Hacker News Reader

Comment by realusername | Hacker News Reader

It's funny how people like the market when it's going like they want and dislike it when it's the opposite. The majority of the population does not want to eat GMO, everyone have their own reasons, maybe they are scientifically good, maybe they are scientifically bad but at the end it does not matter. People prefer non-GMO products, that's just a fact gathered by hundreds of polls and statistics. The only thing which is keeping the GMO business still alive is the fact that there is no labeling on GMO products thanks to the lobbies. If you really want to know if the GMO business can survive alone in a free market, just label it and see what happens, it would close the debate once-for-all.

View on HN

That comes down to one question: Do you want to eat food that someone has tampered with genetically, or do you want to eat food that humans have been eating for thousands of years with no recorded negative side effects?

The fact is GMO food may be generally regarded as safe - according to... the studies funded by the companies that promote these GMOs [conflict of interest much?] but I've got thousands of years of human consumption with no recorded negative side effects on the side of non-GMOs and you've got a couple of scientific studies that cover a laughably small "cross section" (if you can call it that) of society with no ability to do any long term studies because you only started down this path in very recent human history. Add to this the fact that when you pump your crops full of herbicides and pesticides there appears to be an alarming degree of correlation between the uptick in food allergies and autism. This is huge cause for concern. Whether this is the actual cause, the jury is out, but there is anecdotal evidence from a number of places including celebrities which suggests that removal of those foods from the diets of their autistic children has brought them back.

If someone can do an actual independent study on GMOs that isn't funded by pharma or agribusiness, doesn't suffer from a conflict of interest and compares in scale to the thousands of years of human history, I'd say the studies don't compare. Even as valid as they may appear on the surface, those of us on the outside have little confidence in them. Especially with information being leaked from inside these studies to suggest corruption and cover-ups to promote the corporate agenda all the way to the highest level to increase profits at all costs - up to and including the collateral damage of a few thousand deaths per million. Deaths that can easily be swept under the rug using underhanded tactics such as smear campaigns, sewing tactical doubt, lied about, gagged by payouts or flat out covered up. There are a number of reports of the FDA aiding and abetting in this behaviour. The F.D.A! If you can't trust the very Government office that is funded with the goal of looking after your best interests as the consumer, then who can you trust?

Nature has nothing to prove. Agri-business and Big-Pharma are run by people. People are fallible and when bound to their responsibility to investor profits, corrupt. Who would you rather trust?

It's no wonder people don't want to eat GMO. It might be the safest thing on earth, but when you add human fallibility and corruption into the equation, which way do you turn?

I've worked in R&D for <big ag> for 4 years. We've been crossing different plants for ever and the amount of genetic change introduced by doing that dwarfs using BT to inject a single gene into corn/beans. These aren't just crap shoots, either, big-ag spends billions on R&D making sure it does just what it says. The FDA has some onerous requirements, flow charts that take up an 8'x10' wall. And usually foreign governments are even more restrictive.

One GMO trait on the market kills corn borer. You know where we found the gene that kills corn borer? From a bacteria that already flourishes in the human digestive track.

Can you point to a single, documented, peer-reviewed case where a GMO crop has caused any adverse effect in humans?

Dwarf wheat has saved a billion lives. Golden Rice can do the same but only if the anti-GMO crowd gets out of the way.

Here are 10 of them:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/08/10-scientific...

Poor article with poor statements. Round Up does not equal GMO. There are GMO that are Round Up tolerant BUT 8 out of 10 were all Round Up related and 1 was just another argument about risk of potential dangers. 1 was plant DNA in human blood system but showed no harm and also didn't show why a GMO would be doing that more than if you ate Soy or other plants that are not GMO.

1) identified the presence of pesticides (GMO uses less pesticides than non GMO)

2) Quote "This still doesn’t mean that GMOs can enter into our cells"

3) Gluten is due to Roundup aka GMO use less pestised and herbisides. "Most GMOs are engineered to tolerate a weed killer called glyphosate (Roundup®). They contain high levels of this toxin at harvest. Corn and cotton varieties are also engineered to produce a n insecticide called Bt toxin.

4) Peer Review is not some magical fool proof system. It actually has been causing harm (Looking at the false claim that Vaccines causing Autism was peer reviewed)

"This study has since been retracted, which is odd, because the journal it was published in is a very well known, reputable peer reviewed scientific journal. In order for a study to be published here it has to go through a rigorous review process." The report focuses primarily on the effects of these two toxins.

5) & 6) & 7) & 8) & 9) Once again a Round Up issue not really a GMO issue.

"Researchers also determined that Monsanto’s roundup is considered an “xenoestrogen,” which is a foreign estrogen that mimics real estrogen in our bodies"

"The direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to glyphosate in agricultural fields"

"Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease."

