Hacker News Reader

Comment by SlowBro | Hacker News Reader

> As a consumer, if I ever get suspicious about one specific change made to one specific breed, my only option is to buy non-GMO everything. That doesn't make any sense!

It seems rational to me that the operation is on its head. If I want to grow GMO soy I just buy it, plant it, and spray it. But if I want to certify Organic I must go through a rigorous and expensive authorization process.

I’d like to see it exactly the opposite: If you use proven, centuries-old methods it’s easy, but if you want to spray and use weird stuff it requires a rigorous and expensive authorization process.

Don’t we do that in other industries? Why not with our own food?

View on HN

You can grow food however you like, for the most part. If you want to participate in certification, then that's what you have to do.

Furthermore, many modern 'organic' methods are anything but centuries old. Heavy use of Bacillus thuringiensis toxin, copper compounds, compost tea, etc. etc. are all quite new. That's not to say they aren't safe; there are a few practices which warrant more scrutiny, but for the most part they're alright. But the point is that many people are terribly mischaracterizing actual farming practices.

> You can grow food however you like, for the most part. If you want to participate in certification, then that's what you have to do.

Yes you can grow as you like but it seems backwards to me that you have to prove you are /not/ doing unusual things. If any regulation should occur it ought to be in doing the /unusual/ things.

> Furthermore, many modern 'organic' methods

I'm not speaking of newer methods. I would have any new method more strictly regulated until proven.

I am not arguing against your core point, but would like to point out that "unusual" itself is going to be difficult to define, as are terms such as "natural".

Unusual in the sense that it has not been practiced for hundreds of years and proven out. The short-term studies typically done with new practices are annoyingly inconsistent with reality. Time and lots of exposure are needed.

There’s lies, there’s damned lies, and then there’s studies. Monsanto’s maize study was only done for 90 days and then got approved. When the same study was replicated for two years, significant health issues were discovered.[1]

And by the way, Monsanto was the only one required to confirm that the study showed positive results. Safety testing is not done by the FDA, only required by the company, who may or may not be telling the truth about the results.[2]

Lies, damned lies, and studies.

So the question remains: Why should I if I were farming have to spend a lot of time, effort, and money to prove what I am not doing? Shouldn't it be the other way 'round?

[1] https://www.gmoseralini.org/faq-items/why-this-study-now/

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16704019

So ban almost all pest control practices then. Most have been developed in 1900s making them not even 100 years old.

Then welcome the next potato blight...

Please don’t make this more difficult than it needs to be. There are practices that the fruits of that labor, every human being has either consumed and/or his ancestors has consumed, across the entire face of the planet, for dozens of generations, including pesticides. Accepting those by default and holding back new practices seems a far smarter approach, to me.

But then I live in the United States where we do quite a number of backwards things.

I don’t have all day to sit around debating so take my thoughts as they are. You may have the last word. Good day and God bless.

What makes you think that the current process isn't good? That regulatory experts, say like the FDA/USDA/EPA haven't given it any rigorous thought?

Hybridization of plants swaps thousands of genes at random, in an uncontrolled manner. We've been doing that for a thousand years, and just breeding stuff out in fields to see what sticks.

Geneticaly modifying rice to produce more vitamin A required changing only 2 genes, instead of thousands, but somehow people find that scarier because it seems "new".

I don't suppose the FDA/USDA/EPA have ever been known to be wrong about relatively new practices?

But classic methods have been used and proven for centuries. It seems riskier and frankly, backwards, to me to require stricter regulation on what has been proven but easily permit that which is new and still being tried out.

In the USA, former executives from the companies being regulated typically run the organizations charged with regulating said companies.

Is the fox guarding the (non-GMO) hen house? "Testing for GMO products is currently voluntary," according to an FDA spokeswoman. "Although the consultation process is voluntary, compliance with the law is mandatory; it is the manufacturer's responsibility to ensure that the food products it offers for sale are safe and otherwise comply with applicable requirements," the spokeswoman said in a statement to ABC News.[1]

What has the FDA really "rigorously thought" about if they aren't testing?

[1] http://abcnews.go.com/Health/eating-gmo-produce/story?id=300...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com