4 ms·

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 wa

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
I'd just like to address an overall sentiment. There is this idea that science screws up now and then and we all get hurt so it is ALWAYS good to be skeptical. I think that is an equally dangerous thought. More people have died and gotten hurt from being skeptical to science than those who have died due to science. When science suggested you should clean yourself before doing surgery, delivering babies etc, then Semmelweis got laughed at. People thought they should stick to what they "know". People of science got burned for suggesting the earth orbited the sun. A scientific approach determined that we should wear seat-belts in cars. Still a lot of people around the world being skeptical towards these expert suggestions die. People die from not getting vaccines, because they believe more in their "feelings" then hard science. The point is there is no alternative to science. If GMO was ever proved unsafe it would be through the scientific method, not by peopling "feeling" their way to an answer.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  People like you are what's wrong with science. Get off the strawman soapbox. The actual analogy of my position: "That washing thing is radical, let's trial it in a quarter of the cases based on early results and compare outcomes." That's the perfectly rational response to a radical, but promising change. Not to switch all the ORs based on preliminary results. Pretending that "we should roll out GMOs slowly because we're bad at systemic risk and this is important" is the same as "burn people for talking about heliocentric systems" is just nonsense zealotry from you. Which is why people are concerned about GMOs -- doubting zealots is good practice.
opo 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. This idea that GMOs are unregulated is a myth. If someone wants to argue for more testing, that is one thing, but in doing a simple google search it is easy to see that there is certainly oversight: >...The three main agencies involved in regulating GMOs are the US Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). >...APHIS regulates the planting, importation, or transportation of GM plants pursuant to its authority under the Plant Protection Act (PPA),[23] which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to “prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of any plant, plant product [etc.] if the Secretary determines [it] is necessary to prevent the introduction . . . of a plant pest or noxious weed within the United States.”[24] By regulation, APHIS classifies most GM plants as plant pests or potential plant pests and as “regulated articles.”[25] Under the PPA, a regulated article must receive prior approval from APHIS before it is introduced.[26] >APHIS grants authorization to use GM plants in three ways: through a notification process, a permitting process, or a determination of nonregulated status. >...In a 1992 policy statement, the FDA reaffirmed that in most cases it would treat foods derived from GMOs like those derived from conventionally bred plants, and that most foods derived from GM plants would be presumptively GRAS. However, with respect to a GMO product “that differs significantly in structure, function, or composition from substances found currently in food,” premarket approval of the substance as a food additive would be required.[47] >...The EPA regulates pesticides and microorganisms developed through genetic engineering. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php

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

I'd just like to address an overall sentiment. There is this idea that science screws up now and then and we all get hurt so it is ALWAYS good to be skeptical. I think that is an equally dangerous thought. More people have died and gotten hurt from being skeptical to science than those who have died due to science. When science suggested you should clean yourself before doing surgery, delivering babies etc, then Semmelweis got laughed at. People thought they should stick to what they "know". People of science got burned for suggesting the earth orbited the sun. A scientific approach determined that we should wear seat-belts in cars. Still a lot of people around the world being skeptical towards these expert suggestions die. People die from not getting vaccines, because they believe more in their "feelings" then hard science. The point is there is no alternative to science. If GMO was ever proved unsafe it would be through the scientific method, not by peopling "feeling" their way to an answer.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
People like you are what's wrong with science. Get off the strawman soapbox. The actual analogy of my position: "That washing thing is radical, let's trial it in a quarter of the cases based on early results and compare outcomes." That's the perfectly rational response to a radical, but promising change. Not to switch all the ORs based on preliminary results. Pretending that "we should roll out GMOs slowly because we're bad at systemic risk and this is important" is the same as "burn people for talking about heliocentric systems" is just nonsense zealotry from you. Which is why people are concerned about GMOs -- doubting zealots is good practice.

opo 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. This idea that GMOs are unregulated is a myth. If someone wants to argue for more testing, that is one thing, but in doing a simple google search it is easy to see that there is certainly oversight: >...The three main agencies involved in regulating GMOs are the US Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). >...APHIS regulates the planting, importation, or transportation of GM plants pursuant to its authority under the Plant Protection Act (PPA),[23] which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to “prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of any plant, plant product [etc.] if the Secretary determines [it] is necessary to prevent the introduction . . . of a plant pest or noxious weed within the United States.”[24] By regulation, APHIS classifies most GM plants as plant pests or potential plant pests and as “regulated articles.”[25] Under the PPA, a regulated article must receive prior approval from APHIS before it is introduced.[26] >APHIS grants authorization to use GM plants in three ways: through a notification process, a permitting process, or a determination of nonregulated status. >...In a 1992 policy statement, the FDA reaffirmed that in most cases it would treat foods derived from GMOs like those derived from conventionally bred plants, and that most foods derived from GM plants would be presumptively GRAS. However, with respect to a GMO product “that differs significantly in structure, function, or composition from substances found currently in food,” premarket approval of the substance as a food additive would be required.[47] >...The EPA regulates pesticides and microorganisms developed through genetic engineering. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php