Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by hrvbr | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

hrvbr

In the EU it's not a vague concept. There's a strict legislation for any product sold as organic, along with a logo.

Main rules, taken from the EC site:

- Crops are rotated so that on-site resources are used efficiently

- Chemical pesticides, synthetic fertilisers, antibiotics and other substances are severely restricted

- Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are banned

- On-site resources are put to good use, such as manure for fertiliser or feed produced on the farm

- Disease-resistant plant and animal species adapted to the local environment are used

- Livestock are raised in a free-range, open-air environment and are fed on organic fodder

- Animal husbandry practices are tailored to the various livestock species

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/index_en.htm

View on HN

Of course my point is this this paper is vague since it doesn't specify which country/entities formal definition of organic they followed in order to classify the data.

My point of varying and changing regulation stands as well, the EU original regulation went into effect in 1993, however I am not clear on what enforcement in which countries actually occurred when. It seems it had major revisions in 2007 and took some time overall for standards to be enforced fully.

I also find it interesting that the formal regulation for "organic" restricts but still allows "synthetic" fertilizers and antibiotics. It shows the reality that the line is draw arbitrarily.

GMO is a similar issue. If genetic modification is done in a lab it's labeled GMO and bad, if it's done through breeding it's not and ok. Corn, wheat, cows, pigs, chickens and all domesticated crops and livestock exist due to genetic modification by humans, they are genetically modified organisms, now we are simply arguing over how their genes are being modified not if.

Arbitrary is a big word. Just because the line regarding fertilisers isn't drawn the way you imagine it would be doesn't make it arbitrary. I'm sure a lot of rational thought went into, balancing the various trade-offs involved in making a regulation that's meant to serve as a minimum standard applicable in a market with 300 million residents.

The same goes for GMO stuff, it's your prerogative to redefine words in any way you see fit, but lab-GMO and breeding-GMO are a conceptually real categories and there's nothing arbitrary about differentiating them.

No I'm using the specific definition of arbitrary: "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something"

My point point being there is not intrinsic nature of something that can make it "organic" in the organic food definition. If one pesticide is allowed in the US and not int the EU definition of organic that is arbitrary.

So when someone says GMO it assumed to be what exactly? Targeted gene inertion? Mutagenesis? What about marker assisted breeding? Each one of these is a continuum of progression from "conventional" breeding. All of them are human induced genetic modification, drawing the line at targeted gene insertion is arbitrary.

Arbitrary choice in the face of uncertainty isn't wrong though; it is an aprroxumation technique.

"Room temperature" is arbitrary, but 75F is better than 100F or 0F

Any taxonomy is arbitrary. Nature / The Universe does not seem to organize things into neat categories. These taxonomies can be useful but imperfect abstractions. However IMO the organic / non-organic classification is a non-useful and misleading abstraction unlike the term "room temperature".

It's not an individual preference, it's the result of a political process. There may be a continuum of genetic modifications, that doesn't mean it's unreasonable -- or even arbitrary, per the quoted definition -- to pick a point in that continuum and make rules and regulations based on that point.

> GMO is a similar issue. If genetic modification is done in a lab it's labeled GMO and bad, if it's done through breeding it's not and ok.

This is actually worse than you present it, because the "GMO" label is not applied to variously laboratory techniques like repeated exposure to mutagens followed by detailed analysis to determine which subjects have mutations of interest, followed by selective breeding, more exposure to mutagens, etc.

The actual distinction usually made with the misleading "GMO" name is between genetic modification by inclusion of specific genes from another species ("GMO") vs. all other methods of modifying a genome (not-"GMO").

This actually ties into a problem with the degree to which "organic" labelling is meaningful, since usually organic is defined as including non-GMO using the misleading definition of "GMO".

I very much agree. The black / white, organic / not organic and GMO / not GMO is a non-useful abstraction IMO and instead misleads and confuses.

The following paper describes the problem in detail regarding GMO classification: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC510...

Some relevant quotes:

"Examination of the exact language of the excluded methods definition at 7 CFR 205.2 will bring out the key issues.

1. A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. The phrase “not possible under natural conditions or processes” has become problematic in the context of “traditional” breeding methods that involve disruption of normal plant cell growth. For example, mutagenesis can be a process in which chemical or radiation stress is applied on a cell to force mutation to happen, but it also commonly occurs in nature and at least some of the mutagenesis chemicals are derived from nature. (More on mutagenesis under 5. traditional breeding). The concept of "natural" is not defined in any regulations and is very blurred after centuries of humans manipulating the environment and plants, animals and microbes."

And:

"5. traditional breeding,

This term is assumed to include breeding methods that have been used prior to the emergence of transgenic technologies. It is not clear at which point traditional breeding techniques are divided from modern or non-traditional breeding techniques. Is there a time point at which all techniques before that time are considered traditional and all new techniques developed after that time are not considered traditional? The use of transposons (see below Part B) since the 1930's or chemical, physical, and biological mutagens since the 1940's are blurring the distinction between traditional breeding and biotechnology."

I think rather than talking about GMOs we need to point out the crops that are seriously and obviously bad for us: the transgenically modified crops, or apparently I just found it can be called TGM. [0]

This saves us from the debate every time where somebody talks about how all our food and animals are GMO. The real destroyers of the American food supply are the 7 major crops that have been transgenically modified with bacteria that produces insecticide and herbicide resistant bacteria so they can spray the crops with herbs: Corn, soy, cottonseed, alfalfa, papaya, canola, sugar beets.

[0] http://books.google.com/books?id=IX5mo9ylOF0C&pg=PA38&lpg=PA...

Edit: Here's some good info about terminology I guess: http://iddl.vt.edu/courses/HORT4764/lessons/seeds/seeds_page...

Transgenics are absolutely not "seriously and obviously bad for us". Almost the entire debate around GMOs is about transgenically modified crops, and to date nobody has clearly demonstrated harm from transgenics in even a single case. It's a technology, it has myriad uses and there is nothing intrinsic to it that is harmful.

Furthermore in the US an entire generation of people have grown up on GMO soy, without anybody demonstrating any credible evidence of harm.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com