

Anti-GMO Activist Seeks to Expose Scientists’ Emails with Big Ag - Turukawa
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/anti-gmo-activist-seeks-expose-emails-food-scientists/

======
tomp
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)?

~~~
ptaipale
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).

~~~
tomp
> 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.

~~~
tedunangst
Where do you think the "better" varieties that get interbred come from?

------
SigmundA
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...](http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5102656)

------
noipv4
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.

~~~
Oletros
> 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

------
nashashmi
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.

~~~
falcolas
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
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](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..."

------
guelo
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.

~~~
timlin
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.

~~~
guelo
Hope you're wearing appropriate gear when you're applying this poison in your
"side" farm.
[https://gmandchemicalindustry9.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/g...](https://gmandchemicalindustry9.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/glyphosate-
application.jpeg)

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

~~~
Oletros
Can you explain me why glyphosate is bad and copper sulfate or rotenone are
good?

