10 ms·

Anti-GMO Activist Seeks to Expose Scientists’ Emails with Big Ag

13 points by Turukawa 12y ago

tomp 12y ago
Salt is harmful. Salt is not harmful. Saturated fat is harmful. Saturated fat isn't harmful. Don't eat red meat. Red meat is OK. Low carb diet is more healthy. Japanese live the longest (I assume they consume non-trivial amounts of rice). Nutritional science (not really a science, more research) hasn't been able to produce conclusive results about some of the most simple (chemically) compounds that we've been consuming for thousands of years. And people are claiming that anyone can say that GMOs, i.e. things we don't understand (cells) that haven't existed for even a generation, are safe (edit: not just safe to eat, but also safe for the environment)?
- jemacniddle 12y ago
  >Nutritional science (not really a science, more research) hasn't been able to produce conclusive results about some of the most simple (chemically) compounds that we've been consuming for thousands of years. What research are you looking at?
- ptaipale 12y ago
  It is not possible to prove that genetically engineered food is safe. It is not possible to prove that any food is safe. Therefore it is unreasonable to require that something, including GMOs, would be entirely without risks. But the scientific consensus is: “Consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.” And when you think of it, the "conventional" techniques mean that seeds (etc) are exposed to ionizing radiation, carsinogenic chemicals and whatever. Then you wait for random mutations. Then you pick some of them, examine them, and hope they're not hurting anyone. That sounds much more dangerous than the approach of genetic engineering (research genes, then modify only the parts that you have identified, nothing else).
  - joelthelion 12y ago
    And yet, is that argument strong enough to start using GMOs on 80%+ of the cultivated surface right away? ( Source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-geneticall... )
    - falcolas 12y ago
      It's my understanding (I don't have a source, just a recollection of a BS episode on "organic" food) that we would be unable to support our current population with non-GMO crops, let alone support the growth in population we are anticipating. So, what's the alternative? Let 30% of our population starve because food prices shoot through the roof?
  - tomp 12y ago
    > It is not possible to prove that genetically engineered food is safe. It is not possible to prove that any food is safe. Of course, and I don't expect proof. I just expect long (20-years plus) studies that are unencumbered by commercial interests). > And when you think of it, the "conventional" techniques mean that seeds (etc) are exposed to ionizing radiation, carsinogenic chemicals and whatever. Then you wait for random mutations. So basically, it's not safe at all. IMO, that's a serious misinterpretation of the word "conventional" - for me, conventional plant improvement techniques is interbreeding and selection (i.e. find plants that are "better" according to some criteria and take their seeds, thus slowly improving it over generations). I'll definitely look into these "conventional" techniques; I guess this limits the food choices I have even more :) Thank god I live in Europe, I'm assuming we're growing more traditional variants here.
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      Where do you think the "better" varieties that get interbred come from?
    - Oletros 12y ago
      > Of course, and I don't expect proof. I just expect long (20-years plus) studies that are unencumbered by commercial interests). GMO's have been studied for more than 20 years
daemonfire300 12y ago
My only problem with this is, that GMOs might be safe, but companies always try to min/max and modern diets show how man cheap bad chemicals land in our food, just to sell more of it, not regarding what effects it might have on our health. It's about making safe GMOs. I am sure it can be done, but I am very unsure if it's going to be done.
guelo 12y ago
GMO by itself may be safe but 99% of GMO plants sold are engineered to be able to be doused in pesticides which are NOT known to be safe for human consumption. These pesticides have not been rigorously tested using double blind studies on humans.
- fabian2k 12y ago
  There are many studies on pesticide toxicity, but you can't really set the bar so high as to ask for the kind of double-blind human studies you would use for new drugs. In most cases such studies would simply be unethical, you can't just intentionally expose people to chemical you suspect might be harmful in studies.
  - guelo 12y ago
    We're getting exposed to the chemicals anyways.
    - Oletros 12y ago
      Yes, we are exposed to chemical in almost every moment of our live
      - guelo 12y ago
        If you are suggesting that it is safe to ingest any and all chemicals without proof that they are safe you are a paid shill, an asshole, or a congressman.
        Oletros 12y ago
        It says a lot of you if that is what you have understood. Are you here pranking us? Apart of insulting, of course.
- bpodgursky 12y ago
  Bt plants (like Bt corn) are specifically engineered to not require pesticides. So to start, your 99% is wildly inaccurate. Also, a lot of promising GMO projects focus around enriching vitamin content (golden rice) or making plants more drought-resistant. And about roundup-ready crops: "The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions." "Early epidemiological studies have not found associations between long-term low-level exposure to glyphosate and any disease." (off of the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human)
nashashmi 12y ago
I have noticed a big negative vibe in the HN Community when anti-GMO talk surfaces. People down vote anybody who talks against GMO foods. Even the most respectful and reasonable posts are rebuked.
- noipv4 12y ago
  HN is a bunch of linear thinking one-dimensional cyborg community
- falcolas 12y ago
  Well, GMO represents the future of farming, and this is a generally future looking forum. The old method of GMO, that is intentionally controlling pollination to bring out desirable traits once per plant generation, is too slow to support the growing need for food as our population expands. We can't look to the past for a solution for this (well, we could, but personally I'm against starvation and plagues), so I feel that we have little choice but to look forward.
  - pdkl95 12y ago
    While selective breeding has been around basically forever, one of the more recent "old methods" to be used was forcing mutation[1]. This involved liberal use of fun things like ethyl methanesulfonate or dimethyl sulfate. When the "atomic" craze happened, using cobalt-60 as a gamma source became popular. What a lot of "anti-GMO" people seem to be missing is that the modern techniques are far less radical and significantly more controlled. At least now we can track the changes we make, which are limited in scope. Nothing is perfect, but I find small, tracked changes far more reassuring than randomly blasting plants with mutagens until you find something interesting. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding ... wow - that wiki page has an interesting claim about "some" so-called "certified orgainc" growers: "...several organic food and seed companies promote and sell certified organic products that were developed using both chemical and nuclear mutagenesis. Several certified organic brands, whose companies support strict labeling or outright bans on GMO-crops, market their use of branded wheat and other varietal strains which were derived from mutagenic processes without any reference to this genetic manipulation..."
noipv4 12y ago
I think GMO is OK as long as you are taking a gene that the plant already has and propagating it over other traits that are less desirable, like breeding birds with blue feathers instead of green feathers because you like blue... thats fine, but when you mix genes from a bird a pig a cow a bacteria and some corn to make corn that flies onto your plate cooks itself and repels insects. . . . that shit IMO is stupid.
- roel_v 12y ago
  Luckily this debate is about facts, not about your opinion.
- Oletros 12y ago
  > but when you mix genes from a bird a pig a cow a bacteria and some corn to make corn that flies onto your plate cooks itself and repels insects. Ah, you're not being serious
SigmundA 12y ago
The problem is GMO is an arbitrary distinction similar to labelling food "organic". There is no clear definition of GMO because almost everything we eat has been genetically modified by humans. Corn, wheat, cows, pigs, chickens and all domesticated crops and livestock exist due to genetic modification by humans, they are genetically modified organisms, now we are simply arguing over how their genes are being modified not if. So when someone says GMO it assumed to be what exactly? Targeted gene inertion? Mutagenesis? What about marker assisted breeding? Each one of these is a continuum of progression from "conventional" breeding. All of them are human induced genetic modification, drawing the line at say targeted gene insertion is arbitrary. More details on the problems with defining and classifying food as GMO can be found here: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5102656 http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC510...
yoshko 12y ago
Don't really approve of the means too much, but she's got guts. Good for her.

