
We’re Scientists, Moms, And We Avoid Non-GMO Products - ph0rque
https://medium.com/@BioChicaGMO/were-scientists-we-re-moms-and-we-avoid-non-gmo-products-33bc0aa351a3#.x8kywi7v5
======
ozy
I find it hard reading articles like this. I agree with its main premise, but
it fails to mention the valid points of the other side. And there are two:

1\. Some GMO has a plant produce extra chemicals, specifically, pesticides

2\. There is a unknown side to GMO, perhaps it can lead to super species that
we can never get rid of in the future and will destroy bio diversity.

(1) are banned in the EU for human consumption, a reasonable choice I think
until we have more data.

(2) is a much lower risk than most would thing. But it is one of those things
where the naive/amateur answer is far from reality, and that naive answer is
scary. (Like nuclear, or more rules vs more responsibility.)

When done responsibly, GMOs are fine. And even necessary if we want to feed 8
billion people and more in the future.

But an article that fails to mention valid (remember the eu) downsides, and
discuss the tradeoff, will have a polarizing effect: Those pro GMO will think
score and think anti GMO is stupid. But anti GMO will see their biggest
concerns not mentioned, and will declare fail and conclude their position is
well grounded.

~~~
Kalium
I am listening to you and your concerns. You are afraid that what we don't
know could have disastrous consequences for us all. You want to see it
demonstrated that serious people are taking these real, serious concerns
seriously. After all, taking people's concerns seriously is the best way to
make people feel validated and thus you can calm their fears, right? We all
know that taking arbitrary concerns seriously never validates them.

> (1) are banned in the EU for human consumption, a reasonable choice I think
> until we have more data.

Seems very reasonable. How much data is enough? How will we know when we've
got so much data that we can start just ignoring those who call for more study
as unreasonable? When they're convinced, perhaps?

> (2) is a much lower risk than most would thing. But it is one of those
> things where the naive/amateur answer is far from reality, and that naive
> answer is scary. (Like nuclear, or more rules vs more responsibility.)

Seems reasonable. How do you propose to address these unknowns? And are you
aware that non-GMO plants can product dangerous super species we can never get
rid of? Purple loosestrife comes to mind.

Having listened to your concerns and seriously pondered them, all I see is
fear. Unbounded fear. Nothing in here leads me to think these fears will be
calmed by study. The nature of science is that there's always another unknown
to point to, and GMOs are seen by many as inherently scary - unlike safe,
cuddly natural plants, obviously.

What I see is people who have a fundamentally emotional position and think
that study will validate them. They will continue to want more study until
their fears are validated, and every result that fails to do so only feeds
their fears.

~~~
random_upvoter
Not too many decades ago it was claimed that famine would be solved forever by
spraying everything with DDT. But nobody had ever imagined this thing called
the food-chain and the birds started dying. Now we're toying with DNA without
even comprehending half of it. I'm not opposed to it. We will probably learn
some new, interesting things on the way that nobody had ever imagined.

~~~
zer00eyz
See DDT was bad for birds, but in a very short time frame we got rid of
malaria in the United States.

[https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.htm...](https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.html)

And we put down so much DDT that people around my age never had to deal with
bed bugs till now.

I'm not advocating for spraying DDT again, I am suggesting that the history
and use of DDT far more interesting than can be covered in a string of HN
comments!

~~~
Impl0x
Indeed, the issue of DDT is much much more nuanced than people make it out to
be. At the time, it was a miracle chemical that was going to let us eradicate
(rather than simply control or minimize) all manner of diseases, so the scale
at which it was used was pretty incredible. In some cases we were effectively
carpet-bombing whole islands with the stuff. No wonder we were killing birds
and fish.

There's a book [1] about the history of DDT that does a great job of
establishing a historical context for its use. I agree that we can't simply
un-ban it, but our approach to disease prevention/control has come such a long
way since prohibiting it that I can't help but wonder if we could deploy it
safely now.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/DDT-American-Century-Environmental-
En...](https://www.amazon.com/DDT-American-Century-Environmental-
Entrepreneurship/dp/1469609770)

------
oxide
A couple I know who avoid GMO products have a few things in common with others
I've seen saying the same things: Ignorance of what a GMO really is, a deep
distrust of corporate interests/government regulators and a strange, unearned
trust placed in those selling "organic" products.

It costs them a premium, but they say they're doing it for their children. I
can't argue against it to their faces, but quietly I wonder if they wouldn't
be more financially free if they weren't so willingly chained to 7 dollar
gallons of milk.

~~~
dasil003
The tricky thing is it's very hard to really be on top of all the evidence, so
we rely on some signaling. The "granola" crowd tends to place unearned trust
in organic or non-GMO products, but the "science" crowd tends to place
unearned trust in methodologically suspect corporate studies with a clear
conflict of interest.

I'm pretty much right down the middle on this stuff, but I tend to regard the
latter as a bigger problem simply because the amount of money and lobbying
involved. Think of the amount of money to be made by increasing grain yields
by 1%, can we really expect industry to determine objectively that a higher
yield grain is nutritionally equivalent?

~~~
drvdevd
Your comment gave me an interesting thought: how would a labeling system that
describes exactly _which_ modifications were made to the organism in question
work?

~~~
blacksmith_tb
There current argument du jour about GM has to do with things like the Arctic
apple, which doesn't turn brown when it's sliced, due to silencing several
genes[1] - this sidesteps the usual "but now there are fish genes in my
tomato!" as nothing has been added, just removed.

1: [http://www.arcticapples.com/how-did-we-make-nonbrowning-
appl...](http://www.arcticapples.com/how-did-we-make-nonbrowning-apple/)

~~~
gnud
But.. there's no "save the earth" argument for this GMO modification, just a
mild convenience.

