7 ms·

"The scientists used cross-pollination and seed embryo transfer technology to transfer some of the resilience of the ancient ancestor of wheat into modern Briti

"The scientists used cross-pollination and seed embryo transfer technology to transfer some of the resilience of the ancient ancestor of wheat into modern British varieties."

JulianMorrison 13y ago
It's a ritual of appeasement for the idiot anti-GM brigade. The effect is the same, the circumlocution allows them to say "it's natural!"
- da_n 13y ago
  In my experience the people who are anti gm also say they won't eat food with chemicals. Basically they are clueless.
  - Beekon 13y ago
    Yeah! Those idiots trying to get food on their plate that is healthy and without side-effects. What on earth are they thinking? Do you really find it odd? Nowadays, if you're not a chemist, you have no idea what you're eating. So it is only natural that people react by avoiding everything that is unknown, unfamiliar, or even seems unnatural. That's perfectly normal behaviour. What IS NOT normal behaviour is sticking your head in the sand when 1 in 2 get cancer. Who do you think is looking out for your well being? The companies selling you these things?
    - JulianMorrison 13y ago
      Here's a hint for you. Natural does not mean healthy and without side effects. When you are eating a lifeform that contains myriads of chemicals in its purely natural makeup, you have no idea what you are eating. (Often, with herbal medicines, this proves to be an issue, and they get yanked off sale for side effects.) Ironically, it is precisely the synthetic chemicals that you can look up on wikipedia. And if you live long enough, immersed in this flow of entirely natural chemicals and radiation, yourself made of complicated and imperfect chemical reactions, you too will get cancer. (Actually, your body is cancering (deliberate verb coinage) all the time, and nearly always its repair mechanisms catch it early and stop it. It's that "nearly" that's the trouble.) But hey, facts, harder to process than irrational fear of the new, and a crude prescientific search for "purity".
      - adrianN 13y ago
        That is not a very convincing argument. We have evolved eating other lifeforms. That makes it much more likely that our bodies know how to handle the chemicals in plants and animals than the fancy colourings, preservatives and flavours in processed food.
        biofox 13y ago
        Would you be confident foraging for food in our "natural" environment? A great deal of plants, fungi, nuts, and fruits are highly toxic. Even staples like rice and fish have high levels of naturally occurring arsenic and lead; and most table spices are lethal in high quantities. On top of that, there are countless carcinogens, allergens, pathogenic bacteria and parasites in the food chain. There is a reason lifespan has been increasing.
      - 6d0debc071 13y ago
        No, that's true - natural doesn't mean healthy and without side effects. But it's at least relatively well understood. Perhaps not in exact chemical makeup but we've co-existed with most of what's in a supermarket long enough to know it's probably not going to cut our lifespans in half or anything. Suddenly people are making extremely rapid changes to food and it's not unreasonable for people to be cautious about it.
      - praxeologist 13y ago
        Natural doesn't even mean natural, especially in the US. Europe has a middle ground between natural and artificial flavorings called "nature identical", but in the US these can just be called natural. Personally, I don't have a problem with this, but most people don't realize it or other things like how that 100% natural, not from concentrate orange juice is really made. Also, for "organic" fruit and other foods, maybe that matters, but flavorings and other ingredients only have a requirement to be 95%+ organic content. One company I know of sells flavorings that are mostly organic water/alcohol/other diluents, but then the other 5% can be anything and you only need very small amounts of concentrated flavorings which can be anything "nature identical".
    - pygy_ 13y ago
      GMO have a bad reputation because the most popular strains, Monsanto's glyphosate resistant strains are indeed concerning from a toxicity, ecologic and economic standpoint. GM is a wonderful technology, with applications not only in agriculture, but also health. Insulin is produced by genetically modified bacterias, and modified white blood cells are now experimentally used to treat cancer. There are probably other uses, but I'm not aware of them.
    - da_n 13y ago
