7 ms·

Much of the food chemistry from, say, the 1930s to 1970s turned out to be dangerous to health. Much of it turned out to be essential for a major population boom

Much of the food chemistry from, say, the 1930s to 1970s turned out to be dangerous to health. Much of it turned out to be essential for a major population boom. We all see the potential for human well-being that GMOs offer, but scientists have a long history of misassessing (or lying about) risks early in a field's development. It troubles me that GMO proponents don't address the frequent and life-destroying failures of science when experimenting with new technologies. (For potential GMO trouble, see the honey bee debate.) I think that much of this will be settled in about 100 years -- the time it takes to run a reasonable 3 generation study on long-term health and epigenetic risks. Is it really so unreasonable people only want to partially transfer something as critical to the existence and well-being of the species as base food production to a new system until after it's able to sustain a full generational cycle? Lots of problems are hard to detect in less than 1 or 2 full generations, such as systemic cancer risk.

Kalium 10y ago
It's not that people are unwilling to address real, serious concerns. It's that there's little belief that the concerns are raised in good faith and that they can be addressed. The nature of science is that it's always possible to demand more sigmas, and there's skepticism that it's possible to ever provide enough sigmas here. I think people are being unreasonable because they are trying to assert a degree of control people don't actually have. People want to believe that there are easy, clear controls on this stuff. That we can stay on the safe system we have now if we wish. There aren't those controls. They aren't possible. CRISPR can be done in a high school biology lab. The genie's out of the bottle, and the bottle is dust. To top it off, the system we have now isn't nearly as safe as we like to pretend. We get famine and agricultural disasters regularly today. without any GMOs involved. You're absolutely right. There are a lot of problems that are difficult to detect without fifty or seventy years of study. I submit that this is why societies have developed systems for dealing with those problems, instead of avoiding risks entirely.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  > I submit that this is why societies have developed systems for dealing with those problems, instead of avoiding risks entirely And that's why I said before we roll over our entire food production system, not any of it. What I'm saying is we should leave their risk preference up to individuals, and allow them to pick their exposure to new science -- using things like GMO labels. (Tracking numbers for cultivars in a databse would be good, just like chemical data.) I just find your insistence that the public isn't allowed to give science as an institution a prior on "going to pose a health risk with new technology" to be unethical. Science has had many high profile safety failures regarding new technologies being rolled out, particularly in food, and it's entirely fair for the public to respond, even if they don't have specific objections at present. Why trust people with a history of systematic mistakes to be right at first blush?
  - Kalium 10y ago
    I think GMOs are not special in the health risks potentially posed, and as a result do not believe that GMOs should get special labeling requirements. I think doing otherwise is base fearmongering. I do not think it's reasonable that the public is trying to give science-the-institution a prior on "be absolutely, 100% certain that no risks are posed with new technology". I think the public is unreasonably expecting proof of perfection and an impossible level of control via policy. Science doesn't produce infinite sigmas. You can't get that control over CRISPR, the equipment and skill required are too low. Yes, there is a history that includes a number of failures. That history also includes stunning successes. I think it's unreasonable to demand that science only ever produce successes. We trust people with a history of systemic mistakes because they're also the only ones with the history of systemic success in this arena.
    - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      I just think that GMO cultivars should be required to be identified the way chemicals are, and meet similar safety standards to other food additives. In many ways that's what they are: an added chemical to a standard product. (Though, I support identifying them by bundles, ie, cultivars.) Do you think that's an unfair standard -- that a new technology be labled like other technologies, so people can be aware that it's happening? I get that you want to manipulate people and not allow them choice "for the right reasons", but do you really not understand why Im not okay with that? I can outline the history of that thought, and the dire consequences, if you'd like. You also misunderstood the prior. The prior is merely on "this technology will be dangerous to use for the first N years". I think that's a perfectly fine prior to have, and science has a history of underestimating those risks because they're (understandably) confident in their work (and bear almost none of the cost). No one is saying scientists have to always be right, just we should be cognizant of their systematic optimism about technology maturity and risk. And therefore, we should be about 3-4 decades more cautious than scientists call to be on technology rollovers of key infrastructure. Which, given when they started to be rolled out, would be a couple decades from now for total adoption of GMOs. Ed: I suppose my question about GMOs is this -- if there's no improper motive, what's the hurry to make the transition? We're not starved for land for farming in the US, farming is making acceptable profits, etc. We have the resources to easily sustain a culture wide trial period of a few more decades (a generation from the start), where I believe that GMOs will be able to mature and show their safety and benefit. What I don't get is why most GMO proponents go "Nah, fuck safety, science didn't mess up this time." They won't benefit in any appreciable way, only companies of which they're not owners will, but they're taking on the risk for someone else's reward. PR, eh?