I achieve the same thing by slicing apples with ceramic instead of metal.
Think of how much I saved on R&D!

~~~
dothts
I think the non-browning modification also helps protect the apples during
transportation, which in turn reduces waste (since fewer apples will reach the
store in a damaged, non-consumer friendly state). Reducing waste _is_ "saving
the earth" :)

------
09bjb
I have a degree in Molecular Biology and the utmost respect for good science.
I avoid GMO products for a variety of reasons:

1\. They're absolutely more likely to be harmful to the environment based on
the general behavior of the companies that make them (Syngenta, Monstanto,
etc.). There shouldn't really be any debate on this.

2\. They have massive potential for global-scale, subtle, negative
externalities. I say this as someone who knows a bit of the history of science
and has seen how many times we don't understand the full effects of something
new until many years later (see most of the fun and variegated chemicals we
came up with in the 30s-50s). In science, the burden of proof is on the new
thing to unequivocally prove itself true...not 'harmless until proven
harmful.' The U.S. is very pro-business and one of the only countries in the
world where you can get away with 'harmless until proven harmful.' Obviously
GMOs are not going to kill you overnight and seem to have no acute ill
effects. I'm a fan of having a choice in this matter and not being forcibly
blinded.

3\. Most of the studies declaring them safe have industry funding at their
root. Most of the studies with "impartial" funding sources declare them
potentially unsafe or are inconclusive. "It is difficult to get a man to
understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
Careerism and loose morals in this field give me plenty of reason to at least
be skeptical of a Pro-GMO general consensus...and of overly enthusiastic new
science in general.

4\. I'm morally opposed to supporting products that support mucking with an
already perfect product, namely real, clean, unadulterated food. To feed the
world, we need better distribution and smarter farming practices, not the sort
of "solutions" that Monsanto et all have peddled (see what's happened in India
where adoption of GMO seeds was widespread).

Edit: spelling.

~~~
BeetleB
>I have a degree in Molecular Biology and the utmost respect for good science.

OK.

>They're absolutely more likely to be harmful to the environment based on the
general behavior of the companies that make them (Syngenta, Monstanto, etc.).
There shouldn't really be any debate on this.

Guilt by association is bad science. Saying "shouldn't really be any debate"
is not an attitude a good scientist has.

Also, "absolutely more likely" doesn't make sense.

>In science, the burden of proof is on the new thing to unequivocally prove
itself true...not 'harmless until proven harmful.'

Actually, science is not on either side. Science is science. Putting the
burden on one side or the other is purely a human policy decision. It has
nothing to do with scientific principles.

> Most of the studies declaring them safe have industry funding at their root.
> ... Careerism and loose morals in this field give me plenty of reason to at
> least be skeptical of a Pro-GMO general consensus...and of overly
> enthusiastic new science in general.

Do you avoid pharmaceutical products as well? They suffer from the same
problems.

>I'm morally opposed to supporting products that support mucking with an
already perfect product, namely real, clean, unadulterated food

Again, this has nothing to do with science. And, I can assure you: Many, many
people disagree with the characterization of "already perfect product"

~~~
pitaj
> >In science, the burden of proof is on the new thing to unequivocally prove
> itself true...not 'harmless until proven harmful.'

> Actually, science is not on either side. Science is science. Putting the
> burden on one side or the other is purely a human policy decision. It has
> nothing to do with scientific principles.

I think you are actually wrong about this. In order for a hypothesis to be
scientific, it must be falsifiable. This is reflective of the principle in
reason that the burden of proof falls of the claimant of the positive claim.

The real question here is, "which is actually the negative claim?" Is claiming
something safe a negative claim, or is claiming something is harmful a
negative claim?

This is where I think OP is incorrect: safety is merely lack of harmfulness.
Therefore, claiming that something is safe is the negative claim, and claiming
that something is harmful is the positive claim. A reasonable person should
assume things are safe until there is significant evidence that they are
harmful.

~~~
BeetleB
Yes, that is pretty much what I meant.

------
sebleon
Despite Monsanto and Syngenta's marketing about "saving starving children",
there's good reason why developing countries are actively fighting GMOs.
Giving centralized control of food production to a handful of American
corporations is a precarious position.

In practice, GMO agriculture creates a trade imbalance. Instead of simply
exporting produce, many countries will find themselves importing huge volumes
of proprietary products from the likes of Monsanto. This includes buying new
breed of patented seeds every year _, fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides,
etc. And of course, once a farm goes GMO, soil damage makes it almost
impossible to go back to organic farming. High level of lock in.

[http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/10/22/gm-crops-now-
banned-i...](http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/10/22/gm-crops-now-banned-
in-36-countries-worldwide-sustainable-pulse-research/#.WCDVNTv_1II)

_GMO seeds have been modified to create plants that won't make new seeds,
great for recurring revenue

~~~
Obi_Juan_Kenobi
That's not an argument against transgenetic modification, it's an argument
about intellectual property and economic practices.

As for terminator seed, this is a valuable technology that addresses concerns
that transgenes could spread into the environment. It's also quite irrelevant
to any crop that relies on hybrid vigor for yield; F1 seed must be
specifically developed from inbred parents, thus no seed saving is possible.
In this context, a terminator line would only serve to protect the
environment.

~~~
gohrt
> That's not an argument against transgenetic modification, it's an argument
> about intellectual property and economic practices.

That's not a refutation, that's a goalpost shift.

In the real world today, you can't separate transgenetic modification from
intellectual property and economic practices, when the intellectual property
is technologically enforced in the transgenetic modification.

~~~
jmde
Yeah, all these arguments against non-GMO products, painting non-GMO
proponents as antiscientific, seem to me to be strawman arguments that
ironically miss the point. It's a thinly veiled means of asserting
intellectual superiority that backfires to me because it overlooks the real
arguments against GMO products.

Great, you're parents and scientists. I'm a parent and a scientist too. But I
understand that many of the arguments against GMOs have nothing to do with
science (at least biological science) and everything to do with economics and
human rights.

Just because something involves biology doesn't mean that arguments about it
can be reduced to that.

------
hammock
There may be a lot of ignorance around GMOs. Dismissing the category
altogether as being dangerous may be premature. But there are also some
educated people who selectively avoid GMOs because they are well-informed of
the risks.

For example, the avoidance of food grown from Roundup Ready seeds because of
its likely contamination with harmful herbicide.

