Comment by oneandoneis2 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by oneandoneis2 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

As a biologist, the "All GM is bad!" stuff drives me crazy. But you do yourself no favours by ignoring legitimate concerns.

Case in point: Monsanto. Their notorious Roundup-ready plants have been GM'd to be resistant to herbicides that will kill off all other plants.

I would cheerfully eat a plant that had just been GM'd to have such resistance. But I would be rather more concerned about it after it was used as designed: repeatedly sprayed with massive doses of toxic substances.

Even if they're completely correct about all traces of that gunk being gone by the time their plant winds up on my plate, you still get the herbicides and/or the breakdown products washed into the water table; you still get farmers skipping crop rotation and fallow seasons in favour of just growing the same crop over and over and fixing the perceived problems by dumping yet more fertiliser and yet more herbicides onto them.

And you still wind up encouraging the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds requiring yet-more GM and yet-more poisons. You still get yet-more need for yet-more poisons of questionable safety being dumped into the food chain.

I've no problem with eating a plant that's had its genes tinkered with. But I'm totally against Roundup-ready crops and the like. And that's a perfectly rational, informed position to hold.

Yes, it seems fairly clear now that Roundup Ready crops have lead to increases in pesticide use which is only going to worsen as weeds become increasingly resistant

http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24/abstract

Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.

Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

These are reasonable arguments. My biggest problem is that all GMO gets lumped together. Legit GM that helps increase drought-hardiness in water-starved Africa gets lumped with Roundup-GMO.

I agree my post was way over the top, but damn, you never hear anyone advocating for GM. It is all going to kill you, spread to every other plant and sterilize the whole world.

As with most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle. :)

"you never hear anyone advocating for GM."

My perception is just the opposite: it seems like the advocacy is overwhelmingly in favor of GM.

EDIT: For example, here in America, we can't even get laws passed requiring the labelling of GMOs. I'm not talking about a ban; just a law that would allow people to know whether or not they are purchasing a "Roundup Ready" crop.

> I agree my post was way over the top, but damn, you never hear anyone advocating for GM

Really? Who is doing all the advocating to prevent labeling of food with GM ingredients? It's completely one-sided in the industry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com