5 ms·

I’m a biochemist, and I’d feed GMOs to my kids all day if I had any. Or to my mom. They’re totally fine.

by epgui 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
karmakurtisaani 5y ago
For me the idea that a company can claim intellectual property rights to a genome sounds pretty awful. To be fair, I don't know if that's a real threat or not, but I could totally see it happening.
- epgui 5y ago
  Yeah I agree, but I also feel the same way about software patents. I think it’s important to distinguish that objection from health scares, technophobia and such: imagine if the public’s objections were targeted at the real problems instead, how much more productive it would be!
  - karmakurtisaani 5y ago
    That gives me a pretty cynical idea: the companies pushing GMOs should start funding and supporting groups who are vocal about the claimed adverse health effects of GMOs. That opposition is easy to argue against in public debate, and the resulting noise conveniently drowns out the real problems. Controlled opposition I think it's called. Not surprisingly, I've learned about this concept from the Russian government.
    - speed_spread 5y ago
      I believe that's exactly what they are doing. They're drowning the big political issues of their model into the noise produced by the scientifically debatable issues. Ultimately, it's about bringing back up a feudal regime that can't be bypassed.
      - gruez 5y ago
        Sounds like poe's law? "wow these radical activists have some really extreme positions! could it be that these are people that sincerely hold extreme positions? nah they must be the 'controlled opposition' hired by the elites to bring 'back up a feudal regime that can't be bypassed'!"
        karmakurtisaani 5y ago
        Well, how would you ever know? When there's profit to be made you shouldn't exclude the possibility.
        speed_spread 5y ago
        Nothing so obvious. Yes, these people aren't hired or paid in any way, they are authentic in their positions. And they also get media attention because extremes bring clicks, rational political discourse is otherwise "boring". Power dynamics already regulates away most credible opposition so incumbents only have to nudge things here and there.
  - codingdave 5y ago
    Yes, but posting "They're totally fine" is hardly distinguishing those problems. If you are going to use your credentials to explain why you do not have a problem with GMOs, but then put in a blanket "Everything is fine" vibe... that doesn't do justice to the problems.
    - epgui 5y ago
      A biochemist isn't exactly the best positioned to talk about political or legal issues. Health risks, however, are what we know about.
netizen-936824 5y ago
Same here. Also a biochemist, I'm totally fine with GMO stuff. There's nothing wrong with it at all
- pueblito 5y ago
  I’m a farmer. I vehemently disagree.
  - rincebrain 5y ago
    I personally interpreted the GP and grand-GP commenter's statement as "there is nothing wrong from a health perspective about consuming GMO products", not "there is nothing wrong with the utterly bonkers legal convolutions surrounding GMO seed control".
    - epgui 5y ago
      This is exactly what I meant, thank you. (see: principle of generous interpretation)
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    So what's the problem with it? In my opinion, health-wise and biochemically its fine The patent situation, market capture, and change in biodiversity are issues secondary to the issues most are generally worried about when consuming and purchasing GMO foods and could be fixed with changes in law/regulation rather than having to do with whatever proteins the organism is expressing
    - epgui 5y ago
      Bingo.
  - prepend 5y ago
    As a janitor I am vehemently ambivalent. Seriously though, biochemists seem to have more authority on this subject than a farmer. Some farmers study and are knowledgeable about genes and chemistry and whatnot. But without further information, just being a farmer doesn’t give you much more insight on the safety of GMO.
aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
Are you commenting on the safety of GMO DNA structure, and long-term biology? Or are you approving the chemicals that are sprayed on GMOs because they can survive them?
- epgui 5y ago
  I am commenting on GMOs and GMOs only, I am not commenting about the safety of chemicals. GMO products themselves are biosimilar/essentially-equivalent to non-GMOs. I think being opposed to the spraying of fields by whatever herbicide or pesticide is a legitimate position, but it's a distinct problem. Yes, I realize that they often come together, but that is not necessarily the case. You can easily have a GMO that has nothing to do with pesticide or herbicide resistance, in fact there are plenty of those, and they unfortunately all get lumped into the same category in public discourse. And even in the worst case, where a GMO's purpose is to be used alongside a herbicide such as glyphosate... It's not clear that the alternative is any better. In fact most other categories of herbicides are way more hazardous (note that I am not a herbicide expert, but I do know a thing or two about them). I don't want to defend any bad companies, and I don't know what the solution is, but one thing I know for sure: feeding everyone is actually super complicated.
codingdave 5y ago
The problem with GMOs isn't the GMO itself - it is the practices that surround them. Patents, pesticides, and the resulting monoculture in large agricultural operations.
- epgui 5y ago
  I will agree to that! But also every GMO is different, so IMO it makes no sense whatsoever for people to be "anti-GMO" in general, or even to have "GMO-free" labels on foods, but I would respect someone who was against a very specific use of GMO. And I do think it makes sense to have disclosure labels for products that use specific herbicides or pesticides. Unfortunately, regulation of this sort of thing, at least in Canada and the US, is a complete joke and a confusing mess that doesn't serve anyone's best interests.
strainer 5y ago
Everything is totally fine until it bites hard enough to beat the marketing and legal campaigns run to promote and protect it. "Totally fine" is simply the orthodox professional position towards new potentially lucrative practices. Because it is a burden on the career opportunities to those who think otherwise. Putting cattle remains in cattle feed was fine until CJD was discovered, mass producing CFCs was fine until the chemisty of the ozone damage was understood. More chemists assured leaded petrol was fine and the few who complained were attacked... this list is huge. Its totally fine to mass produce plastics still. So to assure the generally well informed about the safety and wisdom of a technological proposition - you would need to be able to carry more detail than just adding 'I am a related professional - this is fine'
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  This is a pretty poor form of argument. You can't just make blanket statements like this without evidence. What evidence do you have that our understanding of CRISPR and genetic modification today is on par of our understanding of CFCs and CJD in the 20th century? It's like saying that we shouldn't release any new drugs because of the thalidomide catastrophe.
  - strainer 5y ago
    I did reply to a blanket statement based on a bare claim of professional expertise - and with examples to plentiful historical evidence of premature confidences in technological understanding. There is no evidence that this fallibility has not carried into this century. My argument was not like saying "we should never do anything like this because of past grave accidents in comparable novel products and practices" It was to be measured and wary of bare professional and institutional assurances. Regarding the characteristics of plants and animals that we should feed to our children and mass rear in our environment - I am of the mind that the characteristics should be as well evidenced by the long history of life as we can afford.
    - epgui 5y ago
      > I am of the mind that [...] Which is totally fine, but unfortunately that position is neither informed by any specific evidence, nor informed by a principled understanding of the technology in question (which is where deferral to expertise can come in handy). You should note that there's a difference between an appeal to authority fallacy, and deferral to expertise, and while the former is fatal to any logical argument, the latter is an entirely appropriate and useful heuristic: https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-part-6-appealing-to-authority-vs-deferring-to-experts/ https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-...