~~~
cullenking
This is why I typically select the non GMO version of most foods that are
prepared. I don't think the genetic modifications are problematic, but for
wheat etc that typically means it's roundup ready. For fresh produce or fruit
I don't mind as much since I control the washing, tho waxed apples can be
problematic.

~~~
mc32
Don't they say roundup ready crops require fewer biocides than their non GMO
counterparts? Isn't one of their value propositions that you don't have to
treat them as much as conventional and organic varieties?

~~~
gmac
Citation needed. One would have assumed that the point of a plant designed to
be resistant to a herbicide would be that you could apply that herbicide with
abandon.

~~~
mc32
Sure. Here are results from meta-analysis of the question[1].

Key takes:

"On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%,
increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains
and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for
herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing
countries than in developed countries."

So pesticide use goes down, yields go up, resulting in fewer acres planted for
the same yield resulting in even further pesticide use.

[1][http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629)

~~~
ricksplat
I noting that more and more meta-analyses are kind of falling out of fashion.
They're increasingly being viewed as having dubious scientific merit and
should be viewed similarly to "lit reviews". As well as some obvious biases
there are other subtle issues, such as incomplete data or poorly matched data-
sets. There's a list of short-comings on the wikipedia page which should
provide a good primer [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-
analysis#Problems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis#Problems)

Basically, we need to be careful about accepting the results of meta-analyses
as scientific fact. They are useful for illustrative purposes but really, at
the end of the day if you're going to settle an argument you're going to need
rigorous methodology, data-collection and reporting, as well as the all
important _reproducibility_ , _falsifiability_ and _verifiablity_.

~~~
sampo
You are free to go to the list of references in that meta analysis article,
and look at the results of the individual studies.

~~~
ricksplat
Just like with any lit review.

------
Symbiote
The article doesn't mention my objection to GMOs:

I would refuse to buy GMO products because I don't want multinationals to
"own" genomes. That requires far more trust than I'm willing to put in a
corporation, especially a foreign one.

~~~
terravion
There are plenty of university/public domain GMOs as well. Your stance is
analogous to not using any software because you don't like Microsoft's closed
source model.

~~~
nommm-nommm
Which specific GMOs are public domain?

~~~
terravion
Almost any papaya you eat in the US is GMO.

[https://gmoanswers.com/studies/gm-papaya-saved-hawaii-
papaya...](https://gmoanswers.com/studies/gm-papaya-saved-hawaii-papaya-
industry)

------
jly
> Genetic engineering, along with other tools, can help us address challenges
> like pests and droughts, while addressing nutritional issues, such as
> allergens or nutrient deficiencies. Farmers need these tools at their
> disposal to ensure a safe, sustainable, and reliable food supply.

If farmers practiced sustainable agriculture and grew a variety of crops
instead of one or two, they wouldn't have nearly as much need for GMO 'tools'.
Our agricultural system encourages non-sustainable practices that practically
require GMO seeds, pesticides, herbicides, and many others in order to
continue to function. The companies that make these products want to ensure
this continues.

GMO on it's own is fine, to me. But we need to stop looking at it as the
solution to the problem we've created, and focus on fixing the root causes of
big agriculture. These 'challenges' that are being addressed are often man-
made.

~~~
biehl
And even worse. There seems to be distinct mindsets where some people care
about sustainable things like soil-quality, erotion and product quality and
other people seem to care distinctly less about these things.

I think the current GMO-reality is harmful because it seems to cater to the
people who care less about sustainable practices. And possibly even promote
anti-sustainable thinking.

For that reason I avoid GMO products. There is simply no reason for me to
support the kind of farmers who don't care about sustainable practices. And
right now GMO seems to be a strong signal about that.

------
lumberjack
If you are three scientists why are you publishing this on medium? Make your
"science" credentials more visible at the least.

If you google their name you find out that they work at Biology Fortified.

>Biology Fortified, Inc. (BFI) is an independent educational tax-exempt non-
profit organization incorporated in Wisconsin. Our mission is to strengthen
the public discussion of issues in biology, with particular emphasis on
genetics and genetic engineering in agriculture. Biology Fortified is
independently run on a volunteer basis, and is not supported by any funding
from any companies or government entities.

So they are paid to have this particular public (!) opinion.

~~~
Fomite
"Biology Fortified is independently run on a volunteer basis, and is not
supported by any funding from any companies or government entities."

"So they are paid to have this particular public (!) opinion."

One of these things is not like the others...

~~~
cies
Good point.

But the fat that they do not disclose they work at the same non-profit that
has a goals that is much related to the topic they address, this does not seem
"transparent science-y" to me.

~~~
hx87
I'd argue that in a time when everybody has a LinkedIn account, putting your
name on the article is a form of disclosure.

~~~
cies
Then acting so "scientific", and "we're just some mommies", just to find out
that they work for the same organisation. Yr not just some mommies, your
colleagues, and it would not surprise me your got paid to write this.

------
anthonybsd
> More generally, a recent report from the National Academy of Sciences showed
> that herbicide tolerant and pest resistant GMOs have reduced insecticide use
> and have allowed farmers to use less toxic herbicides

There's been some serious doubt cast on that assumption recently:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-
falls...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-
short.html?smid=fb-share)

~~~
terravion
There's been quite a bit of shade cast on that article as well. It compares
yield growth rates (not absolute yield or cost) across country level data and
ignores issues with European production like really high levels of fungicide
use. Most people who are in agriculture think that this article was
sensationalist crap that exploits several common statistical fallacies.

For more in depth criticism of the NYT article:

[http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/10/the-tiresome-
discussion...](http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/10/the-tiresome-discussion-
of-initial-gmo-expectations/)

[http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/09/01/492091546/how...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/09/01/492091546/how-
gmos-cut-the-use-of-pesticides-and-perhaps-boosted-them-again)

~~~
anthonybsd
Interesting. Thank you for this.

