CRISPR-Altered Plants Are Not Going To Be Regulated (For Now) (fastcompany.com)

Good news for people who like genetically altered tomatoes and other plants. The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced it will no longer regulate them. From a report: The USDA not only rolled back Obama-era rules regulating genetically edited plants, but now it claims that plants whose genomes have been altered using gene-editing technology (read: CRISPR) pose "no risk," MIT's Technology Review reports. While CRISPR engineering is still a relatively new science whose full impact is not yet known, the USDA has decided that it is merely an innovative shortcut to the age-old practice of plant breeding.

Comments

CRISPR-ed

[mentil]

I, for one, am looking forward to CRISPR-enhanced lettuce, at my local grocery.
Also, I'm shocked a Republican administration would do any pro-GMO move, even if they frame it as 'less regulation'.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans are more likely to support GMO than oppose it. Oh we have our fringe lunatics who think GMO is a government conspiracy to instill mind control or some other BS. But mostly we recognize that GMO increases output with less resources. It's good for business, good for the small farmer as well and it's feeding large parts of the world (Golden Rice).

GMO is helping to feed the world. Why would we not support it.

Meanwhile it's the Democrat loonies who push vegan this, or "Organic" that and who tend to oppose GMO and corporate farming.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[GrumpySteen]

You're shocked that the current administration rolled back rules set during the Obama administration and took the opposite stance?

Re:CRISPR-ed

[Applehu Akbar]

Genetic editing is just a precisely targeted, one-generation way of modifying natural species the way we have been doing since the beginning of agriculture.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[Anonymous Coward]

No it isn't. There are a lot of changes which are difficult or impossible to make with more traditional selective breeding methods. But that's missing the point entirely.

The problem is that people either fear or praise the tool, not the result. Saying "GMO are dangerous" is just as wrong as saying "GMO are safe."

Re:CRISPR-ed

[aphor]

PR troll.

Precisely targeted literally means NOT "the way we have been doing since the beginning of agriculture."

Your equivocation is either evil, or Dunning Kruger effect.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[Applehu Akbar]

When we modify species by hybridization, we keep tossing the dice by mating individuals we hope carry the traits we want. Then we cull the offspring and keep repeating the process, generation after generation. All GM does is get us there faster and with less uncertainty.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[orlanz]

Making the dandelion mature in two weeks rather than it's current 1-2 months will be enough to cause massive damage to American lawns. The economic cost would be noticed. Make it immune to common herbicides and it would be worse than California's droughts across the US.

That weed has enough natural advantages already.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[vtcodger]

"I, for one, am looking forward to CRISPR-enhanced lettuce, at my local grocery."

Grocery? Heavens no. The CRISPR enhanced lettuce will roll out of the grocery on its own, hitch a ride to your house, pick the lock, let itself in, lock the door behind it, climb into your fridge, discard any overly aged food, tuck itself into the vegetable tray, close the fridge door, and, if necessary, turn out the light in the fridge.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[Curunir_wolf]

Dandelion salad is good with a nice vinaigrette dressing.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[pots]

It allows for changes which can't be achieved through breeding. For the most part that fact is good, but it certainly does pose a degree of danger. I have defended GMO foods in the past as being safe, but that was under the premise that they were carefully monitored. This is just... nuts.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[pots]

There's nothing weird about this, GMOs are backed by very large companies. Ultimately, that's all that matters.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[andydread]

What CRISPR creates CRISPR can destroy. There's always a vulnerability in the system. So if the drama you theorized was ever to be realized then I'm confident there will be a way to mitigate it.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[shaitand]

Dandelions are harmless, edible, and more attractive than grass... Grass is definitely the weed in this comparison.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[shaitand]

Generally no, fearing the result would require picking and choosing particular edits to oppose. The arguments fall more along the "all things natural are safe, nature is better than man" lines.

While there can always be unintended consequences the nearly random editing process of nature produces all sorts of things which are deadly to us, thinking the things we've deliberately built with a targeted purpose are innately inferior is ignorance to the extreme.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[BronsCon]

GMO is helping to feed the world. Why would we not support it.

Because there are more of us than this world can support already.

That's one good reason. The list is long and I'm sure you wouldn't read it if I dumped it here; how many do you need?

Re: CRISPR-ed

[BronsCon]

Unless you have (very common) pollen allergies...

Re:CRISPR-ed

[MrL0G1C]

When we modify species by hybridization, we keep tossing the dice by mating individuals we hope carry the traits we want. Then we cull the offspring and keep repeating the process, generation after generation. All GM does is get us there faster and with less uncertainty

Except that GM can introduce traits that could never be introduced simply by selective breeding. With traditional breeding you take plants of the same or very similar species and breed them. with GM you can take DNA from completely different species and shove if in, so that's not the same at all.

When you eat selectively bred tomatoes you know exactly what you're getting. With GM it could take decades for deadly side-effects of splicing in weird DNA to become known.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[MightyYar]

"Organic" and anti-GMO are the left's global warming. Scientific education and critical thinking are not as common as they should be.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[MightyYar]

Seed patents are no better or worse than most other kinds of patents. Drug patents are almost exactly analogous. Whether or not you think that IP in general helps encourage or stifle innovation is a hot topic, but the mainstream is pro-IP so we need to deal in that reality. At least it is a patent and so enjoys short protection times. It could be like copyright and we'd be stuck with ~100 years of suffering instead of ~20 years of suffering.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[MightyYar]

Because there are more of us than this world can support already.

Let me restate your position, just so I make sure I have it right:
You oppose a technology that could boost yields, and your rationale is that we should be starving people so the population will go down?

Re:CRISPR-ed

[BronsCon]

First of all, I don't oppose it; I oppose not regulating it. I generally fall on the "less is more side" regarding regulation, but we're talking about a necessity, here. On one hand, lifting regulations will allow it to be applied more widely; on the other hand, one unregulated mistake in the gene editing process and we've got "corn that kills" (literally) on the store shelf and millions will have eaten it and died before the cause is identified and the recall process can even begin. From that perspective, if my goal were population reduction, I would be a yuuuuugeeeeee supporter of unregulated GMO crops.

Second, google "devil's advocate".

Re: CRISPR-ed

[dryeo]

Most pollen allergies are triggered by wind blown pollen, which is produced by plants such as grass rather then most flowers including dandelion pollen, which is heavier and evolved to be spread by bees.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[dryeo]

thinking the things we've deliberately built with a targeted purpose are innately inferior is ignorance to the extreme.

No more ignorant then thinking things we've deliberately built with a targeted purpose are innately superior.
GMO, including CRISPR is a tool, and like most tools, can be used for good but it is not automatic. History shows that even the best engineers can screw up using their tools, especially when there are bean counters involved. For example, a recent pedestrian bridge collapse in Florida.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[ceoyoyo]

We're specifically talking about CRISPR here, which can be used in one of two ways. The first way is to randomly cut stuff out. The second way is to (semi-)randomly insert new things.

If you're using CRISPR to make pretty random changes you're not doing much that hasn't been done before. People used to expose seeds to radiation to induce mutations, then try and grow them. Sometimes you'd get something new.

More directed engineering, where you borrow bits from other species, including very different ones, is harder to accomplish with selective breeding.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[ceoyoyo]

"When you eat selectively bred tomatoes you know exactly what you're getting."

No you don't. Many of those selective breeding techniques involve doing things to crank up the mutation rate. It's unlikely you're going to get RoundUp resistance or something, but it's not impossible you could get resurgence of something stored in the plant's genome that is normally turned off.

In general our domesticated crop species have had many of their undesirable defensive characteristics bred out. Tomatoes are part of the nightshade family.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[quanminoan]

I'm for GMO generally, but your analogy is not correct. I can't make glowing tomatoes through selective breeding, but with CRISPR I can insert jellyfish genes, natural antifreeze from fish, insecticides, etc.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[Applehu Akbar]

With any derived species, you have to test to make sure you have the characteristics you want in the offspring. With GM, this takes a short time rather than a long time.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[angel'o'sphere]

No, it is not.
You can not edit a chicken or fish gene into a tomato via "natural selection".

Re:CRISPR-ed

[angel'o'sphere]

All GM does is get us there faster and with less uncertainty.
I suggest to read at least the wikipedia article about GM(O) before you make even more a fool about yourself.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[Applehu Akbar]

Being able to incorporate genes from radically different species is a feature, not a bug. The testing process on each generation that results from your modification is the same as for an organism derived any other way. Many useful new species, specially designed for tasks like sequestering carbon, will flow from this.

And remember, it’s going to happen whether or not the US is involved. Genetic engineering is a tool that will be vital for us ESPECIALLY if some bad actor gets the use of it.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[BronsCon]

Yes, there is also this. I'll add that the soil plants grow in has a finite nutritional content, as well. Sure, you can grow double the volume of plant in the same soil if you modify the plant "correctly", but does what grows have the same nutritional content? Physics, chemistry, and common sense all say no; plants were already pretty damned good at extracting nutrients from dirt before we altered them, all we're really doing is making them bigger and less nutrient dense.

From a nutritional perspective, we're not feeding more people with GMO crops. Yes, more people are eating, but feeding is the act of giving food and food is a substance with nutritional value; the less nutrient-dense we make it, the less foodlike our "food" becomes.

Phrased another way, an acre of properly prepared soil contains enough nutrient load to support a finite number of people. Past a certain point, doubling the number of ears of corn grown in that acre does not double the number of people that acre can support; it just doubles the number of ears of corn one person must eat in order to be fed. We reached that point without genetic modification.