- scythe 10y ago
  >People want to believe that there are easy, clear controls on this stuff. That we can stay on the safe system we have now if we wish. I have been convinced for a while that it should be possible, easy even, to separate GMOs into two categories: * those which are designed to kill something, be it an insect, fungus, bacterium, or whatever, by producing a chemical or something reasonably similar * those which are designed for any other reason than killing pests I think it isn't unfair that the first category should see more suspicion than the second category. A poison, regardless of what species it's directed at, is still a poison. I also think it would be reasonable to have separate labeling for the first category, but not for the second category, since it should be possible to test for foods being in the first category (by e.g. GC/MS). One thing that we've learned from the history of antibiotics is that quick-fix chemical solutions to pest control are really hard to get right. In particular, an unexpected antimicrobial compound can interfere with existing microbiota of some person or animal; particularly if they are immune-deficient this is a serious concern.
  - Kalium 10y ago
    One of the first GMOs that got people really worked up was the "fishberry". It's a fruit engineered to better resist low bruising in low temperatures. Nothing involved pesticides of any sort. I suspect you will find most anti-GMO activists do not want and will not support separate labeling as you describe.
- crpatino 10y ago
  > Yes, there is a history that includes a number of failures. That history also includes stunning successes. I think it's unreasonable to demand that science only ever produce successes. > We trust people with a history of systemic mistakes because they're also the only ones with the history of systemic success in this arena. You are factually wrong here. Science as we know it today is, what?, 150 years old? Are you really saying that all the achievements of human civilization up to ~1870 were plain dumb luck???? I don't know you, but, when I try to convince people of something, calling them idiots is generally a bad idea. More over, your claim comes of as self serving and disengineous: "How dare you point out our mistakes, we have had plenty of successes too". This attitude is eroding faith of the common people in science, and there's no one but the scientists to blame for that. The antivaxes might be all wrong, but I don't blame them for distrusting people that talks them down like that.
  - Kalium 10y ago
    OK. What kind of attitude do you think should be adopted and how should it be different? How should I sound? I'm assuming you mean some kind of humility here. Have you seen what happens when antivaxxers are treated with respect, heard out, and their fears listened to? I have.
    - GMOman 10y ago
      Comparing anti-GMOers to antivaxxers is disingenuous. Anti-GMOers not eating GMO food doesn't hurt you, antivaxxers doing their thing does.
      - Kalium 10y ago
        They may not be hurting me directly, but there are certainly people who are being hurt by lack of access to GMOs because of anti-GMOers. Golden rice could help a great many people, but activists against it have helped make sure it doesn't. Their fear has not been without a human cost.
        GMOman 10y ago
- soufron 10y ago
  So... You're explaining that's it's too dangerous and too difficult to control? And so people would be "unreasonnable" in trying to prevent it? Are you serious? Also, big news. High school kids have knives at schools! Is that also a case of... "The genie's out of the bootle" BS?
  - Kalium 10y ago
    Dangerous? No. It's just not practical to control in the same way it's not practical to control who has access to compilers.
JamesBarney 10y ago
Waiting 100 years for technology to prove itself safe through multi-generational studies has a cost. If we had delayed the green revolution a billion people would have died of starvation, hungrily waiting for the technology to be approved.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  If you read my other comments, you'll see I advocate for largely regulatory labeling and free-market decision making with that information -- that people should be allowed to pick their own exposure to risk. The long term, multi-generational studies was talking about before a forced, society-wide rollover from old technologies. I expect many starving people would elect to eat experimental food. But I also think it's unethical to not tell them it's experimental. Is that position unfair in your mind? I certainly don't believe it's fair to claim tons of people would have starved if we'd added a little label.
  - JamesBarney 10y ago
    Sorry didn't read your other comments, but that makes a lot more sense.