------
opo
What is ironic about the GMO debate, is that the people most worried about GMO
foods don't seem to know or care about the many crops that were created by
exposing seeds to high amounts of radiation or chemical mutagens:

>...Unlike genetically modified crops, which typically involve the insertion
of one or two target genes, plants developed via mutagenic processes with
random, multiple and unspecific genetic changes[17] have been discussed as a
concern[18] but are not prohibited by any nation's organic standards. Reports
from the US National Academy of Sciences state that there is no scientific
justification for regulating genetic engineered crops while not doing so for
mutation breeding crops.[5]

So, these crops with random genetic mutations are sold as organic and have
been in the food supply since 1930:

>...From 1930 to 2014 more than 3200 mutagenic plant varietals have been
released[1][2] that have been derived either as direct mutants (70%) or from
their progeny (30%)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding)

~~~
grzm
_" the people most worried about GMO foods don't seem to know or care about
the many crops that were created by exposing seeds to high amounts of
radiation or chemical mutagens"_

I think you're right in pointing out that there is general ignorance about the
roles of radiation and chemical mutagens. These have been around for a long
time, introduced when there was less focus on the methods of food production.
I think if there were more awareness placed on these aspects as well, people
would be interested in, say, labeling for this, too.

As for the labeling of organic, what is acceptable under that label is also a
contentious issue, with lobbying on both sides. To assume that those who
prefer to buy organic are knowingly accepting that mutation-bred foods should
be labeled organic I think is a little disingenuous. Of course, lines have to
be drawn somewhere, if we've got a binary label, and that's why some would
like more detailed labelling.

~~~
opo
>...To assume that those who prefer to buy organic are knowingly accepting
that mutation-bred foods should be labeled organic I think is a little
disingenuous.

Disingenuous? I certainly didn't claim that people who buy organic understand
what they are buying and I don't appreciate your insinuation. I simply said
that these crops have not prohibited by any nation's organic standards.

~~~
grzm
I apologize. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. The word "disingenuous"
was ill-chosen and I can see that I should have phrased it better. Let me try
again.

I'm responding to this phrase:

 _" crops with random genetic mutations are sold as organic and have been in
the food supply since 1930"_

As you say, this simply says that these crops are allowed to carry the organic
label. It's a small move from here to say that people accept these crops as
organic. And then another small move to say that since transgenic crops are no
different from these other crops, that transgenic crops should also be
accepted as organic. Is this fair? This is the sense I get when reading your
_" What is ironic about the GMO debate"_ phrase. Perhaps the _shoulds_ are a
bit strong. How would you change my analysis?

You've rightly pointed out where I made a mistake in my use of "disingenuous".
What do you think of the rest of what I wrote? Is there anything you agree
with, at least in part? If not, what's your take?

~~~
opo
Thanks for the reply.

>…It's a small move from here to say that people accept these crops as
organic. And then another small move to say that since transgenic crops are no
different from these other crops, that transgenic crops should also be
accepted as organic. Is this fair? This is the sense I get when reading your
"What is ironic about the GMO debate" phrase. Perhaps the shoulds are a bit
strong. How would you change my analysis?

What I find ironic about the GMO debate is simply that it appears many of the
people opposed to GMOs know little about the precursor to GMO even though
mutation breeding has produced many of the crops we grow. If someone is
worried about inserting one known gene into a plant, I would assume they would
be much more worried about eating plants that were exposed to
radiation/chemicals to create multiple random genetic changes. (Or maybe
people wouldn't be as worried about GMO crops if they did know the long
history with mutation breeding - I don't know.)

I don't think most people have any idea that crops created through mutation
breeding are labelled "organic" so that was another unexpected fact. In terms
of the "organic" label, I just believe in truth in advertising. It seems like
it should be very clear to the consumer what it means when a food is labelled
"organic". I wasn't trying to make a judgement as to what should be labelled
"organic". I wouldn't say the marketing of the "organic" label has been
fraudulent, but many consumers do have a misleading idea of what they are
buying.

~~~
grzm
I think we're pretty close to being in agreement.

\- There are people who don't know a lot about earlier methods of causing
mutations such as chemicals and radiation as applied to crops (labeled organic
or otherwise, I suspect)

\- There should truth in advertising/labeling for food. We've been talking
about the organic label, but I think we both agree that it shouldn't be
limited to just organic, correct?

I think your points about random mutation possibly being more worrisome than
targeted (transgenic) mutation, or perhaps knowledge of what's been done in
the past may alleviate fears is right on the money. It'd be good to raise
awareness of this as well.

What do you think? Substantially accurate representation? Anything to
add/subtract/modify?

~~~
opo
>...I think we're pretty close to being in agreement.

Well... I think we agree on part of this and disagree on other parts...

I think producers should be free to market their products as organic, cage
free, free range, kosher, etc, and the consumers should understand what the
label means. I think more work needs to be done here to make sure consumers
know what they are buying.

I am opposed to mandated labeling of anything unless there is a scientific
basis for it being a safety concern - potential allergens, etc. For that
reason, a GMO food that has passed EPA, FDA, USDA and state regulations as
being safe should not have to be labeled - besides imposing a cost on food, it
would likely confuse the customer as the implication would be there are health
risks compared to other food. If a producer wants to indicate a product as GMO
or not GMO, they should be free to do so, but it shouldn't be imposed on them
by the government.

------
colordrops
Layla Katiraee, scientist at Integrated DNA Technologies - hardly a
disinterested party. It's in her direct interest to trash non-GMO everything.

~~~
madamelic
Everyone who proclaims themselves to be a scientist should trash non-sense
'science'.

GMOs are perfectly safe and beneficial. There is no dispute about the safety
of GMOs as a class. Feel free to pick apart the corporations and individual
crops though.

~~~
r00fus
Why should we not focus on the vehicles of these corporations' avarice,
though?

It's like saying "hey don't diss DIVX [1] but instead those who created it".

No, products and production methods that are questionable should be critiqued.

Also, follow the money. It seems to work almost every single time.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX)

------
StanislavPetrov
Any time your argument boils down to, "we have to keep information from people
because they are too stupid and it will confuse them", you should be opposed.
The same garbage argument was trotted out (successfully) by the beef producers
and testing for mad cow disease. If you don't want to test your meat for mad-
cow, then don't! But don't tell me I'm not allowed to test mine because you
say there is no risk. If you don't think GMO's are an issue, then saturate
your body with them. Go ahead and mutate every cell in your body as far as I'm
concerned. But don't tell other people they don't have the right to
information because you say they don't need it. Sickening hubris.

