

The Genetically Modified Food You Eat - kkleiner
http://singularityhub.com/2009/07/15/the-genetically-modified-food-you-eat/

======
biohacker42
_Unless you’re technophobic by nature (in which case, reading this blog
amounts to masochism), it’s hard to deny the benefits of GM foods._

As a libertarian who's anything but technophobic and who knows something about
gene splicing let me disagree:

 _GM foods resistant to insect attack actually require fewer pesticides than
their natural counterparts_

For now. Until pests become resistant to Bt toxin. Then organic farmers who
use Bacillus thuringiensis might be adversely affected. This is an uncounted
for externality.

But this externality may be worth it, if for example it gets us cheaper food.
But the best way to get A LOT cheaper food is to simply stop ag. subsidies.

Now I happen to think the long term consumption of plants with Bt genes has a
probability of being bad for you that's arbitrarily close to zero. BUT I am
also a software engineer and so I know NOTHING is certain, shit happens.

As a libertarian I know the basics of how free markets work, and information
is a key part of a working free market. Which is why I wish GM crops would be
labeled as such.

If pests do become immune to Bt, splicing something else in is going to be
harder. Because we didn't invent Bt toxin, we took it from bacteria. When
happens we run out of naturally occurring toxins? If we could design molecules
that would be awesome, but we're not there yet.

Keep in mind you can also splice pesticide resistance into crops and the way
they work is by enabling yyou to go nuts with the pesticides, bathe your
fields in them.

 _Stress-resistant GM crops can survive droughts and disease,_

Drought resistant crops are still in the works. This not nearly as easy as Bt
toxin was. It's a major change in plant physiology and we can't do that yet.

But Israel can profitably grow crops with desalinated water and computer
controlled irrigation.

The "this will help poor farmers" line is a red herring. Poor farmers in
developing countries are poor because their countries are a mess. If your
country isn't a mess you can even grow crops in the Israeli desert.

 _warding off famine in developing countries across_

Read up on how famines happen, The Economist had a great study. In short it's
about the government response, not about any one or two crop failures.

 _Frankly, it’s amazing that we can remix our food to be more nutritious_

Not yet. Well for simple things, like rice and vitamin A, but not in general.

We know that fruits and vegetables are not as nutritious today as they used to
be. This is because they've been careful selected for looks and shipability.
The most popular variety of tomato isn't called "Bulletproof" because it's so
super tasty and nutritious.

Simply put, the mass market wants big unbruised fruits and vegetables. Why
would this change just because we can now gene splice more nutrition into our
vegetables? We can have more nutritious today, there's just no _real_ demand
for them.

And the tiny market segment that does demand it, is ironically least likely to
buy GM foods.

 _faster-growing_

See drought hardy.

 _longer-lasting_

Not a problem for me. This is about shipping and storing crops for resale. How
does that interest me? Lower prices - see ag. subsidies.

 _and tastier_

See more nutritious.

The fact is, the genetic engineering that's going on today is not about more
taste or more nutrients or really anything that affects the end consumer. It's
about higher profit margins for the produces and middle men.

Ah you say, but surely those fat profits will shrink over time and we'll get
cheaper food, but again: _subsidies_.

Or maybe those profits/prices will help developing countries? Again it's not
the climate or the soil is the government.

 _make us healthier_

No that's other kinds of gene splicing, crops don't do that yet, and I doubt
they will ever be the best vector for medicine or what ever.

 _improve ag production_

Depends on your definition of improve, see roundup resistant crops. Also see
ag. subsidies. Many people live on $1 a day. Pretty much all European cows are
subsidized to the tune of $2 a day.

 _make pharmaceuticals_

Maybe, but almost certainly there's better vectors.

 _and survive hell and high water. Maybe future crops could recycle more
nutrients back into dirt and help avert the looming topsoil crisis._

Now you're getting into utopian fantasy and running into some fundamental
limits of, you know, physics and stuff.

 _So that’s what all the fuss is about._

It's about free markets and information, it's about not letting private
companies have undue influence on our system of government. Or on other
companies, through a very imperfect legal system, i.e. Monsanto suing
companies who market their milk as rBGH free.

As a libertarian who works in biotech let me say: Seriously fuck Monsanto!

------
embeddedradical
Stewart Brand said it well in his TED Talk
([http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_proclaims_4_environme...](http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_proclaims_4_environmental_heresies.html)):
"We are gods, and we better get good at it." (or something very close to
that). Also in his talk was the importance of genetically modified foods for
the future of our environment, and the well-being of many people.

The issue of genetically modified food is not binary, it is not that genetic
modification is good, or that it is bad, and when our primary terms of
discussion are how much genetic modification is around and whether or not we
like genetic modification - well, it’s here, and we’ve been doing it thousands
of years slowly, and now we can do it quickly.

On one hand you have the kind of work that went on in Mexico and is now making
its way into Africa; the works of people like Normal Borlaug
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug>) .

On the other hand we have Monsanto as the iconic forerunner of delusional-
antisocial-take-over-the world-food-supply companies.

The binary discussion, is GM good or bad, is misdirection. The valuable
discussion is in what is good engineering, and what is bad engineering and
what are we going to do about that distinction? This article is taking it in
the right direction (even if it has some errors like mentioned in the other
comment).

~~~
RK
I think that saying that genetically engineered organisms are bad is kind of
like saying "chemicals" are bad. "Chemicals" is an incredible broad category
as is/will be GMO.

------
hapless
Why should I care?

The article presents the fact that most of our food supply contains some
genetically modified plants. The article mentions that some people "feel" this
is a bad thing.

I appear to have missed the point. Was there a point?

~~~
BRadmin
1\. Ubquity of GM food is not widely known / apparent to consumers. 2\. Most
GM strains are produced by a company of questionable ethics. 3\. Some
countries have outright banned GM foods (though for reasons / motives not
given -- elaboration would have been nice here). 4\. "Critics claim there
haven’t been any long-term studies done (GM food has only been around for 20
years), that supportive research was biased or inadequate, and that the FDA
rushed the approval."

~~~
anamax
> 2\. Most GM strains are produced by a company of questionable ethics.

It turns out that the "questionable ethics" charge is essentially circular.
It's basically yelling that someone is bad and then refering to the yelling as
evidence of bad.

> Critics claim there haven’t been any long-term studies done (GM food has
> only been around for 20 years), that supportive research was biased or
> inadequate, and that the FDA rushed the approval."

Said critics don't have any objection to genetic alteration by other means, of
which there has been no testing.

------
doosra
Help me understand the business model of GM crops: Does Monsanto create GM
crops that are seedless? I think this is evil since it gives too much power to
one corporation and removes the farmer's prerogative. On the other hand, how
will Monsanto make money after the first crop cycle?

~~~
karzeem
When you buy seeds, they require you to agree not to use seeds from the
resultant plants in the next crop cycle. So if you want to use the seeds again
in the next cycle, you have to buy more. They have people who go to farms and
test plants to ensure compliance.

Vanity Fair ran a good piece on this last year:
[http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto...](http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805?printable=true&currentPage=all)

~~~
jdbeast00
also, if you inadvertently obtain seeds (like, if your neighbor has Monsanto
wheat and his grains blow into your fields) you have to kill your crop or pay
Monsanto. reminds me of the RIAA's business model.

------
miloshh
The Monsanto issue makes me think - might there be a place in the world for
"open-source seeds"? :)

------
anamax
Note that radiation-modified food is not considered genetically modified. (Yup
- folks put seeds near radiation and see what happens.)

Selective breeding is also considered okay.

