Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikeash | Hacker News Reader

Is 1 really a valid point of the other side, when it applies just as well to many non-GMO plants we consume?

Yes. The difference is between applying and producing pesticides.

Several GMO crop strains are specifically designed to produce pesticides or fungicides themselves, which offers more powerful effects and saves the effort of applying those chemicals to the growing plants. This is generally valuable for crop yields and profit margins, but it's appreciably different from external application.

The main concern is that producing these pesticides/herbicides inside the plant may include the chemical inside the parts we consume - you can't just stop application prior to harvest or wash off the surface before consumption. There's a lot of conflicting data here: the GMO designers have generally concluded that the chemicals are only produced in leaves/stalks and not the edible parts, but other studies have suggested that the chemicals might be getting passed on at levels which could be relevant to pregnant mothers.

There are 2 major assumptions with your argument:

1) That the pesticides/fungicides are bad for humans. You haven't shown that. Some fungi are bad for humans, so it might be better to eat something with a fungicide but no fungus than to eat it with a fungus

2) You're assuming that applied pesticides/fungicides can just be washed off. But it's also possible that the plants absorb them and that the man-made ones are worse than the genetically engineered ones.

To play devil's avocado: you don't have to assume pesticides/fungicides are bad for humans. You just have to assume they may have unpredicted side-effects.

For example, if those pesticides result in a drastic reduction of the populations of pollinating insects this may lead to ecological changes beyond the intended crops. It's not hard to imagine other things susceptible to fungicides and pesticides that might be beneficial but can get caught in the crossfire and would suffer, especially from spill-over.

Some GMOs result in lower use of applied pesticides. Bt corn comes to mind. Such crops reduce the risk of unpredicted side-effects from spill-over.

seems the bugs are gaining immunity... whats next ?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/farmers-say-gmo-c...

This appears to be from 2014. Prior to 2014, using GMO seeds "required" farmers to plant an in-field refuge of non-resistant crops. Since farmers could, short term, get better yields if they didn't plant these refuge plants, they often chose not to. In 2014 companies started mixing in non-resistant seeds, known as "refuge in bag". It's seen some mixed results, but for the most part, it looks like it has helped.

And don't forget that some of these pesticides, even if they do wash off, are harmful to other things we care about. Like... say... bees (yes, I know the mite problem is bigger).

Agreed on both counts. I didn't mean to say I'm not making those assumptions, just that they're the relevant questions for opposing GMO crops that produce pesticides/fungicides.

1) Lots of pesticides, including some of those we're addressing, are known to be bad for humans. Without going into biochemistry, the GMO-designer argument here isn't "it's safe" but "it isn't produced in the edible part of the crop". I'm content to say take the word of the people selling a pesticide-producing-crop if they say the pesticide is bad to eat.

2) This is a way bigger and harder question. If 'natural' pesticides are being pitted against indiscriminate use of neonicotinoids, we should probably choose the natural/GMO options and not kill all the bees. And I realize that some pesticide/crop combinations absolutely can't be cleaned up by washing - broccoli comes to mind as particularly hard to clean. I only meant to raise the question of dose/harm in pesticidal GMOs, not assert that they're always worse than external application.

Are you aware of what the effects of pesticides like Bt are in mammals? They have been tested.

Yes.

My concern was with several cultivars that specifically produce non-mammal-safe pesticides, but are intended to produce them only (or primarily) in non-edible parts of the plant. There are lots of pesticides we absolutely shouldn't eat, and there's been some controversy over whether specific strains (of corn, largely) keep them at safe levels in the edible components of the crop.

I don't mean to imply general opposition to pesticides, just very specific combinations of pesticide/crop/cultivar.

> My concern was with several cultivars that specifically produce non-mammal-safe pesticides

Which crops and cultivars are these? Could you name or link to some examples?

Wikipedia seems to list only crops which produce Bt-toxin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops#Pes...

My whole point is that plenty of non-GMO plants produce pesticides.

capsaicin (peppers) and allicin (onions) are effective and tasty pesticides.

And coffee.

Yes, caffeine found in coffee and tea is a pesticide

Edit: missed an e

Well some plants are just poisonous and not fit for consumption. Specifically adding poison is a risk. And that makes it a tradeoff. But add to that these plants did not need to survive on their on in nature for millions of years. Instead are cultivated/protected very specifically.

The eu judgement is not the result of a public scare, I don't think.

Few if any of the plants grown in modern agriculture survived on their own in nature for millions of years. Everything we eat is modified, it's just a question of whether the modifications were done slowly with breeding or quickly with advanced tools.

You are absolutely right.

Also, I cannot find anything but sensationalist articles on this pesticide thing I referenced. It allows mon810 which falls under this definition. It just regulates all GMOs and disallows them by default.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com