
People Strongly Against GMOs Had Shakier Understanding of Food Science - happy-go-lucky
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/01/26/687852367/people-strongly-against-gmos-had-shakier-understanding-of-food-science-study-fin
======
SigmundA
First time I heard the term GMO I thought it was a joke, I mean just about
every major crop and animal and we eat has been genetically modified by us
quite extensively. Its normally referred to with a more harmless sounding name
though, domestication.

I understand being skeptical and wanting proper over site and testing but it
seems to be an irrational fear of how the organism is modified but not if its
modified. Guys in labs coats bad, guys in overalls good.

The truth is there is a continuum of techniques we use to modify organisms
genomes from selective breeding, to marker assisted breeding, to mutagenisis
to targeted gene insertion. What health reason would drive us to ban one while
allowing another?

~~~
clanrebornwow
It's genetically modified through artificial and natural selection in sense of
naturally occuring mutations in response to environment change.

It's very different from what people will do in laboratory.

Natural process is quite slow and gives you enough time to drop adverse crop.

Both can't be same.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _It 's very different from what people will do in laboratory._

It's really the same process, with but with noise removed. Genes are genes,
they do not carry metadata that say they were introduced in a lab. "Natural"
vs "artificial" is a kind of magical thinking one would hope humanity would
cure itself of by now. Hell, if you want to see true masters of targeted
genetic modification, look no further than viruses.

> _Natural process is quite slow and gives you enough time to drop adverse
> crop._

"Artificial" process can notice and drop "adverse" crop faster. Also, the way
all organisms live and reproduce, genes not fit for the environment they're in
will get dropped over time. Living things have an energy economy in them;
enabling one feature usually means taking away from others.

This really deserves an Abstruse Goose reference:

[https://abstrusegoose.com/215](https://abstrusegoose.com/215)

~~~
hjhjhjhjhj12
>It's really the same process, with but with noise removed

If it is "the same process", then how are we able to make a distinction
between domestication and biolistics or crispr?

Even disregarding the literal human action part, the most notable difference
is that the latter allows for genes to be moved between organisms even if the
two organisms would not have done so even if given millions of years without
human interaction. (Ex: Spider genes in goats).

I feel this defense of GMO's is weak, as is the defense of "It's the same food
chemically." as some other's may claim. If it were actually the same outcome,
then it would be useless as a technique.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Even disregarding the literal human action part, the most notable
> difference is that the latter allows for genes to be moved between organisms
> even if the two organisms would not have done so even if given millions of
> years without human interaction. (Ex: Spider genes in goats)._

There are really no such things as "spider genes" or "goat genes" or "fish
genes", there are only genes. Some sequences are found in one species and not
the other, but they do not carry a tag that says where they came from. It's
akin to copying functions between programs. You may say you copied over the
implementation of e.g. incremental search from Vim, but that doesn't suddenly
taint your program with "unnatural vimness" (license considerations
notwithstanding).

> _I feel this defense of GMO 's is weak, as is the defense of "It's the same
> food chemically." as some other's may claim. If it were actually the same
> outcome, then it would be useless as a technique._