I’m a biochemist, and I’d feed GMOs to my kids all day if I had any. Or to my mom. They’re totally fine.

by epgui 5y ago

I’m a biochemist, and I’d feed GMOs to my kids all day if I had any. Or to my mom. They’re totally fine.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

karmakurtisaani 5y ago

For me the idea that a company can claim intellectual property rights to a genome sounds pretty awful. To be fair, I don't know if that's a real threat or not, but I could totally see it happening.

epgui 5y ago
Yeah I agree, but I also feel the same way about software patents. I think it’s important to distinguish that objection from health scares, technophobia and such: imagine if the public’s objections were targeted at the real problems instead, how much more productive it would be!
- karmakurtisaani 5y ago
  That gives me a pretty cynical idea: the companies pushing GMOs should start funding and supporting groups who are vocal about the claimed adverse health effects of GMOs. That opposition is easy to argue against in public debate, and the resulting noise conveniently drowns out the real problems. Controlled opposition I think it's called. Not surprisingly, I've learned about this concept from the Russian government.
  - speed_spread 5y ago
    I believe that's exactly what they are doing. They're drowning the big political issues of their model into the noise produced by the scientifically debatable issues. Ultimately, it's about bringing back up a feudal regime that can't be bypassed.
    - gruez 5y ago
      Sounds like poe's law? "wow these radical activists have some really extreme positions! could it be that these are people that sincerely hold extreme positions? nah they must be the 'controlled opposition' hired by the elites to bring 'back up a feudal regime that can't be bypassed'!"
      - karmakurtisaani 5y ago
        Well, how would you ever know? When there's profit to be made you shouldn't exclude the possibility.
      - speed_spread 5y ago
        Nothing so obvious. Yes, these people aren't hired or paid in any way, they are authentic in their positions. And they also get media attention because extremes bring clicks, rational political discourse is otherwise "boring". Power dynamics already regulates away most credible opposition so incumbents only have to nudge things here and there.
- codingdave 5y ago
  Yes, but posting "They're totally fine" is hardly distinguishing those problems. If you are going to use your credentials to explain why you do not have a problem with GMOs, but then put in a blanket "Everything is fine" vibe... that doesn't do justice to the problems.
  - epgui 5y ago
    A biochemist isn't exactly the best positioned to talk about political or legal issues. Health risks, however, are what we know about.

