
  And even if you are not, the animals you eat most probably do. But yeah parent comment underlines all the pathetically common misconceptions and broad ignorance about GMOs.
  - beat 7y ago
    In what way is what I posted "pathetically common misconceptions and broad ignorance"? I'm curious.
    - hycaria 7y ago
      Firmly believing that we got there without the use of GMOs when it's not the case at all. And this thought is sadly very common. Maybe anti-GMOs movements that might lead to believe that they are not used yet and that it's still completely up to debate ? I don't really know.
      - beat 7y ago
        I assume you're arguing that selective breeding is the same thing as GMO. It is not, and the article was not talking about selective breeding. If that's your argument, it's very common, as seen in this thread. It's still wrong. GMO is specifically about laboratory manipulation of genes, including cross-species gene insertion, which is not possible via selective breeding.
        rayiner 7y ago
        Selective breeding is just one way to enhance expression of particular genes.
gingabriska 7y ago
Don't we've climate change breathing down our neck which can potentially evade our agricultural output over night?
dragonwriter 7y ago
> And somehow, we did that without GMO. No, we didn't. We did it with GMOs. You might argue we could have done it without GMOs, but that's a hypothetical not what actually happened. Also, even with GMOs, we haven't done it sustainably—one thing new GMOs are looked to as a solution for is maintaining output with the worse conditions resulting from existing large-scale agricultural practiced without further worsening them as current practices would.
safgasCVS 7y ago
And the USA already wastes 40% of the food it produces [ref: http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/14.FOODWASTE.pdf http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/14.FOODWASTE.pdf]. Even ignoring the systemic risks monocropping of GMOs already pose the sheer amount of waste shows theres already more than enough to go around
ksec 7y ago
Exactly. Simplot's potatos are GMO and they used to be an advantage in yield and hence lower price, that is until Climate Changes and your breed and farm land couldn't adapt to the changes as quickly. And yield were no were as good as it used to be. Netherland spend large part of the past 10+ years perfecting their agricultural output without resorting to GMO. Using good old fashion technology ( old Fashion in the case of HN ), Greenhouse, Temperature Control, lots of sensors, Big Data. Basically farming in modern industry scale. McCain, and Lamb Weston has since been following the same foot steps and getting great results. Most of the Food Production in China, India, and many parts of the world still has a long way to go in terms of efficiency and capacity. There is still a lot could be done in Food Industry with Technology without resorting to GMO.
- lucb1e 7y ago
  As a Dutchman, I was actually under the impression that we used genetic modifications. Think I heard something about that in high school. Only later did I start to hear of "gmo free" food from the USA and assumed it was the same group as those who deny the moon landing. You're telling me we do zero GMO? I don't remember any sources of course (this is decade old information, perhaps even from a physical book), but it seems like you know better than me so I figured I'd ask instead of trying to prove that negative to myself.
  - ksec 7y ago
    Generally speaking EU and European are extremely cautious of GMO. And by GMO, it is defined as per EU, “an organism, with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.” i.e Cross Bleeding is not GMO, which it seems to be the case in some part of the world / some HNers / somewhere in Silicon Valley circle. I am not sure if it is actually ZERO, since I remembered even in the very few approved GMO products in EU, each member state can grant and deny them on their own. And from a high level overview I doubt there is even 1% of GMO food. So as someone who doesn't really like GMO Food, you should be proud of yourself. And it is one reason why European products tends to be more expensive before from a World wide perspective, and doesn't do well in export. But ever since these GMO Free and Organic Food popping up in US, EU products were able to ride along with the tide.
ender89 7y ago
Genetically modified foods are already in the food supply, thats why you see that "GMO free" logo on things. Its also why some company can sue a farmer for patent infringement by growing crops from last years seeds/harvest.

by beat 7y ago

rhacker 7y ago

Well it IS a bad thing if it isn't needed. You're basically saying we created frankenfood, but we didn't need to. but hey. EAT

gruez 7y ago

I'm sure that if you pour enough money into something, you'll always get what you want, especially for something like agriculture that's largely a solved problem (and just needs to scale). GMO might not be the only way, but it's probably the only economically viable way.

mogadsheu 7y ago

I agree and believe we’re seeing it now, and have been seeing it. Here are the other changes I can think of: -Greater prevalence of plant-based diets -Steroids and hormones in farmed animals -Pesticide development and usage -Vitamin/nutrient supplementation -Less whaling :)

izzydata 7y ago

Did we do it without GMO food? Isn't a lot of today's food the result of GMO? What exactly is the definition of GMO?

