This is a political argument masked as a scientific one. Unless they have peer reviewed research to back up their opinion, it's irrelevant to the point of dishonesty (appeal to authority) that they are scientists.
um. did you read any of the articles linked from that page. They are all based on factual evidence and peer-reviewed research. are you saying the union of concerned scientists just makes things up ? or that expert opinions are useless by the fact that they are opinions ?
edit: here's a summation of much of what's linked from that page from wikipedia:
> In 2009 the Union of Concerned Scientists summarized numerous peer-reviewed studies on the yield contribution of genetic engineering in the United States. This report examined the two most widely grown engineered crops—soybeans and maize (corn).[211] The report found that engineered herbicide tolerant soy and maize did not increase yield at the national, aggregate level. Maize engineered with Bt insect resistance genes increased national yield by about 3 to 4 percent. Engineered crops increased net yield in all cases. The study concluded that in the United States, other agricultural methods have made a much greater contribution to national crop yield increases in recent years than genetic engineering. United States Department of Agriculture data record maize yield increases of about 28 percent since engineered varieties were first commercialized in the mid 1990s. The yield contribution of engineered genes has therefore been a modest fraction—about 14 percent—of the maize yield increase since the mid 1990s.
I find the UCS position interesting and have no argument with the data on yield increases or the ineffectiveness of Glyphosphate-resistant GM Crops in increasing yields (Although I find this questionable from personal experience).
My experience relates to Cotton, not Maize (corn in the rest of the world) and so is more relevant to the discussion of fibre rather than food cropping
I grew up on a cotton farm in Australia and witnessed first-hand the introduction of both Bt- (branded Bollgard by Monsanto) and Roundup-Ready Cotton varieties.
I think an often overlooked aspect of the introduction of genetic modification is the Environmental and economic improvements.
For Example.
When we first started growing cotton (around 1993), in a bad (insect) season we would occasionally spray our crops 7-8 times. Stories abound of farmers getting planes in perhaps 15 times.
Enter Bt-modified Cotton - 0 Sprays.
These chemicals weren't good, and I think not spraying them was a big win for the environment. This, combined with intelligent management of resistance (Crops are required to have a 10% 'reserve' area of either unmodified Cotton or another crop the insect is attracted to, so that selective pressures don't evolve resistance), is surely a benefit that is hard to calculate and to the best of my knowledge no study of this kind has been made.
Roundup ready cotton, when introduced, meant that we saved around $100,000 per field of cotton on Cotton Chipper costs (That is exactly what it sounds like - around 80-100 people walking through the rows of cotton with hoes to chip out weeds, which will otherwise grow and contaminate the crop). This had an economic effect for us, the grower (save money) - which I must admit was not all savings as of course the cost of the technology through seed must be taken into account).
It also had an economic effect on the labourers - seasonal employees. It may be good or bad individually but economics suggests that those labourers are now driven further up the supply chain & re-allocated through the economy.
Interestingly there would have been further environmental gains if Terminator seed technology had of been introduced. I dont want to get into the ethics of terminator technology for food crops as I am also concerned about the impact any use in that area would have on continual seed usage, particuarly in developing nations as most developed nation farms use hybrid seed which must be purchased each year anyway: But i digress
Terminator technology, by rendering second generation seed sterile, would stop harsh chemicals being used to kill regrowth after the crop is harvested; and also mean that the soil may not have to be plowed which also has environmental effects in terms of fuel use, soil compaction, increased erosion and moisture loss.
Yeah, it's funny how the anti-GMO people seem unconcerned with the much worse stuff we spray in terms of pesticides. And it's not like you can avoid consuming pesticides and pesticide byproducts just by eating organic food, not when planes are saturating the area with it. GMOs have the potential to greatly decrease pesticide use.
> it's funny how the anti-GMO people seem unconcerned with the much worse stuff we spray in terms of pesticides
You are seriously suggesting that anti-GMO advocates are in favor of pesticides? Even though you disagree with the concept of organic food, it's an outrageous suggestion that people are "unconcerned".
The linked articles also contain many examples of how GMO's attempts to reduce pesticide use tend to backfire - but also, their position is, as practiced by multinational corporations like Monsanto.
Remember, the only point here is, "anti-GMO" is not "pseudoscience". There is real, expert analysis based on peer-reviewed studies behind this position.
I think what Cmccabe is trying to say is that a major benefit of GMOs would be reduction in pesticide usage, which is not something that is really heard much as a benefit of GMOs.
I agree that anti-GMO by itself is not a pseudoscience but anti-GMO is a position that is very often lumped in with other pseudosciences- 'natural' therapies, anti-vaccinationers, anti-establishment and conspiracy theory types. This is not to say there is not a legitimate point that they have, but that there is a larger cultural movement which finds their aims aligned with the anti-GMO body of knowledge, and a lot of those proponents are not known for their rational approaches to evidence.
absolutely, and it peeves me to no end when so-called "rationalists" on hacker news aren't able to understand the distinction between legitimate GMO concerns versus the more fringe cultural system that embraces the anti-GMO stance. UOCS is definitely concerned about Monsanto's profit motive taking precedence over sound ideas that benefit society, and that is a political stance, for which they've offered many reasoned and fact-based arguments. But right wing patriot/militia groups also embrace the same free market/libertarian ideals so popular on HN, yet it of course would not be at all reasonable to label any free-market enthusiast as being a wild-eyed member of the john birch society.