Want to modify crops to be more resistant to infection and infestation? Go for it. Want to modify it to have a longer storage life? If you can do so without reducing its nutrient load or altering the balance of those nutrients, go for it. Want to make it grow bigger or faster, or increase yields? No. There's only so much a person can physically eat and we need to be able to get our nutritional requirements from that amount; make food too nutrient-sparse and we can't do that.

It's easy to starve yourself on a full plate if you don't eat right. Nutrient-sparse foods will do that to the whole world.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[quanminoan]

I'm not really disagreeing with you, just pointing out that direct genetic manipulation via CRISPR or other means is not at all similar to selective breeding. I actually tend to think that perhaps putting natural fish based antifreeze in crops may not be such a bad thing and will lead to a greater abundance of hardier and more nutritious crops to help feed the world. However, we aren't even on the cusp of fully realizing the ramifications of genetic engineering of complex organisms and such "simple" things may have far-reaching unintended consequences; we should proceed cautiously (case in point, CRISPR was just recently discovered, and seemingly every few years our understanding of basic genetics is drastically altered, i.e. junk genes, RNAi, etc.). Genetic engineering and CRISPR is like any other tool enabled by science, neither inherently good nor bad (see: nuclear power).

Re: CRISPR-ed

[angel'o'sphere]

Most pollen allergies only affect people living in cities, where the pollen clusters up with fuel based air pollution.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[angel'o'sphere]

Because there are more of us than this world can support already.
No, there aren't.
We throw away 40% - 50% of all food.
The planet can easily host 100% more people without any change in food production.
And could easily host 40 billion if we optimize instead of exploit. Probably even up to 100billion.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[angel'o'sphere]

What exactly is wrong with "organic"?
Are you an idiot or what?

Re: CRISPR-ed

[dryeo]

Wish my nose knew that, as it gets attacked by the alder pollen out here in the country.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[lgw]

The number of people the planet can support is limited only by technology. Technology grows exponentially. Population looks to be leveling off.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[MightyYar]

Yes, I'm an idiot, and probably ignorant. Now show me a peer-reviewed study that shows health benefits of organically grown anything to cure me of that.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[MightyYar]

In order to metabolically get a higher yield what are you exchanging to get that yield?

The same things we traditionally jettison - viability of the plant in a natural setting. The list is long, but in general the plant can no longer compete without human help. If we planting and weeding for corn, "corn" as we know it is gone. If we stop planting and weeding for wheat, "wheat" as we know it is gone. The same is true of apple trees bearing huge fruit. Or beets with ridiculous sugar content. I don't think I even need to mention "seedless" varieties.

The whole chimera thing is way overblown. It's not as if we aren't already well-adapted to all sorts of chemicals produced by both animals and plants. The precautionary principle can be taken to an extreme - and I think acting before there is any evidence of a need for action is an example of that extreme. Apply this logic to other technology realms and you completely halt progress.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[BronsCon]

The number of people the planet can support is limited by the speed of the chemical processes by which the planet recovers from our actions. Those aren't getting any faster; mind you, they aren't getting any slower, either, but more people means more waste and, eventually, those chemical processes won't be able to keep up. We're already starting to see the effects of this.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[lgw]

Which, just like everything else, can be mitigated by technology. Just because we haven't chosen to do so in some area thus far doesn't make it somehow beyond science, it's just means people are cheap.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[jeff4747]

I'm for GMO generally, but your analogy is not correct. I can't make glowing tomatoes through selective breeding

Actually, you can. Just keep selecting offspring that get you features that aid bioluminescence.

It's just going to take a very, very, very long time. It's not like someone was using CRISPR on that jellyfish.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[jeff4747]

It allows for changes which can't be achieved through breeding.

There are no changes that can't be achieved through breeding.

There are changes that can't be quickly achieved through breeding.

If you want a walking, talking tomato plant you can get it through breeding. It's just going to take a very, very, very long time.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[BronsCon]

Technology, my friend, is limited by physics. You can't mitigate that limitation with technology, because the limitation itself prevents that.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[BronsCon]

So, then, you're saying that our ability to produce food is the only factor in how many people this planet can support? Land surface area, temperature, the ecosystem's ability to cope with increased waste and emissions, and other factors don't apply?

Re:CRISPR-ed

[MightyYar]

That's great for rich people. Too bad using 1950s farming technology doesn't scale. And again, I've heard these claims but I'm suspicious that these grand advantages are just being made up by farmers who make a lot more money selling "organic" produce. Some "organic" chemicals are very capable of destroying soils - for one example look at copper compounds, used to control fungus. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that using something that can't break down in soils at concentrations high enough to kill microbes over the long term is not sustainable.

I'm all for creating a label - analogous to "organic" - that lets the consumer know that the farmer is using best-practices for sustainable agriculture. We could even call it "sustainable". But don't pretend that is what "organic" means, because that's just a bolt-on claim used to justify unmitigated bullshit (technical term).

Re: CRISPR-ed

[Lanthanide]

I doubt that selective breeding programmes for wheat have randomly produced deadly or harmful wheat, though, since the base plant is already such a highly tuned freak that the number of mutations required to make it harmful simply won't happen in a single generation.

The same cannot be said for CRISPR.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[Lanthanide]

You seem to be operating under this weird idea that the nutrient level in soil is fixed.

There are these things called fertilisers.

Also, it's not unreasonable to assume that it could be possible to make the plants more efficient at extracting nutrients, ie less wasteful, as well as reducing nutrients that plants themselves require to grow but are less importent for humans, or making plants that can generate their own nutrients (eg nitrogen fixing).

Re: CRISPR-ed

[ArmoredDragon]

That's not my experience at all. I've been on the pro GMO side of this ever since I heard it was a thing, primarily out of distrust of food alarmists (there's enough bullshit about food to turn all of California, where these myths are the most prevalent, dark brown. My biggest peeve of the moment is that people actually think MSG is bad, but the opposite is actually true.)

The the worst offenders have all been Democrats. Their reasons are usually because they think GMO harms the environment (the opposite is true) they think it causes cancer, (false) they're on a crusade to make everybody eat organic (try finding an organic purist that isn't a Democrat. Vegans almost universally fall in this category as well, and try finding a vegan that isn't a Democrat.) Another reason it's usually Democrats is because of their very anti corporate stance, and/or they just hate Monsanto, not even bothering to consider that the technology itself is separate from the companies that employ it. The bill to ban GMO labeling was mostly supported by Republicans and mostly opposed by Democrats. Although Obama did sign the bill, in spite of his base labeling him as a coward for "caving to Republicans", and indeed many well known left leaning people here on slashdot were whining about their "right to know" about food's very immaterial GMO status every time that I told them the only purpose is to stigmatize it (i.e. labeling Jews.) Ironically, these guys want to know that more than they want information about material facts that manufacturers aren't required to put on labels, like the arsenic content of apple sauce.

But, if that doesn't satisfy you, then this should help:

https://www.isidewith.com/poli...
https://newrepublic.com/articl...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/...
https://reason.com/blog/2016/0...

Oh, and if you support Bernie for 2020:

https://geneticliteracyproject...
https://www.politico.com/story...

It's all but guaranteed that if Bernie gets elected, and Democrats have a supermajority in Congress, (the later if which could likely happen, given the shit coming out of Republicans lately, especially with net neutrality) you can bet your ass that GMO would end up banned, which would be a huge setback for the United States.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[BronsCon]

One of the more common genetic modifications is to make seeds grow more quickly without additional nutrients (e.g. fertilizer) for distribution to regions with poor soil and no access to viable fertilizers (typically due to being more poor than the dirt they can't get plants to grow in, which renders simply buying fertilizer a non-option). Suddenly, when you realize that, what I said applies again.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[datavirtue]

Besides...how would we subsidize my beef habit without copious amounts of corn and soyabeans to fatten the bovine?

Re: CRISPR-ed

[BronsCon]

Odd, I grew up in cities and had no allergies, moved to the middle of nowhere and developed allergies, moved back to a city and the allergies stayed with me. You might be wrong about that.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[avandesande]

Breeders have been bombarding seeds with radiation or using chemicals like colchicine to induce mutations in plants since the early part of the 20th century. This horse left the barn a long time ago....

Re:CRISPR-ed

[lgw]

OK, sure, at some point the physical volume of the Earth becomes the limiting factor, but that's not the sort of limit we were talking about.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[reve_etrange]

CRISPR isn't random. It's directed by a template RNA strand (called a "guide" and abbreviated sgRNA for historical reasons) to bind sections of DNA complementary to the guide. In addition to matching the guide, the target DNA must have a protospacer adjacent motif (NGG), which limits things a bit in practice.

What happens after target DNA is recognized by the Cas9/sgRNA depends on the specific Cas9 variant and potentially the presence of other exogenous DNA introduced along with the Cas9 and sgRNA.

Gene silencing, or CRISPRi (for interference), targets inactive dCas9 ("dead" Cas9) to the transcription start site (TSS) within a gene. The dCas9 then physically occludes the TSS, preventing transcription factor binding and thus gene expression.

Gene activation, or CRISPRa, also targets the TSS. The dCas9 protein is fused to a constitutively active transcription factor, which initiates gene expression directly.

