10 ms·
Can We Trust Monsanto with Our Food?
- kenster07 13y agoI would hope that an article from "Scientific" American would cite "scientific" studies which back such claims. As it stands, this article is more bro-science than real science, and it's a damn shame.
- qwatsi13579 13y agoThat article is in agreement with the National Academy of Sciences.
- geuis 13y agoThis is an opinion piece. I'm not qualified to say whether the claims and counter claims made in the piece are accurate or not. But be aware, since it's an opinion piece there are no linked references or research in it to backup the claims it makes.
- dreen 13y ago(disclaimer: im a farmer) GM food isnt toxic but GM food company lawyers are. the article mentions being sued as a result of cross-pollination in the intro and never speaks of it again, but thats the real GM crop threat.
- quadlock 13y agoIt speaks of it in the final paragraph, referring to it as popular mythology.
- criley2 13y agoCan you name any cases at all where farmers were sued for cross-polination claims? As a farmer in the industry, this shouldn't be hard, right? There is one notable example where a farmer intentionally and willfully planted seeds that he knew were Monsantos, but I'm unaware of any pattern of litigation against farmers for the actual unintentional use of Monsanto seed.
- ideonexus 13y agoThe Organic Seed Growers brought a class action suit against Monsanto for unfairly suing farmers whose crops were cross-pollinated with GMOs. The case was thrown out of court when they failed to produce one example of this ever happening. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B83aJv4L7U-iYzYyMzQxOTktZjY5Mi00MDA1LWE0NjgtNjg2YTgzY2MxMDAy/edit https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B83aJv4L7U-iYzYyMzQxOTktZjY5... Before this case, I believed the "Food Inc." claims about Monsanto being lawsuit-happy. Now I'm angry that it really appears to be the organic farmers who are manipulating the public.
- freehunter 13y agoThis is one area where I commonly see farmers with this worry being told "yeah but that has never happened!" We worry about a lot of things in computer science that has never happened and may never happen. There's common discussion several times a year on HN about the ethical rights of artificial intelligence or lab-grown brains. It's still important to worry about things that haven't happened and may never happen, if only to ensure that they really do never happen. It's completely plausible that a company could sue over this farmer's fear. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't happen, or that we shouldn't worry about it.
- hga 13y agoI don't think it's "completely" plausible, e.g. look at how much bad press they're getting for unfounded claims of this.
- freehunter 13y agoBad press doesn't mean everything. Microsoft still reaps profits from undisclosed Linux patents from suits against Android handset makers (although they promised not to sue Linux developers in a previous deal with Novell). Monster Cable still sues small companies for using the word Monster, even though they get a ton of bad press for it. If the financial hit from the bad press is outweighed by the financial gain from whatever is causing that bad press, which do you think a company would pick?
- zsombor 13y agoUntil our fears of GM are blown out of proportion, only a few giga corporations can afford the effort of developing new GM products. That considerable investment ends up being defended by an army of suits. I hope this will eventually change and the current players will suffer the fate IBM had 30 years ago. There are already students breeding new aquarium pets for example at much lower cost.
- WiseWeasel 13y agoTerribly written opinion piece; the author apparently forgot to kill all the strawmen they erected, let alone provide any kind of serious treatment of the issue. Despite the author's attempts to shroud it in a veil of balanced reporting, this article is unworthy of discussion on HN.
- zsombor 13y agoThe author is a scientist working in the domain and not in employ of Monsanto or any other major GM market player today. She wrote 3 books on the subject, with extensive footnotes and references. If anything this a summary treating the subject at the level of depth that can be expected of a short article. Not reporting but a summary, please read her books & papers if you are actually open to those details you request.
- zzzeek 13y agoThis very brief article doesn't really cover much at all, only covering that we generally know that a GMO food won't kill you if you eat it. While there are a minority of individuals who needlessly worry about this, this isn't really the issue. It certainly does not address the key issue of whether or not Monsanto should be leading the field. The real concerns involve sustainable agricultural concerns such as pesticide resistance or overuse, gene contamination, and freedom of research, and specifically if Monsanto the company has really shown themselves to be the most responsible steward to retain near-monopolistic control over the execution of these sensitive practices, as well as a vast proportion of the world's seed supply. For lots of in-depth discussion on these issues, I recommend this series by the Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/ http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-... Articles specific to Monsanto are here: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/promoting-resistant-pests.html http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-... http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/spreading-gene-contamination.html http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-... http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/suppressing-research.html http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-... Disclaimer: I am not a farmer, or a scientist, or someone who knows anything at all. I am merely pointing out that this article says nearly nothing useful, and referring to a series of articles by a reputable, if not opinionated, organization of experienced scientists and researchers.
- splawn 13y agoI agree with you. Also, I want to point out that your list of real concerns would still be valid in absence of GMO tech.