------
wehadfun
1\. How are these scientist be so sure that these modifications will not have
some unintended side effect?

Software engineers can't predict every side effect of modifications to code
that they created.

I read that some of these GMO products have only been on the market 10 years
and have not existed more than 20. So it is impossible for these "scientist"
to know the long term effects.

~~~
simion314
what scenario are you imagining? People done this kind of "manipulations" with
plants and animals. Why did you quote the word "scientists"? Are those authors
not real scientists with diplomas and education on biology? Would you better
belive some person that will get paranoid if he finds our the water is
polluted with hydrogen?

~~~
wehadfun
2 of the scientist work at companies that make money from GMO products. I'm
sure they are brilliant scientist but in this capacity they are marketers.

~~~
madamelic
I see your point but I have to slightly disagree. Supporting your field and
your interest is hardly being a marketer.

Dismissing unfounded science about your field is a good practice.

~~~
chefkoch
They should at least mention their employers.

~~~
hx87
A <5 minute LinkedIn lookup should suffice.

~~~
chefkoch
So now i have to google every author because journalistic / scientific
standards are not cool anymore?

------
woodpanel
I've always been "pro GMO" in the sense that I think its immoral to
artificially restrict our food supply and making food unnecessarily expensive.
Plus the innovation that can be spurred from the food sector into other areas
won't be seen until a hotbed has been established. I also think Europe is
losing out on opportunity with its Gealileo-like reflex on fundamentally new,
groundbreaking science.

That being said, I was deeply disappointed to hear that our 'groundbreaking
technology' amounts to stuff like "make plants pesticide resistant" > "dump
more pesticide on plants" > "apply for patent". This is really disappointingly
stupid.

Also it turns out that crop yields are almost not at all affected by genetic
modification [1]

[1]
[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/10/gm-...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/10/gm-
crops-not-increasing-yields.html)

~~~
jlj
In addition to the unknown side effects of GMO's that might take us a few
generations to learn about, the scarier thing for me is the risk of GMO's
going into the wild and becoming an invasive species that wipes out native
crops and habitats. By the time we know if GMO's are good for us and the
environment or not, it may be too late to go back to conventional crops.

Agree completely on the pesticides comment though.

Biggest innovation in crop yield seems to be hydroponics and vertical growing.
Fraction of the water use and don't need to worry about soil.

------
idanman
It sounds suspiciously odd that people want to boycott information. I
understand if you don't care about whether a product is a GMO but to prevent
other people from finding out and dictate to them what they can and cannot eat
sounds elitist to me. I want to know where my food came from and make my own
decision. This article smells of astroturfing
([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing))

~~~
Fomite
They want to boycott the _non-information_ that the "Non-GMO" label comes
with. It's hugely deceptive at times, and applied to food where there's no
GMO-equivelent.

~~~
cies
Agree, volutary and for-cost non-GMO label does not do much good -- likely
more harm as they are keen to point out.

The, IMHO, obvious fix is a mandatory "contains GMO" labeling. Which they
obviously do not mention.

~~~
hx87
IMHO, "contains GMO" isn't particularly useful either. If I'm going to be
notified that something is GMO, at least tell me what modifications were made.
If it takes up too much space, then slap on a QR code or something.

~~~
cies
> IMHO, "contains GMO" isn't particularly useful either.

Well I think it is our right to know. Doctoring with DNA? At least let me
know. Period.

------
colordrops
On a tangential note, there seems to be a large amount of propaganda and
astroturfing regarding GMOs, and to question them often leads to being
unfairly attacked. Be weary when reading comments as to what interests might
be served by various sides of an argument. Nothing is beyond inquiry.

------
shkkmo
I take a very different stance on GMO products than most people I've talked
to. I am a support of GMO products and think they are critical to protecting
the food supply. I also think that any GMO food sold should be required to
release the genome with a FOS license. I think that our food supply is a
common heritage and rights to use and work with it should not be restricted to
a few corporations.

~~~
Obi_Juan_Kenobi
Publish the transgene construct, or assemble the entire genome? De novo
assembly? What about for species that only have draft genomes?

------
mmanfrin
I find the first section exceptionally problematic and misleading, it reads in
part:

    
    
      As a reminder, the only items for which a GMO counterpart 
      is currently available to consumers are: alfalfa, canola, 
      corn (field and sweet, but not popcorn), cotton, papaya, 
      potatoes, soybeans (but not tofu or edamame varieties), 
      sugar beet, and squash. Genetically engineered apples and 
      salmon will be available soon.
    

The implication is 'you should not worry because there aren't many GMO
products out there any way'; but this glosses over the fact that soy and corn
constitute major ingredients in to many, many products (many of which you
would not necessarily think contain either).

------
mschuster91
> Many vitamins and nutrients used for enrichment are derived from genetically
> modified microorganisms. Others are derived from crops, such as corn, that
> are genetically modified. The Non-GMO Project bans the use of micronutrients
> derived from these GMOs. As such, there are documented instances of foods
> that have lost their vitamin content after changing their manufacturing
> process to meet the Non-GMO Project’s certification requirements.

I believe that many people are not against using GM bacteria/fungi/... to
produce stuff (lots of medicine is manufactured that way, for example), they
just don't want GMOs in the fields because:

1) they are (rightfully) afraid that unexpected side-effects happen when
modified organisms are able to spread beyond the field

2) they do not like the stranglehold that Big Ag can impose on farmers (which
is more a socio-economic issue, but nevertheless valid given the actions of
e.g. Monsanto
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-
sues-farmers-seed-patents))

------
Glyptodon
I avoid GMO products to a certain degree, but not because I'm concerned that
they may be unhealthy or dangerous.

A food crop could be modified to be dangerous I'm sure. And likewise I'm sure
one could be selectively bred (over enough generations) to be dangerous. If
someone engineers Sarin-secreting corn or something we'll figure it out pretty
quickly and the issue won't be it being GMO, it will be human malevolence. But
I really couldn't care less about that.

