
DNA-Free Dining Made Easy - nikbackm
https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2016/06/13/dna-free-dining-made-easy/
======
lolc
I suppose that was a stab at the current GMO labeling debate. What I find most
depressing about the whole debate, not just this attempt to be funny, is the
focus on individual health as opposed to the health of the ecosystem.

When I buy organic meat that's not because I fear that meat grown using
antibiotics will poison me. I know that using antibiotics to grow meat is
irresponsible because it fosters antimicrobial resistance. Yet my choice to
not support this process is derided as irrational, as a lifestyle choice.

When I oppose GMO that's not because I fear the tomato will be modified into a
predator that jumps out of the salad to eat me. I oppose the process of
drowning the fields in herbicide. (I know that in the bright GMOed future less
herbicides will be necessary for some dreamy reasons but let's stay in reality
please.)

It's most telling that the debate is being reduced to individual health,
because that is the easiest part of it. When it comes to whole ecosystems, our
predictive powers are basically zero. Here we see the people who literally
cannot know what processes they are starting, we see them attacking other
people for not knowing the difference between GMO and DNA. Worse, they're
actually making fun of them for _wanting to know_.

~~~
pdpi
I don't think it's so much about GMO as it is about all the dairy-free,
gluten-free, whatever else-free diets, where people are eschewing whole food
classes because it's trendy, rather than because there's a well-documented
health advantage to it.

Some people _do_ have good medical reasons to engage in such diets. Lactose
intolerance and celiac disease are a thing. They're just not nearly as
widespread as some health food fans would have you believe, and I'm yet to see
clinical evidence for the hazier "intolerances" some people use to justify
those choices.

~~~
VLM
>They're just not nearly as widespread as some health food fans would have you
believe,

Among adult white middle-upperclass coasties of mostly to entirely central
european descent.

But America isn't just white people anymore. The doctors say lactose
intolerance is around 90% for asians and 80% for american black people.

Its worth considering that American was like 90% lactose tolerant white people
before the 60s immigration reforms, but now is only like 60% lactose tolerant
white people, and dropping. The majority of children today are lactose
intolerant to some level or another.

Like the wikipedia says "most lactose-intolerant people can tolerate a certain
level of lactose in their diets without ill effects" But its very much like
the Olestra debacle. You probably won't get sick from eating small amounts of
undigestible oils, but you absolutely won't get sick if you don't eat them at
all, and america being what it is, we have people who insist on binge eating
and the digestive consequences of that can be quite gross. Better off just
staying away and not eating it at all.

Conceptually, drinking the breast milk of another species on a regular basis
is just weird, anyway.

~~~
lolc
> Conceptually, drinking the breast milk of another species on a regular basis
> is just weird, anyway.

I don't think it's weirder than eating body tissue of other species. But maybe
I'm a freak that way, I like my stolen breast milk infested with mold.

Edit: not disagreeing otherwise :-)

------
colordrops
I'm guessing this is a not-so-subtle critique of GMO labeling. I'm not against
GMOs, but anyone who is against labeling is caught up by propaganda.
Everything else that goes into food is labeled - there is nothing wrong with
mentioning that a food contains GMO as well.

~~~
viggity
GMO Activists...

Now: "If GMO's are so safe, then why are you afraid of labeling them?"

After labels become required: "If GMOs are so safe, then why do they need
warning labels?"

~~~
collyw
They complained about cross contamination. Along comes the terminator gene,
and they complain about not being able to make seeds.

~~~
viggity
The "terminator" gene effects hybrid seed. Seeds you would never want to plant
anyway because they have shit performance. Terminator gene (similar to male or
female sterility genes) simply make hybrid seeds cheaper to produce. You don't
have to pay armies of teenagers to detassel the 4-5 rows of female plants and
you don't need to mow your 1 row of male plants.

