5 ms·

I don’t understand the problem people have with GMO crops. All proteins are broken down to amino acids and so genetic changes in a plant cannot affect a person

I don’t understand the problem people have with GMO crops. All proteins are broken down to amino acids and so genetic changes in a plant cannot affect a person unless the genetic changes are literally creating poisonous substances. Am I missing something?

api 6y ago
If ingestion of proteins can’t have any effect on your health, I’d like to introduce you to some prions... I do agree that some GMO fearmongering is overblown. I’m just responding to the claim that ingested proteins can’t be absorbed or have any impact. The gut does break things down but not absolutely 100%. A little does make it into the bloodstream. Prions via GMO plants are unlikely but foreign or altered proteins causing mysterious and really hard to isolate food allergies in fractions of the population is plausible. These could go undiagnosed for a very long time since GMOs are not labeled or tracked the way drugs or food additives are. Most of the credible objections to GMOs revolve around their use in tandem with overuse of herbicides and pesticides (e.g. round up ready crops), the potential to impact pollinators, and gene patents and IP lock-in.
Technically 6y ago
A bunch of different parties have co-opted the term to mean "industrial crop farming".
coldtea 6y ago
Between unpredictable ("we've fucked the bees" or kudzu-style) changes to the ecosystem from "magician's apprentices" genetic engineers who understand 1/10000 of what they change, to "DRM" style control of GMO crops, a lot...
arcticbull 6y ago
The fear some folks have is that you’re introducing new DNA and therefore changing the fitness model for a crop. Crops aren’t grown in clean rooms and the crop getting out into the wild could cause untold harm to the environment. Either by the crop growing in the wild or cross-pollinating and eventually replacing wild types. The other issue people have with specific implementations is that big ag uses either sterility of the crop (eliminating #1) or the license agreements to prevent seed saving, effectively creating DRM for our food crops. This changes crop seeds from assets you buy once to a subscription model you’re forced to pay over and over for each season. Finally, the actual execution of many GM changes is simply to make the plants resistant to specific heribicides, fungicides and pesticides. This allows farmers to bathe their fields in these chemicals which of course go on and leach into the environment. Not to mention killing plants, animals and insects in greater and greater quantities, which of course may also harm the bees and other pollinators. I think #1 can be managed and avoided and in general (potentially through sterility) I’m ok with GM as a technology. However what I’m not ok with is the specific approaches big ag have been using.
- bigphishy 6y ago
  Thanks for bringing up the part about superfluous use of herbicides, it goes hand and hand with factory farming GMO's
cwp 6y ago
At some point environmentalism stopped being rational, and turned into nature-worship. Greens consider GMOs unclean in the same way that Jews and Muslims consider pigs unclean.
nn3 6y ago
1. The original motivation for opposition to GMO was mainly religious I believe ("Don't mess with the creation"), but somehow turned into "GMO is dangerous". 2. While GMO by itself is not dangerous a lot of the things that are done with it are. Roundup is very evil stuff, and GMO made it possible. 3. Another problem is also the business model behind a lot of commercial GMO crops, where the farmer essentially signs away all their rights. 2 and 3 are good reasons to be opposed to a lot of GMO.
- allears 6y ago
  Agreed. Genetic modification (outside the lab) has been a mainstay of plant breeding for millennia. And even in a lab environment, it can be a useful and beneficial tool. Unfortunately, greedy corporations have used this tool to increase profits at the expense of farmers and the general population. And the hippies have reacted to this chicanery with the idea that "all GMO is bad." But the idea that objecting to corporate misuse of GMO is somehow immoral -- well, you're a right-winger.
- gHosts 6y ago
  Actually, the main motivation I have seen over the decades has always been some variant of the Precautionary Principle. https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/PrecautionaryPrinciple.html https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/PrecautionaryPrinciple.ht...
8note 6y ago
The genetic changes are largely to breed a stronger resistance to roundup so that farmers can coat the plants in more plant poison. Some of that poison does stick around through food processing, though I don't know how it affects people When it's in the fields, it at least seems to be a carcinogen
- klyrs 6y ago
  Not just poisonous to us (who can arguably wash it off), but it's also poison to pollinators as well.
NathanKP 6y ago
It's part of a broader anti-science reaction that we need to keep a close eye on as a society. See also antivaxxers, antimaskers, etc. USA has a serious anti-intellectualism problem (and to be honest a religion problem as well) and this is manifesting as bizarre pushbacks against some of the least harmful of modern inventions. It's especially ironic because you don't often see these same folks pushing back against car ownership, or micro plastic accumulation from modern consumerism. Instead they advocate against GMO's, vaccines, and sometimes even birth control and abortion... all things that arguably have made the world a far better place. I hope at some point we can move our country beyond arguing over left vs right politics and start realizing that we have deep national problems stemming from religion and our for profit higher education system. The former for actively promoting ancient morals, ideas, and belief systems, and the latter for putting modern morals, ideas, and belief systems behind a paywall that is out of reach of many Americans.