Rather, I like seeing GMO labels because it's the closest analogue for
determining if my food is proprietary. I am incredibly against reproducing
organisms that are a living patent violation, and I don't want to support such
things if possible. Above so said, I would much prefer to see marking
indicating that none of the product was patented, copyrighted, licensed, or
otherwise encumbered.

Another thing I think that perhaps gets (erroneously) mixed into the GMO
debate is biodiversity. Many people have concerns that monoculture is
dangerous and somehow mix and/or conflate non-GMO with heirloom/native
varietal foods.

Obviously the shadow over all of the above is the "organic" label, which blurs
things a little but further. But the primary consumer for organic overlaps
with the primary consumer for non-GMO which overlaps with the primary consumer
for local/heirloom/native produce, and the net result is that all the terms
get muddied.

Given the above, while I concur that GMO labeling is not ideal as is, and I
concur that GMO foods are fine or mostly fine, we don't actually have a
sufficient food labeling system. People want to know if proprietary organisms
are in their food. They want to know if it was grown with pesticides. They
want to know where it was grown. Etc.

In many ways food labels are a product of bizarre anti-consumer compromises.
It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to be able to get non-proprietary food
grown with low pesticide usage. Complaining about the GMO label doesn't really
seem to address this.

(PS: Love getting downvoted in the interval between posting my comment and
refreshing the thread... almost like somebody didn't even read it.)

------
mark_l_watson
We have the right to have our food correctly labeled. Then everyone gets to
decide for themselves.

To me, the pro-gmo crowd seems to be about taking away my rights to have my
food correctly labeled. This is a morally indefensible position, regardless of
safety of gmo.

~~~
ak217
No, if we had our food correctly labeled, all food in your supermarket would
be labeled as GMO. All of our food has been bioengineered for centuries, we
were just using extremely crude methods until now.

The morally indefensible position is the one that vilifies, through ignorance,
a set of plant breeding techniques that have the ability to save wildlife
habitat and reduce pesticide use and carbon emissions worldwide by making
agriculture more efficient.

If you want to adopt a morally defensible position on this issue, may I
suggest asking for labeling with estimates of water, herbicide, and acreage
use of your food? Or carbon footprint estimates? Because a "correct" GMO label
that actually carries any meaning will look like the methods section of a
Science article.

~~~
mark_l_watson
Drastically reduce beef consumption, and save resources, save wildlife habitat
like the Amazon (I have been there. Most clearing is for beef production).
Beef production creates a lot of methane which is even more damaging than CO2,
per molecule produced.

It takes between 4000 to 5000 gallons of water per pound of beef produced.
Chicken production uses about 5% the resources of beef. Vegan is better still.

I think we are in agreement on protecting the environment, but we have
different strategies for doing that. Fair enough.

------
sova
She works at "Integrated DNA Technologies". Not to suggest she has a bias, but
her main source of income is producing GMOs. Just something you may want to
keep in mind.

------
arca_vorago
I worked in a big ag company with a genetics lab and in a DNA sequencing lab
later (as a sysadmin), so I feel like I have a decent amount of insight into
this issue.

My two primary (I have more) objections to GMO are:

1) Lack of rigorous testing, _especially long term testing_. Many of the GMO
products in production spent a minimal amount of time in the lab before being
selected for production, with little to no long term testing being done. (to
find any number of potential issues and side chain-effect issues that can
happen.) For example, while at the sequencing company, I learned that it's not
just about the genome of the thing itself, but it's surrounding microbiome,
which of course is almost an after thought to the big-ag gmo producers.

2) The way in which the pro GMO big ag has essentially corrupted the bodies
set up to regulate itself. Monsanto is a perfect example of this, but only one
of many. They have a supreme court justice who has refused to recuse himself
on cases with obvious conflicts of interest. They have a massive online pr
(read: propaganda) operation to keep these things out of the limelight or at
least remove them quickly. They have basically taken over the most prominent
FDA positions. They abuse K-street beyond what even most of the K-Street
abusers do. It's this kind of systematic corporate corruption that makes me
sympathetic with those who are anti-gmo.

I also have a huge issue with the whole patent system when it comes to
genomes, the system is broke enough for normal tech, but there have been some
dangerous precedents set that I don't have the time to get into but they
_will_ have major consequences as sequencing costs and manipulation costs are
reduced and therefore it becomes a more prevalent tech.

Now, all that being said, I see a ton of FUD on the anti-gmo side that is
easily refuted, but the problem is that I far too often see the
illogical/irrational FUD of anti-GMO being the strawman used by pro-gmo people
against the more reasonable and scientific anti-gmo arguments, which seems to
be intellectually dishonest, very much like I find articles like this.

I could go on, but just wanted to offer a quick two-cents.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the horrible state of peer-reviewed
science. As a layman with a huge interest in science, I held the process up on
a pedestal, that is until I saw it from the inside. Bad science abounds and is
rarely challenged, which only gives fuel to the anti-intellectual/anti-science
movements which is the last thing we need as a species!

~~~
jernfrost
But what makes the alternative methods like mutagenesis safer? People always
speak of GMO as if the alternative is purely natural and created alone by
nature.

They also act as if nature is static. More genes are changed in plants by the
environment they live in than through GMO methods.

This idea that getting genes from frogs and putting them in wheat is somehow
dangerous deceives people by playing on their ignorance of how closely related
living things are.

I share 50% of my genes with a banana. An anti-GMO person might spin this has
me being filled with unnatural banana genes which should never have been in a
human.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Erm, didn't you just perform the exact sort of spin you're arguing against?

>More genes are changed in plants by the environment they live in than through
GMO methods. //

Which is to pretend that the potency of any genetic alteration is simply down
to the number of genes altered. So, ADA deficiency (a disease caused by a
single mutated gene) is less troubling than having red hair (due to [possibly]
4 pairs of genes, AFAIK).

We're making alterations that it would be mathematically impossible to occur
by natural mutation, to pretend that direct gene manipulation is only an
evolution (eh!) of normal farming methods is exceedingly disingenuous IMO.