sdfAcasf 7y ago
"What exactly is the definition of GMO? " Good question. I won't answer that. "Did we do it without GMO food? " If we only consider GMO as targeted modification of a DNA sequence using methods other than selective breeding, no we didn't. That technology has been around for maybe 30 years. The world's pop hasn't gone up 30% since. "Isn't a lot of today's food the result of GMO?" In the West, yes. But despite the promises of lower water usage, more nutritious crops, GMO foods seems to be mostly adding Round Up resistance to crops to enable more mechanized agricultural practices (not necessarily cheaper for the end user). This is not necessarily robust and it promotes monoculture. Furthermore, financial considerations might make it more economical to farm something non-edible, or not farm at all [0]. [0] Yes, theoretically the price of food would increase to make it profitable again. However, the equilibrium would be at higher prices (pricing out the poorest) and lower Q.S. (i.e. it's good that the poor aren't eating, cause there ain't enough to go around). Besides, it takes time for the system to reach equilibrium, at which point there's a nice famine.
- beat 7y ago
  Yeah, there's the rub I didn't want to get into in my original post. The problems with the food chain are more about sustainability than producing enough food, and GMO crops that we've seen so far tend to aggravate rather than solve the problems of monocropping, excessive tillage, etc. That's because the goal of GMO so far hasn't been to improve the food supply, but rather to improve vendor lock-in for megacorporation agribusiness and the associated financial interests. It isn't to solve the needs of either farmers or citizens.
beat 7y ago
The definition of GMO, for me at least, is laboratory manipulation of genes using tools like CRISPR. This allows cross-species genetic insertion. Selective breeding is not GMO, because it's not cross-species and happens through natural breeding, not laboratory genetic manipulation.
ksec 7y ago
GMO is defined per EU : “an organism, with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.” Which is sane definition in my view and accepted in most part of the world. Somehow only in some places (cough) is the definition arguable.

ShorsHammer 7y ago

Are you saying that humanity is living within it's means? It's like a 20yo with $500K in the bank simply giving up on everything and not working anymore thinking they'll be fine. As far as they are concerned "life is better than ever" at age 25. Just because you can't measure a debt certainly doesn't mean it's non-existent.

beat 7y ago
We aren't living within our means in energy terms - dependence on fossil fuel is a major problem. But as the economy converts to a renewable energy basis (and it inevitably will - it's already started and is accelerating), "living within our means" will become much less of a problem.

MichaelApproved 7y ago

> And somehow, we did that without GMO. I think you're confused. You probably eat genetically modified food on a daily basis. It's everywhere. The question isn't "should we genetically modified food?" because we already are and have been doing it for centuries. The question is "which GMO techniques should we use?"

hycaria 7y ago
And even if you are not, the animals you eat most probably do. But yeah parent comment underlines all the pathetically common misconceptions and broad ignorance about GMOs.
- beat 7y ago
  In what way is what I posted "pathetically common misconceptions and broad ignorance"? I'm curious.
  - hycaria 7y ago
    Firmly believing that we got there without the use of GMOs when it's not the case at all. And this thought is sadly very common. Maybe anti-GMOs movements that might lead to believe that they are not used yet and that it's still completely up to debate ? I don't really know.
    - beat 7y ago
      I assume you're arguing that selective breeding is the same thing as GMO. It is not, and the article was not talking about selective breeding. If that's your argument, it's very common, as seen in this thread. It's still wrong. GMO is specifically about laboratory manipulation of genes, including cross-species gene insertion, which is not possible via selective breeding.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        Selective breeding is just one way to enhance expression of particular genes.

gingabriska 7y ago

Don't we've climate change breathing down our neck which can potentially evade our agricultural output over night?

dragonwriter 7y ago

> And somehow, we did that without GMO. No, we didn't. We did it with GMOs. You might argue we could have done it without GMOs, but that's a hypothetical not what actually happened. Also, even with GMOs, we haven't done it sustainably—one thing new GMOs are looked to as a solution for is maintaining output with the worse conditions resulting from existing large-scale agricultural practiced without further worsening them as current practices would.

safgasCVS 7y ago

And the USA already wastes 40% of the food it produces [ref: http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/14.FOODWASTE.pdf http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/14.FOODWASTE.pdf]. Even ignoring the systemic risks monocropping of GMOs already pose the sheer amount of waste shows theres already more than enough to go around

ksec 7y ago

Exactly. Simplot's potatos are GMO and they used to be an advantage in yield and hence lower price, that is until Climate Changes and your breed and farm land couldn't adapt to the changes as quickly. And yield were no were as good as it used to be. Netherland spend large part of the past 10+ years perfecting their agricultural output without resorting to GMO. Using good old fashion technology ( old Fashion in the case of HN ), Greenhouse, Temperature Control, lots of sensors, Big Data. Basically farming in modern industry scale. McCain, and Lamb Weston has since been following the same foot steps and getting great results. Most of the Food Production in China, India, and many parts of the world still has a long way to go in terms of efficiency and capacity. There is still a lot could be done in Food Industry with Technology without resorting to GMO.

lucb1e 7y ago
As a Dutchman, I was actually under the impression that we used genetic modifications. Think I heard something about that in high school. Only later did I start to hear of "gmo free" food from the USA and assumed it was the same group as those who deny the moon landing. You're telling me we do zero GMO? I don't remember any sources of course (this is decade old information, perhaps even from a physical book), but it seems like you know better than me so I figured I'd ask instead of trying to prove that negative to myself.
- ksec 7y ago
  Generally speaking EU and European are extremely cautious of GMO. And by GMO, it is defined as per EU, “an organism, with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.” i.e Cross Bleeding is not GMO, which it seems to be the case in some part of the world / some HNers / somewhere in Silicon Valley circle. I am not sure if it is actually ZERO, since I remembered even in the very few approved GMO products in EU, each member state can grant and deny them on their own. And from a high level overview I doubt there is even 1% of GMO food. So as someone who doesn't really like GMO Food, you should be proud of yourself. And it is one reason why European products tends to be more expensive before from a World wide perspective, and doesn't do well in export. But ever since these GMO Free and Organic Food popping up in US, EU products were able to ride along with the tide.

ender89 7y ago

Genetically modified foods are already in the food supply, thats why you see that "GMO free" logo on things. Its also why some company can sue a farmer for patent infringement by growing crops from last years seeds/harvest.