61 ms·

GMOs are bad? When did HN become anti-science?

smilliken 13y ago
GMOs aren't bad in principle, but they are risky; there may be Black Swan-type threats that are lingering. It also doesn't help that Monsanto's poor image casts a shadow over GMOs.
- devcpp 13y ago
  Everything that remotely relates to health is risky. The problem is simply the lack of regulation.
- patrickaljord 13y ago
  > GMOs aren't bad in principle, but they are risky Yeah, but how can someone praise the legalization of marijuana and the prohibition of GMO at the same time? GMO and marijuana are not always bad, but it's important to let people make their own decisions about them. It's like he doesn't even know why he's pro-marijuana legalization, isn't it about individual freedom to put what you want in your body? Thought so. Also, the free laptops for all policy has been tried elsewhere and has always been a big and costly failure.
  - aluhut 13y ago
    The problem with GMOs are the unknown long time risks and the fact that you may lose the ability to decide because you don't even know that it is an GMO or you don't have a choice at all. You don't have to smoke pot, but you have to eat.
    - lmm 13y ago
      Food labelling laws are a good thing and can solve that.
      - aluhut 13y ago
        This theory has already proven to be wrong. Contaminated non-GMO fields, additives, processing aids, flavours, or meat/milk/eggs from animals fed by GMOs, etc. Strict food labelling laws would have been great before the product reached the market...
  - Brakenshire 13y ago
    > it's important to let people make their own decisions about them You must be strongly opposed to the system of regulation in the US, where GMO products are not fully labelled, so individuals do not have a choice. This is also (to be blunt) a nonsense, because many of the potential threats that people are worried about are social, and not individual. For instance, they are worried about farmers losing their ability to produce their own seeds, so the nation's food supply becomes dependent on a handful of multinationals. No doubt South and Central Americans are particularly aware of the political implications of putting themselves in a position like that - see the Copper mines in Chile, or the banana plantations in Honduras and Guatemala. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._intervention_in_Chile#First_half_of_the_20th_century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._intervention_in_Chile#Firs... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic If you expect individual consumers to make their purchasing decisions on long-term foreign policy, you are, to put it mildly, setting yourself up for disappointment. They are well within their rights to make decisions that affect everyone within democratic decision making processes.
    - patrickaljord 13y ago
      > You must be strongly opposed to the system of regulation in the US, where GMO products are not fully labelled, so individuals do not have a choice. Of course they have a choice. They could only buy products that are fully labelled and guarantied to be 100% GMO free. Problem is for you, most people don't care about GMO so they buy GMO products anyway. This is why you want to ban GMO, to force people to care about the same stuff as you do. Don't want GMO? Buy GMO free products or grow your own food. Don't care enough to do so? Welcome to the rest of us. > For instance, they are worried about farmers losing their ability to produce their own seeds, so the nation's food supply becomes dependent on a handful of multinationals. Any examples please? > see the Copper mines in Chile, or the banana plantations in Honduras and Guatemala. This has nothing to do with GMO. I've lived for 5 years in Peru so I know a bit about South America. People don't care about GMO. > They are well within their rights to make decisions that affect everyone within democratic decision making processes. That's a fancy way to say "they are well within their rights to impose their opinion on what we should be allowed to eat on everybody else". Leftists are just like conservatives, always want to tell people what they can or cannot do with their own body. No thanks.
duairc 13y ago
Haha, good troll. GMOs = science. Anti-GMOs = anti-science.
- iterative 13y ago
  Haha, good troll. Pretending that Anti-GMO != Anti-science.
  - duairc 13y ago
    Could you explain to my why being “anti-GMO” necessarily implies being “anti-science”? What definitions of “GMO” and “science” are you using to make that proposition true? I actually am anti-science, in the sense of “science-as-religion”. The comment I originally replied to is a good example of what I'm talking about: being anti-science is blasphemous, it's heretical. I'm against this kind of nonsense. Not that I think it necessarily is, but so what if being anti-GMOs is anti-science? What's the problem with that? We should be able to have a frank discussion about the merits of GMOs and indeed of science, but we can't, because science is a religion, and you get denounced as a heretic if you criticise its underlying assumptions. My own position on genetic engineering is that I'm not inherently against it in an abstract way, but I'm against almost all of “actually existing” genetic engineering. Most of the debates about genetic engineering focus on whether or not genetically engineered crops are safe, or whether they provide better nutrition, but I think these are distractions from the real issue. The issue is about control: whether farmers save and choose their own seeds, or whether they must get them every year from a corporation.