~~~
jernfrost
What exactly do you consider NORMAL farming methods!!!??? How on earth is
mutagenesis normal? How is nuking seeds causing massive amounts of mutations
"normal"? This is the alternative to GMO. We are already unnaturally altering
the DNA of plants.

And you seem to suggest that doing deliberate and controlled altering of
specific genes is somehow MORE dangerous than doing RANDOM changes or any
number of genes. How does that even compute?

Would you drive a car at 100 mph where the car mechanics had just made massive
amounts of random changes hoping it made the car better, or would you drive
the car where they carefully studied the engine and made selected changes?

There are no laws in physics which prevent the DNA from getting altered at
exactly the same spots through deliberate random mutations than through GMO
methods.

Speaking of your ADA deficiency example. If you wanted to avoid accidentally
mutating a gene to cause ADA, you would be most certain to avoid that using a
the GMO method of specifically altering specific genes than if you just nuked
the seed.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>'How on earth is mutagenesis normal? How is nuking seeds causing massive
amounts of mutations "normal"?'

Do you mean laboratory mutagenesis initiated by human action or other types?
You know humans don't have to do mutagenesis to do farming?? It sounds like
you're presenting a false dichotomy. It's not my field, can you explain why
these are the only options?

>'There are no laws in physics which prevent the DNA from getting altered at
exactly the same spots through deliberate random mutations than through GMO
methods.' //

And a seed could spontaneously form from a confluence of cosmic rays. but it
doesn't. Which is why I invoked the mathematical impossibility.

And just because mutagenesis can occur without human action doesn't mean we
should run in slipshod. Stabbing can occur by accident, doesn't make
purposeful stabbings a good idea.

Your car analogy needs a small adjustment, the mechanic thinks they know
everything and has already written off several cars by modifying them; oh, and
their alterations could spread to other cars, houses, tables, and make the
entirety of manufactured products fail. But hey, nitroglycerine explodes well,
let's try filling fuel tanks with that, and liquid oxygen in the air-
conditioning.

------
rm2889
Nassim Taleb has been very vocal against GMOs. Here's a summary of his
beliefs.

[http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/FictionAndFacts3.pdf](http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/FictionAndFacts3.pdf)

~~~
grzm
Thanks for providing this. Useful info. That PDF in turn references "The
Precautionary Principle (with Application to the Genetic Modification of
Organisms)" from 2014.

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5787](https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5787)

------
olakease
* There are weapons of mass destruction in Irak!

* Drink milk, it has a lot of calcium and will prevent osteoporosis.

* Sugar is not that bad. Fat is the devil!

* AAA CDO's are a good and safe way to invest your money!

The previous sentences are all lies sponsored by big companies and lobbies
which have/had the seal of approval of different governments and politicians.

Big companies fight for their own interests and politicians fight for the
interests of those who "sponsor" their campaigns and offer jobs in their
boards once their political career is done.

GMO is a technique. As a technique is it not good or bad. The problem is the
big geopolitics and economic interests behind it.

------
bad_user
> _The World Health Organization has recognized food fortification as a
> beneficial way to “deliver nutrients to large segments of the population
> without requiring radical changes in food consumption patterns._

The article got my attention until I've read this line. Sorry, but the WHO
doesn't have a good track record when it comes to nutritional advice and I
actually believe that " _food fortification_ " is amongst the worst things
that could have happened to us. Not only because there's zero evidence that
this has led to better health, but also because it's used as a blatant lie
when marketing unhealthy products. So now you have children that eat vitamin-
enriched cereals instead of apples.

And what do you know, we now have an obesity epidemic on our hands that our
grandparents didn't have and guess what else they didn't have? Vitamins
enriched bread or freaking corn syrup in everything. Or the health problems we
are confronted with, even without such extensive knowledge about good vs bad
cholesterol.

Let's face it, when it comes to nutrition, can you imagine what would happen
if tens of thousands of medical professionals suddenly admitted wrong doings
which directly led to the deaths of an unimaginable number of people? WHO is
never going to recognize that and that line above is bullshit.

And if you think about it, because of such fuckups is why many people have
lost faith in the healthcare industry and why we now have a significant
minority refusing vaccinations for their children, which is fucked up and
stupid, but then again you can't really blame them.

------
ardit33
While some of the points are valid I'd take this with a grain of salt. This
piece was written by a Staff Scientist at Integrated DNA Technologies.

She might truly believe what she has written, but she is clearly economically
vested into people consuming more GMO products.

~~~
Fomite
I'll note that (from personal experience in other areas of science) nearly
_any_ scientist whose passionate enough to be both an expert on the topic and
care about writing something for the public can be dismissed with similar
logic.

------
MustrumRidcully
You are not scientists, you are merely technicians understanding little about
how nature and especially soils works. GMOs and extensive agriculture using
glyphosate slowing sterilize soils by destroying its ecosystem that were
protecting it. Thus you are forced to add more and more fertilizer, making the
soils more and more acid. At this point, you are only managing your plants'
desease.

Until a stronger desease will come and wipe all of your DNA clones. Think
about Dedale's fate, the first engineer that lost his son after going from
poor solution to poor solution.

A forest is a very productive environment, without the need of GMOs or
glyphosate. Why?

------
pbhjpbhj
That's great and all, and I support labelling to ensure people can make that
choice, or some other choice. The big question for me is why those who support
GMO want to not let other people choose?

------
droopybuns
I have two reasons for avoiding GMO:

Flavor

Local small farms don't embrace it.

If local farms did embrace it, I'd still be stuck with the flavor problem.

~~~
madamelic
>Local small farms don't embrace it.

Yeah, I think that is largely my big worry about "GMOs". It isn't about the
crops themselves but the corporations making them.

Even if you don't buy from them, if a seed of "theirs" drifts to your land
(which, anyone with a basic understanding of biology will know, __will
__happen), you have to pay them. If not, they will tie you up in a lawsuit
till you go broke.

GMOs: Fine

Greedy Corporations: Baaad.

~~~
amyjess
You're probably thinking of _Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser_ where Monsanto
sued a farmer who claimed that the seeds had just drifted onto his field.