- moens 13y agoAlso, while reading these, take the time to watch "Kingdom of Men" again to get a feel for what the real issue actually looks like. Living organisms appear (IMO, and subtly in other research) to be able to detect code base tampering, and reject it. How do they reject it? Infertility. I am a farmer and it is difficult as hell to create a non-GMO farm (non-GMO contaminated mulch and compost, non-GMO animal feeds, non-GMO source animals, non-GMO seed). The OP is correct in all points about Monsanto's power over seed production, but misses what SciAm (and almost everyone else) misses: Genetic material is code being used in a production environment! As such it needs to be protected. Code contamination (forks) need to be registered publicly and isolated with extreme prejudice from the production environment. We didn't write the code, and as far as I am concerned, I feel that Monsanto as a policy maker (by default or by lobbing) and any of the most advanced geneticists are script kiddies on a Galactic scale. We will get to adequate understanding it time, but that time is not now. Who gives a fk if you or your grandmother can live a longer or more pain-free life if the result is a global genetic seg-fault? I don't. My answer is to set up my own isolated farm, as free of GM as I can make it. As I see it, existing organisms do have a genetic conversation (via viruses and other single cell organisms) and will resist and correct some amount of genetic contamination. Honestly I have my doubts that even this will work, but its the most I can do. Food for thought.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ideonexus 13y agoGMO crops hold incredible potential to feed a world population that continues to grow by leaps and bounds. It has the power to do that with reduced pesticide use, taking pressures off of endangered species, and by bringing crops to parts of the world where they will not grow. There is ZERO evidence that GMO crops have any detrimental health effects, and as hackers we have to stand up to this anti-science nonsense[1]. As for Monsanto. After the Organic Seed Growers brought a class-action suit against the company for unjustly suing innocent farmers whose crops were inadvertently cross-pollinated, I found it incredibly damning that the judge had to throw the case out because the organic farmers could not produce one single example of this ever happening[2]. Nevertheless, this case being dismissed for lack of a victim has actually been used as more proof of Monsanto's control over all branches and departments of government by the tin-foil hat brigade. [1] http://ideonexus.com/2011/12/05/gmo-foods-and-the-promise-a-second-green-revolution/ http://ideonexus.com/2011/12/05/gmo-foods-and-the-promise-a-... [2] https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B83aJv4L7U-iYzYyMzQxOTktZjY5Mi00MDA1LWE0NjgtNjg2YTgzY2MxMDAy/edit https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B83aJv4L7U-iYzYyMzQxOTktZjY5...
- hkolek 13y ago> a world population that continues to grow by leaps and bounds not so much: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate
- stefantalpalaru 13y ago> as hackers we have to stand up to this anti-science nonsense As hackers we have to question everything instead of being true believers (in science or anything else).
- forgottenpaswrd 13y agoI believed Scientific American was a scientific magazine. Instead I find this as a shill article complete void of data or any other information whatsoever. It seems like a paid placement article for me. In science "you don't trust anything", you make experiments and get data. Personally I am fine with GMO provided 1 thing: You label your food as GMO, and then if people decide they want to be guinea pigs of new developments with their own money so be it. But they don't want letting people to choose. In the US you can't choose. As the article says "hey, it is making Monsanto lots of money so it is very good".
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- qwatsi13579 13y agoYou can assume that all food has GMOs unless it's labeled as organic. Is that not sufficient?
- kazagistar 13y agoIt means it costs producers a lot of money to not be labeled as GMO, making GMO default. That seems silly. I really don't see the problem with labeling GMO foods.
- qwatsi13579 13y agoActually, it would cost food manufacturers a lot more than otherwise since the majority of food would have to be labeled.
- kazagistar 13y agoThe costs I was speaking of have nothing to do with actual labeling, but certification.
- maratd 13y ago> Instead I find this as a shill article complete void of data or any other information whatsoever. I don't see any data in your comment either. Shall we classify it as a shill as well? It's pretty clear that the article has a single argument. We have been genetically modifying foods for thousands of years and there is no fundamental difference between what we're doing now and what we did before, other than the tools we're using to do it. How can you provide data for that? > You label your food as GMO ... In the US you can't choose WholeFoods is advertising all over their paper bags that they will begin doing this. That said, everything consumed by human beings in the last few thousand years is GMO. Especially our livestock, which has been forced down an evolutionary path that is not sustainable in nature in the slightest. If we become extinct for whatever reason, you will not find chickens and cows roaming about. They will be gone and they will be gone very quickly.
- Blahah 13y agoCrop engineer here (the humanitarian kind, not the for-profit kind). Dammit Nina Federoff, that's one poorly written article. All the facts she states are true, but her thesis (that the myths are disproven by GM crops' increasing market share) is stupid. If anyone wants to ask any GM crop technical questions, or wants any references, I'll do my best.
- nissimk 13y agoWhat's more dangerous: manipulating genetics of crops or spraying roundup onto the food crops? Isn't the most common genetic modification the one that makes the plants immune to roundup? Wikipedia seems to say that glyphosate is harmless to humans in small doses, but the talk page references the combination of glyphosate and TN-20 which is included in roundup and this link is about the human toxicity of that combination: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23099315 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23099315
- jivatmanx 13y ago>Humans began genetically modifying plants to provide food more than 10,000 years ago. There's a difference between selecting and breeding specific plants in your corn crop, or crossing corn with a slightly different variety of corn, and crossing corn with a fish, ginkgo tree, or bacteria.
