Anti-GMO Activist Seeks to Expose Scientists’ Emails with Big Ag

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/anti-gmo-activist-seeks-expose-emails-food-scientists/

by Turukawa • 11 years ago

13 34 11 years ago

tomp3• 11 years ago

Salt is harmful. Salt is not harmful. Saturated fat is harmful. Saturated fat isn't harmful. Don't eat red meat. Red meat is OK. Low carb diet is more healthy. Japanese live the longest (I assume they consume non-trivial amounts of rice).

Nutritional science (not really a science, more research) hasn't been able to produce conclusive results about some of the most simple (chemically) compounds that we've been consuming for thousands of years. And people are claiming that anyone can say that GMOs, i.e. things we don't understand (cells) that haven't existed for even a generation, are safe (edit: not just safe to eat, but also safe for the environment)?

jemacniddle• 11 years ago

Nutritional science (not really a science, more research) hasn't been able to produce conclusive results about some of the most simple (chemically) compounds that we've been consuming for thousands of years.

What research are you looking at?

ptaipale2• 11 years ago

It is not possible to prove that genetically engineered food is safe. It is not possible to prove that any food is safe. Therefore it is unreasonable to require that something, including GMOs, would be entirely without risks.

But the scientific consensus is: “Consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”

And when you think of it, the "conventional" techniques mean that seeds (etc) are exposed to ionizing radiation, carsinogenic chemicals and whatever. Then you wait for random mutations. Then you pick some of them, examine them, and hope they're not hurting anyone. That sounds much more dangerous than the approach of genetic engineering (research genes, then modify only the parts that you have identified, nothing else).

joelthelion• 11 years ago

And yet, is that argument strong enough to start using GMOs on 80%+ of the cultivated surface right away?

( Source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-geneticall... )

tomp3• 11 years ago

It is not possible to prove that genetically engineered food is safe. It is not possible to prove that any food is safe.

Of course, and I don't expect proof. I just expect long (20-years plus) studies that are unencumbered by commercial interests).

And when you think of it, the "conventional" techniques mean that seeds (etc) are exposed to ionizing radiation, carsinogenic chemicals and whatever. Then you wait for random mutations.

So basically, it's not safe at all. IMO, that's a serious misinterpretation of the word "conventional" - for me, conventional plant improvement techniques is interbreeding and selection (i.e. find plants that are "better" according to some criteria and take their seeds, thus slowly improving it over generations).

I'll definitely look into these "conventional" techniques; I guess this limits the food choices I have even more :) Thank god I live in Europe, I'm assuming we're growing more traditional variants here.

tomp3• 11 years ago

I just found out that there is really no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs. Apparently, more than 300 PhDs signed a disagreement [1]. There is also an article accompanying it [2].

[1] http://www.ensser.org/fileadmin/user_upload/150120_signatori...

[2] http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2766504/there...

guelo4• 11 years ago

GMO by itself may be safe but 99% of GMO plants sold are engineered to be able to be doused in pesticides which are NOT known to be safe for human consumption. These pesticides have not been rigorously tested using double blind studies on humans.

fabian2k• 11 years ago

There are many studies on pesticide toxicity, but you can't really set the bar so high as to ask for the kind of double-blind human studies you would use for new drugs.

In most cases such studies would simply be unethical, you can't just intentionally expose people to chemical you suspect might be harmful in studies.

guelo4• 11 years ago

We're getting exposed to the chemicals anyways.

bpodgursky• 11 years ago

Bt plants (like Bt corn) are specifically engineered to not require pesticides. So to start, your 99% is wildly inaccurate. Also, a lot of promising GMO projects focus around enriching vitamin content (golden rice) or making plants more drought-resistant.

And about roundup-ready crops:

"The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions."

"Early epidemiological studies have not found associations between long-term low-level exposure to glyphosate and any disease."

(off of the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Human)

ppereira• 11 years ago

Bt corn is specifically engineered to produce its own insecticide. You cannot wash it off. Its effect on Monarch butterflies and other insects is becoming known. The scientific consensus you mention has also drawn attention due to conflicts of interest from sources of funding.

timlin• 11 years ago

In this context, "doused" is an emotional word and completely inaccurate.

After my GMO corn and soybeans are about 12" high, I use a contact spray (glyphosate) at a rate of roughly 10 gal/acre to selectively kill weeds. If you would watch the sprayer in the field, you would note that the nozzles are emitting a very fine mist. To me, it is an incredible feat of science that such little spray is able to completely and selectively kill the weeds.