      Any food, be it natural or manmade, is made up of chemicals. You will need to avoid foods which contain water if you don't want chemicals in your food. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2o Or just avoid food entirely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance I'm not suggesting there aren't "bad foods" which need to be avoided. The rest is just a strawman.
      - biofox 13y ago
        Reminds me of the DHMO hoax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax The dihydrogen monoxide FAQ is an entertaining read: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
        gizmo686 13y ago
        >Reminds me of the DHMO hoax From the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) [1]: "CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available." "Precautions: No specific safety phrase has been found applicable for this product" "Ecotoxicity: Not available. BOD5 and COD: Not available. Products of Biodegradation: Possibly hazardous short term degradation products are not likely. However, long term degradation products may arise." "Small Spill: Mop up, or absorb with an inert dry material and place in an appropriate waste disposal container. Large Spill: Absorb with an inert material and put the spilled material in an appropriate waste disposal" "Personal Protection: Safety glasses. Lab coat." [1] http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927321 http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927321
        JulianMorrison 13y ago
        "Non-hazardous in case of inhalation" ORLY?
    - acheron 13y ago
      Being anti-"GMO" is as ludicrously anti-scientific as saying that evolution is a lie, except that not believing in evolution doesn't affect anyone else, whereas opposing "GMO" food leads to starving children. You can start here if you'd like to educate yourself: http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/ http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-c...
      - specialist 13y ago
        And what do you call someone who ignores all negative evidence? I'd be okay with GMO apologists making an intellectually honest argument, listing the pros and cons, arguing that on the balance such and such makes sense. Basically, the greatest good for the most people. Alas, that takes some effort. It's easier to mock critics.
      - specialist 13y ago
        So. I read your link. http://www.alternet.org/food/uncovering-real-story-behind-conversion-mark-lynas-climate-change-journalist-cheerleader?paging=off http://www.alternet.org/food/uncovering-real-story-behind-co... I'd never heard of Lynas before. He strikes me as Bjørn Lomborg character. I think all criticism should be seriously (honestly) addressed. No worldview is above reproach. I'd eagerly watch/read a debate between Lynas and the people he criticizes. In answering his criticisms, it'd help them to refine their arguments. But before any of that happens, I'd want Lynas to address his apparent conflict of interest.
      - Beekon 13y ago
        No thanks, I have done my homework. And I, unlike you it seems, know that it is not black and white. It's not all good or all bad and only a fool would try to write it off as such. I know there are side effects when it comes to GMO, I don't need to be a chemist for that. What I also realise is that there really is no shortage of food on this planet, evidenced by the tons and tons that are discarded daily. There is however a logistics problem, but it will not be solved by GMO. Even IF such a thing was possible by creating crops that fare better in extreme climates, these companies who are behind GMO products have absolutely no interest in helping out poor African kids who are unable to pay for what Monsanto & Co have to offer.
    - skrebbel 13y ago
      Sorry, but here on HN, you can't defend irrationality or people simply being undereducated here. There's simply too large a crowd of people who think that anyone who makes any gut decision is a moron, and they're particularly active on threads like these, and will downvote you into oblivion. Never mind that you were explicitly talking about the people who simply cannot know better yet try the best they can. They should know better, and if they don't they're morons.
  - zwieback 13y ago
    I think that particular subpopulation thinks gluten is a chemical that should be avoided so it won't make much difference for Weetabix
  - Myrth 13y ago
    I'm sure many people understand this but I'm going to say it anyway: People who are anti-GM are skeptical about scientists' ability to predict all the consequences of their meddling in living genes and chemical balance of nature components. The nature had millions of years of coming up with sustainable balance between growth and death. I hope no one will argue that many of the priorities in our current scientific environment are short term individual benefits, whether it is political, wealth or recognition. This is the basis of anti-GM folk mistrust, and not inability to detect that everything is chemicals and cross-pollination is a gene modification as well.