Editing using CRISPR/Cas9 is also possible. Active Cas9 will make cuts in both strands of the target DNA double-helix, leaving "blunt ends" (unlike the "sticky ends" created by restriction enzymes). The blunt ends are addressed in one of two ways: non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) or homology-directed repair (HDR). With NHEJ, the blunt ends will either be joined directly (resulting in gene deletion), or with stochastic inclusion of another piece of DNA introduced along with the CRISPR/Cas9 system (resulting in inefficient gene insertion). In HDR, the additional DNA will contain "homology arms" complementary to the DNA flanking the target sequence. After the cuts are made, this DNA can hybridize (forming a double-helix) on those flanking arms. The new DNA finally is copied into the hole created by the Cas9, yielding specific and relatively efficient gene insertion.

Regardless of the specific application, CRISPER/Cas9 approaches are stochastic and imperfect. Off-target DNA can be cut non-specifically, resulting in random deletions or insertion into random regions. Repair may proceed without insertion of the desired sequences, etc. There is a ton of ongoing research into engineered Cas9 variants with improved specificity and efficiency.

Most concerns about CRISPR-based genetic modification relate either to off-target effects (i.e. specificity and/or efficiency), or to the relative ease in making persistent, germ-line changes compared to prior methods.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[BronsCon]

You clearly have zero interest in giving this any amount of critical thought. That's fine, you go off and live in your world and the rest of us will stay here, in this one, where reality dictates that technology can't speed up every process.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[lgw]

You clearly have zero interest in giving this any amount of critical thought. That's fine, you go off and live in your world and the rest of us will stay here, in this one, where reality dictates that technology can't speed up every process.

It might help if you gave an example. There are plenty of things we just dump into the environment because that's the cheapest thing to do, but when that stops scaling we'll have to take care of ourselves.

The first physical limit I see to population is power consumption: while given sufficient technology you can build orbiting solar arrays or fusion plants to enable arbitrarily high power consumption on Earth, the waste heat still gets dumped here. We could move all heavy industry off planet, but that only gets us so much, and personal power consumption (including the power needed to make fertilizer to make food) will eventually hit a wall. But that's vastly beyond the ~10B people the population is projected to crest at.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[BronsCon]

The first physical limit I see to population is power consumption: while given sufficient technology you can build orbiting solar arrays or fusion plants to enable arbitrarily high power consumption on Earth, the waste heat still gets dumped here.

Seems you answered your own question. There's that critical thinking I was talking about!

But that's vastly beyond the ~10B people the population is projected to crest at.

And why is the population projected to crest at that point? I could give you the fish, but it'll be better for you if you learn to fish for yourself.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[MightyYar]

I live in a country where all of our basic needs are met, and yet we have a birth rate below maintenance levels. This is the norm in all such countries. Meanwhile, in countries with staggering poverty and food insecurity, people procreate like rabbits.

Perhaps the solution is to feed everyone, no? You get your declining population, I get my no people starving to death. Win-win.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[MightyYar]

Organic is about sustainability

That's just a potential side-benefit, and only if you do a lot of research ahead of time to make sure.

For instance, I can (and occasionally do) buy "organic" produce from 10,000 miles away. There is nothing even remotely "sustainable" about that.

"Organic" farmers can dump any pesticides on their field that come from "natural" sources, completely irrespective of how "sustainable" it is. Some older pesticides, like copper-based anti-fungals, are perfectly cromulent with the "organic" label, but build up in soil over time.

Finally, 1950s farming tech does not scale to the current world population, so no matter how sustainable you think it is, adopting it globally can only happen if half of the world dies.

If sustainable is what everyone was after, there would be a "sustainable" label. For many (most?), it's a perceived health benefit. But don't believe me, believe the data:
From this survey:

“Polling shows the No. 1 reason people go organic is to avoid pesticides, chemicals and all of those things that are not allowed in organics,” said Katherine Paul, associate director of Minnesota-based Organic Consumers Association. “So I think you are looking at a better-educated population that is connecting the dots between what they eat and their health.”

Pure, unmitigated bullshit.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[MightyYar]

I think I remember reading that there was actually an ideological basis. Basically, natural selection reeked of capitalist-like ideas and so was troubling for a good communist. Lysenko basically tried to shoehorn older theories about transmutation into cooperative ideals of communism.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[mentil]

Interesting, thanks. Anti-GMO sounds like 'food purity' to me, and purity is traditionally a conservative political consideration.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[c6gunner]

I'm not really disagreeing with you, just pointing out that direct genetic manipulation via CRISPR or other means is not at all similar to selective breeding.

Correct; it's much more targeted, and therefore less likely to result in undesirable side effects.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[c6gunner]

Not really. You're still assuming that plants are 100% effective at extracting nutrients from soil, which is really really dumb. If that were true you would never get more than 1 years growth out of any piece of land; all the nutrients would be gone and nothing would grow the next year.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[c6gunner]

What exactly is wrong with "organic"?

It's stupid, wasteful, expensive, and provides no tangible benefit. But other than that it's great!

Re: CRISPR-ed

[c6gunner]

There's nothing weird about this, GMOs are backed by very large companies. Ultimately, that's all that matters.

Right. Unlike the "organic" market backed by teeny tiny multi-billion dollar corporations like whole foods. Totally different things!

Re: CRISPR-ed

[BronsCon]

Different plants need different nutrients, fertilizers often get applied, animals shit, rain brings additional nutrients (it's not pure water), dead plants from last years crop decompose, but most often farmers will rotate crops so they aren't growing the same crop on the same land multiple years in a row.

You aren't too familiar with agriculture, are ya?

Re: CRISPR-ed

[c6gunner]

Different plants need different nutrients, fertilizers often get applied

But you just said this doesn't apply because you're not counting things like fertilizer.

but most often farmers will rotate crops so they aren't growing the same crop on the same land multiple years in a row.

No shit? And what stops them from doing that while growing more efficient crops?

You aren't too familiar with agriculture, are ya?

No, it's not that; I just thought I was dealing with an honest person. My bad.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[BronsCon]

But you just said this doesn't apply because you're not counting things like fertilizer.

I actually didn't, go back and read again. I did say that, in some cases, it's a non-option, but that doesn't mean they don't count for anything.

No shit? And what stops them from doing that while growing more efficient crops?

What makes you think they're more efficient in anything other than size and yield? The same nutrients are simply being spread over a larger volume of plant. While they may grown more "efficiently", such plants are nutritionally considerably less efficient as you need to eat more of them to obtain the same nutrient load.

No, it's not that; I just thought I was dealing with an honest person. My bad.

Pot, meet kettle. What part of what I've said thus far has been dishonest?

Re: CRISPR-ed

[c6gunner]

What makes you think they're more efficient in anything other than size and yield?

Science.

The same nutrients are simply being spread over a larger volume of plant.

[citation needed]

You keep repeating this as if it were established fact. It is not. I pointed out your error in my first comment, and you're just dancing around it and repeating the same thing over and over again.

While they may grown more "efficiently", such plants are nutritionally considerably less efficient as you need to eat more of them to obtain the same nutrient load.

Again, no evidence for this claim. Studies between "organic" and regular produce show that on average they're essentially the same. Moreover, even a slight variance wouldn't offset the larger benefit of increased yields which is, you know, people not starving. Even if we pretend that all of the vitamins in plants are pulled straight from the soil (they're not, but hell, I'll go along with your imagination) having millions of people who are marginally vitamin deficient would be far better than having millions who are literally starving to death.

Pot, meet kettle. What part of what I've said thus far has been dishonest?

"Oh, I'm not counting fertilizer so now my point is back in play!"

"Oh, now I'm counting fertilizer again because reasons!"

Re: CRISPR-ed

[BronsCon]

You keep repeating this as if it were established fact. It is not. I pointed out your error in my first comment, and you're just dancing around it and repeating the same thing over and over again.

What? Where? When?

Even if we pretend that all of the vitamins in plants are pulled straight from the soil (they're not, but hell, I'll go along with your imagination)

How many vitamins are comprised solely of oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen? None. All four of these are present in nearly every vitamin, but every other component of the minerals found in a plant's nutrient load comes from the soil. Furthermore, a plant's nutrient load also includes mineral elements derived entirely from the soil... or have we discovered a way to extract calcium and sodium chloride (to give two examples) from thin air? Here's a hint: we haven't, and we won't because the required elements aren't found in high enough concentrations in the air.

"Oh, I'm not counting fertilizer so now my point is back in play!"

"Oh, now I'm counting fertilizer again because reasons!"

Two completely different points were being made; one regarding a common genetic modification made to food crops distributed to poorer regions of the world and another pertaining to soil management. In the first point, fertilizers available in richer parts of the world are irrelevant as they're not available in the poorer regions; that restriction doesn't really apply to the second point. There's nothing dishonest about making multiple points in a complex discussion.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[c6gunner]

How many vitamins are comprised solely of oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen? None.

The first one I googled was Vitamin C. Guess what. It's composed entirely of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon.

Second one I looked up was Vitamin A. Wanna guess at that one? Yep. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen.

Please just stop talking now.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[angel'o'sphere]

Why would it be stupid, expensive and wasteful?
The organic farmers I know save a lot of money by not using artificial fertilizers or pesticides.
Does not sound expensive. Does not sound wasteful, and is most certainly not stupid.

I'm actually tired about people that boast their non knowledge about a topic on the internet, where they never invested the time to research it a little bit ...

