Hacker News Reader

Comment by da_n | Hacker News Reader

In my experience the people who are anti gm also say they won't eat food with chemicals. Basically they are clueless.

I'm sure many people understand this but I'm going to say it anyway:

People who are anti-GM are skeptical about scientists' ability to predict all the consequences of their meddling in living genes and chemical balance of nature components.

The nature had millions of years of coming up with sustainable balance between growth and death.

I hope no one will argue that many of the priorities in our current scientific environment are short term individual benefits, whether it is political, wealth or recognition.

This is the basis of anti-GM folk mistrust, and not inability to detect that everything is chemicals and cross-pollination is a gene modification as well.

A lot of our food is already 'unnatural' due to humankind practicing genetic modification for thousands of years using plant breeding techniques. If we follow the line of reasoning you present we should also stop all medical research because some companies prioritise monetary gain over the welfare of humankind. I wouldn't argue that it needs regulation to ensure it is used responsibly.

I wouldn't argue that it needs regulation to ensure it is used responsibly.

Huh?

I don't know what your question is.

I think that particular subpopulation thinks gluten is a chemical that should be avoided so it won't make much difference for Weetabix

Yeah! Those idiots trying to get food on their plate that is healthy and without side-effects. What on earth are they thinking?

Do you really find it odd? Nowadays, if you're not a chemist, you have no idea what you're eating. So it is only natural that people react by avoiding everything that is unknown, unfamiliar, or even seems unnatural.

That's perfectly normal behaviour. What IS NOT normal behaviour is sticking your head in the sand when 1 in 2 get cancer.

Who do you think is looking out for your well being? The companies selling you these things?

Here's a hint for you. Natural does not mean healthy and without side effects. When you are eating a lifeform that contains myriads of chemicals in its purely natural makeup, you have no idea what you are eating. (Often, with herbal medicines, this proves to be an issue, and they get yanked off sale for side effects.) Ironically, it is precisely the synthetic chemicals that you can look up on wikipedia. And if you live long enough, immersed in this flow of entirely natural chemicals and radiation, yourself made of complicated and imperfect chemical reactions, you too will get cancer. (Actually, your body is cancering (deliberate verb coinage) all the time, and nearly always its repair mechanisms catch it early and stop it. It's that "nearly" that's the trouble.)

But hey, facts, harder to process than irrational fear of the new, and a crude prescientific search for "purity".

That is not a very convincing argument. We have evolved eating other lifeforms. That makes it much more likely that our bodies know how to handle the chemicals in plants and animals than the fancy colourings, preservatives and flavours in processed food.

Would you be confident foraging for food in our "natural" environment?

A great deal of plants, fungi, nuts, and fruits are highly toxic. Even staples like rice and fish have high levels of naturally occurring arsenic and lead; and most table spices are lethal in high quantities.

On top of that, there are countless carcinogens, allergens, pathogenic bacteria and parasites in the food chain.

There is a reason lifespan has been increasing.

No, that's true - natural doesn't mean healthy and without side effects. But it's at least relatively well understood. Perhaps not in exact chemical makeup but we've co-existed with most of what's in a supermarket long enough to know it's probably not going to cut our lifespans in half or anything.

Suddenly people are making extremely rapid changes to food and it's not unreasonable for people to be cautious about it.

Natural doesn't even mean natural, especially in the US. Europe has a middle ground between natural and artificial flavorings called "nature identical", but in the US these can just be called natural.

Personally, I don't have a problem with this, but most people don't realize it or other things like how that 100% natural, not from concentrate orange juice is really made.

Also, for "organic" fruit and other foods, maybe that matters, but flavorings and other ingredients only have a requirement to be 95%+ organic content. One company I know of sells flavorings that are mostly organic water/alcohol/other diluents, but then the other 5% can be anything and you only need very small amounts of concentrated flavorings which can be anything "nature identical".

GMO have a bad reputation because the most popular strains, Monsanto's glyphosate resistant strains are indeed concerning from a toxicity, ecologic and economic standpoint.

GM is a wonderful technology, with applications not only in agriculture, but also health. Insulin is produced by genetically modified bacterias, and modified white blood cells are now experimentally used to treat cancer.

There are probably other uses, but I'm not aware of them.

Any food, be it natural or manmade, is made up of chemicals. You will need to avoid foods which contain water if you don't want chemicals in your food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2o

Or just avoid food entirely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance

I'm not suggesting there aren't "bad foods" which need to be avoided. The rest is just a strawman.

Reminds me of the DHMO hoax:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax

The dihydrogen monoxide FAQ is an entertaining read:

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

>Reminds me of the DHMO hoax

From the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) [1]:

"CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available."

"Precautions: No specific safety phrase has been found applicable for this product"

"Ecotoxicity: Not available.

BOD5 and COD: Not available.

Products of Biodegradation: Possibly hazardous short term degradation products are not likely. However, long term degradation products may arise."

"Small Spill: Mop up, or absorb with an inert dry material and place in an appropriate waste disposal container.

Large Spill: Absorb with an inert material and put the spilled material in an appropriate waste disposal"

"Personal Protection: Safety glasses. Lab coat."

[1] http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927321

"Non-hazardous in case of inhalation" ORLY?

Being anti-"GMO" is as ludicrously anti-scientific as saying that evolution is a lie, except that not believing in evolution doesn't affect anyone else, whereas opposing "GMO" food leads to starving children.

You can start here if you'd like to educate yourself: http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-c...

And what do you call someone who ignores all negative evidence?

I'd be okay with GMO apologists making an intellectually honest argument, listing the pros and cons, arguing that on the balance such and such makes sense.

Basically, the greatest good for the most people.

Alas, that takes some effort. It's easier to mock critics.

So. I read your link.

http://www.alternet.org/food/uncovering-real-story-behind-co...

I'd never heard of Lynas before. He strikes me as Bjørn Lomborg character.

I think all criticism should be seriously (honestly) addressed. No worldview is above reproach. I'd eagerly watch/read a debate between Lynas and the people he criticizes. In answering his criticisms, it'd help them to refine their arguments.

But before any of that happens, I'd want Lynas to address his apparent conflict of interest.

No thanks, I have done my homework. And I, unlike you it seems, know that it is not black and white. It's not all good or all bad and only a fool would try to write it off as such.

I know there are side effects when it comes to GMO, I don't need to be a chemist for that. What I also realise is that there really is no shortage of food on this planet, evidenced by the tons and tons that are discarded daily. There is however a logistics problem, but it will not be solved by GMO. Even IF such a thing was possible by creating crops that fare better in extreme climates, these companies who are behind GMO products have absolutely no interest in helping out poor African kids who are unable to pay for what Monsanto & Co have to offer.

Sorry, but here on HN, you can't defend irrationality or people simply being undereducated here. There's simply too large a crowd of people who think that anyone who makes any gut decision is a moron, and they're particularly active on threads like these, and will downvote you into oblivion.

Never mind that you were explicitly talking about the people who simply cannot know better yet try the best they can. They should know better, and if they don't they're morons.

Just explain to them that distilled water is inorganic and watch their brains hurt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com