------
jdavis703
While DNA free dining is clearly a hoax, I beleive this is targeted at GMO
labeling. I'd argue that DNA labelling is also fine. That ways I can know my
olive oil (among other food and drink) is actually olive oil:
[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/01/24/opinion/food-c...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/01/24/opinion/food-
chains-extra-virgin-suicide.html)

~~~
Navarr
I'm really unsure of the cry out against GMO labelling.

Like, I would happily eat GMO food. Some people wouldn't. Why force them to?
They should be perfectly free to pump money into the organic industry and make
ill/informed choices of what types of food to buy.

Just expand it as part of the nutrition label. Maybe some people would prefer
to stay away from it for religious reasons?

I don't think it'd place any sort of unhealthy burden on the industries to
write "This food may contain genetically modified organisms"

~~~
mediumdeviation
> Just expand it as part of the nutrition label.

The size of the nutritional label is not infinite. The number of potential
labels is. More importantly, by labeling GMO, you're simultaneously implying
that there may be something unsafe about them, and distracting from far more
important information, like allergens and sugar content.

> I don't think it'd place any sort of unhealthy burden on the industries to
> write "This food may contain genetically modified organisms"

Fruits and vegetables can be contaminated, for instance if they are grown or
stored next to each others. For labeling purposes guidelines are set with some
leeway within safe boundaries. Trying to do the same for GMO highlights the
silliness of the exercise, since there are no such boundaries, because they
are as safe to eat as their non-GMO counterparts.

Then there's processed foods - tracing which of the dozens of ingredients are
non-GMO would be non-trivial. It is possible, of course, but why force
companies to waste money for something that is of no health consequence?

And finally, there's the issue of GMO entering the food chain. It is at least
possible to trace this for livestock, if you have a complete history of
everything that they've ever been fed, but what about animals caught in the
wild like fishes?

I'd love to have more transparency and information about the food on my plate
- I want my fruits grown in areas that are not under water stress, and my
vegetables grown sustainably, but let's not waste time and money trying to
label things that don't need labeling in the first place.

------
4bpp
> Zika virus – this microcephalitic plague demon is almost 100% DNA.

I believe Zika is an RNA virus...

~~~
oniony
Tell it to the proteins.

~~~
eggy
I get it RNA is the messenger, right?

One-line deadpan!

------
kusmi
I didn't detect the sarcasm at first, as a molecular geneticist this was
difficult to read because it's so full of wrong and no.

~~~
syrrim
Besides the commentary on health, is there anything _wrong_ in the article?

~~~
larrik
"And if you want more proof of DNA’s dark dangers then look no further than
the Zika virus – this microcephalitic plague demon is almost 100% DNA"

Viruses are RNA, not DNA.

~~~
collyw
Some are DNA, some are RNA.

------
dekhn
Numerous factual errors in this (obvious) parody. In fact most things that
they claim are DNA free have small traces of DNA! Anybody who really cares
will homogenize their food, run it through a purification column/DNA trapping
column, and then eat the resulting eluent. Yum.

------
arantius
How are there so many "Must be about GMO labeling? ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯" top comments
without any references to e.g.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2016/05/27/new-study-confirms-that-80-percent-of-americans-
support-mandatory-labeling-of-foods-containing-dna/)

"Last year, I wrote about an Oklahoma State University survey indicating that
over 80 percent of Americans support “mandatory labels on foods containing
DNA.” ... Obviously, such DNA labels would be absurd. Nearly all food contains
DNA..."

~~~
brucedawson
Well, the articles links to that survey or a very similar one, so it's not
like that point was missed.

In fact, those survey results are pretty much the point of the article.

------
sndean
While I can understand that it might be fun to point out the ignorance of most
people, these kind of "gotcha" surveys/polls performed by supposedly reputable
groups can be pretty annoying. I'm sure most people think "Contains dihydrogen
monoxide" should be put on the label too.

That said, DNA can probably make certain foods slimy, which is a texture I'm
generally opposed to.

~~~
mediumdeviation
It's useful for highlighting how useless these poll results actually are for
policy making, because people have a propensity to hold opinions on things
they have absolutely no knowledge of.

