TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Data says GMO corn increases crop yields and provides health benefits

86 点作者 felixcatus超过 7 年前

16 条评论

woodruffw超过 7 年前
For an organization whose motto is &quot;Science not ideology,&quot; they sure have a lot of ideological backers[1]:<p>The Templeton Foundation has a record of supporting research on theistic evolution and conservative British politics.[2]<p>The Searle Foundation is the largest funding source for the American Enterprise Institute.[3]<p>The Center for Food Integrity is an industry group[4] that grew out of the Grow America Project, a lobbying vessel.[5]<p>I am not categorically anti-GMO. But I doubt the intentions of this source.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;geneticliteracyproject.org&#x2F;mission-financials-governorship&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;geneticliteracyproject.org&#x2F;mission-financials-govern...</a><p>[2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;John_Templeton_Foundation#Core_funding_areas" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;John_Templeton_Foundation#Core...</a><p>[3]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Searle_Freedom_Trust#Grantees" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Searle_Freedom_Trust#Grantees</a><p>[4]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sourcewatch.org&#x2F;index.php&#x2F;Center_for_Food_Integrity" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sourcewatch.org&#x2F;index.php&#x2F;Center_for_Food_Integr...</a><p>[5]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sourcewatch.org&#x2F;index.php&#x2F;Grow_America_Project" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sourcewatch.org&#x2F;index.php&#x2F;Grow_America_Project</a>
评论 #16421705 未加载
评论 #16420621 未加载
ZeroGravitas超过 7 年前
Is there a FSF equivalent for GMO?<p>Like code, I&#x27;m sure there&#x27;s potential benefits to GMO. Like code, I&#x27;m sure that letting opaque corporations monopolise production with their patented technology will lead to lots of bad behaviour that&#x27;s anti-consumer and potentially catastrophic.
评论 #16420099 未加载
评论 #16421237 未加载
phkahler超过 7 年前
It really irritates me when &quot;GMO&quot; is categorically touted as beneficial or harmful. Each modification has to be evaluated individually, there is no blanket assessment for GMO in general.
评论 #16420228 未加载
评论 #16420237 未加载
评论 #16420939 未加载
评论 #16420982 未加载
jacquesm超过 7 年前
This is probably good for some balance:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.motherjones.com&#x2F;food&#x2F;2012&#x2F;02&#x2F;atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.motherjones.com&#x2F;food&#x2F;2012&#x2F;02&#x2F;atrazine-syngengta-...</a>
评论 #16420203 未加载
dvh超过 7 年前
The problem is every time a bee fly on or off your field you are committing copyright infringement.
评论 #16420137 未加载
评论 #16420133 未加载
评论 #16420113 未加载
评论 #16420119 未加载
skywhopper超过 7 年前
I don&#x27;t follow the GMO debate closely, so I can&#x27;t really say anything interesting about the data presented here, but it&#x27;s interesting to me that these sorts of articles never talk about the larger systemic risks which I personally find to be by far the more salient argument.<p>Sure GMO products are probably safe to eat, and it&#x27;s pretty obviously in farmers&#x27; immediate economic interest to use them. But what about the risks of agricultural monoculture? How diverse is the GMO and non-GMO corn that&#x27;s grown around the world, and what are the trends in that diversity? What about trends in diversity of staple crops in general? How fast can the GMO industry react when a new blight or weed or bug comes along that&#x27;s immune to the built-in resistance?<p>Finally, this article is published on a site that&#x27;s devoted to promoting GMO foods. So, take its claims with a grain of salt. They may be entirely right, but an advocacy site is not going to post an article that questions the premise of its very existence. So from the point of view of trying to learn about the subject, this is probably a really poor place to start.
评论 #16420996 未加载
Asdfbla超过 7 年前
Maybe linking to the study itself instead of a pro-GMO lobbying site or at least to some popular science news without an agenda would be the safer choice.
maxxxxx超过 7 年前
You just have to look at the domain name and you already know that this is backed by someone with a clear agenda and probably paid by lobbyists. I don&#x27;t know why they all have to name their domains in the same style. Must be SEO I guess.
super-serial超过 7 年前
The Union of Concerned Scientists says the exact opposite. One is funded by industry, the other from individual contributions. I know which one I think is right.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ucsusa.org&#x2F;food_and_agriculture&#x2F;our-failing-food-system&#x2F;genetic-engineering&#x2F;failure-to-yield.html#.Wow_h71MGEc" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ucsusa.org&#x2F;food_and_agriculture&#x2F;our-failing-food...</a>
评论 #16421334 未加载
ebbv超过 7 年前
This is like saying “100 years of data confirms coal provides lots of power cheaply!”<p>Yeah, we know. That was never the issue and it’s a red herring from the real issues. For GMOs there’s multiple issues with the licensing programs and how it affects farmers. But more importantly to me is the potential side effects in terms of these new strains going wild or interbreeding or being a monoculture that is potentially extremely succeptible to future problems and in the long run makes our food supply weaker instead of stronger. (See banana fungus problems, which is not due to GMO but due to the banana supply being a monoculture.)<p>Also saying broadly “GMOs are safe to eat!” seems as naive to me as broadly saying “GMOs are not safe to eat.” It totally depends on what is being modified and how.