Also, I'm not aware of ANY pesticides that are save for human consumption. To what are you referring?

Source: On the side, I farm 35 acres planted using no-till and GMO corn and soybeans. I hire a crop consultant to help me rotate pesticides to avoid developing glyphosate-resistant weeds.

guelo4• 11 years ago

Hope you're wearing appropriate gear when you're applying this poison in your "side" farm. https://gmandchemicalindustry9.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/g...

Unfortunately there's no protective gear for eaters of your corn.

nashashmi• 11 years ago

I have noticed a big negative vibe in the HN Community when anti-GMO talk surfaces. People down vote anybody who talks against GMO foods. Even the most respectful and reasonable posts are rebuked.

noipv42• 11 years ago

HN is a bunch of linear thinking one-dimensional cyborg community

falcolas2• 11 years ago

Well, GMO represents the future of farming, and this is a generally future looking forum.

The old method of GMO, that is intentionally controlling pollination to bring out desirable traits once per plant generation, is too slow to support the growing need for food as our population expands.

We can't look to the past for a solution for this (well, we could, but personally I'm against starvation and plagues), so I feel that we have little choice but to look forward.

pdkl95• 11 years ago

While selective breeding has been around basically forever, one of the more recent "old methods" to be used was forcing mutation[1]. This involved liberal use of fun things like ethyl methanesulfonate or dimethyl sulfate. When the "atomic" craze happened, using cobalt-60 as a gamma source became popular.

What a lot of "anti-GMO" people seem to be missing is that the modern techniques are far less radical and significantly more controlled. At least now we can track the changes we make, which are limited in scope. Nothing is perfect, but I find small, tracked changes far more reassuring than randomly blasting plants with mutagens until you find something interesting.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding

...

wow - that wiki page has an interesting claim about "some" so-called "certified orgainc" growers:

"...several organic food and seed companies promote and sell certified organic products that were developed using both chemical and nuclear mutagenesis. Several certified organic brands, whose companies support strict labeling or outright bans on GMO-crops, market their use of branded wheat and other varietal strains which were derived from mutagenic processes without any reference to this genetic manipulation..."

JoeAltmaier• 11 years ago

Because anti-GMO is so often scaremongering. Nobody is terrified that every new app on your phone is skynet. Yet every new GMO food is poison. Its just silly.

tzs• 11 years ago

We do worry, though, that new apps might be sending our personal information and movements to advertisers and governments.

My worry with GMO is not that EVERY such food will be poison, or even that SOME such food will be poison. It's simply that GMO is a much more powerful tool for modifying organisms than the current tools like selective breeding. More powerful tools allow for greater good, but also allow for greater harm (deliberate or accidental).

Thus, more powerful tools require more wisdom to use than do less powerful tools. A great philosopher once observed, "With great power comes great responsibility". I am simply not convinced that mass market food producers have the wisdom to use the great power of GMO with great responsibility.

To put it in phone app terms, when GMO shows up in my groceries or in my fast food drive-through take out bag, I want it to have come from an Apple-style market, not an Android-style market.

noipv42• 11 years ago

I think GMO is OK as long as you are taking a gene that the plant already has and propagating it over other traits that are less desirable, like breeding birds with blue feathers instead of green feathers because you like blue... thats fine, but when you mix genes from a bird a pig a cow a bacteria and some corn to make corn that flies onto your plate cooks itself and repels insects. . . . that shit IMO is stupid.

roel_v• 11 years ago

Luckily this debate is about facts, not about your opinion.

Oletros7• 11 years ago

but when you mix genes from a bird a pig a cow a bacteria and some corn to make corn that flies onto your plate cooks itself and repels insects.

Ah, you're not being serious

SigmundA• 11 years ago

The problem is GMO is an arbitrary distinction similar to labelling food "organic". There is no clear definition of GMO because almost everything we eat has been genetically modified by humans. Corn, wheat, cows, pigs, chickens and all domesticated crops and livestock exist due to genetic modification by humans, they are genetically modified organisms, now we are simply arguing over how their genes are being modified not if.

So when someone says GMO it assumed to be what exactly? Targeted gene inertion? Mutagenesis? What about marker assisted breeding? Each one of these is a continuum of progression from "conventional" breeding. All of them are human induced genetic modification, drawing the line at say targeted gene insertion is arbitrary.

More details on the problems with defining and classifying food as GMO can be found here: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC510...

Anti-GMO Activist Seeks to Expose Scientists’ Emails with Big Ag

Related Stories