It's more akin this: quicksort and random sort give the exact same outcome in
the end, but one of those processes is vastly more efficient at achieving the
goal.

~~~
hjhjhjhjhj12
You're conflating general descriptions of algorithms with implementations of
said algorithms. I disagree; an implementation of an algorithm CAN very much
so be tied to one particular program. If you ignore function call side-effects
entirely (cache states, timing delays, modified globals, etc.), then you would
be able to transplant functions from one program to another freely.
Essentially, to make functions that are fitting to quickly transplant into
other programs (in libraries or not), it actually takes intentional design to
make sure their side-effects are limited in scope and predictable.

I think this is revealing of an implicit assumption that we disagree on. I do
not accept this idea that genes, in a sense, are like functional-programming
functions. Considering the fact that there exist genes that express only in
the presence of other genes or specific environmental factors, its very likely
that genes DO have side-effects in our metaphor of genes as functions.

------
jillesvangurp
There's nothing inherently wrong with manipulating genes in farming. However,
there are a bunch of misguided economics and motives that are problematic that
lead to abuse of land at a very large scale.

Monocultures are a problem and having more drought or pest resistant crops is
not a solution to industrial scale farming turning perfectly good farm land
into desert.

Why is it that out of gazillions of species, most fish that we eat are on of
just four species. Likewise, why do we have to rely on just a handful of crops
for most of our grains and vegetables? This basically arises from the notion
that with the technologies available to us mid last century, those were the
easiest ones to industrialize. We fertilized and plowed land at an industrial
scale, we dealt with pests using pesticides, and used GMO to make sure that
our crops and nothing else would grow on the land.

Organic farming is a bit of a romantic ideal. It's basically an expensive way
of small scale farming using our per-industrial technology to farm the good
old way. The produce however, can be delicious; which (along with all the
ecological feel good vibes) is why it is popular. Additionally, people are
rediscovering foods that just haven't been in scope for mass production.

However, it's high tech cousin of sustainable farming by using land more
smartly and using technology to monitor and restore soil in a data driven way
is not naive. It works, it scales, and can be highly competitive and you get
much of the same benefits as with organic farming. There is a lot of
innovation in this space. Essentially, you can reverse much of the effects of
destructive farming practices of the last centuries and create soil that
produces high yield crops without relying on fertilizers, GMO, or pesticides.
Turns out nature is pretty awesome when you guide it a little. Many farmers
are discovering that they don't need to buy a lot of things from large
corporations to grow stuff. If you manage the land right, you don't need
fertilizers, pesticides, or indeed GMO.

------
z92x38y12
>GMOs are widely considered safe by scientists,...

(Irish university scientists) willingness to buy GM baby food? (41.4% would
buy; 45% would not; 13.6% not sure)

 _" 4\. Willingness of scientists to buy GM food : Respondents were asked how
willing they would be to buy certain types of genetically engineered food if
they were at the same price as similar non-GM products. The axiom that those
buying food would do so to consume it was drawn. These results are shown in
Table II. Of the respondents 60.4 per cent would buy genetically modified food
items if they were the same price as non-GM food with the notable exception of
baby food (41.4 percent would buy; 45percent would not; 13.6 percent not
sure). T-tests carried out showed that when the means were compared, the drop
in willingness to buy GM baby food was statistically significant (p < 0.01).
This drop is an interesting insight into risk analysis of the scientist."_

"Genetically modified food issues: Attitudes of Irish university scientists -
Shane H. Morris Catherine C. Adley" (2000)

[http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700010362040](http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700010362040)

------
viburnum
That doesn't make GMOs good.

A lot of GMOs are designed so that you can dump herbicides and pesticides on
them. That is a problem.

~~~
mark_l_watson
+1 there is a weed killer that can only be used with specific GMO. The weed
killer can not be in drinking water but is allowed in Zucchini, lettuce, etc.
Avoid GMOs and avoid the weed killer.

~~~
m0zg
Avoid the GMO and _eat a different weed killer_. FTFY.

------
jefflombardjr
I always felt people who were against GMOs believed in the right thing for the
wrong reason. The problem is not directly from consuming a genetically
modified piece of corn, that seems fine. The problem instead is all of the
baggage associated with growing 1000s of corn plants that are genetically
identical. Pesticide overuse, soil degradation, etc.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I feel the exact opposite - that people believe the wrong thing (there's a
problem with GMOs) for the right reason (business practices of companies).
Note that the business practices people mind are not tied to GMOs, and affect
all "natural" agriculture the same.

~~~
imtringued
I don't think that's true, otherwise what's the benefit of GMOs if business
practices stay the same?

I can already think of a counter example: GMO plants are often more resistant
to herbicides which makes it more profitable to overuse herbicides.

Whether this is good or bad doesn't matter. Your argument is based around the
fact that business practices don't change.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _I don 't think that's true, otherwise what's the benefit of GMOs if
> business practices stay the same?_

Increased yields, increased disease resistance, decreased maintenance (e.g.
pesticide use).

> _GMO plants are often more resistant to herbicides which makes it more
> profitable to overuse herbicides._

 _Why_ are GMO plants made more resistant to herbicides? In order to enable
more efficient utilization of them. For instance, AFAIK Roundup is less toxic
than most other stuff people spray on plants, and it _replaces_ the use of
that other stuff.

~~~
jefflombardjr
Round up is toxic. The active ingredient is the only ingredient that is tested
for toxicity - it only makes up ~30% of the mixture. The other chemicals in
the solution that help the active ingredient bind to organic matter is most
definitely toxic, but conveniently ignored in toxicity studies. Tao Orion has
a really great perspective changing book on this: Beyond the War on Invasive
Species

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25782048-beyond-the-
war-...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25782048-beyond-the-war-on-
invasive-species)

------
roman_g
[https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/987700101090086912](https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/987700101090086912)

~~~
dcbadacd
People take educated risks all the time, we do not calculate (and sometimes
can't) every possible outcome of actions, saying we should stand still to
avoid anything going wrong is just regressive at best. If you follow that
train of thought you should use no modern medicine, the complexity of a living
being is too high. We should and can take heavily educated guesses to improve
our state of being.

~~~
plainOldText
In highly complex systems, educated guesses are no better than random picks.
You just have to be aware what kind of system you're dealing with, and be
prepared to deal with the consequences. Also, keep in mind time horizons –
very important.

