5 ms·

They are pointless from a rational/scientific perspective, as they add no usable information w.r.t. safety or nutrition. Identifying strains specifically would

They are pointless from a rational/scientific perspective, as they add no usable information w.r.t. safety or nutrition. Identifying strains specifically would satisfy both the scientific interest (quantifying safety) and the anti-GMO interest (feeling good about being non-GMO).

colordrops 10y ago
> as they add no usable information w.r.t. safety or nutrition. That is where the disagreement lies. It is not clear to everyone that all current and future GMOs are safe. To patronize and label skeptics as unscientific is intellectually dishonest and a form of orwellian groupthink. There are plenty of people in the industry that claim that GMOs are not very well tested. There is no scientific reason to believe that a dangerous GMO could not be inadvertently created. A degenerate case would be to insert pufferfish toxin genes into a tomato. Obviously no one would do that intentionally, but a much more subtle issue could be carried over in a more seemingly benign gene transfer. To claim that we understand everything that genes do is a utter lie. They are orders of magnitude more complex than software, and yet we introduce bugs into software all the time. There is also lot of money and political interest behind making GMO critics look bad. There is nothing unscientific about questioning the safety of a complex engineered product that we ingest. Just look at the recent Soylent fiasco, which is a much simpler to understand product than GMOs. We are not talking about flat earth or reptilian overlords here. This is a totally legitimate thing to question, and decide to opt-out on until there is more time and data available.
- Kalium 10y ago
  There's no reason to believe that a dangerous plant could not be inadvertently created through regular breeding, either. In fact, we know with 100% certainty that this has occurred. There is excellent reason to be skeptical of everything here. GMOs are not special. Given that we know the worst has occurred with non-GMOs, one would expect intense skepticism of non-GMO breeding. How much data would satisfy you?
  - colordrops 10y ago
    To claim that selective breeding and transgenic modifications are the same is disingenuous.
    - Kalium 10y ago
      I'm saying that selective breeding has literally produced a toxic potato: http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-pota... And of course I won't claim they're the same thing. They're two different ways to the same goal, though. How much time and data would convince you? You say you want to opt out until there is more. How much more?
      - colordrops 10y ago
        Different people have different standards. All I ask for is a simple label on the food. I'm not asking to ban anything or add more rigor to the FDA process or for anyone to change their practices. A simple label. It is utterly bizarre to me that anyone finds this offensive.
        flukus 10y ago
        This is all I want, a label I'm happy to ignore. Then this silly debate can go away.
        nitrogen 10y ago
        Sure, but the label tells us nothing unless it identifies the particular strain(s) that have been modified. Simple "GMO" vs. "non-GMO" labels are anti-informative. They have net negative utility as they don't tell us whether something is safe or dangerous, they just muddy a discussion that could be perfectly clear. IMO anti-GMO advocates should be pushing for more specific strain/cultivar labels on food, not just a useless label that says "produced with genetic engineering." Then pro-GMO, tentatively accepting, and anti-GMO groups can all be satisfied.

colordrops 10y ago

> as they add no usable information w.r.t. safety or nutrition. That is where the disagreement lies. It is not clear to everyone that all current and future GMOs are safe. To patronize and label skeptics as unscientific is intellectually dishonest and a form of orwellian groupthink. There are plenty of people in the industry that claim that GMOs are not very well tested. There is no scientific reason to believe that a dangerous GMO could not be inadvertently created. A degenerate case would be to insert pufferfish toxin genes into a tomato. Obviously no one would do that intentionally, but a much more subtle issue could be carried over in a more seemingly benign gene transfer. To claim that we understand everything that genes do is a utter lie. They are orders of magnitude more complex than software, and yet we introduce bugs into software all the time. There is also lot of money and political interest behind making GMO critics look bad. There is nothing unscientific about questioning the safety of a complex engineered product that we ingest. Just look at the recent Soylent fiasco, which is a much simpler to understand product than GMOs. We are not talking about flat earth or reptilian overlords here. This is a totally legitimate thing to question, and decide to opt-out on until there is more time and data available.

Kalium 10y ago
There's no reason to believe that a dangerous plant could not be inadvertently created through regular breeding, either. In fact, we know with 100% certainty that this has occurred. There is excellent reason to be skeptical of everything here. GMOs are not special. Given that we know the worst has occurred with non-GMOs, one would expect intense skepticism of non-GMO breeding. How much data would satisfy you?
- colordrops 10y ago
  To claim that selective breeding and transgenic modifications are the same is disingenuous.
  - Kalium 10y ago
    I'm saying that selective breeding has literally produced a toxic potato: http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-potato.html http://boingboing.net/2013/03/25/the-case-of-the-poison-pota... And of course I won't claim they're the same thing. They're two different ways to the same goal, though. How much time and data would convince you? You say you want to opt out until there is more. How much more?
    - colordrops 10y ago
      Different people have different standards. All I ask for is a simple label on the food. I'm not asking to ban anything or add more rigor to the FDA process or for anyone to change their practices. A simple label. It is utterly bizarre to me that anyone finds this offensive.
      - flukus 10y ago
        This is all I want, a label I'm happy to ignore. Then this silly debate can go away.
        nitrogen 10y ago
        Sure, but the label tells us nothing unless it identifies the particular strain(s) that have been modified. Simple "GMO" vs. "non-GMO" labels are anti-informative. They have net negative utility as they don't tell us whether something is safe or dangerous, they just muddy a discussion that could be perfectly clear. IMO anti-GMO advocates should be pushing for more specific strain/cultivar labels on food, not just a useless label that says "produced with genetic engineering." Then pro-GMO, tentatively accepting, and anti-GMO groups can all be satisfied.