"A new study out of Germany concludes that Glyphosate residue could reach humans and animals through feed and can be excreted in urine."

"Herbicide tolerant crops are engineered to produce one or more proteins that allow the crop to survive being sprayed with a given herbicide."

10) Flat out the same nothing harmful BUT the RISK.

"The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not been systematic."

Instead of down voting everything I have stated how about engage in a conversation?

Isn't it true that the harm is Round Up related?

Isn't it also true that much of what people are discussing when they're talking about GMOs and appearing to suffer this misconception that roundup and GMOs are the same thing that what they're really communicating is that the increase in use of RoundUp is due to the genetic modification of RoundUp ready crops? Isn't it also true that the increase in use of RoundUp that is in the food we eat the cause of their concern? And finally isn't it also true that the correlation of increased use of RoundUp and rise in food intolerance, allergies and autism what is fueling these concerns?

So to unlink RoundUp from the sentiments against GMO is disingenuous. It's the genetic modification that allows the proliferation of herbicides and pesticides that are used in food crops and is making its way into our bodies, its these chemicals that the plants are genetically modified to withstand (and then pumped full of) that is in our food at the heart of a large proportion of the arguments against GMOs.

If there is no need for RoundUP, then there is no need for the genetic modification to make crops RoundUp ready. So you can't just argue that most of these arguments aren't about GMOs, they're about RoundUp which is a different argument. The two are inter-linked. If you didn't need RoundUp, you wouldn't need the genetic modification to make the crop RoundUp ready and RoundUp wouldn't be making its way into our bodies where you claim it does us no harm anyway.

Don't forget that the food industry has done this time and again with herbicides and pesticides:

It doesn't get into our bodies! Oh, it does? Okay, well, it doesn't matter, it's harmless. Oh, there are people getting sick and dying? Okay, we'll do a study. Oh, it's not harmless? There's evidence suggesting it is harmful? Okay, well it's not harmful to humans because we don't digest it. Oh, it is harmful to humans? Okay, the chances of it causing problems in humans is an acceptable trade-off because the amount it costs us in medical treatment [or settlements] is far less than the profit we make and we can pay off those that suffer severe consequences to keep their mouth shut so nobody else will ever find out.

You see where this is going right? You cannot act like this and expect people to trust you. The problem is that this behaviour has been recorded time and again with these companies. They've demonstrated time after time that they cannot be trusted and will put profits above everything else, including human life... yet every time they're caught in a lie they keep asking us to trust them again, like they're the NSA or something. You can only break people's trust so many times before they say fuck you and annex you to the sideline of history they'd rather forget. This is the position that big ag and big pharma are starting to find themselves in today.

> It's the genetic modification that allows the proliferation of herbicides and pesticides that are used in food crops and is making its way into our bodies

No. Genetic modification for one particular purpose (herbicide resistance, the best example of which is Monsanto's RoundUp Ready) might increase the use of the particular herbicides (e.g., RoundUp) and might have some connection to levels of them in food we eat, but pesticides are a different issue, and, in any case, modification for purposes related to herbicide and pesticide use aren't the only genetic modifications.

So, insofar as there is a legitimate reason to be concerned about the use RoundUp Ready crops and other herbicide-resistant genetic modifications, it makes as much sense to generalize from that to generalized opposition to GMOs as it makes sense to generalize from legitimate reasons to be concerned about the use of software by the NSA to implement mass surveillance systems to generalized opposition to software.

That may be so, but GMO crops never became the huge issue it is today until the mental (and emotional) link was made between chemicals pumped into our crops and our health. GMOs for better or worse have allowed one or more of these to proliferate. So for all the other good things it may have done that are unlinked to these chemicals, that may be totally safe for humans, GMOs have been villainized because in their minds, GMOs have allowed these chemicals to interfere with our health and now people are on a witch hunt. They've found someone to blame and they're on their way with their pitchforks. When they've killed GMOs off and there are still problems, they'll move on with their pitchforks to the next point of blame.

Our food pre-GMO Round Up resistant seed was sprayed with herbicides already, just not Round Up. They would have to spray for specific weeds and do multiple of sprays and mix these herbicides together. To argument is that now that it is one herbicide it is actually less chemicals and less mixing of different chemicals to keep out weeds.

GMO that are naturally resistant to insects will also help lower the amount of pesticides that are used.

In the 1990s I had friends that were wheat farmers and I would fly out there and work for 2 weeks for a vacation. It was fun but I also would go out and inspect the fields to see if there were bugs or weeds (Wild Wheat and mustard was the worst) to see if something had to be done to say the crops. My friend always was worried about losing his crops to something and sadly he did sometimes lose whole square miles of crops.

