8 ms·

You don't provide any argument for why you dislike GMO food here. What bothers you so much about GMO food? The fact is that humans have been breeding plants an

You don't provide any argument for why you dislike GMO food here. What bothers you so much about GMO food? The fact is that humans have been breeding plants and animals to increase efficiency and palatability for thousands of years, and GMO is the next technological step.

mping 5y ago
Unknown unknowns
- Tenoke 5y ago
  There's always unknown unknowns and by now those have been reduced significantly for GMOs. Any reason to think the risk in this case might be higher than the benefits? Are you sure you are not overestimating the unknown unknown risk just because GMO sounds scary?
  - rocqua 5y ago
    Unknown unkowns are much more dangerous in any revolutionary change. Because previous experience is much less useful in a revolutionary change. GMO, with its large increase in potential interventions, is quite revolutionary.
- kleene_op 5y ago
  There will always be unknown unknowns, whatever the subject at hand. This is not specific to GMOs and certainly not a good argument against them.
- Timwi 5y ago
  Why are you not worried about the unknown unknowns in literally any other area? Like, using microwave ovens, having TV broadcast signals, or wearing silk? Personally I'm reasonably confident that any significant adverse health effect would have been found by experiments by now, so Bayesian reasoning tells me any unknowns that are still unknown are probably negligible.
  - aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
    What if they are?
- notafraudster 5y ago
  What is the epistemological framework you use to identify possible sources of unknown unknowns and bound their harms? In the absence of any framework you basically have a sort of nihilistic solipsism.
  - rocqua 5y ago
    I think the most widely accepted framework here suffices. The emperical framework. Cross breeding occurs slowly and is a long-used process. The long-used means there is ample evidence suggesting cross-breeding results in safe food. The fact that cross breeding happens slowly gives any safety issues a long time to reveal themselves before it becomes wide-spread. Thus it makes sense that cross-breeding yields fewer unkown issues by the time its widespread. Essentially, early warning are built in, even for latent issues.
  - mping 5y ago
    Good question. There is no way to bound the possible harm, but I'd there are solid alternatives then it becomes less desirable. A good example of this is the covid vaccine: this time, the risk of unknown vaccine complications is worth it. As an aside, I admire the HN crowd reasoning capacity, but it always amazes me that almost no one is upfront and say we as a society love the taste of beef and are willing to risk environmental and possibly health issues for it. It would be a much more productive discussion if we were honest about it instead of discussing whether we need bigger cows.
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    We apply "Unknown unknowns", the Precautionary Principle, etc, to things we don't like. These principles then provide the wise sounding argument that our Motivated Reasoning brain center needed.
  - datavirtue 5y ago
    And you have blind trust.
Eduard 5y ago
You don't provide any argument for why you like GMO food here. What bothers you so much about food?
- gruez 5y ago
  1. Just because he’s anti-anti-GMO, doesn’t mean he views conventional foods with disgust and buys GMO whenever he can 2. The benefits are clear: GMO foods are more cost effective, hence why farmers choose them over conventional
  - cesaref 5y ago
    On your second point, you are basically saying 'more profit' is the reason that farmers are choosing them. I personally am not interested in farmer profit when choosing what to eat.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >I personally am not interested in farmer profit when choosing what to eat. That's fine. You're free to buy the conventional version if that's the case. However, market pressures will likely bring down the price, which mean some of the profit/savings are passed onto you.
simulate-me 5y ago
GMO, as a technique, is not inherently bad. However, one common use case is to create pesticide resistant plants, which allows for higher pesticide usage, especially as resistance develops to the pesticide increases: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24 https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-471... Basically, if you’re fine with your kids ingesting higher levels of pesticides, then go for it!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bluGill 5y ago
  Pesticide resistance plants mean a lot less CO2.is.emitted running plows through the earth. Soil that doesn't get disturbed with all those plows also holds absorbed CO2 better. While it is more chemical used, they generally harmless. Your position is a major environmental disaster.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    While it's important, CO2 isn't everything. The use of pesticides (and monocrops) leads to dramatic loss of biodiversity, and that is an environmental disaster.
  - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
    Are you seriously arguing for more use of pesticides on the plants that become our food? Maybe I misunderstand?
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      This topic is complex and multi-variate. Focusing only on one (whether that’s CO2 or pesticide usage) is not going to lead to generally productive debate. We might both agree that pesticide usage alone should have a negative coefficient on whatever global fitness function we consider, but that a usage of zero pesticide is still sub-optimal.
  - 5y ago
yucky 5y ago
Do companies like Monsanto hold patents on their GMO products and techniques? Because trusting a company (like Monsanto for instance) to play nice with their patents as it relates to our food supply is a non-starter.
- gruez 5y ago
  If they go rogue with their patent portfolio, you’re still free to go back to non-GMO varieties, leaving you no worse off than before.
  - jlokier 5y ago
    That might not apply to Monsanto. Monsanto is infamous for contaminating non-GMO crops on neighbour farms then suing the neighbour for growing the GMO variety, and for "drift" of their special herbicide which happens to destroy neighbour farm crops - for which the only solution is, you guessed it, buy Monsanto GMO varieties to grow instead of the non-GMO varieties you wanted to grow.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >Monsanto is infamous for contaminating non-GMO crops on neighbour farms then suing the neighbour for growing the GMO variety, and for "drift" of their special herbicide which happens to destroy neighbour farm crops - for which the only solution is, you guessed it, buy Monsanto GMO varieties to grow instead of the non-GMO varieties you wanted to grow. 1. in the context of this discussion (ie. GMO cows) this is basically a non-issue. GMO sperm isn't going to "drift" from one pasture to another. 2. Can you substantiate that claim? The Wikipedia article lists a bunch of cases where the farmers were intentionally trying to breed monsanto seeds, which is different than the narrative you presented, which imply farmers being sued for accidental contamination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaintiff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaint...
      - ticviking 5y ago
        Til the GMO bull gets into your heifer's pen, or onto your land for a few days. There used to be range wars over "strange breeds" much less gene-edited breeds where I grew up, where the cows still largely wander federal land and get rounded up seasonally.
colordrops 5y ago
The genetic changes you get with direct gene manipulation are qualitatively different from those that arise through artificial selection. You won't get fish or tobacco genes in a cow from selectivd breeding. To constantly repeat this trope and claim that they are the same is intellectually dishonest.
baremetal 5y ago
unintended consequences are what i dont like about GMO food
foobiekr 5y ago
Start by asking yourself how humans have established that a given food, genetically engineered or not, is long-term safe?
- taneq 5y ago
  We're pretty terrible at it, honestly. Look at half the crap we eat currently, I wouldn't describe much of it as "long-term safe."
  - foobiekr 5y ago
    Yes. So we need to be careful about making it worse.
- deschutes 5y ago
  Ok. Show me something that would be a food but for "delayed bad things". Like, delayed by decades or even years. Just so we're clear, nutritional deficiencies aren't of any interest. As far as I'm aware this angle is FUD. If we want to apply the same standard to pesticides I'm not sure any high ground exists. That said, whatever effect they have on mortality appears to be miniscule given the trends over the last century.
  - foobiekr 5y ago
    Transfats fit this perfectly.
    - deschutes 5y ago
      The problem with trans fats seems to be a matter of degree rather than kind. See the note on palm oil on Wikipedia. Also note that deaths attributable to coronary artery disease, the quantifiable thing linked to trans fat consumption, are hugely decreasing over the period where trans fats became common, suggesting again it's not a high order bit. If we consider this in the context of GMO it sure seems like FUD to me.