Kalium 10y ago

It's not that people are unwilling to address real, serious concerns. It's that there's little belief that the concerns are raised in good faith and that they can be addressed. The nature of science is that it's always possible to demand more sigmas, and there's skepticism that it's possible to ever provide enough sigmas here. I think people are being unreasonable because they are trying to assert a degree of control people don't actually have. People want to believe that there are easy, clear controls on this stuff. That we can stay on the safe system we have now if we wish. There aren't those controls. They aren't possible. CRISPR can be done in a high school biology lab. The genie's out of the bottle, and the bottle is dust. To top it off, the system we have now isn't nearly as safe as we like to pretend. We get famine and agricultural disasters regularly today. without any GMOs involved. You're absolutely right. There are a lot of problems that are difficult to detect without fifty or seventy years of study. I submit that this is why societies have developed systems for dealing with those problems, instead of avoiding risks entirely.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
> I submit that this is why societies have developed systems for dealing with those problems, instead of avoiding risks entirely And that's why I said before we roll over our entire food production system, not any of it. What I'm saying is we should leave their risk preference up to individuals, and allow them to pick their exposure to new science -- using things like GMO labels. (Tracking numbers for cultivars in a databse would be good, just like chemical data.) I just find your insistence that the public isn't allowed to give science as an institution a prior on "going to pose a health risk with new technology" to be unethical. Science has had many high profile safety failures regarding new technologies being rolled out, particularly in food, and it's entirely fair for the public to respond, even if they don't have specific objections at present. Why trust people with a history of systematic mistakes to be right at first blush?
- Kalium 10y ago
  I think GMOs are not special in the health risks potentially posed, and as a result do not believe that GMOs should get special labeling requirements. I think doing otherwise is base fearmongering. I do not think it's reasonable that the public is trying to give science-the-institution a prior on "be absolutely, 100% certain that no risks are posed with new technology". I think the public is unreasonably expecting proof of perfection and an impossible level of control via policy. Science doesn't produce infinite sigmas. You can't get that control over CRISPR, the equipment and skill required are too low. Yes, there is a history that includes a number of failures. That history also includes stunning successes. I think it's unreasonable to demand that science only ever produce successes. We trust people with a history of systemic mistakes because they're also the only ones with the history of systemic success in this arena.
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    I just think that GMO cultivars should be required to be identified the way chemicals are, and meet similar safety standards to other food additives. In many ways that's what they are: an added chemical to a standard product. (Though, I support identifying them by bundles, ie, cultivars.) Do you think that's an unfair standard -- that a new technology be labled like other technologies, so people can be aware that it's happening? I get that you want to manipulate people and not allow them choice "for the right reasons", but do you really not understand why Im not okay with that? I can outline the history of that thought, and the dire consequences, if you'd like. You also misunderstood the prior. The prior is merely on "this technology will be dangerous to use for the first N years". I think that's a perfectly fine prior to have, and science has a history of underestimating those risks because they're (understandably) confident in their work (and bear almost none of the cost). No one is saying scientists have to always be right, just we should be cognizant of their systematic optimism about technology maturity and risk. And therefore, we should be about 3-4 decades more cautious than scientists call to be on technology rollovers of key infrastructure. Which, given when they started to be rolled out, would be a couple decades from now for total adoption of GMOs. Ed: I suppose my question about GMOs is this -- if there's no improper motive, what's the hurry to make the transition? We're not starved for land for farming in the US, farming is making acceptable profits, etc. We have the resources to easily sustain a culture wide trial period of a few more decades (a generation from the start), where I believe that GMOs will be able to mature and show their safety and benefit. What I don't get is why most GMO proponents go "Nah, fuck safety, science didn't mess up this time." They won't benefit in any appreciable way, only companies of which they're not owners will, but they're taking on the risk for someone else's reward. PR, eh?