netizen-936824 5y ago

Same here. Also a biochemist, I'm totally fine with GMO stuff. There's nothing wrong with it at all

pueblito 5y ago
I’m a farmer. I vehemently disagree.
- rincebrain 5y ago
  I personally interpreted the GP and grand-GP commenter's statement as "there is nothing wrong from a health perspective about consuming GMO products", not "there is nothing wrong with the utterly bonkers legal convolutions surrounding GMO seed control".
  - epgui 5y ago
    This is exactly what I meant, thank you. (see: principle of generous interpretation)
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  So what's the problem with it? In my opinion, health-wise and biochemically its fine The patent situation, market capture, and change in biodiversity are issues secondary to the issues most are generally worried about when consuming and purchasing GMO foods and could be fixed with changes in law/regulation rather than having to do with whatever proteins the organism is expressing
  - epgui 5y ago
    Bingo.
- prepend 5y ago
  As a janitor I am vehemently ambivalent. Seriously though, biochemists seem to have more authority on this subject than a farmer. Some farmers study and are knowledgeable about genes and chemistry and whatnot. But without further information, just being a farmer doesn’t give you much more insight on the safety of GMO.

aaaaaaaaata 5y ago

Are you commenting on the safety of GMO DNA structure, and long-term biology? Or are you approving the chemicals that are sprayed on GMOs because they can survive them?

epgui 5y ago
I am commenting on GMOs and GMOs only, I am not commenting about the safety of chemicals. GMO products themselves are biosimilar/essentially-equivalent to non-GMOs. I think being opposed to the spraying of fields by whatever herbicide or pesticide is a legitimate position, but it's a distinct problem. Yes, I realize that they often come together, but that is not necessarily the case. You can easily have a GMO that has nothing to do with pesticide or herbicide resistance, in fact there are plenty of those, and they unfortunately all get lumped into the same category in public discourse. And even in the worst case, where a GMO's purpose is to be used alongside a herbicide such as glyphosate... It's not clear that the alternative is any better. In fact most other categories of herbicides are way more hazardous (note that I am not a herbicide expert, but I do know a thing or two about them). I don't want to defend any bad companies, and I don't know what the solution is, but one thing I know for sure: feeding everyone is actually super complicated.

codingdave 5y ago

The problem with GMOs isn't the GMO itself - it is the practices that surround them. Patents, pesticides, and the resulting monoculture in large agricultural operations.

epgui 5y ago
I will agree to that! But also every GMO is different, so IMO it makes no sense whatsoever for people to be "anti-GMO" in general, or even to have "GMO-free" labels on foods, but I would respect someone who was against a very specific use of GMO. And I do think it makes sense to have disclosure labels for products that use specific herbicides or pesticides. Unfortunately, regulation of this sort of thing, at least in Canada and the US, is a complete joke and a confusing mess that doesn't serve anyone's best interests.

strainer 5y ago

Everything is totally fine until it bites hard enough to beat the marketing and legal campaigns run to promote and protect it. "Totally fine" is simply the orthodox professional position towards new potentially lucrative practices. Because it is a burden on the career opportunities to those who think otherwise. Putting cattle remains in cattle feed was fine until CJD was discovered, mass producing CFCs was fine until the chemisty of the ozone damage was understood. More chemists assured leaded petrol was fine and the few who complained were attacked... this list is huge. Its totally fine to mass produce plastics still. So to assure the generally well informed about the safety and wisdom of a technological proposition - you would need to be able to carry more detail than just adding 'I am a related professional - this is fine'

scoopertrooper 5y ago
This is a pretty poor form of argument. You can't just make blanket statements like this without evidence. What evidence do you have that our understanding of CRISPR and genetic modification today is on par of our understanding of CFCs and CJD in the 20th century? It's like saying that we shouldn't release any new drugs because of the thalidomide catastrophe.
- strainer 5y ago
  I did reply to a blanket statement based on a bare claim of professional expertise - and with examples to plentiful historical evidence of premature confidences in technological understanding. There is no evidence that this fallibility has not carried into this century. My argument was not like saying "we should never do anything like this because of past grave accidents in comparable novel products and practices" It was to be measured and wary of bare professional and institutional assurances. Regarding the characteristics of plants and animals that we should feed to our children and mass rear in our environment - I am of the mind that the characteristics should be as well evidenced by the long history of life as we can afford.
  - epgui 5y ago
    > I am of the mind that [...] Which is totally fine, but unfortunately that position is neither informed by any specific evidence, nor informed by a principled understanding of the technology in question (which is where deferral to expertise can come in handy). You should note that there's a difference between an appeal to authority fallacy, and deferral to expertise, and while the former is fatal to any logical argument, the latter is an entirely appropriate and useful heuristic: https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-part-6-appealing-to-authority-vs-deferring-to-experts/ https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/20/the-rules-of-logic-...