Mexico Bans GMO Corn Effective Immediately | Hacker News Reader

Mexico Bans GMO Corn Effective Immediately

ecowatch.com

25 pointsteawithcarl9 comments

Disappointing. In a world where hunger remains an issue, it's sad to see fear-mongering preventing us from using the best technology available to produce the most food with the least negative externalities.

Oh well, I guess if we just dump a lot more pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, along with using more fresh water for irrigation, we can almost replicate the results of GMO seeds.

Well,

As I understand it, the most common form of GMO corn is "round-up ready". This is a variety which is immune to the common herbicide. But this immunity means that the crop invites more, not less, use of herbicide in the environment and it has naturally lead, in the US, to Round-up resistant pests.

The problem isn't genetically modifying organisms as such but rather the modification schemes involved. So far they haven't been terribly far-sighted.

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

Edit: Note also that "hunger remains an issue" today but not through the world not producing enough food. The world produces enough food to feed everyone. The primary question is distribution, which GMO crop, of course, aren't going to solve.

Um, RoundUp is an herbicide, not a pesticide. RoundUp resistant pests are a non-sequitur.

In fact, RoundUp is supposed to be among the most benign possible herbicide, since it binds instantly to the soil and breaks down. It is a contact herbicide; you have to brush it on the weeds to kill them, which is done with a variety of wicks and boom arms on tractors to touch the weeds poking up above the corn and miss the corn.

I suspect GMO fear is all FUD and no science. Even intelligent people spout nonsense on the subject (maybe even me I suppose).

Jeesh Mr. Pedantic,

Pesty herbs, eg weeds, can you not parse in context or isn't that the point.

Round-up is supposed to be one of most begin herbicides, yeah but throw enough of a supposed good thing around and you get problems.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Resistance

Edit: The better way to deal with weed, insects and what-do is Integrated Pest Management, IPM, where one adopts an integrated, sustainable approach to the plant and animal, uh, pests that hinder food production.

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

All very cute when you have 2 acres of organic potatoes to manage. Throw in 20,000 acres of variable corn seed and 150 microclimates (waterways, wood boundaries, roadsides etc). Go ahead and write that app (to manage pests manually) but until then its more efficient (profitable at all) to do a single-pass application of chemicals.

Reading that article, it has little or nothing practical to offer the farmer of over a acre or two (lets call them 'gardeners'). 'hand-picking, erecting insect barriers, using traps, vacuuming'. Try any of that over 10,000 acres. Its ludicrous.

Farm application rates for herbicides (any chemicals actually) are regulated by federal law. Also, chemicals cost money so only a fool over-applies.

The problems with chemicals getting into the water etc are because of city-dwellers who are exempt from the law; you can put any amount of chemical on your home lawn you like and flush it down the storm drain. So that's a problem, sure.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb : "Genetically Modified Organisms, GMOs. Top-down modifications to the system (through GMOs) are categorically and statistically different from bottom up ones (regular farming, progressive tinkering with crops, etc.) To borrow from Rupert Read, there is no comparison between the tinkering of selective breeding and the top-down engineering of taking a gene from a fish and putting it into a tomato. Saying that such a product is natural misses the statistical process by which things become “natural”.

What people miss is that the modification of crops impacts everyone and exports the error from the local to the global. I do not wish to pay —or have my descendants pay — for errors by executives of Monsanto. We should exert the precautionary principle there —our non-naive version — simply because we would discover errors after considerable damage."

Mathematical Definition & more -> http://blog.longnow.org/02013/07/08/the-artangel-longplayer-...

Whenever I stumble across someone arguing about the transference of genetic material and how one method is "more natural" than the other, I can't help but walk away with the feeling that the author is working from a series of fundamental misunderstandings of genetic science.

Agreed. "Natural" doesn't mean that it's better. And, there are very few things we eat at this point that are natural anyways.

Shoes and clothing are not natural, but I don't see Mr. Taleb running around barefoot and naked.

Taleb does enjoy barefoot running.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com