Comment by BoxOfRain | Hacker News Reader

Comment by BoxOfRain | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Which isn't without issues of its own of course, for example the EU is notoriously backwards on the issue of genetically modified crops which may turn out to be a vital lifeline if climate change causes agricultural collapse. Another example I can think of off the top of my head is the atrociously bad legislation to what was then the new technology of vaping, it came in pre-Brexit just when I was considering quitting smoking (which I eventually managed and never could have done without a vape) and it was so poorly thought out I'm convinced the tobacco industry had a hand in drafting it!

The precautionary principle has its merits, but I think it's often cargo-culted and its limitations not well articulated. In cases such as GM crops where the stakes may within a human lifetime be "devestating famine" versus "less famine", or cases like vaping where although the harm is unknown it's certainly less than what it's replacing (vaping is uncontroversially less harmful than smoking) the precautionary principle actually has a harmful effect in itself.

Sure, banning GMO's outright would be a huge problem, but is it so awful that they be tested first?

I don't know if they test for this, but GMOs do run the risk of become invasive or destructive species which could potentially tilt things towards the "devastating famine" side of the equation.

I don't think the ecological concern is what most people worry about when they think GMOs, and I'm not of the mind that GMOs = Bad, but I think we owe it to ourselves to study the ecological impact of GMOs we plan to grow widely.

I think what the argument comes down to is how much risk we're willing to tolerate as a society. There's definitely a middle ground to be had between an under-cautious world where things like leaded petrol and thalidomide are on the market causing immense human suffering, and an overly cautious world where progress is suffocated by the glacially slow wheels of bureaucracy and endless spurious "safety" objections by lobbyists attempting to kill their competition in its crib.

Having said that, the EU is a bit of a unique specimen when it comes to things like this. I'm perhaps being a little unfair to the precautionary principle per se when I suppose it's more the EU's implementation of it that I'm criticising. I don't want this to come across as an anti-EU polemic either, there's obviously pros and cons here and I realise the EU is very much in a class by itself when it comes to political polities which make comparisons quite difficult. My own biases are probably at play here too, for various reasons I'd say my risk tolerance is probably higher than most.

I think that's fair criticism.

I've enough friends who work for the Canadian government or university administration to know that there is a coveted and illusive middle ground where vital regulation doesn't grind all it touches to a hapless stand-still.

Hot take: I think the HN software dev crowd might not be the worst equipped to help towards addressing these sorts of problem. From the horror stories I hear, disciplined approaches to tooling could solve a class of problems that appear to be pervasive.

On one hand, the multiple levels of bureaucratic red tape and regulatory approval keeps a lot of technology from progressing onto the market and into people's lives at the rate it could otherwise.

On the other hand, the multiple levels of bureaucratic red tape and regulatory approval keeps a lot of technology from progressing onto the market and into people's lives at the rate it could otherwise.

> GMOs do run the risk of become invasive or destructive species

Crop plants don't run the risk to become invasive or destructive species. They are bred to be easily digestible food sources, which the exact opposite of the strategy for surviving in the wild.

That's true and a relief, but they're also bred to be resistant to certain insecticides and to be robust.

I guess my point is that we don't always get what we think we're getting when it comes to GMOs/selection: when farmers selected for Red Delicious apples that were entirely red, they also selected out the gene that made them palatable. Surely they wouldn't have done what they had if they knew we'd be left with the mealy mess Red Delicious apples are today.

We hope we'll get edible plants that also don't do well in the wild, but there's a lot of room for error and testing is warranted in my not-an-expert opinion (I've a degree in Biochemistry, not Ecology or Agriculture).

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/the-evil-...

We're still decades from a potential global agricultural collapse caused by climate change, there's plenty of time to study effects of GMO crops on environment and human health.

Decades is a short time on a planetary scale, at risk of sounding alarmist I really do believe we should be hoping for the best but preparing for the worst when it comes to climate change. If there was ever a time for action it was fifty years ago, but now is better than further delay.

> the EU is notoriously backwards on the issue of genetically modified crops

The EU has more efficient agriculture by area compared to the US. Part of it by necessity of course. There are problems with pesticides that could be solved with GMO in some circumstances.

But the same principle applies: It isn't stricly necessariy to employ GMO, especially not for yield (we don't have any yield problems anyway). The problems of agriculture today are economic in nature and there still could be negative consequences if GMO strains are spread in nature.

So I don't see anything as backwards really. There just isn't a problem that requires GMO currently. I think saying GMO will be vital instrument against climate change is ridiculous to be honest. Maybe if plants could be modified to use less water?

Part of the issue with GM crops is the corporations involved, and how to operate them ethically under capitalism. The EU has a much stronger stance against capitalism run amok, than the US' does, so even if you do trust the science, the science doesn't operate in a vacuum. The EU understands this.

This is my main gripe with GMO those days. With GMO, the farmers effectively buy a one-year _license_ for a seed (SaaS-like) which can't be used in next years. Also there were stories of farmers going broke due to neighbors' GMO crops taking over their fields, and being sued for license breach.

We must find a way to bound the corporate greed with a good regulatory framework because GMO sooner or later might become inevitable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com