Stupidity is an excuse for many things. Ignorance is not.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[angel'o'sphere]

I'm not aware about peer-reviewed scientific studies that show that organic food has health benefits.
Why actually are you asking for that?
If you want to hire me to search for stuff like this, you could send me an email and make a proposal for the hourly rate.
As I'm actually interested in that topic I would probably settle for about $50. However you might need to accept that there are no such studies. We could make a contract that tops my amount of time by perhaps 100h? That would be roughly two weeks.
Best Regards,
Angelo

Re:CRISPR-ed

[angel'o'sphere]

Yes, all those factors don't apply.
You can run a continent wide industry with zero emissions.
No idea what law of physics you want to call upon to claim otherwise.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[Maritz]

Label a group of people "dumbasses", keep wishing they would surprise you the rest of your life.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[Maritz]

"Feed the world". Right. If they cared about that they wouldn't patent seeds.

Golden Rice isn't patented or owned by anyone in particular. Guess you don't know what you're talking about, well done you.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[pots]

Yes, they're different, but unless Whole Foods were lobbying against this I don't see how it would effect how a Republican administration would act. Since this will only give Whole Foods more business, I wouldn't expect them to be protesting it too hard.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[Maritz]

What if a terrorist organization CRISPRs a super dandelion that reaches maturity in 2 hours, spreads like crazy, is especially hard to kill and destroys most crops?

This is real life mate, not the marvel expanded universe.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[Maritz]

It's always fun to point out to a 'fishmato' alarmist that there are no GMO tomato varieties available on the market.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[MightyYar]

Why actually are you asking for that?

You are the one asserting that I'm an idiot, and then when I call you out on it you have nothing to back up your assertion. This is fairly typical and is exactly why I made my original comment that organic and anti-GMO is the global warming denial of the left. Most are like you and just say things with no scientific basis for their beliefs.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[angel'o'sphere]

exactly why I made my original comment that organic and anti-GMO is the global warming denial of the left.
What has 'global warming' or 'left versus right' to do with it?

You want to tell me that more left tending people are more global warming deniers?

You are the one asserting that I'm an idiot, and then when I call you out on it you have nothing to back up your assertion.
Yes you are. Because you mix up things that have nothing to do with each other.
E.g. I never claimed that GMO has health risks, so why do you ask me to find a study that shows it has health risks?????? Of course it has health risks, but I did not mention this in this discussion ... e.g. allergic reactions to chicken proteins in tomatoes ... that is the classic one.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[BronsCon]

So I learned something this morning, thank you. What of the rest of my post? You can't tear down one point and declare yourself the winner when even a single one of my points regarding soil nutrients being proves you wrong.

So I did a very cursory search of vitamin compositions and gleaned from that the components of the group of substances we call vitamins, but perhaps did not look far enough; some random on the internet corrected me and (more importantly) I verified that correction before committing it to my knowledge base. Were I to "just stop talking" every time someone demanded I do so, I would likely learn a lot less. That said, you could stand to learn a few things, yourself; namely, how to debate a complicated topic without concentrating on a single point; complicated topics have many points and, often, being wrong about a single one is enough to render your entire argument invalid.

As in this case, where you're point about not all nutrients coming from the soil is wrong. Not because it's technically incorrect but because it ignores the fact that, without soil nutrients, plants die off. When those soil nutrients are depleted, growth stops, no matter how much carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, you "feed" a plant; it doesn't just "magic" those into vitamin A and C -- and even if it did, it doesn't grow and thrive solely on those. If plants could grow and thrive on vitamin A and C alone, I would concede this argument right here and now, but they can't.

You keep downplaying the importance of soil nutrients and that's where you've gone astray. Consider hydroponics for a moment; no soil, but the process does require the addition of nutrients to the water. The same nutrients the plant, if planted in the ground, could only get from the soil it was planted in; that's why they're called soil nutrients.

Mind you, there are a handful of plant species with such low nutrient requirements that they can grow just about anywhere there's humidity available for them to suck from the air. These, of course, carry almost no nutritional value for humans, on top of the fact that they tend to grow very slowly and don't get very large. Soil nutrients don't really help this specific set of species, either; in fact, they tend to die if you attempt to "feed" them. But for food crops? Yes, soil nutrients are required.

Deplete the soil, as you mentioned earlier, and you can't grow the crops; and now you downplay the importance of that soil thinking I won't catch your trick? Buddy, I can maneuver around that technique in my sleep.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[BronsCon]

Industry isn't the issue (though I'd like to know which industry you're referring to); people themselves take up space (land surface area), generate heat (temperature), and produce waste and emissions.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[lgw]

And why is the population projected to crest at that point? I could give you the fish, but it'll be better for you if you learn to fish for yourself.

You're an arrogant little fuck, aren't you. Protip: you're kinda dumb, and shouldn't try to school your betters.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[BronsCon]

Yet you have no answer. Want to try that again, pot, instead of calling the kettle black?

Of course you don't, because you have no answer. I'm sure you gave it some thought and couldn't come up with anything that didn't destroy your argument, so you're falling back on personal attacks.

That's what people usually do when they're wrong. Don't worry, I'm used to it, I see it a lot. Especially on Slashdot.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[MightyYar]

What has 'global warming' or 'left versus right' to do with it?

I don't know what country you are in, but in the USA global warming denialism is almost exclusively the domain of the right side of the political spectrum, and your average Whole Foods shopper is decidedly left-leaning.

E.g. I never claimed that GMO has health risks,

You called me an idiot for claiming that there was no scientific evidence that "organic" has a benefit, and now you can't substantiate your claim. It's OK, this is common behavior. Just be aware that you are doing the exact same thing as AGW deniers.

e.g. allergic reactions to chicken proteins in tomatoes ...

I'm sure your imaginary product is quite scary! What other fake products have pretend health effects?

Re:CRISPR-ed

[angel'o'sphere]

You called me an idiot for claiming that there was no scientific evidence that "organic" has a benefit,
Correct. Because you are an idiot. What has that to do with can't substantiate your claim.
Your standpoint loudly proclaims that organic food has no health benefit, or do I miss something? Would you care to post a link supporting that standpoint?

What other fake products have pretend health effects?
Peanuts for people who are allergic to peanuts.
Shrimps for people that are allergic to seafood.
Chickens for people that are allergic to chickens ... oops we had that already.
Gluten for people who are allergic to gluten.

Should I continue?

Re:CRISPR-ed

[angel'o'sphere]

I live in germany, mostly.
In my country school kids learned in the early 1970s about global warming.
There is no left versus right shisma about it, that would be idiotic. What has your political agenda to do with scientific facts?

Re: CRISPR-ed

[c6gunner]

Why would it be stupid, expensive and wasteful?
The organic farmers I know save a lot of money by not using artificial fertilizers or pesticides.
Does not sound expensive. Does not sound wasteful, and is most certainly not stupid.

No, they don't. You're being slimy and using the word "artificial" in a way that can have two meanings, but, either way, there are only two possible scenarios and neither one of them results in "saving money":

1. They don't use ANY fertilizer or pesticides, in which case they take a massive loss on production due to low growth and wastage to pests. They then charge you $15 for an apple so they can try and break even.

  or

2. They use "natural" fertilisers and pesticides, in which case they're actually spending more money than conventional farmers ... and still getting shittier results.

Either way, yes, it's expensive, wasteful, and stupid.

I'm actually tired about people that boast their non knowledge about a topic on the internet, where they never invested the time to research it a little bit ...

The irony in that statement is absolutely hilarious. You are one of the most ignorant people on Slashdot. Every single one of your comments - regardless of the topic - makes it painfully obvious that you have no clue what you're talking about. I mean you make Pope Ratzo sound almost sane and knowledgeable in comparison. And yet you think you're the informed one, and that everyone else is ignorant?

Mind blowing.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[MightyYar]

What has your political agenda to do with scientific facts?

Completely agree. People in this country do not get a good scientific education, IMHO.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[MightyYar]

Your standpoint loudly proclaims that organic food has no health benefit, or do I miss something? Would you care to post a link supporting that standpoint?

You have that exactly backwards. There is an "organic" label, and the people slapping it on things make all sorts of unsubstantiated claims. I am not an idiot for demanding evidence of these claims, but people are... not quite idiots but definitely ignorant of the scientific method when they believe these claims.

Should I continue?

Only if you admit that you made up the tomato-chicken.

So your original comment did not mention GMO, but what if they use GMO to create a peanut without the protein that people are allergic to? Still evil? It's just a technology - it's mere existence does not demand new regulation. That is taking the precautionary principle to absurd and extreme lengths. Let the food regulators do their thing unless there is some evidence that demands further regulation.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[c6gunner]

So I learned something this morning, thank you.

You're welcome.

What of the rest of my post?

It contains bits that are OK, but also many parts which are just as bad as your "zero vitamins are made from oxygen hydrogen and carbon" claim.

You can't tear down one point and declare yourself the winner when even a single one of my points regarding soil nutrients being proves you wrong.

I don't care about "winning"; I care about interesting discussions. With that "one point" you demonstrated that you have absolutely no knowledge about this subject, and that I am unlikely to get an interesting conversation out of you.

I couldn't help noticing that you spend the rest of your comment banging on about how lack of soil nutrients prevents growth when, originally, you were arguing against plants designed to grow in deficient soil. This just further reinforces my conclusion. You've wandered away from your original claim, have lost all semblance of what you were originally trying to say, and are just firing off "points" in random directions so that you can feel like you're in the right about something.