    - da_n 13y ago
      A lot of our food is already 'unnatural' due to humankind practicing genetic modification for thousands of years using plant breeding techniques. If we follow the line of reasoning you present we should also stop all medical research because some companies prioritise monetary gain over the welfare of humankind. I wouldn't argue that it needs regulation to ensure it is used responsibly.
      - specialist 13y ago
        I wouldn't argue that it needs regulation to ensure it is used responsibly. Huh?
        da_n 13y ago
        I don't know what your question is.
  - sneak 13y ago
    Just explain to them that distilled water is inorganic and watch their brains hurt.
- graeme 13y ago
  It's not quite the same effect. The ancestor gene has the benefit of having been field tested over time. If we invent a new gene, the odds are higher that it has visible benefits but hidden downsides.
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    By no stretch of the imagination is a cross 'field-tested'. There is an entire relationship between genes in an organism, all working together, even cooperating between generations to ensure the population survives. Cross-pollination can produce entirely unfit specimens, or strains that prosper in one clime but fail in another. This can all have wonderful yield/resistance benefits for farmers. But it has always brought risk too. My father had whole hybrid crops fail when an unsuspected fungus deformed every cob. Think of genetic modification (yes, even cross-pollination) as an accelerated, guided evolution. Except instead of trying millions of experiments, seed companies sell a dozen each year. Each stalk in each wild generation is a cross; only a few have to survive to ensure the population survives. Our vastly reduced commercial genetic diversity puts our food sources at risk. Yet we cannot use plain wild strains in the modern world; half of us would starve.
    - gizmo686 13y ago
      Is their any reason we cannot bread in genetic diversity? For example, if we cross polinate are artifical strains with wild strains, and then use standard artificial selection for the most high yielding strain, we should return to genetic diversity. The only way I can see this not working is if the specific changes we made that yield improved output are the same ones that cause problems. However, my understanding is that this is extremely unlikely, and the likely problem is that in order to get those changes we were only working with a small number of strains, so we lack genetic diversity across the entire genome. There is still the economic problem that doing this is expensive, yet causes no benefit to anyone in particular. This seems to make it the perfect candidate for the government to step in and do it.
      - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
- kzrdude 13y ago
  it's quite simple to be anti-GM today with the grip that Monsanto is trying to grab. Soon we'll hear it's "too big to fail"..
- specialist 13y ago
  As a proud member of the idiot brigade, I thank you for working overtime to understand my camp's objections to GM. I'm ok with breeding. I probably don't even have a problem with transgenetics, but I'd want each effort vetted. What I oppose, utterly, are two things. 1) GM foods engineered to enable ever greater use of pesticides. 2) GM foods engineered to create their own pesticides. See, I've got this weird idea: first, do no harm. Some people call it the precautionary principle. Also known as the Hippocratic Oath popular in the healthcare professions. Now, I understand that it may not be possible to completely prove any particle thing completely safe. I get that. I'm not a zealot. And some things thought safe today could proof unsafe in the future. Or vice versa. Because science marches on, values change, and context matters. But here's two things I do know. With absolute certainty. Based on readily available data: 1) The parties pushing GM are bad actors. Repeatedly. Monsanto, ADM, Cargill, etc are only too happy to poison people to make a buck. 2) The parties charged with safe guarding public health and the environment are completely enthrall to megacorps profiting from poisoning us. These two points are not in dispute. So while, in principle, further GM efforts may be all well and fine, in an ideal world, we, unfortunately, do not live a libertarian fruit cake free market utopia. And I prefer to judge things as they are, not by what they should be.
protomyth 13y ago
So, a politically correct way of saying genetic modification.