- 1234fdsazxcv 6y ago
  I'm not sure why this is being down-voted. It's disturbing to see given the site we're on.
  - lllr_finger 6y ago
    I didn't downvote, but I'm assuming that suggesting an equivalence between concerns with GMO and being antimask/antivaxx comes off as hyperbolic. I sometimes have a difficult time separating legit benefits of GMO with shilling or astroturfing, which is unfortunate when trying to have a reasoned discussion.
  - acdha 6y ago
    It’s because they were trying to sound authoritative while presenting an evidence-free narrative which is by some strange coincidence the one favored by a well-funded corporate PR movement. Trying to paint it as anti-science ignores all of the scientists urging caution & regulation, not to mention the other arguments. The antivax and birth control complaints are similarly unfounded - you can find people with any combination of views but that one is not even remotely representative. As a simple example of an argument which the poster omitted, I know multiple scientists - people who use genetic modification techniques for their work – who are in favor of GMOs conceptually but opposed to Monsanto’s sweeping ownership views (hybridization of GMOs with other crops), broader ecological impacts from increased pesticide usage, or want stricter regulation before things are released into the wild. None of those positions are honestly characterized as anti-science.
klyrs 6y ago
I take issue with Monsanto and their variously harmful practices (specifically the use of roundup, and suing farmers whose crops got cross-pollinated with nearby patented crops), not with GMO itself. So depending on how you phrase a questionnaire, I might be counted as "anti-GMO" but I'm all about sensible applications of the technology. I think a lot of folks are in this camp, but we get tarred as anti-GMO which makes the conversation divisive and not productive.
heavyset_go 6y ago
I'm against gene patents and applying property rights to life, because it leads to things like this[1]: > Genetic use restriction technology (GURT), also known as terminator technology or suicide seeds, is the name given to proposed methods for restricting the use of genetically modified plants by activating (or deactivating) some genes only in response to certain stimuli, especially to cause second generation seeds to be infertile. The development and application of GURTs is primarily an attempt by private sector agricultural breeders to increase the extent of protection on their innovations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_techno...
- DanBC 6y ago
  If you're against GMO you should be in favour of terminator technology because that makes sure GMOs don't spread to non-GMO populations.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    I'm against applying property rights to genes and think terminator genes are a particularly perverse consequence of a regime that treats genetics as private property.
zahma 6y ago
Some other good comments already on changing and introducing new DNA to the world, trying to outsmart nature, and the agribusiness effort to lock farmers in to seeds. Two other things come to mind. First, biodiversity among crops is essential for food security and ecosystem protection. When you have hectares of crops with the same genetic makeup, not only does that make the system fragile (as another reply hinted at), but it also affects the other species that depend on that crop. Perhaps this is also a complaint against monocropping, which are generally GMO operations. But more genetic diversity strengthens resilience of the crop and the system that supports and coexists among it. Spontaneity in complex systems is good because it protects from colossal crop wipe-outs. It's also the fundamental difference between hybridization and GMO, so don't ever let some jackass from Monsanto say they are merely extending farming practices of genetic modification as old as farming itself. Second, GMOs are often created to work in tandem with pesticides. So while the genetically modified strawberry might not damage my body, that shit on it will, and that doesn't always come off with a quick rinse in the sink. Pesticide (and herbicide, fungicide, etc.) use also doesn't stop with the target species making a meal out of the crop. It kills anything like it. Case in point is the dramatic decline in pollinators and insects hence bird species[1]. Again, futzing with nature's mechanics is folly because ecosystems rely on vastly complex networks of biomes that are themselves built on complex biodiversities. The truth is that while scientists can analyze insect and bird populations, understanding the complex interplay between many species in biomes is nebulous at best and generally outright opaque. The time it takes for scientists to say "with confidence" that X-->Y-->Z takes years, and even then we're talking about 3 variables and ignoring knock-on effects. It is high time we learn our lessons and start trying to figure out how to work with nature rather than beat it back. I am always fascinated that HN draws such a brilliant crowd yet many people around here seem convinced that technology's inexorable advances are all we need to solve our problems. [1]https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/pesticides-have-led-catastrophic-decline-frances-bird-populations-180968562/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/pesticides-have-le...