I have no interest in that. The one thing you were right about is that this is a very complex topic, and I'm not going to wade into it with you when everything about the discussion thusfar suggests that it will be uninteresting and unproductive.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[angel'o'sphere]

Why don't you simply google how it works?
Most farmers in europe are organic.
You simply put the shit of the cows and pigs back on the field.
And what kind of pest do you think we have here that you imply we need pesticides?
Swizerland is close to 100% organic, Germany is around 50%, france is around 75%

You have no clue about the topic.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[BronsCon]

I couldn't help noticing that you spend the rest of your comment banging on about how lack of soil nutrients prevents growth when, originally, you were arguing against plants designed to grow in deficient soil.

Lack of soil nutrients does prevent growth (with the exception stated in my prior post); what does that have to do with whether i'm for or against modifying plants to grow in deficient soil? Also, please note the material difference between deficient and depleted. In your first comment, you say "all the nutrients would be gone and nothing would grow the next year", which described depleted soil; deficient soil would have a low nutrient content, but wouldn't lack nutrients altogether. It seems you're the one who'se changed their argument, here.

This just further reinforces my conclusion.

No, you're just confused.

You've wandered away from your original claim

Not in the slightest.

Re:CRISPR-ed

[ebvwfbw]

The ones that I know that are against it are the Democrats of course. They're anti-science.
It's amazing just how anti-gmo they are. It's like an illness. In fact I'm about due for another barrage of e-mails from some of them telling me to stay away from certain corn, wheat products, even sugar sweetners. Well there was a GMO that was used for the feed that was used by the farmer that cooked it into feed for something else bla bla bla... and this product is a frankenburger or Frankencorn! You'll die a horrible death if you eat this. Run over the women and children to get away.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[c6gunner]

Why don't you simply google how it works?

Because then I would be just as poorly informed as you are.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[c6gunner]

Yes, they're different, but unless Whole Foods were lobbying against this I don't see how it would effect how a Republican administration would act.

The organic industry has been lobbying against GMOs for years. Where the hell do you think idiotic laws like California's came from?

Re: CRISPR-ed

[pots]

I'm not sure which laws your referring too. Are you talking about California's labeling law? Which scares people away from some foods and towards foods labeled "organic"? You call that "lobbying against GMOs"? I call that lobbying for the sake of advertising, but whatever. I will repeat myself: there is no reason for Whole Foods to lobby against this decision.

(California's labeling law is not idiotic, but that's another topic.)

Re: CRISPR-ed

[shaitand]

Fair enough. Although in the noble dandelions defense grass related allergies are also fairly common. I don't have numbers to compare but in their absence I'm calling it a wash.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[angel'o'sphere]

Oh, interesting.
So I'm poorly informed? By what metric?

Re: CRISPR-ed

[shaitand]

"No more ignorant then thinking things we've deliberately built with a targeted purpose are innately superior."

Good luck supporting the concept that all else being equal something which has been intentionally designed for a purpose isn't innately superior to a random result. All else unknown i'll try a prototype motorcycle to transport to work, without knowing anything else, before a vat of acid.

A particular thing we've tried to make might be inferior to a particular result that came from nature but yes, having been intentionally designed by us to serve a specific purpose is a point toward the probability something is superior for that purpose.

"GMO, including CRISPR is a tool, and like most tools, can be used for good but it is not automatic. History shows that even the best engineers can screw up using their tools, especially when there are bean counters involved. For example, a recent pedestrian bridge collapse in Florida."

I wouldn't disagree with that at all. In fact, I said in my post that unintended consequences do occur. But the probability of an engineered bridge collapsing when you try to walk across it is lower than a tree trunk. Even the use of a tree trunk as an obvious example is essentially a less sophisticated engineering effort... man has tested walking across tree trunks and found them to be a more reliable tool for crossing things than a vine. Nothing we eat was designed by nature to be our food, no natural remedy was made to be such, we use the things we find and make as tools for what amount to artificial and man made goals. Just because we sometimes screw up doesn't mean we should start from the assumption we are wrong when we've given our best effort to intentionally building such a tool vs some random evolved process.

The better question is what tool is Monsanto actually trying to make... is it bigger tomatoes or a tight grip on the food supply via sterile plants. Paranoia about GMOs expresses a great deal of ignorance... people aren't paranoid enough about the control we are letting Monsanto gain over the global food supply and the power it gives them over everything else once they have it.

Re: CRISPR-ed

[JoeDuncan]

Wish I had mod points for this^

What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[Ayano]

It just ends up as proteins and starches when you eat it. Now if they produced some kind of chemical that ended up as poisonous that's a different story. The only reason you'd prefer one over the other as an end user is either taste or cost.

It's just a more engineered version of why the Irish nearly replaced their entire crop with potatoes back in the day. They were easier to plant and produced good yield... until they didn't. Variety is the space of life after all.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[mentil]

Genetic engineering flips the epigenetic 'evil bit', automatically making the data 'bad'. Ever see 'attack of the killer tomatoes'? It's a warning about Monsanto.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[spth]

Spider or goat dna is apple would mean transgenic plants. Those are still regulated.

The deregulation only applies to using CRISPR to create plants that could also have been created using traditional breeding.

The main advantage of using CRISPR that way is that it saves a lot of time and effort. Instead of doing a large number of breeding experiments and then selecting those that happen to have the desired comibination of genes one can now directly go for the desired result.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the issue.

The issue is mainly when you cross-breed things which couldn't do it naturally, like fish and potatoes etc. The big underlying problem is that GMO has way too big potential for mad or naive scientists creating a "what could possibly go wrong" situation, with no real option to put the cat-cobra-polarbear-fungi back in the bag, so to speak. It's too dangerous tech to be wielded in a world largely ruled by greedy psychopaths.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[coastwalker]

I used to be concerned about this until I discovered that there IS goat or spider DNA in an Apple. Do not forget that the monkeys are only 1.2% different from our DNA. It is reasonable to have problems making informed decisions about an unknown subject but most people arguing in this debate do not understand what is known about genetics.

Go watch a YouTube university lecture and see if Genetics still looks like !!!! FUCK !!! RADIATION !!!!! (Banana's are radioactive).

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've actually wandered into one of the massive issues with GMOs in the food chain: traditional crops are genetically quite diverse; GMO crops are monocultures.

If I create AnonRice-247 which is the very best rice plant that it's possible to make (everything-resistant, high yield, high-protein, easy to grow etc) there's a very real possibility that every last stem of rice in a large area will be genetically identical. The one bug, fungi or disease that cracks that strain will run rampant everywhere, and the entire crop of rice will be lost.

Not a big deal for consumers in rich countries who just pay a little more to get their rice from somewhere else, but to the poor saps who were farming that rice it's a disaster. You can bet that whoever sold them the seed (at a tidy markup, because it's Super Rice that will make them more money than their old, crappy rice) won't cover their losses; they probably won't even front them a batch of AnonRice-248 for next season without collateral.

FWIW I'm not totally anti-GMO. I think that a secure, sustainable and equitable food distribution system would be the greatest accomplishment of human civilization to date. and I think that GMOs will play a part in that. But it needs to be done with an eye to the future, not both eyes on the next quarterly profit statement.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[Applehu Akbar]

GM could be used by ISIS to create something like Ebola flu. CRISPR is at the same time our best hope for countering such a weapon. If we recuse ourselves from pursuing this tech, the ability of bad guys to use it remains unaffected.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[AvitarX]

I'm not super anti GMO (though I think contamination of wild crops is a risk), but protiens can be really bad.

Protiens can be poisonous, and protiens can destroy your brain.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[GoTeam]

Too bad this can't get any additional up votes. Very well put.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[skids]

Now if they produced some kind of chemical that ended up as poisonous that's a different story.

...which is entirely possible given one of the goals of GMO is pest resistance.

That said the fears about GMO health effects are overblown, but some regulation, even
if only to register what's on the market and provide supply chain transparency, is merited. When
the inevitable mistakes happen, they need to be dealt with promptly.

The IP issues and the use of GMO as a legal crowbar to put small competitors out of business
is a bigger overall threat. You don't want anyone who would use that tactic to be in control
of your food supply, because once they are they will turn similar tactics on you.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you can. Horizontal gene transfer happens in nature too, usually with the help of bacteria or viruses. Sweet potatoes are an example of the result of such transfer.

And by the way, I will rather eat something that was exhaustively tested in a laboratory and is well documented, rather than the result of random mutations after farmer corps take seeds, irradiate them to make mutation rate way high than would be natural, and then see what happens, without knowing what else did change. Which is how a lot of modern breeding is done.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[angel'o'sphere]

Bananas are not radioactive.
There might be a region where bananas suck in Cesium ... but if the soil where they grow have no such Cesium, they can not suck it in.
In other words: the Cesium is radioactive. Would be the same with cow milk from the same area.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[Gravis Zero]

What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

The problem is not the GMO plants themselves but rather the increasingly caustic pesticides/herbicides that are being sprayed on them. You can wash off 99.99999% but that 0.00001% can harm you over time.

It just ends up as proteins and starches when you eat it. Now if they produced some kind of chemical that ended up as poisonous that's a different story.

Funny you say that because there are GMOs that produce proteins that kill certain insects. I don't think that's a problem but it exemplifies that a protein can be harmful. A problematic scenario where it's harmful to a small percentage of people but not lethal... like gluten.

Gene editing is just a tool: what you use it for can be good or evil.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[lgw]

Bananas are not radioactive.
There might be a region where bananas suck in Cesium ... but if the soil where they grow have no such Cesium, they can not suck it in.
In other words: the Cesium is radioactive. Would be the same with cow milk from the same area.