GMOs aren't bad in principle, but they are risky; there may be Black Swan-type threats that are lingering. It also doesn't help that Monsanto's poor image casts a shadow over GMOs.

devcpp 13y ago
Everything that remotely relates to health is risky. The problem is simply the lack of regulation.
patrickaljord 13y ago
> GMOs aren't bad in principle, but they are risky Yeah, but how can someone praise the legalization of marijuana and the prohibition of GMO at the same time? GMO and marijuana are not always bad, but it's important to let people make their own decisions about them. It's like he doesn't even know why he's pro-marijuana legalization, isn't it about individual freedom to put what you want in your body? Thought so. Also, the free laptops for all policy has been tried elsewhere and has always been a big and costly failure.
- aluhut 13y ago
  The problem with GMOs are the unknown long time risks and the fact that you may lose the ability to decide because you don't even know that it is an GMO or you don't have a choice at all. You don't have to smoke pot, but you have to eat.
  - lmm 13y ago
    Food labelling laws are a good thing and can solve that.
    - aluhut 13y ago
      This theory has already proven to be wrong. Contaminated non-GMO fields, additives, processing aids, flavours, or meat/milk/eggs from animals fed by GMOs, etc. Strict food labelling laws would have been great before the product reached the market...
- Brakenshire 13y ago
  > it's important to let people make their own decisions about them You must be strongly opposed to the system of regulation in the US, where GMO products are not fully labelled, so individuals do not have a choice. This is also (to be blunt) a nonsense, because many of the potential threats that people are worried about are social, and not individual. For instance, they are worried about farmers losing their ability to produce their own seeds, so the nation's food supply becomes dependent on a handful of multinationals. No doubt South and Central Americans are particularly aware of the political implications of putting themselves in a position like that - see the Copper mines in Chile, or the banana plantations in Honduras and Guatemala. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._intervention_in_Chile#First_half_of_the_20th_century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._intervention_in_Chile#Firs... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic If you expect individual consumers to make their purchasing decisions on long-term foreign policy, you are, to put it mildly, setting yourself up for disappointment. They are well within their rights to make decisions that affect everyone within democratic decision making processes.
  - patrickaljord 13y ago
    > You must be strongly opposed to the system of regulation in the US, where GMO products are not fully labelled, so individuals do not have a choice. Of course they have a choice. They could only buy products that are fully labelled and guarantied to be 100% GMO free. Problem is for you, most people don't care about GMO so they buy GMO products anyway. This is why you want to ban GMO, to force people to care about the same stuff as you do. Don't want GMO? Buy GMO free products or grow your own food. Don't care enough to do so? Welcome to the rest of us. > For instance, they are worried about farmers losing their ability to produce their own seeds, so the nation's food supply becomes dependent on a handful of multinationals. Any examples please? > see the Copper mines in Chile, or the banana plantations in Honduras and Guatemala. This has nothing to do with GMO. I've lived for 5 years in Peru so I know a bit about South America. People don't care about GMO. > They are well within their rights to make decisions that affect everyone within democratic decision making processes. That's a fancy way to say "they are well within their rights to impose their opinion on what we should be allowed to eat on everybody else". Leftists are just like conservatives, always want to tell people what they can or cannot do with their own body. No thanks.

duairc 13y ago

Haha, good troll. GMOs = science. Anti-GMOs = anti-science.

iterative 13y ago
Haha, good troll. Pretending that Anti-GMO != Anti-science.
- duairc 13y ago
  Could you explain to my why being “anti-GMO” necessarily implies being “anti-science”? What definitions of “GMO” and “science” are you using to make that proposition true? I actually am anti-science, in the sense of “science-as-religion”. The comment I originally replied to is a good example of what I'm talking about: being anti-science is blasphemous, it's heretical. I'm against this kind of nonsense. Not that I think it necessarily is, but so what if being anti-GMOs is anti-science? What's the problem with that? We should be able to have a frank discussion about the merits of GMOs and indeed of science, but we can't, because science is a religion, and you get denounced as a heretic if you criticise its underlying assumptions. My own position on genetic engineering is that I'm not inherently against it in an abstract way, but I'm against almost all of “actually existing” genetic engineering. Most of the debates about genetic engineering focus on whether or not genetically engineered crops are safe, or whether they provide better nutrition, but I think these are distractions from the real issue. The issue is about control: whether farmers save and choose their own seeds, or whether they must get them every year from a corporation.