Hacker News Reader

Comment by Carrok | Hacker News Reader

The anti-GMO movement is so frustrating to me. I ask people why they are against it and all they can say is "pesticides". I say, ok, but aside from that mostly unrelated issue, what is actually bad about improving food? Crickets "It's just bad! Something something Monsanto!"

It comes from the same anti-science crowd that pushes things like crystals, sound healing, raiki, and astrology.

Yes, I live in the Boulder, CO area, how did you guess?

FTA:

> Of course, some people have raised health concerns around eating GMOs, but studies since these foods were introduced three decades ago do not show any harm. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration concludes there is not a health risk to eating GM foods currently on the market.

View on HN

The most prevalent use of GMOs in agriculture by far is resistance to roundup herbicide, enabling free use to knock out other weeds. Other GMOs are rarely viable on the wider market, likely because natural mutation and selection are just more efficient for improving varieties.

> what is actually bad about improving food?

With that said, I'd suggest you reconsider your opposite premise that GMOs invariably improve food.

I agree your mentioned echo chambers are unhelpful, just try to avoid feeding into it with equally uninformed opinions.

Just because people use it one way, does not mean it is not useful in other ways.

Please, inform my opinion. I am always open to new data, as we all should be.

The main thing is that you can't really know the long-term effects of changing the biodiversity on the planet. It's fairly common that extensive plant breading is producing plants that are less healthy, more prone to diseases. That's why "pesticides" is an argument, but it's not the main argument. What happens when these tomato genes spread too heavily and you will not even be able to produce tomatoes with just soil, water and sun? What if they spread to other plants? (Plants to cross-pollinate).

> The main thing is that you can't really know the long-term effects of changing the biodiversity on the planet.

Has the planet itself not been doing this for quite a long time already? I think your question would be better framed as not “changing” but “accelerating” and I think that is indeed a valid question. I’m just not sure I agree it will end with non viable crops.

How would they spread more heavily if they are less healthy and more prone to disease?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com