api 6y ago

If ingestion of proteins can’t have any effect on your health, I’d like to introduce you to some prions... I do agree that some GMO fearmongering is overblown. I’m just responding to the claim that ingested proteins can’t be absorbed or have any impact. The gut does break things down but not absolutely 100%. A little does make it into the bloodstream. Prions via GMO plants are unlikely but foreign or altered proteins causing mysterious and really hard to isolate food allergies in fractions of the population is plausible. These could go undiagnosed for a very long time since GMOs are not labeled or tracked the way drugs or food additives are. Most of the credible objections to GMOs revolve around their use in tandem with overuse of herbicides and pesticides (e.g. round up ready crops), the potential to impact pollinators, and gene patents and IP lock-in.

Technically 6y ago

A bunch of different parties have co-opted the term to mean "industrial crop farming".

coldtea 6y ago

Between unpredictable ("we've fucked the bees" or kudzu-style) changes to the ecosystem from "magician's apprentices" genetic engineers who understand 1/10000 of what they change, to "DRM" style control of GMO crops, a lot...

arcticbull 6y ago

The fear some folks have is that you’re introducing new DNA and therefore changing the fitness model for a crop. Crops aren’t grown in clean rooms and the crop getting out into the wild could cause untold harm to the environment. Either by the crop growing in the wild or cross-pollinating and eventually replacing wild types. The other issue people have with specific implementations is that big ag uses either sterility of the crop (eliminating #1) or the license agreements to prevent seed saving, effectively creating DRM for our food crops. This changes crop seeds from assets you buy once to a subscription model you’re forced to pay over and over for each season. Finally, the actual execution of many GM changes is simply to make the plants resistant to specific heribicides, fungicides and pesticides. This allows farmers to bathe their fields in these chemicals which of course go on and leach into the environment. Not to mention killing plants, animals and insects in greater and greater quantities, which of course may also harm the bees and other pollinators. I think #1 can be managed and avoided and in general (potentially through sterility) I’m ok with GM as a technology. However what I’m not ok with is the specific approaches big ag have been using.

bigphishy 6y ago
Thanks for bringing up the part about superfluous use of herbicides, it goes hand and hand with factory farming GMO's

cwp 6y ago

At some point environmentalism stopped being rational, and turned into nature-worship. Greens consider GMOs unclean in the same way that Jews and Muslims consider pigs unclean.

nn3 6y ago

1. The original motivation for opposition to GMO was mainly religious I believe ("Don't mess with the creation"), but somehow turned into "GMO is dangerous". 2. While GMO by itself is not dangerous a lot of the things that are done with it are. Roundup is very evil stuff, and GMO made it possible. 3. Another problem is also the business model behind a lot of commercial GMO crops, where the farmer essentially signs away all their rights. 2 and 3 are good reasons to be opposed to a lot of GMO.

allears 6y ago
Agreed. Genetic modification (outside the lab) has been a mainstay of plant breeding for millennia. And even in a lab environment, it can be a useful and beneficial tool. Unfortunately, greedy corporations have used this tool to increase profits at the expense of farmers and the general population. And the hippies have reacted to this chicanery with the idea that "all GMO is bad." But the idea that objecting to corporate misuse of GMO is somehow immoral -- well, you're a right-winger.
gHosts 6y ago
Actually, the main motivation I have seen over the decades has always been some variant of the Precautionary Principle. https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/PrecautionaryPrinciple.html https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/PrecautionaryPrinciple.ht...

8note 6y ago

The genetic changes are largely to breed a stronger resistance to roundup so that farmers can coat the plants in more plant poison. Some of that poison does stick around through food processing, though I don't know how it affects people When it's in the fields, it at least seems to be a carcinogen

klyrs 6y ago
Not just poisonous to us (who can arguably wash it off), but it's also poison to pollinators as well.

NathanKP 6y ago

It's part of a broader anti-science reaction that we need to keep a close eye on as a society. See also antivaxxers, antimaskers, etc. USA has a serious anti-intellectualism problem (and to be honest a religion problem as well) and this is manifesting as bizarre pushbacks against some of the least harmful of modern inventions. It's especially ironic because you don't often see these same folks pushing back against car ownership, or micro plastic accumulation from modern consumerism. Instead they advocate against GMO's, vaccines, and sometimes even birth control and abortion... all things that arguably have made the world a far better place. I hope at some point we can move our country beyond arguing over left vs right politics and start realizing that we have deep national problems stemming from religion and our for profit higher education system. The former for actively promoting ancient morals, ideas, and belief systems, and the latter for putting modern morals, ideas, and belief systems behind a paywall that is out of reach of many Americans.