13 points by Turukawa 12y ago

tomp 12y ago

Salt is harmful. Salt is not harmful. Saturated fat is harmful. Saturated fat isn't harmful. Don't eat red meat. Red meat is OK. Low carb diet is more healthy. Japanese live the longest (I assume they consume non-trivial amounts of rice). Nutritional science (not really a science, more research) hasn't been able to produce conclusive results about some of the most simple (chemically) compounds that we've been consuming for thousands of years. And people are claiming that anyone can say that GMOs, i.e. things we don't understand (cells) that haven't existed for even a generation, are safe (edit: not just safe to eat, but also safe for the environment)?

jemacniddle 12y ago
>Nutritional science (not really a science, more research) hasn't been able to produce conclusive results about some of the most simple (chemically) compounds that we've been consuming for thousands of years. What research are you looking at?
ptaipale 12y ago
It is not possible to prove that genetically engineered food is safe. It is not possible to prove that any food is safe. Therefore it is unreasonable to require that something, including GMOs, would be entirely without risks. But the scientific consensus is: “Consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.” And when you think of it, the "conventional" techniques mean that seeds (etc) are exposed to ionizing radiation, carsinogenic chemicals and whatever. Then you wait for random mutations. Then you pick some of them, examine them, and hope they're not hurting anyone. That sounds much more dangerous than the approach of genetic engineering (research genes, then modify only the parts that you have identified, nothing else).
- joelthelion 12y ago
  And yet, is that argument strong enough to start using GMOs on 80%+ of the cultivated surface right away? ( Source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-geneticall... )
  - falcolas 12y ago
    It's my understanding (I don't have a source, just a recollection of a BS episode on "organic" food) that we would be unable to support our current population with non-GMO crops, let alone support the growth in population we are anticipating. So, what's the alternative? Let 30% of our population starve because food prices shoot through the roof?
- tomp 12y ago
  > It is not possible to prove that genetically engineered food is safe. It is not possible to prove that any food is safe. Of course, and I don't expect proof. I just expect long (20-years plus) studies that are unencumbered by commercial interests). > And when you think of it, the "conventional" techniques mean that seeds (etc) are exposed to ionizing radiation, carsinogenic chemicals and whatever. Then you wait for random mutations. So basically, it's not safe at all. IMO, that's a serious misinterpretation of the word "conventional" - for me, conventional plant improvement techniques is interbreeding and selection (i.e. find plants that are "better" according to some criteria and take their seeds, thus slowly improving it over generations). I'll definitely look into these "conventional" techniques; I guess this limits the food choices I have even more :) Thank god I live in Europe, I'm assuming we're growing more traditional variants here.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    Where do you think the "better" varieties that get interbred come from?
  - Oletros 12y ago
    > Of course, and I don't expect proof. I just expect long (20-years plus) studies that are unencumbered by commercial interests). GMO's have been studied for more than 20 years

daemonfire300 12y ago

My only problem with this is, that GMOs might be safe, but companies always try to min/max and modern diets show how man cheap bad chemicals land in our food, just to sell more of it, not regarding what effects it might have on our health. It's about making safe GMOs. I am sure it can be done, but I am very unsure if it's going to be done.