It peeves me to no end when people respond to my posts with what seems like some kind of pre-programmed response. I never called the anti-GMO movement "pseudoscience," never said I disagree with the concept of organic food. "The linked article" which you refer to has nothing to say about Monsanto or GMOs, except a one line bullet point that GMOs are a "red flag topic." Yet you implied otherwise in your post.
Are you actually reading what I'm writing, or just responding to what you think "someone like me" would write? Do you actually think critically about the topics at hand or just pick up the banner of some political movement and treat the debate like a football game?
If you're so concerned about food safety, then surely you are in favor of irradiation, which would prevent many e-coli deaths every year? And surely you are upset that lead and DMSO are still permitted in cosmetics by our archaic laws? Haven't heard of it? Don't come to the debate empty-handed. We're not interested in hearing your prejudices.
I never claimed you called the anti-GMO movement "pseudoscience" - I was trying to get back on topic, after you made this point:
> Yeah, it's funny how the anti-GMO people seem unconcerned with the much worse stuff we spray in terms of pesticides.
As though this is some way to dilute my argument, which it is not, since I was only talking about, anti-GMO is not pseudoscience. The articles talk about pesticides quite a bit including an analysis of alternative ways to reduce pesticide use, which they came to the conclusion were more effective than GMO methods, but that's not even a point I cared to debate and I do not wish to, I was only introducing an alternative side to the debate.
As for organic food, the most prominent rationale for organic food is that it is not treated with pesticides, a point that you flat out disagree delivers a real benefit:
> And it's not like you can avoid consuming pesticides and pesticide byproducts just by eating organic food, not when planes are saturating the area with it.
People who consume organic do feel that they are avoiding the consumption of pesticides to a profound degree. The suggestion that this effort is pointless, because "planes are saturating the area with it" in any case, is a clear disagreement with the usefulness of this fundamental tenet of organics and is strongly suggestive of an overall disdain for the concept of organics, I apologize for reading into your statement something you did not intend.
> Are you actually reading what I'm writing, or just responding to what you think "someone like me" would write?
fully
> Do you actually think critically about the topics at hand or just pick up the banner of some political movement and treat the debate like a football game?
if i were not thinking critically, you'd have seen a much more emotionally-charged diatribe about the evils of corporations and free markets and all of that and I'd get my ass handed to me in a place like HN, so yes, I thoughtfully temper the things I say to a profound degree and am extremely careful in how I present things here, thanks for implying I'm a robotic regurgitator.
> If you're so concerned about food safety, then surely you are in favor of irradiation, which would prevent many e-coli deaths every year?
I don't have an opinion on irradiation, and at this point you're diving well into the realm of assuming many things about me for no good reason, which I have not done, contrary to what you imply.
> And surely you are upset that lead and DMSO are still permitted in cosmetics by our archaic laws? Haven't heard of it? Don't come to the debate empty-handed. We're not interested in hearing your prejudices.
I came only with links to peer-reviewed studies and scientific assessments from a well known and respected, if not somewhat politically oriented, scientific organization, which directly support the single point I wished to make, which is that the anti-GMO movement is not a pseudoscientific one. My opinions about Hacker News posters actually was not referring to you, it was referring to the original poster, perhaps you felt I was attacking you as you appear to be quite hostile at this moment.
I know better than to post prejudicially on hacker news. It doesn't fly very far, hence I'm extremely careful to act instead as a steward for reputable sources of information in areas where I certainly have opinions, but not the expertise, which would allow me to comment independently of including some very good sources. It is absurd to suggest that a person is not entitled to an opinion of something without that person themselves being an expert in that subject area, when that person is presenting these opinions backed up by expert analysis. We all have to make decisions every day based on our own curation of the expertise of others. I've come to this discussion only with references to expert analysis and it appears you've come to it mostly with frustration. Please try not to be so offended as I intended no offense towards you.
If there is just one point I can make, it is this. I have no intention or authority to debate GMO. I only came to say, the anti-GMO position is not an unscientific one, reputable experts have published worthwhile rebuttals to GMO, and here are some of them. In fact, it's not even an anti-GMO position, as I made clear, it's a "concern about GMO as currently practiced" position. I have absolutely no issue with ethical and proven-to-be-beneficial-to-society applications of GMO. If you'd like to debate, please read all the articles I've posted and then discuss your rebuttals to their points, I'd love to read that. That is all.
Let's be clear about this. If there are negative things that Monsanto, or any other company, is doing, then by all means let's discuss them. But I don't see why GMOs themselves are bad. If that is your position as well, then you aren't "anti-GMO" but just "anti-Monsanto."
I like organic food and I eat it when I get a chance. At the end of the day, it's a luxury product, like fine wine or private jets. It's something that's inherently expensive because the labor it requires is greater than that of conventional agriculture. We can't feed the populations of tomorrow with the methods of the past.
Perhaps in time some new technology like robotics will come along to square this circle. In the meantime, we're stuck with the agricultural economics we've got.