mping 5y ago

Unknown unknowns

Tenoke 5y ago
There's always unknown unknowns and by now those have been reduced significantly for GMOs. Any reason to think the risk in this case might be higher than the benefits? Are you sure you are not overestimating the unknown unknown risk just because GMO sounds scary?
- rocqua 5y ago
  Unknown unkowns are much more dangerous in any revolutionary change. Because previous experience is much less useful in a revolutionary change. GMO, with its large increase in potential interventions, is quite revolutionary.
kleene_op 5y ago
There will always be unknown unknowns, whatever the subject at hand. This is not specific to GMOs and certainly not a good argument against them.
Timwi 5y ago
Why are you not worried about the unknown unknowns in literally any other area? Like, using microwave ovens, having TV broadcast signals, or wearing silk? Personally I'm reasonably confident that any significant adverse health effect would have been found by experiments by now, so Bayesian reasoning tells me any unknowns that are still unknown are probably negligible.
- aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
  What if they are?
notafraudster 5y ago
What is the epistemological framework you use to identify possible sources of unknown unknowns and bound their harms? In the absence of any framework you basically have a sort of nihilistic solipsism.
- rocqua 5y ago
  I think the most widely accepted framework here suffices. The emperical framework. Cross breeding occurs slowly and is a long-used process. The long-used means there is ample evidence suggesting cross-breeding results in safe food. The fact that cross breeding happens slowly gives any safety issues a long time to reveal themselves before it becomes wide-spread. Thus it makes sense that cross-breeding yields fewer unkown issues by the time its widespread. Essentially, early warning are built in, even for latent issues.
- mping 5y ago
  Good question. There is no way to bound the possible harm, but I'd there are solid alternatives then it becomes less desirable. A good example of this is the covid vaccine: this time, the risk of unknown vaccine complications is worth it. As an aside, I admire the HN crowd reasoning capacity, but it always amazes me that almost no one is upfront and say we as a society love the taste of beef and are willing to risk environmental and possibly health issues for it. It would be a much more productive discussion if we were honest about it instead of discussing whether we need bigger cows.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  We apply "Unknown unknowns", the Precautionary Principle, etc, to things we don't like. These principles then provide the wise sounding argument that our Motivated Reasoning brain center needed.
- datavirtue 5y ago
  And you have blind trust.