guelo 12y ago

GMO by itself may be safe but 99% of GMO plants sold are engineered to be able to be doused in pesticides which are NOT known to be safe for human consumption. These pesticides have not been rigorously tested using double blind studies on humans.

fabian2k 12y ago
There are many studies on pesticide toxicity, but you can't really set the bar so high as to ask for the kind of double-blind human studies you would use for new drugs. In most cases such studies would simply be unethical, you can't just intentionally expose people to chemical you suspect might be harmful in studies.
- guelo 12y ago
  We're getting exposed to the chemicals anyways.
  - Oletros 12y ago
    Yes, we are exposed to chemical in almost every moment of our live
    - guelo 12y ago
      If you are suggesting that it is safe to ingest any and all chemicals without proof that they are safe you are a paid shill, an asshole, or a congressman.
      - Oletros 12y ago
        It says a lot of you if that is what you have understood. Are you here pranking us? Apart of insulting, of course.
bpodgursky 12y ago
Bt plants (like Bt corn) are specifically engineered to not require pesticides. So to start, your 99% is wildly inaccurate. Also, a lot of promising GMO projects focus around enriching vitamin content (golden rice) or making plants more drought-resistant. And about roundup-ready crops: "The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions." "Early epidemiological studies have not found associations between long-term low-level exposure to glyphosate and any disease." (off of the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human)

nashashmi 12y ago

I have noticed a big negative vibe in the HN Community when anti-GMO talk surfaces. People down vote anybody who talks against GMO foods. Even the most respectful and reasonable posts are rebuked.

noipv4 12y ago
HN is a bunch of linear thinking one-dimensional cyborg community
falcolas 12y ago
Well, GMO represents the future of farming, and this is a generally future looking forum. The old method of GMO, that is intentionally controlling pollination to bring out desirable traits once per plant generation, is too slow to support the growing need for food as our population expands. We can't look to the past for a solution for this (well, we could, but personally I'm against starvation and plagues), so I feel that we have little choice but to look forward.
- pdkl95 12y ago
  While selective breeding has been around basically forever, one of the more recent "old methods" to be used was forcing mutation[1]. This involved liberal use of fun things like ethyl methanesulfonate or dimethyl sulfate. When the "atomic" craze happened, using cobalt-60 as a gamma source became popular. What a lot of "anti-GMO" people seem to be missing is that the modern techniques are far less radical and significantly more controlled. At least now we can track the changes we make, which are limited in scope. Nothing is perfect, but I find small, tracked changes far more reassuring than randomly blasting plants with mutagens until you find something interesting. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding ... wow - that wiki page has an interesting claim about "some" so-called "certified orgainc" growers: "...several organic food and seed companies promote and sell certified organic products that were developed using both chemical and nuclear mutagenesis. Several certified organic brands, whose companies support strict labeling or outright bans on GMO-crops, market their use of branded wheat and other varietal strains which were derived from mutagenic processes without any reference to this genetic manipulation..."

noipv4 12y ago

I think GMO is OK as long as you are taking a gene that the plant already has and propagating it over other traits that are less desirable, like breeding birds with blue feathers instead of green feathers because you like blue... thats fine, but when you mix genes from a bird a pig a cow a bacteria and some corn to make corn that flies onto your plate cooks itself and repels insects. . . . that shit IMO is stupid.

roel_v 12y ago
Luckily this debate is about facts, not about your opinion.
Oletros 12y ago
> but when you mix genes from a bird a pig a cow a bacteria and some corn to make corn that flies onto your plate cooks itself and repels insects. Ah, you're not being serious

SigmundA 12y ago

The problem is GMO is an arbitrary distinction similar to labelling food "organic". There is no clear definition of GMO because almost everything we eat has been genetically modified by humans. Corn, wheat, cows, pigs, chickens and all domesticated crops and livestock exist due to genetic modification by humans, they are genetically modified organisms, now we are simply arguing over how their genes are being modified not if. So when someone says GMO it assumed to be what exactly? Targeted gene inertion? Mutagenesis? What about marker assisted breeding? Each one of these is a continuum of progression from "conventional" breeding. All of them are human induced genetic modification, drawing the line at say targeted gene insertion is arbitrary. More details on the problems with defining and classifying food as GMO can be found here: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5102656 http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC510...

yoshko 12y ago

Don't really approve of the means too much, but she's got guts. Good for her.