Hacker News Reader

Oh, that’s the cutoff? What about Brussels sprouts?

You think that the risk of consequential harm (say, death within 10 years) is the same for Brussels sprouts and GM foods? Haven’t we learned anything from mad cow and trans fats?

Edit: The risk is reduced significantly after we’ve eaten something for a few generations. The problem is if we test something new on the global population before a local tribe tries it on themselves for a few generations.

What does mad cow have to do with GM? Ironically: the process that begat mad cow: also "natural".

Eating meat-fed cows is not natural. Eating trans fats is not natural. Eating GM foods is not natural. The first two proved to have catastrophic harm. Why are we confident GM foods are safe?

We’re treating no evidence of harm as evidence of no harm. And we’re doing it on a global scale.

It sounds like "natural" just means "stuff you don't approve of". Some of your list overlaps mine, others don't. That's fine, but it's kind of a boring argument.

“Natural selection” is the process that makes something “natural”. If it hasn’t passed the test of time, it’s not natural. Which part of my list doesn’t overlap with yours? You consider Impossible Foods natural?

The only "natural" thing to eat then would be wild berries, tubers and tramplings by unruly ungulates.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com