Bananas are radioactive, mostly from the potassium 40. They aren't very radioactive, which is why the "banana-equivalent dose" is more than just a joke: it helps put radiation exposure in context.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[lgw]

Wait, so "proteins" are the new "chemicals"? Well, you can be sure that all your chemical-free foods are also safe from proteins.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[jeff4747]

The thing to remember about this is there is "big money" on both sides of this issue.

There's lots of money to be made from developing GMO crops, obviously.

There's also lots of money to be made by selling "organic" crops. And just like the major brewers have gone into "craft beer", a lot of major growers have gone into organic.

You can see this when the anti-GMO side is demanding regulation to add a "Contains GMOs" label instead of a "GMO Free" label. "GMO Free" would be quick and easy to add, since the producers would want to put it on their food. "Contains GMO" is going to trigger a lengthy legislative and regulatory battle, because the producers do not want to put that label on their food.

But during that battle, the only way you can get "GMO Free" is to buy something with an Organic label....which happens to be more expensive (and thus profitable) than a non-GMO, non-organic crop.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[AvitarX]

I didn't say that.

But it's silly to pretend it's "just protiens" like that is a meaningful statement.

New protiens pose a non-zero risk.

The idea that a protien can't be a new chemical that is poisonous baffles me. It's as stupid as the idea that GMOs are dangerous because they're GMOs.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[Rick Schumann]

Too many corporations (*ahem* Monsanto) rush things to market without adequate testing over enough time to see what the long-term effects are, that's what, and the problem with that is with cross-pollination, the artificial lab-made changes in genetics get mixed in with everything else, regardless of any unforseen long-term effects.

..and before you or anyone else attempts to categorize me as some tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist: I'm not even worrying about this anymore, because the horse has already left the barn. GMO is already literally 'in the wind', there's no way to contain it now, and we'll all have to live (or not live, as the case may be) with the consequences of that. If nothing bad happens, then great, if they've somehow created an extinction-level event for life on this planet, then worrying about it isn't going to make a damned bit of difference.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[angel'o'sphere]

Ah, it was Potassium, not Cesium.
Anyway, bananas can only contain radioactive Potassium if they are panted at a place where they have radioactive Potassium in the ground, don't you agree?

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[lgw]

Sure, but that's everywhere. Bananas concentrate potassium, which happens to have a certain percentage of K-40. Not sure what point you're trying to make, but bananas are radioactive.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[angel'o'sphere]

They are only radioactive at places where they can collect enough potassium ... simple as that.
So: the general idea that all bananas would be radioactive is just nonsense ... considering the absurd low percentage of radioactive potassium anyway.
Following your idea everything is radioactive.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[lgw]

Most things are radioactive, but bananas are more radioactive than most things (as are a couple other high-potassium foods). I don't understand what you're on about. If you measure the radioactivity of a banana, it's quite a bit higher than most things in daily life, yet still pretty small (a truck or shipping container of bananas can set of alarms in US ports that detect smuggling of radioactive material).

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[angel'o'sphere]

Well,
if you insist on nitpicking, here is a funny read: https://www.dedoimedo.com/phys...
Bananas are not more radioactive than "most things".
We usually say "something is radioactive" when the level is concerning.
If you only want to nitpick about potassium, you are right.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[lgw]

why would even dispute this in the first place? If you don't find the amusement value in radioactive bananas, it might be time to change the battery in your sense of humor.

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[Hognoxious]

His argument appears to be along the lines of "Beer doesn't make you drunk". Then 27 posts later he changes it to "It's the alcohol that makes you drunk".

Re:What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement.

[angel'o'sphere]

No, my point is: everything is radioactive.
Milk contains potassium, too, so does meet. Singling out Bananas makes no sense.
As long as they don't impose a health risk, they are not considered radioactive, even if they cause some random noise in a geiger counter.

The spider-goat is real!

[Narcocide]

+1 underrated.

Re:The spider-goat is real!

[spth]

Randy Lewis is still active in the spider-goat research field. His group has had a small herd of about 30 of them at Utah State University for years. Current research seems to focus on separating the silk from the milk.

Re:I like this sentence in the article

[spth]

Since the deregulation only applies to variants that could have been created using traditional breeding, to create a new type of walking corn plant you'd need a preexisting walking corn plant.

However there should still be potential for profiting from deregulation while profiting when making dangerous stuff - you just have to stay within species bounds

The article is about plants, but an example from animals comes in handy: Killer bees. With CRISPR you could easily create them (as in fact real-life killer bees were created using traditional breeding). Or you could use CRISPR to go more directly for the intended result - increased honey production - that in a traditional breeding experiment resulted in killer bees instead.

Obligatory Anti-GMO-Joke

[nospam007]

"Good news for people who like genetically altered tomatoes and other plants."

Both of them?

Teenage Mutant Ninja Onion

[invalid_user]

Lettuce in an eggplant,
Avocado!

Re:I like this sentence in the article

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Yeah, I don't think you want to go with "this (selectively bred) experimental species (Africanized bees) escaped containment and has since been wreaking environmental havoc" as a positive example for why this decision is a Good Idea.

Re:I like this sentence in the article

[dwillden]

Walking corn plants can be herded to new fields from time to time allowing the moisture and nutrient content of the soil to be scientifically replenished between field occupations without so much being wasted when splashed on the more stationary plants of today where so much evaporates off the leaves and stalks rather than getting into the soil for the roots to drink.

They also reduce the number of combines a Farmer needs, instead of needing five or six to harvest a farm working one field at a time. This will allow one to be set in a stationary position at the end of a harvest funnel, and the Corn is herded from all the fields of the farm into the combine. The combine of course is co-located with the Silo and dumps the harvested corn directly into the Silo eliminating the need for trucks to catch the harvested corn and haul it from the fields to the Silos. It will take some work training dogs to herd corn effectively as the current herding breeds tend to ignore plants looking for cows or sheep to herd.

Seriously you are really missing what an incredible idea walking corn would be.

At least until it learns how to make rudimentary tools and weapons.

glowing

[AndyKron]

So maybe there's still hope I might get glowing plants from the Kickstarter many years ago?

Re:glowing

[GrumpySteen]

No, but they did create moss that smells faintly like patchouli.

https://www.theatlantic.com/sc...

A little caution isn't a bad thing

[sjbe]

Good news for people who like genetically altered tomatoes and other plants

I defy anyone to find me a crop we raise that is NOT genetically altered. Seriously, wander around any grocery store and find me a single vegetable, fruit, grain, or protein for sale that humans have not genetically altered substantially. The only item I can think of are wild caught seafood. The only difference between them is the techniques used but they ALL have been genetically altered. Same goes for your household pet, the fibers in the clothes you wear, etc. We've been at this genetic alteration game for as long as we've been raising crops. Odds are that a good approximations of none of the food you've ever eaten wasn't genetically modified by humans at some juncture.

The USDA not only rolled back Obama-era rules regulating genetically edited plants, but now it claims that plants whose genomes have been altered using gene-editing technology (read: CRISPR) pose "no risk,"

While I'm not remotely against GMOs and gene editing, claiming that there is "no risk" given our current knowledge is more than a little absurd. Every researcher I've ever spoken with about CRISPR (my wife works with several of them) says something to the effect of "whoa that's powerful stuff... we should be careful until we understand it better". (their real concerns tend to be more in the area of bio-weapons and pathogens but crops are a mild concern of theirs) While it might turn out that there is actually no meaningful risk from CRISPR on crops, that doesn't mean we should rush headlong into the unknown without thinking through each step and making sure we know what we are doing as best we can. Modifying plants demonstrably affects ecosystems, sometimes in ways we didn't predict. Sometimes the modifications themselves aren't harmful but the actions they permit are - see modifying crops to be resistant to chemicals like glyphosate where the genetic modification isn't harmful itself but the herbicides or behaviors they facilitate clearly are harmful on some level. I see no evidence that we shouldn't use technologies like CRISPR but spending some years testing and learning seems like a practical first step and if we need some regulations to make that happen, so be it.

Re:A little caution isn't a bad thing

[StormReaver]

I defy anyone to find me a crop we raise that is NOT genetically altered.

Just because we're doing it doesn't mean we should.

Our history in modifying our environment is one of early attempts being disastrous, despite our confidence to the contrary at the time. We are in the very early stages of understanding how our direct modification of crop genes affects us. There is a HUGE difference between interbreeding plant species and letting Nature work it out, and editing genes directly. And given corporate history of unabashedly lying to us about the safety of their products in the name of increased profits, and the potentially devastating results of being lied to about our food supply, I won't be satisfied about the safety of GMO until we've had a couple hundred years of informed consent trials.

Also, I defy anyone to point out a time when Nature has allowed the mixing of tomato and frog genes to produce a superior tomato.

Re:A little caution isn't a bad thing

[tomhath]

I defy anyone to point out a time when Nature has allowed the mixing of tomato and frog genes to produce a superior tomato.

RTFA, that is still regulated.

Re:A little caution isn't a bad thing

[jabuzz]

You don't think a couple hundred years of extensive fishing has not exerted a evolutionary selective pressure on them then?

The only thing I can think of would be to head deep in to a forest somewhere like Alaska or Sibera and pick some wild mushrooms. However these are not available in your local supermarket.

Re:A little caution isn't a bad thing

[vtcodger]

There are wild grapes growing in the woods across the street from me. They are usually about 7mm in diameter with seeds about 3mm in diameter and, when ripe, taste like something you might use to remove paint. To me, they are a persuasive argument for selective breeding of plants. Lots of it.

