Impact of genetically engineered maize on agronomic, environmental and toxicological traits: a meta-analysis of 21 years of field data

nearby crops. > (In historical cases, Monsanto has been given ownership of crops that their GMO crops have essentially raped through pollination). Falsehood that is easily disproven using the simple facts of the cases in question. They don't "contaminate" nearby crops. Their pollen may be carried elsewhere, but this has always been the case with plants and so far the anti-GMO factions have been unable to demonstrate an actual harm beyond their own paranoia. > In a world where not believing climate change will get you crucified in almost any public setting, why do intelligent people continue to let GMOs run rampant? Perhaps because they actually know how to evaluate scientific data while you seem to be getting your news and information from Greenpeace and other peddlers of bullshit. While some would like to claim scientists are being reckless in GMO usage and experimentation, they have actually be rather conservative and only focused on a few features and metabolic pathways. We are just starting to see products that move beyond the simple, low-hanging fruit of drought, disease, and insect resistance. Adding salinity resistance, tweaking photosynthesis pathways to be more efficient, and improving nutritional composition are starting to enter more widespread testing and experimentation. With the increased control that CRISPR offers there is going to be a lot more options available for improvement.

crops saw similar gains. This has massive realworld implications on food. A significant part of that is due to GMOs [2] (note the study also demonstrates reduction in toxins since we can engineer more carefully for pesticides desired). Thankfully mankind has used tech to increase yields drastically, lowering cost, and thus freeing lots of money for other things like housing, medicine, entertainment, and social programs. >are we more likely to get - vitamin-enhanced rice, or vegetables that are as healthy and addictive as Twinkies? Once we reach that level of design, why would we not engineer all sorts of beneficial items in? Even now there's published evidence that GMOs are healthier for people than alternatives since it allows us to tailor which pesticides and how much we need to reach yields sufficient to feed the planet. >on food sovereignty be This has been one of the goofiest non-arguments ever. People keep claiming somehow no one will able to grow food - there's so many non-GMO places to get any seeds you like, and even many GMOs are off patent protection and fully able to be used as anyone likes. The most you can worry about is not having the latest 20 or so years of seeds. So for free all farmers and people are getting more seed options, not fewer. >it's much faster, and non-engineered life cannot keep up. There is no law of physics that cannot mutate things slowly or quickly, so this assumption that there is some magical limiting rate of evolution is also not science based. Things can wildly mutate in one generation, it's been seen, and things mutate when there's selection pressure. It's the case, for example in viruses, that they mutate faster to keep up with things we do to them. And the point is to beat things out that destroy crops, like rusts, disease, water shortages, etc. As global warming increases, there will be significant needs for more drought resistant crops, and GMO is delivering on that in a manner that no selective breeding can do quick enough. GMOs will likely save billions of lives in the coming decades. [1] https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/YieldTren... [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21284-2

better health. Let's pick this apart a bit! Ignoring the lobbyist domain, since the study also appears in Nature[1], there are some sneaky twists here: > GMO corn crops had lower percentages of mycotoxins (-28.8 percent), fumonisins (-30.6 percent) and thricotecens (−36.5 percent), all of which can lead to economic losses and harm human and animal health Fumonisins are a class of mycotoxins, so that 30.6% reduction is already included in the 28.8% reduction of mycotoxins. The word "Thricotecens" only appears in Google as part of this study, and isn't in my computer's dictionary. Is there a scientist that can explain what it is? Is it another sub-group of mycotoxins? Is it a good idea to be consuming corn that grew up with glyphosate[2] in the fields? It seems pretty poisonous, and I didn't see anything about balancing the benefits of more corn vs. less glyphosate. We can also talk about if having more corn in our diet is really a good idea if we want, (spoiler: generally no, especially if you live in North America). [1]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21284-2 [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

his emails with Monsanto execs FOIA'ed][3]. If we take HN seriously as a news site, it might have been more appropriate to link to the scientific paper than a PR site, especially given that the paper is not paywalled. [0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21284-2 [1]: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-monsanto-0c061... [2]: https://www.motherjones.com/food/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-... [3]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2303691-kevin-folta-...