评论 #16420236 未加载
评论 #16420178 未加载
评论 #16420197 未加载
dna_polymerase超过 7 年前
Regarding GMO and health benefits it may be interesting for others to read about Golden Rice [0]. Especially interesting is this line: &quot;In June 2016, 107 Nobel laureates signed a letter urging Greenpeace and its supporters to abandon their campaign against GMOs, and against Golden Rice in particular.&quot;<p>Greenpeace has much publicity and their uneducated views are sadly picked up by media without further investigation. As the post linked here shows, GMOs are not the evil thing people usually connect it with, and people developing them don&#x27;t seem to want to kill&#x2F;poison&#x2F;whatever the world.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Golden_rice" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Golden_rice</a>
kickout超过 7 年前
Just for the non-GMO&#x2F;non-multinational crowd out there... there exists many corn&#x2F;soy varieties which do not have transgenes in them and have reasonable yield performance...<p>And yet, the market shrugs. These GMOs are providing value and the ones currently deregulated may been proven safe for humans (by a long shot in my opinion). The environmental claims are more complex, but farmers were spraying nasty, nasty stuff 50+ years ago. That does not scale well
NoGravitas超过 7 年前
So, I started looking into this, just based on the very shady domain name of the place it was published.<p>The [original Italian study][0] that the article is promoting is <i></i>probably<i></i> worth paying attention to. It was published in Scientific Reports, Nature&#x27;s open-access mega-journal. Their peer review is generally considered solid, though they do also offer a fast-track for a fee.<p>The Genetic Literacy Project, though, is a fully-industry-funded public relations mill, as discussed in [this Chicago Tribune article][1] In this thread, jacquesm provides a link to [a Mother Jones article about the industry connections of the sites&#x27; founder][2]. Another contributor to the site [had his emails with Monsanto execs FOIA&#x27;ed][3].<p>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.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41598-018-21284-2" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41598-018-21284-2</a><p>[1]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.chicagotribune.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;sns-wp-blm-monsanto-0c06199a-692b-11e5-bdb6-6861f4521205-20151002-story.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.chicagotribune.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;sns-wp-blm-monsanto-0c061...</a><p>[2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.motherjones.com&#x2F;food&#x2F;2012&#x2F;02&#x2F;atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.motherjones.com&#x2F;food&#x2F;2012&#x2F;02&#x2F;atrazine-syngengta-...</a><p>[3]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.documentcloud.org&#x2F;documents&#x2F;2303691-kevin-folta-uoffloridadocs.html#document&#x2F;p10&#x2F;a237532" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.documentcloud.org&#x2F;documents&#x2F;2303691-kevin-folta-...</a>
wavefunction超过 7 年前
I&#x27;m more concerned about the legal implications of GMO crops and the way it&#x27;s played out with massive agriculture corporations vs farmers.<p>I think there&#x27;s also been a corresponding spike in human-consumed glyphospates that GMO proponents conveniently overlook.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jamanetwork.com&#x2F;journals&#x2F;jama&#x2F;article-abstract&#x2F;2658306" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jamanetwork.com&#x2F;journals&#x2F;jama&#x2F;article-abstract&#x2F;26583...</a>
jbeales超过 7 年前
The TL;DR:<p>There are 2 types of GMO corn: Insect Resistant and Glyphosate Resistant, (Glyphosate is a herbicide, so it can be sprayed on fields killing weeds but not resistant corn).<p>Corn resistant to pests has less loss, therefore higher yield. Also, since there&#x27;s less insect damage, there&#x27;s less chance for rot, and therefore fewer mycotoxins, (mycotoxins = toxins that come from fungus). It also hasn&#x27;t been sprayed with as many pesticides as a non-resistant variety would be, so there&#x27;s less actual poison on the corn.<p>Corn with no competition from weeds has higher yield, and glyphosate makes it really easy to kill everything else in the field.<p>More corn = more food = better health.<p>Let&#x27;s pick this apart a bit!<p>Ignoring the lobbyist domain, since the study also appears in Nature[1], there are some sneaky twists here:<p>&gt; 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<p>Fumonisins are a class of mycotoxins, so that 30.6% reduction is already included in the 28.8% reduction of mycotoxins.<p>The word &quot;Thricotecens&quot; only appears in Google as part of this study, and isn&#x27;t in my computer&#x27;s dictionary. Is there a scientist that can explain what it is? Is it another sub-group of mycotoxins?<p>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&#x27;t see anything about balancing the benefits of more corn vs. less glyphosate.<p>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).<p>[1]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41598-018-21284-2" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41598-018-21284-2</a> [2]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Glyphosate" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Glyphosate</a>
评论 #16420678 未加载
forgingahead超过 7 年前
What is the claim here? That yields increase? Ok, sure.<p>That it reduces specific contaminants? Maybe.<p>That it provides health BENEFITS? Definitely not.<p>That it is SAFE in the long run? Definitely not.
评论 #16420261 未加载
评论 #16421471 未加载
评论 #16420967 未加载
评论 #16420222 未加载
评论 #16421133 未加载