1234fdsazxcv 6y ago
I'm not sure why this is being down-voted. It's disturbing to see given the site we're on.
- lllr_finger 6y ago
  I didn't downvote, but I'm assuming that suggesting an equivalence between concerns with GMO and being antimask/antivaxx comes off as hyperbolic. I sometimes have a difficult time separating legit benefits of GMO with shilling or astroturfing, which is unfortunate when trying to have a reasoned discussion.
- acdha 6y ago
  It’s because they were trying to sound authoritative while presenting an evidence-free narrative which is by some strange coincidence the one favored by a well-funded corporate PR movement. Trying to paint it as anti-science ignores all of the scientists urging caution & regulation, not to mention the other arguments. The antivax and birth control complaints are similarly unfounded - you can find people with any combination of views but that one is not even remotely representative. As a simple example of an argument which the poster omitted, I know multiple scientists - people who use genetic modification techniques for their work – who are in favor of GMOs conceptually but opposed to Monsanto’s sweeping ownership views (hybridization of GMOs with other crops), broader ecological impacts from increased pesticide usage, or want stricter regulation before things are released into the wild. None of those positions are honestly characterized as anti-science.

klyrs 6y ago

I take issue with Monsanto and their variously harmful practices (specifically the use of roundup, and suing farmers whose crops got cross-pollinated with nearby patented crops), not with GMO itself. So depending on how you phrase a questionnaire, I might be counted as "anti-GMO" but I'm all about sensible applications of the technology. I think a lot of folks are in this camp, but we get tarred as anti-GMO which makes the conversation divisive and not productive.

heavyset_go 6y ago

I'm against gene patents and applying property rights to life, because it leads to things like this[1]: > Genetic use restriction technology (GURT), also known as terminator technology or suicide seeds, is the name given to proposed methods for restricting the use of genetically modified plants by activating (or deactivating) some genes only in response to certain stimuli, especially to cause second generation seeds to be infertile. The development and application of GURTs is primarily an attempt by private sector agricultural breeders to increase the extent of protection on their innovations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_techno...

DanBC 6y ago
If you're against GMO you should be in favour of terminator technology because that makes sure GMOs don't spread to non-GMO populations.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  I'm against applying property rights to genes and think terminator genes are a particularly perverse consequence of a regime that treats genetics as private property.

zahma 6y ago

Some other good comments already on changing and introducing new DNA to the world, trying to outsmart nature, and the agribusiness effort to lock farmers in to seeds. Two other things come to mind. First, biodiversity among crops is essential for food security and ecosystem protection. When you have hectares of crops with the same genetic makeup, not only does that make the system fragile (as another reply hinted at), but it also affects the other species that depend on that crop. Perhaps this is also a complaint against monocropping, which are generally GMO operations. But more genetic diversity strengthens resilience of the crop and the system that supports and coexists among it. Spontaneity in complex systems is good because it protects from colossal crop wipe-outs. It's also the fundamental difference between hybridization and GMO, so don't ever let some jackass from Monsanto say they are merely extending farming practices of genetic modification as old as farming itself. Second, GMOs are often created to work in tandem with pesticides. So while the genetically modified strawberry might not damage my body, that shit on it will, and that doesn't always come off with a quick rinse in the sink. Pesticide (and herbicide, fungicide, etc.) use also doesn't stop with the target species making a meal out of the crop. It kills anything like it. Case in point is the dramatic decline in pollinators and insects hence bird species[1]. Again, futzing with nature's mechanics is folly because ecosystems rely on vastly complex networks of biomes that are themselves built on complex biodiversities. The truth is that while scientists can analyze insect and bird populations, understanding the complex interplay between many species in biomes is nebulous at best and generally outright opaque. The time it takes for scientists to say "with confidence" that X-->Y-->Z takes years, and even then we're talking about 3 variables and ignoring knock-on effects. It is high time we learn our lessons and start trying to figure out how to work with nature rather than beat it back. I am always fascinated that HN draws such a brilliant crowd yet many people around here seem convinced that technology's inexorable advances are all we need to solve our problems. [1]https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/pesticides-have-led-catastrophic-decline-frances-bird-populations-180968562/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/pesticides-have-le...