~~~
TeMPOraL
That's nonsense. Regardless of complexity of the system, a single bit of
knowledge in your educated guess cuts the space of possible choices in half.
Even a few bits of knowledge can let you avoid dangers that random selection
will reliably hit.

------
headShrinker
There's a lot happening in this industry and even I group "GM" in with unripe
hemp-thistle-core "ripen on the shelf" tomatoes. GM wasn't introduced for
better tasting healthier produce. GM is used to product more resilient longer
shelf live produce.

Don't be surprised when pseudoscience believing corporate-cynical customers
don't trust the newest food tech, when it was only developed to increase
corporate profits in the first place.

Maybe people just want what they think is 'natural' with the understanding
that breeding is different than Genetic Modification. One works with the tools
nature created the other is playing God.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Don 't be surprised when pseudoscience believing corporate-cynical
> customers don't trust the newest food tech, when it was only developed to
> increase corporate profits in the first place._

I'm not surprised, because this topic has exactly zero to do with science,
health, or truth. It's all about trust issues. About abuse on one end used by
the other side to fertilize the public perception with bullshit.

Alas, I wish people complaining about "chemicals" in food and "ripen on the
shelf" tomatoes and stuff would realize how big a logistic hurdle it is to
feed 7 billion people. All those inventions developed to make food live longer
on the shelf (and in trucks) is part of what enables you and me to be a
programmer, instead of a farmer.

> _Maybe people just want what they think is 'natural' with the understanding
> that breeding is different than Genetic Modification. One works with the
> tools nature created the other is playing God._

By those standards almost no technology should be allowable. Floods are the
tools nature created; putting up dams is playing God. Lightning is the tool
nature created, electrical generators is playing God.

------
IXxXI
The original promise of GMOs was food products healthier for the environment
utilizing less pesticides. The real world application of GMOs fails to deliver
on this promise, utilizing greater quantities of pesticides placing us in a
worse situation than we were before they were developed. GMOs have typically
resorted to exploitive and predatory business practices which fostered
negative implications for the farming industry as a whole.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _The real world application of GMOs fails to deliver on this promise,
> utilizing greater quantities of pesticides_

AFAIK the whole point of pesticide-resistance GMOs is precisely to use _less_
pesticide, and of a _less toxic_ kind, than in case of regular farming.

> _GMOs have typically resorted to exploitive and predatory business practices
> which fostered negative implications for the farming industry as a whole._

s/GMOs/GMO-employing companies/, which is essentially large agricultural
companies.

Alas, if I'm to believe the HN thread from couple of days ago[0], the main
issues people blame on GMOs don't exist (lack of genetic diversity), or aren't
really a property of GMOs in the first place (lack of "seed saving") - many
(including IP protection) apply to "normal" or even "organic" farming as well.

\--

[0] -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18923957](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18923957)

------
barbecue_sauce
The only thing I have ever found really objectionable about GMOs is the so-
called Terminator Gene, a way to prevent plant reproduction by making seeds
sterile. Monsanto has promised not to use the technique, but its existence is
still frightening; not merely from an "IP-protection" perspective, but from
possible military or terroristic use as well.

~~~
gizmo686
By its nature, a terminator gene does not spread very well. Even if the gene
manages to cross pollinate to other plants (which it probably will), it still
won't go viral because the infected plants would be (relatively) sterile.

What is more scary is some of the mosquito killing genes that are being
developed. Those are actually being designed to spread throughout entire
species of Mosquitos, despite making them infertile. This is a far more
difficult problem that a simple terminator gene.

------
AzzieElbab
Curious how people would react to the article if author revealed corporate
backing

------
mikekchar
I often wonder, is it the case that strongly held views are correlated with
poor understanding of the topic? I mean there is the Dunning Kruger effect,
but if I understand correctly that shows a correlation between belief of
ability and actual ability (though, not a linear function ;-) ). What I'm
interested in is the estimate of certainty. Do people with less knowledge tend
to have higher levels of certainty about their opinions in that area? In my
experience it is true, but I'm not aware of studies that show this.

~~~
TeMPOraL
In this case, I feel it's more about narrative lending its strength to
beliefs. The narrative of most anti-GMO voices out there is that of evil
megacorps playing god, the way "everyone knows" stereotypical evil megacorps
would do. It's simple to understand, easy to argue (megacorps are mostly
indifferent, which means they do evilish things from time to time), forms a
nice feedback loop where diminished trust lends more credence to it, which
further diminishes trust. It doesn't matter whether or not it's _true_.
Getting to truth means digging into details - trying to understand both
biology and economics, both genes and trade treaties. This is a messy process,
not many care to even begin to do it.

The same essentially applies to anti-vaxxers too.

