[tuatoru]

Well, yes, nutrient density is worth promoting.

But it seems to me that the populations of those who oppose herbicides like glyphosate, and those who oppose genetically modified crops with say extra niacin or vitamin D, overlap very heavily.

We have a new mental illness, generalized antiscience disorder. Motto: "It is better that a hundred million die of famine or epidemic disease than one person die of cancer."

[xpe]

There are many other explanations for people that have these views that are not anti-scientific.

The precautionary principle is one.

Not wanting agribusiness to create patented crops is another.

Recognizing that what we mean by nutrient-dense foods are more than just synthesizing more vitamin D or niacin in a plant.

But sure, there is plenty of irrationality to go ‘round too. Just be rational yourself in understanding why people oppose some of these ideas.

[tptacek]

Why don't you want agribusiness to create patented crops? Nobody's making you plant them. The stories of people unwittingly or unwillingly planting Roundup-Ready crops are easily debunked.

[xpe]

> Why don't you want agribusiness to create patented crops?

I didn’t say that. Please reply to my comment in the context it was offered if you want to discuss.

[tuatoru]

Applied science is all about the balance of harms.

In the paper we have a tenuous chain of correlations with no causal mechanism described.

Glyphosate has unambiguously improved crop yields and quality for decades. The causal mechanism is well understood: it kills weeds that would otherwise outcompete crop plants.

I don't care what other reasons there might be for not wanting GM crops; I was making an observation about populations.

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

These principles are the exact same principles as the anti-vax people.

Precautionary principle is also used by them a lot.

Glyphosate has been used for a long time with massive benefits to humanity.

I would guess it would compare pretty favorable in terms of percent exposed having issues to vaccines.

[xpe]

I’m not confident that you see the purpose of my comment in the context it was offered. My point was that “anti-science” is not the sole nor best description for people that have differing viewpoints w.r.t. modern agricultural practices.

Part of the problem more generally is that people literally lose the thread, but another part of the problem is that Hacker News doesn’t really encourage it nor design for it.

Lumping anti-vax people with people that have rational anti-big-agricultural perspectives is muddled thinking. There may be some similarities, but it is an overreach to claim these are the “exact same” principles.

I’d suggest reading some argumentation (such as policy proposals from think-tanks) by rational, pro-science people who criticize the current state of agriculture. After you do this, unless you select some obviously flawed example or fall prey to confirmation bias, you will learn they are _quite_ different than the prototypical anti-vaxxer.

The argument you are making suffers from the false equivalence fallacy. This is the kind of thing that Monsanto would do (and probably does, but I’d need to find proof). By conflating an extreme, poorly-supported viewpoint (anti-vax) with a reasonable one (rational concerns about the state of modern agribusiness), an instigator creates confusion and muddies the waters of public debate.