For what it's worth @baldfat, HN won't let me directly reply to your comment below and I haven't downvoted you.

Well what do you think of statements on the article on harm from GMO was really a list of articles with concern about the toxicity of Round Up? Do you think that is fair?

Do I think it's fair that if Monsanto is going to genetically modify seeds to withstand increased use (read this as selling) of their herbicide, that they face increased scrutiny and understandable criticisms? ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY

The problem you're up against is that every piece of evidence that displays that big-ag and big-pharma profits are more important than human life, and every piece of evidence that shows a conflict of interest, corruption or even just incompetence undermines any real credibility. To get there you have to not only be whiter than white, you've got to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are whiter than white.

I'm not saying GMOs are bad, I'm not advocating against them. I choose not to eat them because for all the evidence that suggests they're useful and good there is too much smoke for there not to be something amiss. Just like I don't believe in God. I'm not saying there is no God, I'm just saying that evidence hasn't yet convinced me there is one, equally it's not yet convinced me there isn't one. I believe in evolution, but that doesn't negate divine intervention.

You've found there is bacteria in the human digestive track that kills corn borer. Awesome. You're somehow convinced that genetically engineering this into corn is good. Fantastic. Your studies have shown no negative side effects... yet. When were these studies enacted and who were they paid for by? Who were they carried out by? Whi were they carried out on? Is there any conflict of interest there? Can you prove that your genetic modification to this corn or the Golden Rice will have no longer term health effects, either for the positive or negative? Not so much. There are many mutations and genetic defects that don't become evident for one or more generations further down the gene pool.

I'm not saying your argument is false, I'm not saying that Big-Ag and Big-Pharma are necessarily bad. The problem is that you're playing God and you're asking for evidence where it's documented and peer reviewed that it has caused adverse effect in humans... that cannot be swept under the rug, paid off, gagged or covered up. There is no evidence, because it appears that any such evidence has been er... removed from circulation. Again, not to say it has been removed from circulation, but appearance of underhandedness is usually accompanied by some level of actual underhandedness.

When Big-Ag and Big-Pharma start acting completely transparently and putting all their cards on the table, presenting all their findings fairly and without bias, with actual independent studies that show both positive and negative and letting the public make a truly informed decision, you're going to be up against the anti-GMO crowd. These people want answers, they want transparency and they want honesty. They don't want to have to dig and find flawed evidence, complacency, corruption, misdirection and conflicts of interest every time they dig a bit further.

Prove your honesty and prove your transparency and people will be more receptive to any evidence you have to present. Until then, people are going to remain skeptical and there's not an awful lot you're going to be able to do about that - except with a well engineered media campaign to brainwash the masses like you've been doing remarkably successfully with everything else.

> That comes down to one question: Do you want to eat food that someone has tampered with genetically, or do you want to eat food that humans have been eating for thousands of years with no recorded negative side effects?

Well, that's the question asked by people who know absolutely nothing about the modern techniques that are not classified as "genetic modification" and, in fact, frequently accepted for "organic" labeling, like mutation breeding.

Almost everything in crop development is about tampering with crops on a genetic level; the differences are about particular techniques (and lots of the opposition to GMOs is subsidized by big business that makes money off of alternative techniques of tampering on a genetic level that produce results that are no more "food that humans have been eating for thousands of years with no recorded negative side effects" than the results of genetic modification are.)

> Well, that's the question asked by people who know absolutely nothing about the modern techniques

Which is virtually everyone.

> > Well, that's the question asked by people who know absolutely nothing about the modern techniques

> Which is virtually everyone.

Perhaps, but its no one that has any ground to be taken seriously on the issue of whether we should selectively abandon one of those techniques (in effect promoting the others.)

Everyones concerns deserve to be taken seriously. That's how we get along as a society. We play nicely with others and we don't do things that piss off 99.9% of the population... because more often than not, the 99.9% of the population turn out to prove what we think is right, wrong. Occasionally you find a Copernicus that manages to proves an entire civilization wrong and their ideas stand the test of time. But more often than not, history eventually proves much scientific theory wrong, most studies flawed and that many of the most powerful companies will eventually put their profits ahead of human life if they can afford to successfully lobby their Government to allow them or make laws to protect them.

This is why we see continuous flip-flopping of scientific research that suggests that red wine is good for you, bad for you, makes no difference. 1 glass a day with dinner is fine, women should avoid it. Men should avoid soy etc. Yesterday salt was bad for you, today I see studies that claim they were wrong and it has little to do with high blood pressure and so the suggestions keep coming. If the science weren't flawed, we wouldn't see this continuous flip-flopping of scientific opinion, yet we do. So should those doing the research be taken any more seriously than those who just have concerns? Perhaps slightly, but I wouldn't offer it a great deal more credence, someone else will do another study tomorrow to prove it wrong and then I'm right back to square one. Until then, I'll stay on the fence eating my home grown heirloom produce that I can be as confident as I am able is safe - at least insofar as I know its providence and I can make an informed decision about it - chemical free. Draw conclusions as you see fit.

