6 ms·

> 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

> 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?
  - Kalium 10y ago
    I think GMO cultivars are not different from any other plant cultivar. I think we should label them. All of them, without exception. I don't think this is misleading or manipulative. I do understand why people might disagree. For my own part, I think people should have all the information that can be reasonably made available for decision-making. This included both GMO and non-GMO cultivar information. I dp think giving people GMO data and witholding non-GMO data is an unfair standard. I actually don't think this would frighten people. I think most people would realize they don't actually care. The ones who do could make their own choices. The current public rhetoric is basically that scientists do have to always be right. That this technology is too scary unless it's perfect every time. People are terrified of berries that don't bruise when they get cold or apples that don't turn brown when cut open. Of course we should be cognizant of the risks. We should also be cognizant that they are not fully controllable and act accordingly.
    - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      We agree on general labeling; our disagreement is limited largely to if we should implement that on the part of the market where there is political will for it as a start. The rest of our disagreement is on the role scientists had in public perception of their trade. I think scientists have earned the scepticism they face; you (and another commenter) seem to feel the benefits of rapidly deployed science outweigh the risks; I think you're falling prey to a common human error of underestimating long-tail risk (particularly that others pay), which science has a history of underestimating. I also think you only address strawman versions of the other side, and much of their blanket rejection of your position stems from openly mocking and strawmanning theirs, which when pressed on technical details, you admit is a valid concern. To some capacity, GMO proponents arent necessarily wrong, theyre just assholes.
      - Kalium 10y ago
        I think your approach, limiting implementation to the portion of the market where there is political will, is highly likely to bias results into producing a meaningless outcome. Scary labels on some things and not others really do scare people. That strikes me as poor experimental design, likely to show that if you put scary packaging on some products then fewer people will buy them. I'm pretty sure we know that one already. You're right. I don't believe that engaging with the concerns of anti-GMO activists is a productive course of action. I don't think being sympathetic and a good listener here will be any more helpful than being nice to antivaxxers has been. I think you cannot reason people out of a position rooted in fear. It's very possible that scientists are as bad at handling systemic risks as you say. You very well may be right. However, in this case those systemic risks must be weighed against the other systemic risks we face without GMOs. We are not in a situation where there is a risk-free option on the table, and we do public policy a grave disservice by pretending otherwise for political expediency.
jernfrost 10y ago
Why single out GMO? Why not label food which has been made through mutation breeding / radiation breeding? That ought to be a bigger concern. Except I guess this has been done for so long that pretty much everything already sold in the grocery store as well as organic food would be labeled. You have already been eating tons of this stuff which is potentially more risky than GMO, yet you want to single out GMO for labeling?
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  Two points: 1. I can think there are things wrong with food safety and advocate for new things being done safely at the same time. To some degree, you have to make changes where there's the political will to improve, even if it's not perfect. 2. The rate of mutation and deployment of new cultivars is really the concerning aspect, not the mechanism. I think we should have to label and clone cultivars (while checking for drift) these days, which still isn't perfect but better. I want to make wider changes, but there's no reason not to start with limited changes at the start, particularly if we can do it for the method that's likely to be the long-term winner. GMOs have the economic advantage of precision and control, while they also have the political will around them to effect regulation. So you can effect long-term broad legislation by targetting GMOs at this early stage. So let me ask you this, if I were broadly concerned by food as widely practiced, unregulated pharmacy, why wouldn't I target regulation on a politically hot portion of the market as the wedge for wider reform?
  - Kalium 10y ago
    I would think you'd be concerned to get the food industry on your side. This seems likely to be more difficult than necessary if you propose to shift consumers away from some of their products and hand them inconsistent labeling standards across their product ranges. Besides, free markets don't operate well if buyers have information on only half the products.
- Jill_the_Pill 10y ago
  Holy smokes, that mutation breeding was news to me!

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?
- Kalium 10y ago
  I think GMO cultivars are not different from any other plant cultivar. I think we should label them. All of them, without exception. I don't think this is misleading or manipulative. I do understand why people might disagree. For my own part, I think people should have all the information that can be reasonably made available for decision-making. This included both GMO and non-GMO cultivar information. I dp think giving people GMO data and witholding non-GMO data is an unfair standard. I actually don't think this would frighten people. I think most people would realize they don't actually care. The ones who do could make their own choices. The current public rhetoric is basically that scientists do have to always be right. That this technology is too scary unless it's perfect every time. People are terrified of berries that don't bruise when they get cold or apples that don't turn brown when cut open. Of course we should be cognizant of the risks. We should also be cognizant that they are not fully controllable and act accordingly.
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    We agree on general labeling; our disagreement is limited largely to if we should implement that on the part of the market where there is political will for it as a start. The rest of our disagreement is on the role scientists had in public perception of their trade. I think scientists have earned the scepticism they face; you (and another commenter) seem to feel the benefits of rapidly deployed science outweigh the risks; I think you're falling prey to a common human error of underestimating long-tail risk (particularly that others pay), which science has a history of underestimating. I also think you only address strawman versions of the other side, and much of their blanket rejection of your position stems from openly mocking and strawmanning theirs, which when pressed on technical details, you admit is a valid concern. To some capacity, GMO proponents arent necessarily wrong, theyre just assholes.
    - Kalium 10y ago
      I think your approach, limiting implementation to the portion of the market where there is political will, is highly likely to bias results into producing a meaningless outcome. Scary labels on some things and not others really do scare people. That strikes me as poor experimental design, likely to show that if you put scary packaging on some products then fewer people will buy them. I'm pretty sure we know that one already. You're right. I don't believe that engaging with the concerns of anti-GMO activists is a productive course of action. I don't think being sympathetic and a good listener here will be any more helpful than being nice to antivaxxers has been. I think you cannot reason people out of a position rooted in fear. It's very possible that scientists are as bad at handling systemic risks as you say. You very well may be right. However, in this case those systemic risks must be weighed against the other systemic risks we face without GMOs. We are not in a situation where there is a risk-free option on the table, and we do public policy a grave disservice by pretending otherwise for political expediency.

jernfrost 10y ago

Why single out GMO? Why not label food which has been made through mutation breeding / radiation breeding? That ought to be a bigger concern. Except I guess this has been done for so long that pretty much everything already sold in the grocery store as well as organic food would be labeled. You have already been eating tons of this stuff which is potentially more risky than GMO, yet you want to single out GMO for labeling?

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
Two points: 1. I can think there are things wrong with food safety and advocate for new things being done safely at the same time. To some degree, you have to make changes where there's the political will to improve, even if it's not perfect. 2. The rate of mutation and deployment of new cultivars is really the concerning aspect, not the mechanism. I think we should have to label and clone cultivars (while checking for drift) these days, which still isn't perfect but better. I want to make wider changes, but there's no reason not to start with limited changes at the start, particularly if we can do it for the method that's likely to be the long-term winner. GMOs have the economic advantage of precision and control, while they also have the political will around them to effect regulation. So you can effect long-term broad legislation by targetting GMOs at this early stage. So let me ask you this, if I were broadly concerned by food as widely practiced, unregulated pharmacy, why wouldn't I target regulation on a politically hot portion of the market as the wedge for wider reform?
- Kalium 10y ago
  I would think you'd be concerned to get the food industry on your side. This seems likely to be more difficult than necessary if you propose to shift consumers away from some of their products and hand them inconsistent labeling standards across their product ranges. Besides, free markets don't operate well if buyers have information on only half the products.
Jill_the_Pill 10y ago
Holy smokes, that mutation breeding was news to me!