Eduard 5y ago

You don't provide any argument for why you like GMO food here. What bothers you so much about food?

gruez 5y ago
1. Just because he’s anti-anti-GMO, doesn’t mean he views conventional foods with disgust and buys GMO whenever he can 2. The benefits are clear: GMO foods are more cost effective, hence why farmers choose them over conventional
- cesaref 5y ago
  On your second point, you are basically saying 'more profit' is the reason that farmers are choosing them. I personally am not interested in farmer profit when choosing what to eat.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >I personally am not interested in farmer profit when choosing what to eat. That's fine. You're free to buy the conventional version if that's the case. However, market pressures will likely bring down the price, which mean some of the profit/savings are passed onto you.

simulate-me 5y ago

GMO, as a technique, is not inherently bad. However, one common use case is to create pesticide resistant plants, which allows for higher pesticide usage, especially as resistance develops to the pesticide increases: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24 https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-471... Basically, if you’re fine with your kids ingesting higher levels of pesticides, then go for it!

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bluGill 5y ago
Pesticide resistance plants mean a lot less CO2.is.emitted running plows through the earth. Soil that doesn't get disturbed with all those plows also holds absorbed CO2 better. While it is more chemical used, they generally harmless. Your position is a major environmental disaster.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  While it's important, CO2 isn't everything. The use of pesticides (and monocrops) leads to dramatic loss of biodiversity, and that is an environmental disaster.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  Are you seriously arguing for more use of pesticides on the plants that become our food? Maybe I misunderstand?
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    This topic is complex and multi-variate. Focusing only on one (whether that’s CO2 or pesticide usage) is not going to lead to generally productive debate. We might both agree that pesticide usage alone should have a negative coefficient on whatever global fitness function we consider, but that a usage of zero pesticide is still sub-optimal.
- 5y ago

yucky 5y ago

Do companies like Monsanto hold patents on their GMO products and techniques? Because trusting a company (like Monsanto for instance) to play nice with their patents as it relates to our food supply is a non-starter.

gruez 5y ago
If they go rogue with their patent portfolio, you’re still free to go back to non-GMO varieties, leaving you no worse off than before.
- jlokier 5y ago
  That might not apply to Monsanto. Monsanto is infamous for contaminating non-GMO crops on neighbour farms then suing the neighbour for growing the GMO variety, and for "drift" of their special herbicide which happens to destroy neighbour farm crops - for which the only solution is, you guessed it, buy Monsanto GMO varieties to grow instead of the non-GMO varieties you wanted to grow.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >Monsanto is infamous for contaminating non-GMO crops on neighbour farms then suing the neighbour for growing the GMO variety, and for "drift" of their special herbicide which happens to destroy neighbour farm crops - for which the only solution is, you guessed it, buy Monsanto GMO varieties to grow instead of the non-GMO varieties you wanted to grow. 1. in the context of this discussion (ie. GMO cows) this is basically a non-issue. GMO sperm isn't going to "drift" from one pasture to another. 2. Can you substantiate that claim? The Wikipedia article lists a bunch of cases where the farmers were intentionally trying to breed monsanto seeds, which is different than the narrative you presented, which imply farmers being sued for accidental contamination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaintiff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaint...
    - ticviking 5y ago
      Til the GMO bull gets into your heifer's pen, or onto your land for a few days. There used to be range wars over "strange breeds" much less gene-edited breeds where I grew up, where the cows still largely wander federal land and get rounded up seasonally.

colordrops 5y ago

The genetic changes you get with direct gene manipulation are qualitatively different from those that arise through artificial selection. You won't get fish or tobacco genes in a cow from selectivd breeding. To constantly repeat this trope and claim that they are the same is intellectually dishonest.

baremetal 5y ago

unintended consequences are what i dont like about GMO food

foobiekr 5y ago

Start by asking yourself how humans have established that a given food, genetically engineered or not, is long-term safe?

taneq 5y ago
We're pretty terrible at it, honestly. Look at half the crap we eat currently, I wouldn't describe much of it as "long-term safe."
- foobiekr 5y ago
  Yes. So we need to be careful about making it worse.
deschutes 5y ago
Ok. Show me something that would be a food but for "delayed bad things". Like, delayed by decades or even years. Just so we're clear, nutritional deficiencies aren't of any interest. As far as I'm aware this angle is FUD. If we want to apply the same standard to pesticides I'm not sure any high ground exists. That said, whatever effect they have on mortality appears to be miniscule given the trends over the last century.
- foobiekr 5y ago
  Transfats fit this perfectly.
  - deschutes 5y ago
    The problem with trans fats seems to be a matter of degree rather than kind. See the note on palm oil on Wikipedia. Also note that deaths attributable to coronary artery disease, the quantifiable thing linked to trans fat consumption, are hugely decreasing over the period where trans fats became common, suggesting again it's not a high order bit. If we consider this in the context of GMO it sure seems like FUD to me.