> The fact is GMO food may be generally regarded as safe - according to... the studies funded by the companies that promote these GMOs [conflict of interest much?]

"Monsanto is a medium sized company ($57.43B). Is it really possible that they’ve manipulated tens of thousands of scientists performing thousands of studies for three decades with no whistleblowers? Could Monsanto’s power have resulted in a scientific consensus that has been bent completely to their will? In comparison, fossil fuel behemoths Exxon Mobil ($394.83B), Chevron ($215.45B) and BP ($150.07B) (total: $760.35B) have been completely stymied in their efforts to buy a scientific consensus on climate change."[1]

"Biology Fortified’s GENERA database lists more than 1,000 studies with another 1,300 or so to add. GM crops have been investigated for more than 20 years. There are nuances in conclusions, but the evidence is consistent whether the study was funded by industry or the European Commission: GM crops are as safe as other conventional or organic crops and foods—or safer."[2]

[1] http://www.biofortified.org/2014/02/industry-funded-gmo-stud...

[2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/23/will-the-us...

Monsanto isn't the whole GM crop industry, or even the biggest corporation by market cap in the industry, so, while the general question of plausibility may be valid, pretending the comparison of Monsanto's market cap to the combination of the market caps of major players in the fossil fuels industry is so irrelevant as to undermine, rather than reinforce, the legitimate point.

> Monsanto isn't the whole GM crop industry

Of course it isn't the whole industry, but it does get most of the attention, e.g. this NPR article[1] mentions Monsanto 17 times and uses it as one of only three tags(seed saving and gmos are the other two) - despite the piece being about GM seeds, not specifically Monsanto.

> or even the biggest corporation by market cap in the industry

The "Big Six" are BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto, and Syngenta[2][3].

"The top 10 seed companies account for $14,785 million – or two-thirds (67%) of the global proprietary seed market.The world's largest seed company, Monsanto, accounts for almost one-quarter (23%) of the global proprietary seed market."[4]

Sure DuPont and Dow have bigger market caps than Monsanto (or more importantly, more revenue) but they're also larger and more diverse business with seeds making a much smaller portion of their total revenue than Monsanto. But even forgetting that the original point (that the oil industry has far more money than the GM industry) still stands - Dow's market cap is $60B, DuPont's is $68B, Monsanto's is $55B...market caps like that wouldn't even break the top ten for oil companies[5].

[1] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-fi...

[2] http://www.biofortified.org/resources/genetic-engineering-co...

[3] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/%22Big_6%22_Pesticide_a...

[4] http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/10558-the-worlds-top-ten-see...

[5] http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/010715...

People don't want GMOs because they've been force-fed propaganda by the anti-GMO crowd.. go ahead and place GMO labels on everything, and see how many people still oppose it when they find their favorite food with a GMO label on it.

Exactly, maybe it will change people's mind and they will accept it more, or it could be just the opposite and people would boycott lots of products. But until there is a label, it's difficult to know. At least with a label, we will see instantly if GMOs are making economic sense.

As a consumer, I deserve to know the truth about what is in the food that I purchase and feed to my family. If putting a GMO label on the food that has it, leads consumers to still purchase that, it's their right to do that. My question to you is, what harm is there in that label?

A label on your food isn't necessarily the truth. If you want want the truth, you really have to take that responsibility for yourself. The government is not good at labeling organic food[0], and there is no reason to believe they'll get GMO labeling right, since the same issues are involved.

[0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_certification#Issues

I am skeptical of nutrition labels, so what you're saying isn't lost on me. However, much like putting the nutrition labels (or ingredient lists for that matter) on food, GMO labeling is a starting point.

Misleading labeling (like there is with organics) is worse than no labeling. What you end up with is a product of questionable quality that is more expensive than it should be because someone has to pay the inspectors.

>propaganda by the anti-GMO crowd

Is this a well-funded crowd, full of large corporate support? What do they have to gain with their 'propaganda' exactly?

No, it's a collective of small companies who profit off the stupidity and false-validation of anti-GMO "activists". Every time a anti-GMOer googles "Why GMOs are bad" and clicks the first link someone who is pushing that propaganda gets paid.

Hm. I don't think you understand how Google's paid SE placement works (i.e. Google gets paid by the so-called propagandists to place those links).

Just FYI, I used to do research where I spliced genes for a certain enzyme into yeast in order to study the enzymatic mechanism, so I'm not exactly uninformed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/10/gmo-labels-congress...

Sad, but true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com