"The scientists used cross-pollination and seed embryo transfer technology to transfer some of the resilience of the ancient ancestor of wheat into modern British varieties."

JulianMorrison 13y ago

It's a ritual of appeasement for the idiot anti-GM brigade. The effect is the same, the circumlocution allows them to say "it's natural!"

da_n 13y ago
In my experience the people who are anti gm also say they won't eat food with chemicals. Basically they are clueless.
- Beekon 13y ago
  Yeah! Those idiots trying to get food on their plate that is healthy and without side-effects. What on earth are they thinking? Do you really find it odd? Nowadays, if you're not a chemist, you have no idea what you're eating. So it is only natural that people react by avoiding everything that is unknown, unfamiliar, or even seems unnatural. That's perfectly normal behaviour. What IS NOT normal behaviour is sticking your head in the sand when 1 in 2 get cancer. Who do you think is looking out for your well being? The companies selling you these things?
  - JulianMorrison 13y ago
    Here's a hint for you. Natural does not mean healthy and without side effects. When you are eating a lifeform that contains myriads of chemicals in its purely natural makeup, you have no idea what you are eating. (Often, with herbal medicines, this proves to be an issue, and they get yanked off sale for side effects.) Ironically, it is precisely the synthetic chemicals that you can look up on wikipedia. And if you live long enough, immersed in this flow of entirely natural chemicals and radiation, yourself made of complicated and imperfect chemical reactions, you too will get cancer. (Actually, your body is cancering (deliberate verb coinage) all the time, and nearly always its repair mechanisms catch it early and stop it. It's that "nearly" that's the trouble.) But hey, facts, harder to process than irrational fear of the new, and a crude prescientific search for "purity".
    - adrianN 13y ago
      That is not a very convincing argument. We have evolved eating other lifeforms. That makes it much more likely that our bodies know how to handle the chemicals in plants and animals than the fancy colourings, preservatives and flavours in processed food.
      - biofox 13y ago
        Would you be confident foraging for food in our "natural" environment? A great deal of plants, fungi, nuts, and fruits are highly toxic. Even staples like rice and fish have high levels of naturally occurring arsenic and lead; and most table spices are lethal in high quantities. On top of that, there are countless carcinogens, allergens, pathogenic bacteria and parasites in the food chain. There is a reason lifespan has been increasing.
    - 6d0debc071 13y ago
      No, that's true - natural doesn't mean healthy and without side effects. But it's at least relatively well understood. Perhaps not in exact chemical makeup but we've co-existed with most of what's in a supermarket long enough to know it's probably not going to cut our lifespans in half or anything. Suddenly people are making extremely rapid changes to food and it's not unreasonable for people to be cautious about it.
    - praxeologist 13y ago
      Natural doesn't even mean natural, especially in the US. Europe has a middle ground between natural and artificial flavorings called "nature identical", but in the US these can just be called natural. Personally, I don't have a problem with this, but most people don't realize it or other things like how that 100% natural, not from concentrate orange juice is really made. Also, for "organic" fruit and other foods, maybe that matters, but flavorings and other ingredients only have a requirement to be 95%+ organic content. One company I know of sells flavorings that are mostly organic water/alcohol/other diluents, but then the other 5% can be anything and you only need very small amounts of concentrated flavorings which can be anything "nature identical".
  - pygy_ 13y ago
    GMO have a bad reputation because the most popular strains, Monsanto's glyphosate resistant strains are indeed concerning from a toxicity, ecologic and economic standpoint. GM is a wonderful technology, with applications not only in agriculture, but also health. Insulin is produced by genetically modified bacterias, and modified white blood cells are now experimentally used to treat cancer. There are probably other uses, but I'm not aware of them.
  - da_n 13y ago
    Any food, be it natural or manmade, is made up of chemicals. You will need to avoid foods which contain water if you don't want chemicals in your food. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2o Or just avoid food entirely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance I'm not suggesting there aren't "bad foods" which need to be avoided. The rest is just a strawman.
    - biofox 13y ago
      Reminds me of the DHMO hoax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax The dihydrogen monoxide FAQ is an entertaining read: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
      - gizmo686 13y ago
        >Reminds me of the DHMO hoax From the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) [1]: "CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available." "Precautions: No specific safety phrase has been found applicable for this product" "Ecotoxicity: Not available. BOD5 and COD: Not available. Products of Biodegradation: Possibly hazardous short term degradation products are not likely. However, long term degradation products may arise." "Small Spill: Mop up, or absorb with an inert dry material and place in an appropriate waste disposal container. Large Spill: Absorb with an inert material and put the spilled material in an appropriate waste disposal" "Personal Protection: Safety glasses. Lab coat." [1] http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927321 http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927321
        JulianMorrison 13y ago
        "Non-hazardous in case of inhalation" ORLY?
  - acheron 13y ago
    Being anti-"GMO" is as ludicrously anti-scientific as saying that evolution is a lie, except that not believing in evolution doesn't affect anyone else, whereas opposing "GMO" food leads to starving children. You can start here if you'd like to educate yourself: http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/ http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-c...
    - specialist 13y ago
      And what do you call someone who ignores all negative evidence? I'd be okay with GMO apologists making an intellectually honest argument, listing the pros and cons, arguing that on the balance such and such makes sense. Basically, the greatest good for the most people. Alas, that takes some effort. It's easier to mock critics.
    - specialist 13y ago
