5 ms·

"How much data is enough?" Double blind study spanning over 100 years.

by EpicWaves 10y ago

Kalium 10y ago
Clearly, we should also apply the same safety standard to non-GMO crops as well.
- yessql 10y ago
  Nature is out there randomly mutating genes without any oversight. We need to test each plant for 100 years to make sure it didn't have any dangerous mutations.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- bdamm 10y ago
  A somewhat specious argument, as many foods have undergone the ultimate trial of sustaining people for millennia.
  - Kalium 10y ago
    The species in general have. I think you'll find most modern strains have not been double-blind tested for a century. Modern dwarf wheat strains, for instance, date from the 70s or so.
    - KingMob 10y ago
      An excellent argument for being dubious of modern cultivars.
      - Kalium 10y ago
        If people are willing to apply the same standards uniformly, I'm OK with it. I suspect that's not actually the case for most people, though. GMOs are seen by many as a special case deserving of infinite scrutiny.
Normal_gaussian 10y ago
For those downvoting: Is it because you think "enough" data would take longer to gather? Or, as I am assuming is the case, you think it would take less time but are unable to articulate it. Personally I think 100 years is more than enough, and for most crops I would take 25 years of a double blind as great data.
- zo1 10y ago
  Because it appears that 100 years is proposed because of some sort of vague "we don't know what we don't know." It's as if people assume there is some magical property that we are as-yet unaware of and will only be able to be sure of the not-existence-of after 100 years. Also, 100 years effectively makes it "untestable" within a human time-frame. You really think any company is going to spend money to continually monitor and administer a large-scale double-blind test of a product before being allowed to sell it? Even 10 years is ridiculous at this point for drug-products, and we already cry-foul about the cost that "big-pharma" is charging as if it costs nothing to prove that they are safe to the levels that we demand through the FDA. Also, 100 years is just an answer to effectively shut down all GMO products. Permanently, for 100 years. That is not a solution, it's fear-mongering.
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    > Also, 100 years effectively makes it "untestable" within a human time-frame. You really think any company is going to spend money to continually monitor and administer a large-scale double-blind test of a product before being allowed to sell it? The world isn't responsible for maintaining your business model. If you can't be profitable without slavery, if you're forced to pay taxes, without pervasive monitoring of all human communication, or without walling off the state of Nevada, you can't be profitable. > Even 10 years is ridiculous at this point for drug-products, and we already cry-foul about the cost that "big-pharma" is charging as if it costs nothing to prove that they are safe to the levels that we demand through the FDA. The prices of drugs have little or nothing to do with R&D or testing.
    - eanzenberg 10y ago

"How much data is enough?" Double blind study spanning over 100 years.

Kalium 10y ago

Clearly, we should also apply the same safety standard to non-GMO crops as well.

yessql 10y ago
Nature is out there randomly mutating genes without any oversight. We need to test each plant for 100 years to make sure it didn't have any dangerous mutations.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
bdamm 10y ago
A somewhat specious argument, as many foods have undergone the ultimate trial of sustaining people for millennia.
- Kalium 10y ago
  The species in general have. I think you'll find most modern strains have not been double-blind tested for a century. Modern dwarf wheat strains, for instance, date from the 70s or so.
  - KingMob 10y ago
    An excellent argument for being dubious of modern cultivars.
    - Kalium 10y ago
      If people are willing to apply the same standards uniformly, I'm OK with it. I suspect that's not actually the case for most people, though. GMOs are seen by many as a special case deserving of infinite scrutiny.

Normal_gaussian 10y ago

For those downvoting: Is it because you think "enough" data would take longer to gather? Or, as I am assuming is the case, you think it would take less time but are unable to articulate it. Personally I think 100 years is more than enough, and for most crops I would take 25 years of a double blind as great data.

zo1 10y ago
Because it appears that 100 years is proposed because of some sort of vague "we don't know what we don't know." It's as if people assume there is some magical property that we are as-yet unaware of and will only be able to be sure of the not-existence-of after 100 years. Also, 100 years effectively makes it "untestable" within a human time-frame. You really think any company is going to spend money to continually monitor and administer a large-scale double-blind test of a product before being allowed to sell it? Even 10 years is ridiculous at this point for drug-products, and we already cry-foul about the cost that "big-pharma" is charging as if it costs nothing to prove that they are safe to the levels that we demand through the FDA. Also, 100 years is just an answer to effectively shut down all GMO products. Permanently, for 100 years. That is not a solution, it's fear-mongering.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  > Also, 100 years effectively makes it "untestable" within a human time-frame. You really think any company is going to spend money to continually monitor and administer a large-scale double-blind test of a product before being allowed to sell it? The world isn't responsible for maintaining your business model. If you can't be profitable without slavery, if you're forced to pay taxes, without pervasive monitoring of all human communication, or without walling off the state of Nevada, you can't be profitable. > Even 10 years is ridiculous at this point for drug-products, and we already cry-foul about the cost that "big-pharma" is charging as if it costs nothing to prove that they are safe to the levels that we demand through the FDA. The prices of drugs have little or nothing to do with R&D or testing.
  - eanzenberg 10y ago