Hacker News Reader

> * GMOs tend to promote monoculture and pesticide use.

That's true for industrialized agriculture in general and not specific to GMOs. Growing GMOs doesn't promote monoculture or pesticide use any more than growing conventional crops do. In fact the same farmers that grow GMOs often grow conventional crops at the same time, or switch from year to year, with very little change in their practices.

> * Studies have shown that the same developments that make GMOs more insect resistant can also make them more difficult to digest.

Without knowing what studies those are, it's impossible for me to rebut or defend it. I will say, the record on studies that claim to show that GMOs have safety issues is not a good one (http://academicsreview.org/2012/09/scientists-smell-a-rat-in...)

> * When it comes to animals, GMOs tend to have much poorer quality of life and tend to be completely incapable of surviving without constant support (chickens who can't stand on their own, cows who can't go more than 48 hours without milking, etc).

I am not aware of any GM livestock in use. Monsanto, the bogeyman of anti-GMO activists, does not research or produce GM animals. AFAIK the only GM animals on the market are things like glowing goldfish.

> * GMOs almost never focus on the true value of a food item, but rather the sell value. A food that looks nutritious is more valuable than one that actually is and GMOs make it easier to create that false association (deep red tomatos that taste like wall paper glue, etc).

Again this is a broader symptom of industrialized food production and is not related to GMOs. Yes, there are GM traits that are meant to do what you expect (e.g. the Flavr Savr tomato which was a commercial flop, and the Arctic Apple which is just recently rolling out) but this is a trend that goes back decades.

Funding for GMO seed development is a hard problem, so the only people really doing it are the monsantos of the world. Which pretty much guarantees that the product is going to be fubar. You can bet that industrial seed research, if it were subjected to any rigorous safety standards, would go much the same way as industrial drug design, with all of the falsified studies you care to count. As it is, it's easier to ban the practice than trust the big producers.

The Open Source Seed Initiative is doing some really cool work to change this, and sits at an interesting place in the GMO debate. But barring a huge amount of institutional and policy support, I'm sticking on the side of banning GMO's.

> Funding for GMO seed development is a hard problem, so the only people really doing it are the monsantos of the world.

This is emphatically not true, unless you mean it in the trivial sense (where "monsantos" are "any companies funding GMO seed development".)

Its not quite as inaccurate as saying the microsofts of the world are the only people really funding software development, but its the same kind of inaccurate.

There are new concerns specifically about the effect of GMOs on biodiversity: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetically_modifi...

"When it comes to animals, GMOs tend to have much poorer quality of life and tend to be completely incapable of surviving without constant support (chickens who can't stand on their own, cows who can't go more than 48 hours without milking, etc)."

I am sure we do not we need genetic manipulation to create such animals (regular breeding does 'wonders', too) and do not know of any case where we used GM here. Care to elaborate?

Your first two points are good for GMOs, but the other two are the result of breeding efforts rather than lab work. There are no GMO cows and chickens in high commercial production, and FWIW no GMO tomatoes either.

Then again, GMOs and conventional breeding taken to a commercial extreme get tangled so often it's hard to separate them in these sorts of arguments.

I had grouped in intensive breeding with more Dr. Moreau style GMO development. In my mind, there isn't a huge difference.

The first GM crop to be licensed for human consumption in the US was the Flavr Savr tomato, which contained a trait that improved their shelf life and appearance. It was a commercial flop and taken off the shelves after a few years on the market.

> * GMOs almost never focus on the true value of a food item, but rather the sell value. A food that looks nutritious is more valuable than one that actually is and GMOs make it easier to create that false association (deep red tomatos that taste like wall paper glue, etc).

A more nutritious food that nobody wants to eat is a food that is not of improved value.

> There are logical reasons for being against GMOs.

Maybe.

> Many of them have nothing to do with the fact that the product is GMO:

Then they aren't logical reasons to be against GMOs, though they may (or may not) be logical reasons to be against particular GMOs.

> * GMOs tend to promote monoculture and pesticide use.

GMOs may or may not do this. This really depends on what they are designed for -- GMOs designed to be well adapted to particular growing conditions don't promote monoculture, since you'll prefer different ones for different growing conditions.

> * Studies have shown that the same developments that make GMOs more insect resistant can also make them more difficult to digest.

Insect resistance isn't the only feature GMOs are designed for, and that is -- at most -- a reason to be against GMOs designed for that particular feature in food roles.

> * When it comes to animals, GMOs tend to have much poorer quality of life and tend to be completely incapable of surviving without constant support (chickens who can't stand on their own, cows who can't go more than 48 hours without milking, etc).

Again, that's an argument against the specific features, not against GMOs.

> * GMOs almost never focus on the true value of a food item, but rather the sell value. A food that looks nutritious is more valuable than one that actually is and GMOs make it easier to create that false association (deep red tomatos that taste like wall paper glue, etc).

That's an argument against capitalism, not GMOs.

> It's important to note that all of these things are really a byproduct of industrial agriculture, but many people associate them more directly with GMOs.

That makes them illogical, even if understandable reasons to be against GMOs.

Increased pesticide use can be a bit misleading, since an increased amount of something like Roundup could still be better for the environment than the typical amount of alternative pesticides.