      So. I read your link. http://www.alternet.org/food/uncovering-real-story-behind-conversion-mark-lynas-climate-change-journalist-cheerleader?paging=off http://www.alternet.org/food/uncovering-real-story-behind-co... I'd never heard of Lynas before. He strikes me as Bjørn Lomborg character. I think all criticism should be seriously (honestly) addressed. No worldview is above reproach. I'd eagerly watch/read a debate between Lynas and the people he criticizes. In answering his criticisms, it'd help them to refine their arguments. But before any of that happens, I'd want Lynas to address his apparent conflict of interest.
    - Beekon 13y ago
      No thanks, I have done my homework. And I, unlike you it seems, know that it is not black and white. It's not all good or all bad and only a fool would try to write it off as such. I know there are side effects when it comes to GMO, I don't need to be a chemist for that. What I also realise is that there really is no shortage of food on this planet, evidenced by the tons and tons that are discarded daily. There is however a logistics problem, but it will not be solved by GMO. Even IF such a thing was possible by creating crops that fare better in extreme climates, these companies who are behind GMO products have absolutely no interest in helping out poor African kids who are unable to pay for what Monsanto & Co have to offer.
  - skrebbel 13y ago
    Sorry, but here on HN, you can't defend irrationality or people simply being undereducated here. There's simply too large a crowd of people who think that anyone who makes any gut decision is a moron, and they're particularly active on threads like these, and will downvote you into oblivion. Never mind that you were explicitly talking about the people who simply cannot know better yet try the best they can. They should know better, and if they don't they're morons.
- zwieback 13y ago
  I think that particular subpopulation thinks gluten is a chemical that should be avoided so it won't make much difference for Weetabix
- Myrth 13y ago
  I'm sure many people understand this but I'm going to say it anyway: People who are anti-GM are skeptical about scientists' ability to predict all the consequences of their meddling in living genes and chemical balance of nature components. The nature had millions of years of coming up with sustainable balance between growth and death. I hope no one will argue that many of the priorities in our current scientific environment are short term individual benefits, whether it is political, wealth or recognition. This is the basis of anti-GM folk mistrust, and not inability to detect that everything is chemicals and cross-pollination is a gene modification as well.
  - da_n 13y ago
    A lot of our food is already 'unnatural' due to humankind practicing genetic modification for thousands of years using plant breeding techniques. If we follow the line of reasoning you present we should also stop all medical research because some companies prioritise monetary gain over the welfare of humankind. I wouldn't argue that it needs regulation to ensure it is used responsibly.
    - specialist 13y ago
      I wouldn't argue that it needs regulation to ensure it is used responsibly. Huh?
      - da_n 13y ago
        I don't know what your question is.
- sneak 13y ago
  Just explain to them that distilled water is inorganic and watch their brains hurt.
graeme 13y ago
It's not quite the same effect. The ancestor gene has the benefit of having been field tested over time. If we invent a new gene, the odds are higher that it has visible benefits but hidden downsides.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  By no stretch of the imagination is a cross 'field-tested'. There is an entire relationship between genes in an organism, all working together, even cooperating between generations to ensure the population survives. Cross-pollination can produce entirely unfit specimens, or strains that prosper in one clime but fail in another. This can all have wonderful yield/resistance benefits for farmers. But it has always brought risk too. My father had whole hybrid crops fail when an unsuspected fungus deformed every cob. Think of genetic modification (yes, even cross-pollination) as an accelerated, guided evolution. Except instead of trying millions of experiments, seed companies sell a dozen each year. Each stalk in each wild generation is a cross; only a few have to survive to ensure the population survives. Our vastly reduced commercial genetic diversity puts our food sources at risk. Yet we cannot use plain wild strains in the modern world; half of us would starve.
  - gizmo686 13y ago
    Is their any reason we cannot bread in genetic diversity? For example, if we cross polinate are artifical strains with wild strains, and then use standard artificial selection for the most high yielding strain, we should return to genetic diversity. The only way I can see this not working is if the specific changes we made that yield improved output are the same ones that cause problems. However, my understanding is that this is extremely unlikely, and the likely problem is that in order to get those changes we were only working with a small number of strains, so we lack genetic diversity across the entire genome. There is still the economic problem that doing this is expensive, yet causes no benefit to anyone in particular. This seems to make it the perfect candidate for the government to step in and do it.
    - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
kzrdude 13y ago
it's quite simple to be anti-GM today with the grip that Monsanto is trying to grab. Soon we'll hear it's "too big to fail"..
specialist 13y ago
As a proud member of the idiot brigade, I thank you for working overtime to understand my camp's objections to GM. I'm ok with breeding. I probably don't even have a problem with transgenetics, but I'd want each effort vetted. What I oppose, utterly, are two things. 1) GM foods engineered to enable ever greater use of pesticides. 2) GM foods engineered to create their own pesticides. See, I've got this weird idea: first, do no harm. Some people call it the precautionary principle. Also known as the Hippocratic Oath popular in the healthcare professions. Now, I understand that it may not be possible to completely prove any particle thing completely safe. I get that. I'm not a zealot. And some things thought safe today could proof unsafe in the future. Or vice versa. Because science marches on, values change, and context matters. But here's two things I do know. With absolute certainty. Based on readily available data: 1) The parties pushing GM are bad actors. Repeatedly. Monsanto, ADM, Cargill, etc are only too happy to poison people to make a buck. 2) The parties charged with safe guarding public health and the environment are completely enthrall to megacorps profiting from poisoning us. These two points are not in dispute. So while, in principle, further GM efforts may be all well and fine, in an ideal world, we, unfortunately, do not live a libertarian fruit cake free market utopia. And I prefer to judge things as they are, not by what they should be.

protomyth 13y ago

So, a politically correct way of saying genetic modification.