Monsanto won the suit because they demonstrated that the seeds didn't _just_
drift there by accident: he knew what they were, and he went out of his way to
plant them. He intentionally concentrated the seeds and planted them for a new
crop in commercial levels. Of course the sensationalist media had to treat
Schmeiser's defense as gospel, but here's a quote covering the ruling:

> "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a
> passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure
> Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would
> expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account
> for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds
> of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘...none of the
> suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of
> Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of
> tests on Schmeiser’s crop’"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmei...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser)

------
entwife
I don't trust this author because the claim to be a scientist does not speak
of her credentials, publication record, field of work. A data scientist does
not have the same range of expertise and credibility as a biochemist.
Furthermore, actively avoiding a label that one finds meaningless is non
productive. Shod non Jews avoid Kosher labelling, or non Muslims avoid halal
labels? Surely there is a devout athiest somewhere who does, the rest of us
just ignore.

------
skywhopper
While I agree entirely with many points about misleading labelling and the
relative safety of GMO foods, these sorts of articles inevitably leave out any
notion of the actual risks that heavily pro-GMO policies might produce. Such
as the massive risk to long-term biodiversity of crowding out non-GMO breeds
in the name of "less wasteful" but far less diverse GMO breeds. Not to mention
the well-established risk of lowering the quality of the food itself in terms
of taste and nutrition in pursuit of shelf appearance and lifetime, pest
resistance, and harvesting density, which long before direct genetic
modification was possible ruined many common produce varieties.

These are entirely reasonable concerns, well proven out by past experience
with agricultural monocultures and counterproductive "improvements" in the
shelf product. And so while it's fair and probably justified to avoid the
"Non-GMO" certification label itself, it's not justifiable to dismiss concerns
about trends in GMO produce overall by quoting "science" that only addresses
the safety of GMO produce and not the larger concerns.

------
soufron
Well that's some high-level scientist bullshit there.

So non-gmo labels can be misleading, but not labeling gmo isn't. Wow. Welcome
to Animal Farm.

And of course, a non-gmo label doesn't mean anything good. But a cool gmo non-
label of course means something positive.

Also I am a scientist, and I avoid gmo products... wait... actually I don't
have to avoid it since they are banned in the EU and in France. But we are
only a bunch of retards I guess.

------
guelo
GMOs don't increase crop yields and don't reduce the use of pesticides
[http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-
fa...](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-
short.html)

~~~
searine
Current GMOs aren't designed to create higher crop yields, and have massively
reduced harmful broad-spectrum insecticide use. They have also replaced
harmful broad-specturm herbicides like atrazine.

[http://geneticexperts.org/national-academies-report-looks-
at...](http://geneticexperts.org/national-academies-report-looks-at-30-years-
of-ge-crops-advocates-changes-to-regulation/)

------
Gatsky
GMO science gets a hard time because it precisely documents the changes made
to nature. It seems illogical to regulate GMO so heavily but let farmers use
antiobiotics, pesticides, herbicides etc (which have actually been proven to
be harmful in a myriad of ways, and alter genetic material in the ecosystem).
There also needs to be a sense of magnitude when it comes to harm. The amount
of human suffering caused by alcohol, tobacco and refined sugar is far far
greater than even the most apocalyptic GMO safety disaster, but we don't
demand 10 years safety data for eg. a new Mountain Dew flavour, or
e-cigarettes.

It's also disingenuous to claim that GMO isn't needed if we adopt sustainable
farming, when the economics and scale of industrial farming make this fantasy
impossible.

------
pitaj
I am just blown away by the amount of anti-GMO sentiment on HN. For a
community so vehemently in support of the science around global warming, you
certainly do not seem to be nearly as "pro-science" when it comes to the topic
of GMOs.

~~~
j15t
I think labelling one side of this debate as "pro-science" and the other as
not, is disingenuous.

Science at its core is about scepticism and degrees of certainty - never about
absolute truth (see: inductive logic, etc.). Using "science" as an appeal to
authority to end debate is the opposite of scepticism.

I personally do not have strong opinions about this debate, but I think it is
completely acceptable for someone to take a 'wait-and-see' approach,
especially considering the number of times "scientific consensus" has been
wrong in the past (see: smoking, fats, etc.).

Moreover, it seems to me that there isn't any immediate danger from people who
are "GMO sceptics" since all they do is pay extra for organic products. Market
forces will regulate this behaviour if any shortages occur; which I don't
think is likely.

So overall I find the "pro-GMO" attitude (such as that displayed in the
article) to be strangely insistent on influencing the choices of individual's,
dispite such low stakes.

------
Alex3917
I have no problem with GMO, but will only feed my children food that is
certified AI-free.

"Sky, not Skynet."

"Google is not the Creator."

------
cwp
I do this too. If somebody helpfully labels themselves as anti-science, I'll
make sure not to give them my money.

------
spopejoy
News Flash: Genetic Scientist Thinks GMO foods Are OK. What a shocker, a
booster for GMOs who works in ... gene sequencing.

------
lesserknowndan
Good thing the products are labelled as being non-GMO or you wouldn't be able
to boycott them!

------
NumberCruncher
>>The financial, environmental and health impacts of adopting non-GMO
ingredients include [...] higher prices [...] and reduced food availability.

You just found the cure for the obesity epidemic! Double win!

------
igl
Clickbait-mood-piece that has plenty of links to even worse articles.

------
stratigos
Smells a lot like the same industry propaganda over and over...

------
exabrial
If you support AGW but think GMOs are unsafe you really need to think about
why you can support science based conclusions in only certain circumstances

------
Obi_Juan_Kenobi
Wow, there's a lot of reactionary downvoting in this thread, specifically for
comments that are critical of any anti-GMO sentiment.

------
jahbrewski
Don't let the double negative trick you like it initially tricked me!

------
swehner
Looks and smells like a well-funded marketing campaign. See also this comment,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12894370](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12894370)

------
hackaflocka
> It can also be redundant, since the USDA’s organic label already excludes
> GMOs

Quick, what's the logical fallacy here?