(Not that I don't think MBAs, lawyers, and advertising folks won't manage to perpetrate some disasters on their way to "perfect" crops.)

Re:A little caution isn't a bad thing

[angel'o'sphere]

Nitpicking again?
And your mods are stupid as a sack of saw dust.
If we talk about "genetic altered" we ... that means "we as ordinary people", always mean artificial genetically modified. No idea why you mix that up with "breeding".

Obviously every human on the plant is aware that you can "breed" ... hence the word ... plants and animals in some way and alter their genetics.

But: thank you for the reminder ... perhaps with my old age I might have forgotten this simple truth.

Re:A little caution isn't a bad thing

[angel'o'sphere]

You don't think a couple hundred years of extensive fishing has not exerted a evolutionary selective pressure on them then?
Actually? No? Why would it? How would it work?

Re:A little caution isn't a bad thing

[will_die]

>I defy anyone to find me a crop we raise that is NOT >genetically altered.

Wild Blueberries. While blueberries have been cultivated from them the original wild blueberry are still harvested and the fruit is sold in stores.
Also the Candelilla. While not directly sold in grocery stores you will find it in products sold in grocery stores. There is a problem with cultivating it so it has to be collected in the wild and the non-modified plants.

Re:A little caution isn't a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

>Also, I defy anyone to point out a time when Nature has allowed the mixing of tomato and frog genes to produce a superior tomato.

This kind of thing is quite frequent over a very long timescale

We are just doing it faster and to serve our goals.

The experiment has already been run

[sjbe]

Just because we're doing it doesn't mean we should.

What are you talking about? We've been genetically modifying plants for as long as there have been humans and it is fine. Yes we should be doing it, we will continue to do it, and the techniques for doing it are only going to get more effective. It will be effectively impossible to feed the human population without GMOs. It's not even a choice really.

I won't be satisfied about the safety of GMO until we've had a couple hundred years of informed consent trials.

So you are saying you'll never be satisfied. That isn't going to happen. Seven billion people on the planet, widespread use of GMOs using modern techniques for decades now (plus thousands of years of older techniques) and zero evidence of any negative nutritional effects across generations. If that sort of evidence isn't good enough for you then you will never be satisfied. The nutritional question is settled for all practical purposes and any negative health effects from them that might exist are clearly extremely subtle at worst. The experiment has already been run and the evidence seems clear that GMOs aren't a nutritional health risk either in the short or long term.

Now if you want to make an argument about the effects of GMOs on ecosystems being potentially harmful then you might have an argument. There the evidence is a lot less clear and there is clear evidence that use of GMOs (think roundup ready) influences our behavior in ways that have clear and demonstrable harms both direct and indirect.

Also, I defy anyone to point out a time when Nature has allowed the mixing of tomato and frog genes to produce a superior tomato.

Your DNA is absolutely loaded with code from species that are not human. The fact that you can't wrap your brain around mixing genes from seemingly unrelated species isn't evidence of a problem. You talk about nature "allowing" things as if genetics is somehow planned. That's not how it works. Genetic code doesn't have an agenda beyond reproduction. Read The Selfish Gene sometime for a more eloquent argument.

Re:The experiment has already been run

[Geoffrey.landis]

Just because we're doing it doesn't mean we should.

What are you talking about? We've been genetically modifying plants for as long as there have been humans and it is fine.

Different meanings of the phrase "genetically modified." Yes, when you have children you could say that you have just produced genetically-modified humans-- their genes are not identical to either parent or any ancestor-- but this is not actually the same process as using CRISPR to splice in genes.

Selective breeding and gene-splicing are very different technologies.

Re:The experiment has already been run

[angel'o'sphere]

widespread use of GMOs using modern
GMO is not wide spread.
It is (at least food) forbidden in most countries ...

Your DNA is absolutely loaded with code from species that are not human.
Lol ... what a fucked argument is that?

ALL DNA in a human is either human or from an RNA virus, as sure as hell you have no Dandoline or jelly fish DNA in your body ...

OTOH: if you have, you would be a nice scientific study.

I don't really get it. Why do chaps like you, you have made pretty clear in the last posts, that they have no clue about the topic insist in posting post after post and even get modded up.

It's a short list

[sjbe]

You don't think a couple hundred years of extensive fishing has not exerted a evolutionary selective pressure on them then?

I'm sure it has but didn't want to get bogged down with caveats. My point was that wild caught fish are the only possible exception compared with just about everything else which was very intentionally modified one way or another. You are quite right that we've probably caused some amount of genetic changes to seafood through selective pressures though comparatively minimal ones compared with something like a cow or a watermelon. I can think of a few others that perhaps were subject to selection pressures but not intentional modifications but the list isn't very long in a grocery store.

Re: What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement

[Applehu Akbar]

Which is a legal problem, not a problem with genetic engineering. Note that the No GMO cranks hate open source projects like Golden Rice just as much as they hate Monsanto products.

Re: What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement

[orlanz]

mad or naive scientists creating a "what could possibly go wrong" situation

I don't think that is the real problem. Atleast it's not one that is going to be solved by banning or making things "illegal".

Re: What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement

[orlanz]

The Zika virus wasn't a problem until genetically-altered mosquitoes were released in Brazil.

Huh what? Citation please! The Zika problem is being SOLVED by genetically altered mosquitoes that are eradicating the specific species that carries the virus. This method has been far more effective at the destruction of specific targeted mosquito species than any method in the history of mankind (maybe not as much as a nuke).

The primary reason it became an epidemic in South America is because it is very new there. It's been around for centuries in Asia but cropped up in Brazil less than 5 years ago! It was brand new to the locals' immune system and thus spread like wild fire.

I don't know if you posted in jest or accidentally but if serious, it is a major disservice to BOTH sides of the debate. This example is literally the perfect, responsible type of solutions that we HOPE to achieve with genetic modification.

Re: What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement

[vtcodger]

It always astonishes me that anyone would deliberately breed the rather astonishing flavorless, but pretty much indestructable, "tomatoes" sold in America's supermarkets. Now the process of producing inedible foodstuffs can be accelerated.

Ain't science grand?

Re:I like this sentence in the article

[cascadingstylesheet]

Seriously you are really missing what an incredible idea walking corn would be. At least until it learns how to make rudimentary tools and weapons.

A whole new kind of sequel to Children of the Corn ...

Bad arguments

[Geoffrey.landis]

Most of the common vegetables you eat are super-mutants of their natural ancestors.

Most of the common vegetables you eat are the produce of selective breeding, but this is not the same process as direct editing of genes. They are different processes that work by different mechanisms and have different kinds of results.

The equivalent of turning worms into anacondas.

That is exactly the kind of thing that selective breeding is not capable of doing. You don't make a snake, a lunged vertebrate, by selective breeding of worms.

Don't underestimate selective breeding, nor think it can't produce anything more dangerious than crossing genetics. Also, there are natural mechanisms to copy genes of one species to another. But spiders to plants would be naturally difficult.

The fact that one thing can produce dangerous results does not mean that a different thing may be dangerous in a different way.

Tomatoes! [Re:I like this sentence in the article]

[Geoffrey.landis]

"...which means plant scientists can tweak the DNA of soy, corn, tomatoes, or asparagus and make them taste sweeter, last longer on the shelf, and...."

You know, every two years there's another report in the news that says scientists have just created a genetically engineered tomato that will actually have flavor after being sold in the supermarket, and every single time the result is, sorry, nope, same old cardboard flavor.

The promise of grocery tomatoes that actually taste good is the illusion they keep using to sell us on the technology, and we keep falling for that empty promise. I just don't believe it anymore.

You want tomatoes with flavor, you have to grow them yourself.

Re: What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement

[bws111]

It astonishes you that people want readily-available, inexpensive, undamaged, food year-round? Really? And learn the meaning of 'inedible' - flavorless is not a synonym.

Rest assured

[Anonymous Coward]

CRISPER is how the liberal left will turn us all gay and muslim. The process is already well under way, too. Sharia law will turn you into a cuck and CRISPER is how they will do it.

New meaning of "Round-up ready corn"

[Geoffrey.landis]

Walking corn plants can be herded to new fields... They also reduce the number of combines a Farmer needs, instead of needing five or six to harvest a farm working one field at a time. This will allow one to be set in a stationary position at the end of a harvest funnel, and the Corn is herded from all the fields of the farm into the combine. ...

And we just use a genetically-engineered dog to herd the corn to the round-up. We'll need a name for that... I suggest we call them corn-dogs.

Re:New meaning of "Round-up ready corn"

[angel'o'sphere]

I guess you would need some genetic modified cow or goat, I doubt the corn would be scared by dogs.
Just thinking ;D

My lettuce goes in the crisper...

[BronsCon]

CRISPR does not belong in my lettuce.

Re:At last, real progress

[SuperKendall]

Intelligent Design is not real science, of course.

But at least believing in Intelligent Design does not kill people the way stopping GMO products or refusing to vaccinate children does. So why do you support people whose beliefs are actively harmful rather than those with more harmless delusions?

IT people should know better

[bussdriver]

Lets migrate the whole company to the new 1.0 because it has more buzzwords! The developer has a decent track record with only a few major scandals and those were only the fault of some traitor whistleblower. We don't need to waste time testing it, everything will be perfect! Vendor lock in is perfectly safe.