scythe 10y ago
>People want to believe that there are easy, clear controls on this stuff. That we can stay on the safe system we have now if we wish. I have been convinced for a while that it should be possible, easy even, to separate GMOs into two categories: * those which are designed to kill something, be it an insect, fungus, bacterium, or whatever, by producing a chemical or something reasonably similar * those which are designed for any other reason than killing pests I think it isn't unfair that the first category should see more suspicion than the second category. A poison, regardless of what species it's directed at, is still a poison. I also think it would be reasonable to have separate labeling for the first category, but not for the second category, since it should be possible to test for foods being in the first category (by e.g. GC/MS). One thing that we've learned from the history of antibiotics is that quick-fix chemical solutions to pest control are really hard to get right. In particular, an unexpected antimicrobial compound can interfere with existing microbiota of some person or animal; particularly if they are immune-deficient this is a serious concern.
- Kalium 10y ago
  One of the first GMOs that got people really worked up was the "fishberry". It's a fruit engineered to better resist low bruising in low temperatures. Nothing involved pesticides of any sort. I suspect you will find most anti-GMO activists do not want and will not support separate labeling as you describe.
crpatino 10y ago
> Yes, there is a history that includes a number of failures. That history also includes stunning successes. I think it's unreasonable to demand that science only ever produce successes. > We trust people with a history of systemic mistakes because they're also the only ones with the history of systemic success in this arena. You are factually wrong here. Science as we know it today is, what?, 150 years old? Are you really saying that all the achievements of human civilization up to ~1870 were plain dumb luck???? I don't know you, but, when I try to convince people of something, calling them idiots is generally a bad idea. More over, your claim comes of as self serving and disengineous: "How dare you point out our mistakes, we have had plenty of successes too". This attitude is eroding faith of the common people in science, and there's no one but the scientists to blame for that. The antivaxes might be all wrong, but I don't blame them for distrusting people that talks them down like that.
- Kalium 10y ago
  OK. What kind of attitude do you think should be adopted and how should it be different? How should I sound? I'm assuming you mean some kind of humility here. Have you seen what happens when antivaxxers are treated with respect, heard out, and their fears listened to? I have.
  - GMOman 10y ago
    Comparing anti-GMOers to antivaxxers is disingenuous. Anti-GMOers not eating GMO food doesn't hurt you, antivaxxers doing their thing does.
    - Kalium 10y ago
      They may not be hurting me directly, but there are certainly people who are being hurt by lack of access to GMOs because of anti-GMOers. Golden rice could help a great many people, but activists against it have helped make sure it doesn't. Their fear has not been without a human cost.
      - GMOman 10y ago
soufron 10y ago
So... You're explaining that's it's too dangerous and too difficult to control? And so people would be "unreasonnable" in trying to prevent it? Are you serious? Also, big news. High school kids have knives at schools! Is that also a case of... "The genie's out of the bootle" BS?
- Kalium 10y ago
  Dangerous? No. It's just not practical to control in the same way it's not practical to control who has access to compilers.

JamesBarney 10y ago

Waiting 100 years for technology to prove itself safe through multi-generational studies has a cost. If we had delayed the green revolution a billion people would have died of starvation, hungrily waiting for the technology to be approved.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
If you read my other comments, you'll see I advocate for largely regulatory labeling and free-market decision making with that information -- that people should be allowed to pick their own exposure to risk. The long term, multi-generational studies was talking about before a forced, society-wide rollover from old technologies. I expect many starving people would elect to eat experimental food. But I also think it's unethical to not tell them it's experimental. Is that position unfair in your mind? I certainly don't believe it's fair to claim tons of people would have starved if we'd added a little label.
- JamesBarney 10y ago
  Sorry didn't read your other comments, but that makes a lot more sense.