Hacker News Reader

Comment by muninn_ | Hacker News Reader

Exactly. There is absolutely 0 evidence that GMOs cause any health concerns when compared to organic food. Organic food is just for rich countries who can afford to produce food inefficiently in order to feel good about themselves. Now, I don't doubt their intentions, but it's not a solution to any problem, nor is it better for you.

View on HN

Well, no but there are other things that are often forgotten:

- Monoclonal cultures are highly suceptible to diseases like this one - there is a much higher pesticide usage associated with GMO fields around the world (for what reason whatsoever) - people have been sued because their crops contained genes from GMO companies

I am not really against GMO (I studied biotechnology) but I can understand why people have massive problems with them. And if Monsanto says that they want to monopolize food production around the world, I will oppose them, even if they do sometimes good things. It is not GMO that is the problem, its monopoles and big corporations that are associated with that and thats what people fear and rightfully fear.

I don't disagree that those are risks, and I do not like the large agriculture firms or the climate of that business from what I've read. I'm with you here.

>there is a much higher pesticide usage associated with GMO fields around the world (for what reason whatsoever)

This is because most GMO crops are designed to withstand more pesticides rather than bettering the crop on its own. It's a kind of printer and cartridge sales model. In Monsanto's case they want you to buy their crops and then use more Roundup. In this way they sell seeds and afterwards they sell more pesticide for those seeds.

Not really: GMO crops don't really use more pesticides. Very often less.

It's not totally a one-way street and things are complicated in many situations, but the common public perception "GMO == pouring lots of pesticides" is clearly wrong.

They don't need more, but Monsanto's breeds allow you to use more, which is something farmers want, because that means you get less weeds.

Herbicides, not pesticides. Also, keep in mind that "herbicide" is not a single thing; the particular herbicide that Monsanto sells (glyophosate) is more-or-less not toxic to mammals or insects and does not migrate to the water table.

You can't just compare "pounds of *cide" and call it a day. It is very important how much of which pesticides and herbicides are being applied, and what the properties of those are (how long they take to break down, whether they migrate to the water table, how toxic they are to different animals).

GMO crops don't really use more pesticides. Very often less.

Nope:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops...

FTA:

Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.

By 2011 there were also three times as many herbicide-resistant weeds found in farmer's fields as there were in 2001.

Now, I think the GMO scare out there borders on mindless hysteria. But pesticide and herbicide resistant crops are just... bad.

The argument isn't GMO vs organic. Non GMO isn't necessarily organic. Someone could vey easily be against both.

No that's exactly what the argument is.

You're half right

>Organic food is just for rich countries who can afford to produce food inefficiently in order to feel good about themselves.

The organic label is bullshit and has no consistent meaning. However, there is a difference between the farmer who grows for maximum yield and the artisan who tries to maximize taste.

I think many people confuse the label organic with higher quality foods, hybrids, and heirlooms or more generally quality.

That's why I try to buy things that are locally made, or that I can discern the quality myself and judge whether it's worth the extra money. As you mentioned, the artisan tries to maximize the taste (or quality in general), and the artisan also tends to be a local shop. With that being said, I have yet to find artisan broccoli.

Not exactly what you're looking for, but maybe baby broccoli will suffice?

You may be right — but it seems to me you are blithely equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence.

Put it this way. If you see two apples, one organic and one not, but the one that is not is cheaper, you would only buy the organic one if you believe that it's healthier, or you feel like you're doing something "good". But if you do that, you're making that decision without evidence of the organic apple being better for you. The rational decision is to pay for the cheaper one, unless you're at least consciously choosing to buy an organic apple because you believe it's a value statement.

If you buy the organic apple because you believe it's healthier than you're doing so without evidence and effectively asserting that such evidence exists. If we're to assume (and I think this is the proper assumption) that you don't have proper knowledge about the health effects, then the default choice where you're not positing that there is any evidence would to simply purchase the cheaper apple. In that case you're saying (I don't know) and taking that factor out of the equation, which leaves either price or lifestyle, which I mentioned above.

I used to believe that GMOs were bad and organic was the way to go. I thought I had to stand up to big agriculture and buy local. I still mostly try to buy local for environmental reasons (and others), but I no longer factor "organic" into the decision. You can get "organic" just about anything these days whether or not it's actually "organic", and often times it's worse for the environment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com