Why is it so many tech people won't allow me to install free apps on their servers BUT will insult my intelligence for not promoting Monsanto monopoly GMO crops in my body or my yard or my environment? Without even external tests? Oh, and when things go wrong I can't cautiously roll it back either.... am NOT I even allowed the personal option (ex labeling, cross contamination.)

Hell, if Oracle created a VIRUS which infected your computers and then used the DCMA to force you to pay them for their software... you'd all be OK with that in the farming domain.

Re: What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement

[angel'o'sphere]

No one hates golden rice.

That is a /. or "anti anti GMO" haters myth.

Re: What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement

[angel'o'sphere]

I believe meanwhile all over the world tomatoes are close to inedible.
When I move house I plan to have a small garden and breed some 100 - 200 year old tomato variations.
What you can get here in a supermarket is so bad, I only buy them once a year over the last 30 years ...
You can only eat them cooked ... I already wonder if a "insalata caprese" with slightly cooked and then cooled tomatoes would be an interesting variation.
Raw tomatoes are so bad now, I remove them from any food they are inside, they are close to make me vomit.

Good!

[nospam007]

My triffids are almost ready to market.

Re:At last, real progress

[angel'o'sphere]

Refusing GMO products does not kill people either.
Most GMO products are either only used in animal food (as they are not cleared for human usage) or in non food plants like cotton ... just saying.

Re:Label it GMO then

[lgw]

Fair enough, lable it as GMO and label products made with it as GMO.

That falsely paints GMO foods as dangerous. Instead, let's label "organic" food as "organic", to make the hippies happy. Regulating that "organic" label was long overdue, and if "non-GMO" isn't one of the requirements, it obviously should be.

Evolution

[sjbe]

GMO is not wide spread.

The USDA data says otherwise. So does data from the NIH. You might want to look into it. For many key crops the vast majority of acreage (80%+) is genetically engineered varieties.

Lol ... what a fucked argument is that?

It's called evolution. Do I really have to spell it out for you? 90+% of your genome is identical to dozens of other species and double digit percentages of it is identical to most species on earth. That's how evolution works. We have DNA from every species up the chain in our evolutionary tree, most of which are not human.

ALL DNA in a human is either human or from an RNA virus, as sure as hell you have no Dandoline or jelly fish DNA in your body ...

Wrong again my friend. A non-trivial percentage of your DNA is IDENTICAL to those species. And the origin of that DNA wasn't from humans.

Re:Evolution

[angel'o'sphere]

Your graphs are for the inited states. Not for the world.
Seems you don't get it. The EU and most of Asia does not tolerate GMO food, only a few countries in Africa do.
The amount of genes you have in common with a jellyfish is extremely low ... but if you like to feel like one, go on, I hope you have a bath tub :)

Evolutionary pressure.

[sjbe]

Actually? No? Why would it? How would it work?

It's called evolutionary pressure. Please spend 20 seconds looking up the term on wikipedia next time before you post. If you heavily fish a species it changes the genetic profile of the uncaught fish. If you catch and keep only the big fish then you have created an evolutionary pressure for the fish to be smaller. Really it's just a form of selective breeding at that point. And we have done this to fish species.

Re:Evolutionary pressure.

[angel'o'sphere]

And why would putting out a net or a fishing rod cause evolutional pressure on some fish?
They somehow magically develop a new gene called 'lets avoid the net'?

Really, sjbe, sometimes you make clever comments. But often you are simply super dumb. Sorry to say it that way ...

Not mine, but...

[webinstinct]

At the supermarket produce section:
Me: Is this lettuce CRISPR-altered?
Store Worker: No, why do you ask?
Lettuce: Yeah, why do you ask?

You are a monster

[SuperKendall]

Refusing GMO products does not kill people either.

Refusing GMO products lowers crop yields, starving millions.

As an AC posted, GMO crops have also done thing like add more vitamin A, saving millions from blindness or other diseases.

Holding up GMO crops is in a close race with Stalin for number of people DIRECTLY harmed, either killed or permanently maimed.

You are a fucking monster, remember that as more people die because of your faith-based fear.

Note that *I* am not a Republican or Democrat, instead I actually choose to believe real things. You should try it sometime.

Re:You are a monster

[angel'o'sphere]

Refusing GMO products lowers crop yields, starving millions.

That is nonsense.

We throw 40% - 50% of our food away. And that does not even account for the fruits that don't reach the markets/shops for esthetic reasons.

The rest of your post only shows how dumb you are 'sometimes'

Re:At last, real progress

[SuperKendall]

The thing I think is weird about those who believe in Intelligent Design is that they think the design should be able to be understood by their own intelligence.

How can any programmer not believe in recursion as a fundamental trait of any system?? :-)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:At last, real progress

[ceoyoyo]

Sure, except of course for anything that involves human reproduction, no matter how tangentially.

Re:I like this sentence in the article

[Sloppy]

Or a prequel to Day of the Triffids.

Re: What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement

[Applehu Akbar]

Anti-GMO organizations like Greenpeace have come out against Golden Rice as viciously as if it were a Monsanto product:
http://thehill.com/opinion/hea...

And have actually destroyed test plots of it in the Philippines:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news...

Now that Duterte is in office there, I'm hoping that next time the Luddites invade the test fields, he will machine-gun them rihgt there and let their bodies fertilize the plants.

So we wont eat the rich.

[WolfgangVL]

Sometimes good things happen for bad reasons. Billionaires don't want to be eaten, hence, the never-ending flow of money into bigger, and more cheap, and more tasteless (less tasteful?) foods.

I think GMOs are great. No matter the taste, hunger is always the best sauce.

Are there still starving children in Africa?

I would also like to be filthy rich one day, and would rather not be eaten.

 

Re: What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement

[Applehu Akbar]

In yesterday's post you claimed that:

No one hates golden rice.
That is a /. or "anti anti GMO" haters myth.

Anyway, Cornell explains the Philippine position: https://allianceforscience.cor...
The opposition there is a tiny minority of anti-GMO activists, not "the Philippines."

Re: What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement

[fedos]

No one has ever been sued because of natural cross pollination. And it's almost hilarious that anti-GMO asshats use that as a reason to be opposed to them when you also go into irrational rages over "terminator seeds".

Also, I doubt you're a even farmer

Re: What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement

[angel'o'sphere]

I don't get your point.
Philippines is not a country that is notorious for having a vitamin A problem.
So they will have a hard time to sell the rice there, regardless of "anti GMO" wackos or not.
Look at the colour, it looks ugly, I would not eat it bases on that already.
This "VAD" thing is a made up myth. No one needs extra vitamine A in asia. The GMO industry simply wants to earn money via patent fees, thats all. And that is why greenpeace and others are against GMOs.
I'm against most of them, because they have nothing to do in our food chain. Why the fuck would I eat a roundup(TM) resistent crop? Why do you need to use round up on it? Ah ... because you farm it in monocultures spreading for dozens if not hundreds of kilometers.

Again: 40% - 50% of the world wide food production is thrown away, after it reached the shops. That does not even include the food that does not reach the shops because of esthetic reasons (cucumber to curved etc.)

If people think there is a need for golden rice, they should grow it on their own fields and ship it to the crisis regions and give it away (or sell it).

Destroying the local rice production by forcing farmers to plant crops/rice they can not afford the seeds of is basically a war declaration. Actually not a war declaration but a war ...

https://seedfreedom.info/campa...

Re:At last, real progress

[Applehu Akbar]

Hilarious. You mean stuff like 'intelligent design'? Shit for brains.

Can you name a single instance of fundie Christian intelligent design believers blocking a vital infrastructure project or ripping up a field of crops that conflicted with their religious beliefs?

Re: What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement

[Applehu Akbar]

Golden Rice is an open source project that is not controlled by Monsanto or any other corporation.

Re: What's the big deal with the anti-GMO movement

[fedos]

And why would the Philippines need golden rice?

Because they're suffering from widespread malnutrition.

Obviously they don't like GMO _food_ like no one else wants it.

Which is why they're growing Golden Rice and other GMO crops and it's outsiders who oppose their use of GMO crops? And what do you mean no one wants GMO food? I, and many other people, want GMO food; we're excited about the benefits for the environment and for the potential to improve the quality of life of people around the world.

You are a typical imperialistic asshole.

Says the asshole who has no problem with wealthy westerners vandalizing the crops of Filipino farmers.

The golden rice thing is just another attempt to subdue a country in the developing world, it produces vitamin A, you know? For what funk sake reason would a country like the Philippines need a GMO rice that produces vitamin A?

Because they're suffering from widespread malnutrition.

Why would they need to pay patent fees to plant that rice?

Because they choose to? Seriously, no one is going to force farmers to grow the crop. They will be able to choose whether to grow conventional rice or Golden Rice based on their own situation. But wait, because the Philippines is a developing country according to the FAO, they don't have to pay the IP licensing cost. This is something you would know if you weren't willfully ignorant.

Why would they need to have half of their farmers run bankrupt because they can not pay for the fees, or can not plant their original rice anymore?

Farmers are free to plant whatever crop they're willing and able to pay for. They won't go bankrupt from planting GMO crops unless either they make bad business decisions or they suffer the sort of tragedies that would make them go bankrupt while planting conventional crops. Also, as pointed out above, Filipino farmers don't have to pay these fees. They're also free to go back to growing conventional rice if they so choose.

You are an idiot. You have no clue what is going on. And you have no clue about GMOs or about countries where you like to test them.

You're a willfully ignorant moron. You don't care about what's true and what's not; you only care about your virtue sginaling, and you don't care if people - childrend - die because of it.