Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdl | Hacker News Reader

I wish the GMO developers had initially focused on products which were end-user or publicly beneficial like this, vs. just raising yields or reducing pesticide use (which are end user and societally beneficial, but can be cast by opponents as economic arguments). Without the existing anti-GMO movement, GMO would have a much easier time getting adoption in cases where it's essentially unambiguously a win (like this one).

View on HN

"Just raising yields" has helped save millions of poor folk in third world countries from starvation. I'm not sure that pacifying first world leftist hippies should be the top PR priority of science.

Green revolution did, but that wasn't GMO. (Borlaug was probably one of the top 10 people of the 20th Century)

GMO is much more recent, and generally works on crops which are large and mechanized, which don't really exist in third world countries. The main beneficiaries to date of GMO have been soybeans and corn in the US. The stat I've seen is 5-10% gains in the 90s from GMO. (http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/124/3/923.full)

There probably are ways to use GMO which would work in non-mechanized farming, though.

>Green revolution did, but that wasn't GMO.

The green revolution did a lot of good, but GMO is potentially doing even more.

Have you looked at modern strains of GM rice? That stuff is absolutely amazing. Incredibly drought and flood resistance, and can thrive in a huge range of environmental conditions.

As GMO tech progresses, we'll probably just see better and better stuff. Imagine plants with antifreeze proteins to resist cold snaps.

As GMO tech progresses, we are seeing strange side effects like interference with the monarch butterfly and bees, soil depletion, a drive for deeper genetic modification as weeds and insects adapt to old versions, a draconian patent structure effecting farmer livelihood, just to name a few problems.

Who would blame anyone for choosing food over starvation? But GMO is not a solution for the world, and it is not a sustainable solution for fixing poverty.

I aim this generally: it's a bit rich for the so-called developed world to destroy sustainable indigenous populations and then "solve" the problem with intensive agriculture. All under the banner of "isn't science great," "what could possibly go wrong," and "cheaper feed for livestock."

I doubt it's a popular opinion, but there I said it!

> strange side effects

Most of these are myths or have nothing at all to do with GMOs

> a drive for deeper genetic modification

So? That just means it's working.

> a draconian patent structure effecting farmer livelihood

This is an artifact of patent law, not genetic modification.

> But GMO is not a solution for the world, and it is not a sustainable solution for fixing poverty.

What does "not a solution for the world" mean? And why is it not sustainable? If we use genetic modification to optimize an organism, there is no reason that it can't be sustainable. In fact, we can make farming even more sustainable than it is now.

> it's a bit rich for the so-called developed world to destroy sustainable indigenous populations and then "solve" the problem with intensive agriculture

You're using a misdirected ad-hominem attack against GMO technology. "The developed world damaged some technologically undeveloped populations, so it's somehow negative that any technology from the developed world be used to help any technologically undeveloped populations."

The Monarch butterfly thing actually does: It is a result of the fact that herbicide-resistant GMO crops allow you to actually eliminate (rather than just reduce) weeds in a field. Those weeds both sustain butterfly populations and reduce crop yields.

The problem is that indigenous populations are sustainable only while they are very sparse. There is no way current 7 bln people could live on earth without GMO tech progress.

the fact that the rich world did and keeps doing horrible things to the poor world is a given.

But isn't there an issue with considering the indigenous population sustainable?

What I mean is, aren't many countries on a "sustainable" agriculture consumption only in the sense that malnutrition is the norm?

It's always nice when people down vote you instead of vocalizing their disagreement.

Third world countries are also mechanized. All of South America grows soybeans. It's Round Up all over. I'm from Argentina and can assure you that since early 00's soybean export taxes have paid at least one-third of the gov. budget.

Argentina is running into issues with land going fallow now from too much Soy, and not enough crop rotation last I heard. Or is that not correct?

I think this is true for marginal zones (low quality soil) where there shouldn't be soy but that's the only crop that will make a profit. Part of the problem is the insane taxation. With the costs of growing other crops I guess it's not that bad, it's not good soil anyway. The good zones are doing OK.

Not an expert, so take it with a grain of salt.

most of the starvation in the world is because someone wants more profits along the way.

The very first commercial application of GMOs was recombinant insulin for diabetics. Followed by a slew of other drugs - GMOs now make 50% of drugs (all the protein ones). The agriculture applications came 5-10 years later as plants were harder to engineer than microbes.

Other examples: The enzymes in washing powders are generally produced by GM bacteria, too, together with the chymosin needed for cheese production.

There used to be a GM-tomato called FLAVR SAVR about 15 years ago, which had direct benefits to end customers = the tomatoes stayed fresh longer. Public opposition out of fear killed it (also a good lesson: don't give flashy, technical names to food).

http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.edu/landingpage.cfm?artic...

Also, GMO tomatoes have poor flavor and too taut a texture…

I'd like to see the citation on that (there are no GM tomatoes on the market), I'd also like to add that the 'watery', huge, flavour-poor tomatoes you often get in Europe have been created by traditional non-GM breeding: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/06/2...

There have been efforts to create GM-tomatoes with better taste, here's one example from 2007: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gm-tomato-tastes-b...

Citation: my taste buds.

So where are you getting the GM tomatoes?

Shockingly, I was alive in the mid-90s :) It's also a given that any GMO tomato would be a hybrid, a.k.a. a cardboard-esque rubber ball. A little experience and common sense can go a long way in determining something's flavor (lol)!

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

My girlfriend is diabetic. Her mom is pretty stereotypical anti-GMO hippie type. To me, the irony is delicious.

Course, then I realize that my girlfriend's mom is essentially anti- her living and it stops being funny

Yeah, for diabetics that was a major revolution. A simple explanation on how it is done here: http://www.iptv.org/exploremore/ge/what/insulin.cfm

Glargine is one of the key recombinant products out there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com