- 7rurl 13y agoThey are different in degree and method, but fundamentally they are the same thing. In the end they are both humans causing the genes of a good crop to change over time. Direct genetic engineering is going to be faster, but the end results could still be the same as indirect breeding and hybrids.
- jivatmanx 13y agoA species, the lowest taxonomic classification on the tree of life, is defined by the ability to crossbreed. [0] Previously, any crossbreeding between plants, by necessity had to belong to the same species. Since this is the lowest taxonomic classification, the vast majority of the genome was shared. Now, a plant can be crossed with any other species on the tree of life. That's a significant difference. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
- maxerickson 13y agoAll you need to say is that without modern methods of direct gene alteration (and perhaps mutagens), organisms had to be able to breed to have their genes crossed (fertile offspring make the cross more interesting). Talking about species just muddies it up. Of course, GMOs can also pass the tests of successfully maturing and reproducing.
- tokenadult 13y agoI see several comments are decrying this interesting commentary article from Scientific American for not providing detailed citations for such basic facts as "Humans began genetically modifying plants to provide food more than 10,000 years ago." (This has been well understood ever since the Young Earth Creationism view of the age of the earth was set aside.) "For the past hundred years or so plant breeders have used radiation and chemicals to speed up the production of genetic changes. This was a genetic shotgun, producing lots of bad changes and a very, very occasional good one." (One example of this that is very familiar to me is the variety of sweet, pink-fleshed grapefruit grown in Texas, which was developed by irradiating grapefruit seeds.) "Most early alarms about new technologies fade away as research accumulates without turning up evidence of deleterious effects. This should be happening now because scientists have amassed more than three decades of research on GM biosafety, none of which has surfaced credible evidence that modifying plants by molecular techniques is dangerous. Instead, the anti-GM storm has intensified." If someone wants to disagree with this aspect of the article, the thing to do would be to cite evidence that there is any danger to GMO technology. As I type this, no one commenting in this thread has yet done so. "Insect-resistant GM corn also decreases human and animal exposure to mycotoxins, highly toxic and carcinogenic compounds made by fungi. The fungi that produce mycotoxins follow insects into plants; insect-resistant plants have no insect holes for fungi to enter and therefore no mycotoxins." This is a fact new to me that I learned from the article kindly submitted here. All living things are in biological competition, and most living things are toxic, by natural selection, to some or many of the other living things that might eat them. GMO technology allows human eaters to enjoy safer food. "Farmers don't have to buy Monsanto seed, nor is anyone preventing them from saving and replanting any seed they want, except for patented seed they've signed an agreement not to save and plant. Farmers buy seeds from Monsanto and other ag-biotech companies because their costs decrease and their profits increase. If they didn't, farmers wouldn't buy them again." Most of my uncles and cousins are farmers. The quoted statement is true. Farmers buy products if the products offer a good safety and effectiveness profile for sustainable farming. Agricultural products that don't work don't get a lot of repeat business from farmers. The people who are still farmers in the United States feed the entire country they live in and have enough surplus production to feed much of the rest of the world. Farmers in other countries have also enjoyed increased productivity as a result of agricultural research and free enterprise in agricultural products. The whole developed world is seeing rising life expectancies and reduced disease burdens at all ages, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=longevity-why-we-die-global-life-expectancy http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=longevity-w... so whatever is new about agricultural practices in the developed world seems to working well so far.
- malyk 13y agoI'm scientifically minded. I've loved science all my life. I'm decently well versed in many areas of science. GMO crops concern me because there is so much that we don't know about their effects and we don't really have an exit strategy if it turns out that they are, in fact, dangerous. From my point of view we don't have enough data to be able to make a determination one way or another, so the only logical way forward is to be cautious. At the very least that means labeling whether or not our food contains food that was genetically engineered in the modern sense (gene-gun or irradiation, primarily). The evidence we do have about modern GM crops is almost completely provided by the industry itself. In my opinion, there is enough circumstantial evidence from studies done by third parties, even if those studies aren't perfectly executed, to be wary of unleashing GM foods onto the global population. We shouldn't be so cavalier when we are dealing with the foundations of life. We don't fully understand the genome and we require food to eat. Those two facts should be enough for us to tread very carefully down this path. Let's do the science (beyond animal feeding studies). Let's find out. But in the meantime, assuming that everything is above-board from the very people who are going to benefit from the introduction and adoption of GM crops seems irrational when the potential harm is so great.
- AsymetricCom 13y ago"What are the facts? Monsanto and the other big ag-biotech companies have developed reliable, biologically insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant commodity crops that benefit people, farmers and the environment, and are nutritionally identical to their non-GM counterparts." Whoa boy, there goes any credibility that article had. To be fair, at least they are upfront about where they're coming from.. This article probably tells us more about SA than MON.