13 ms·

Every time the jury is out on a topic where one side has a vested interest and a billion dollar budget to protect it, you can be reasonably sure what the outcom

Every time the jury is out on a topic where one side has a vested interest and a billion dollar budget to protect it, you can be reasonably sure what the outcome will be. See: pesticides and bees, fossil fuels and climate change, food packaging plastics and cancer, pain treatment meds and addiction. The answer in all those cases is the harmful effects eventually became known, but the jury was out long enough for the vested interests to make a ton of profit and cause a ton of damage which they'll never pay for repairing. All made possible with a series of comparatively small investments to buy scientific research to keep the jury out. The Wikipedia section that the parent post links to straight up says that the only research that found no links was sponsored by Monsanto. Edit: to be really clear, 'jury being out' refers to scientific consensus. We are not talking about issues where public opinion is uncertain despite scientific consensus, such as vaccines+autism. We are talking about issues where scientific evaluation of some phenomenon is actively prolonged or hindered by vested interests to delay regulatory action.

asfasgasg 8y ago
Counterexamples: asbestos, tobacco, alcohol, fossil fuels, climate change. (On the latter two, the studies mostly have the correct outcome. What is difficult is convincing half of the American population that that matters.)
- briandear 8y ago
  Who has supported the asbestos industry? Has there ever been a company that actually promotes asbestos?
  - dvogel 8y ago
    Yes, in fact asbestos is still mined and marketed today: https://youtu.be/cy3piCUPIkc https://youtu.be/cy3piCUPIkc
    - userbinator 8y ago
      Only white asbestos (also known as Chrysotile) --- and the great number of people who have been exposed to large amounts of it and lived long healthy lives certainly makes one wonder; AFAIK it's only the other types, particularly blue asbestos, which are unanimously carcinogenic and the industry stopped using them a long time ago, but the effects from that (and contamination of white asbestos with the other types) have continued and led the majority of fears. This article is worth reading: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3581056/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3581056/
      - dboreham 8y ago
        In the case of Mesothelioma I believe there's a fair amount of evidence that you need both : 1) Asbestos exposure and 2) to be a smoker. This might explain why some people exposed to asbestos remain healthy. https://www.mesothelioma.com/blog/authors/staff/smoking-asbestos-and-asbestosis-increases-risk-for-lung-cancer.htm https://www.mesothelioma.com/blog/authors/staff/smoking-asbe...
  - Bud 8y ago
    Well, um, definitely yes. https://www.pinterest.com/braytonpurcell/vintage-asbestos-advertisements/ https://www.pinterest.com/braytonpurcell/vintage-asbestos-ad...
  - fbarred 8y ago
    Not a company exactly, but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POB3Dr0uonc&t=75 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POB3Dr0uonc&t=75
- quietbritishjim 8y ago
  Tobacco is definitely not a counter example; the industry managed to cover up / confuse the evidence for years.
vkou 8y ago
Also see: Aircraft contrails and mind control, water flouridation and turning our children into Communists, cell phone towers and cancer, vaccination and autism. [1] [1] None of these associations are actually true, but much ink and some research funding was spilled on the subject.
- dbasedweeb 8y ago
  None of those are what an honest/sane individual would call borderline either, so why bring them up?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- buvanshak 8y ago
  >None of these associations are actually true, Have you done research on any of these yourself? Also, I don't think you can put all those things in the same basket. For example, the last two. Doing the research on those might require huge resources that are way above the head of a single individual or small organization... And in similar manner, every such issue might have different aspects that it might be stupid to generalize all of them into one category. Human beings have a natural tendency to do this, which is why we are so easy to fool. May be, don't try to do that...
briandear 8y ago
So every single time a “vested interest” cares about something, they are wrong? Environmental groups have a vested interest in promoting catastrophe as it increases fundraising and their influence and power. I am not saying that all environmental groups are “bad” or “wrong” but they have equal incentive to trumpet their view of the world. You don’t think billion dollar alternative energy companies don’t have incentive to overstate the case against fossil fuels? Guys like George Soros, often seen as charitable, have made billions of dollars by sowing discord and destabilization. His massive profit in shorting the pound is legendary. Could it be at least a little possible that everyone has a vested interest in something and facts don’t necessary matter? The Sierra Club CEO makes over $600,000 per year at a non-profit! You don’t thing the Sierra Club has any vested interests tied to promoting specific agendas? There are multiple sides to every story and it’s folly to assume that any side is acting benevolently.
- gowld 8y ago
  Soros didn't destabilize the pound. The Bank of England destabilized the pound. Soros said it was a bad idea, and put his money where is mouth was, and made a fortune because he was right.
- cure 8y ago
  The "vested interests" have the sole purpose of making money for their shareholders. They are corporations, and that is the definition of capitalism. The purpose of environmental groups is to protect the environment. Who would be the most likely to act benevolently? Are the environmentalists perfect? No. They are human. They make mistakes. Sometimes they do things that are counterproductive or totally ineffective. But their goal is to protect the environment. I'd call that benevolence. On the whole, it's also far more likely for the environmentalists to get hurt or killed than the other way around. In 2017, four environmentalists were killed every week by the "vested interests". Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/02/almost-four-environmental-defenders-a-week-killed-in-2017 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/02/almost-f... To summarize, your argument seems to be something like "Hey, look, the environmentalists are not perfect, we can't trust anyone, so we must stop attacking the polluters, they must be totally innocent!". And that's just FUD.
tptacek 8y ago
Much of what's been written about bees and pesticides is also probably bullshit (not to put too fine a point on it). American honey bees are livestock, not wildlife.
- gerbilly 8y ago
  >American honey bees are livestock, not wildlife. Then if it's harming European honeybees, which are livestock as you say, do you not think it might be plausible that native pollinators and others insects might also be affected? The "livestock" line is just a talking point, and the pesticide industry is pleased as punch every time we repeat it for them.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    I think if we were serious about native wildlife we'd address habitat loss instead of fixating on comic book opponents like "the pesticide industry". Either way: reports of the impending bee-pocalypse are extraordinarily overrated.
    - kaitai 8y ago
      Can't agree; know too many hobbyist beekeepers who've had 20-40 years beekeeping who can't keep a hive alive through a winter now. When I was a kid peoples' hives survived a harsh Minnesota winter. Now they all die even though we don't have enough snow to ski.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        We don't have to guess or extrapolate from anecdotes; the price of pollination services are tracked, and have grown low single-digit percentages over the last several years, just like prices in general.
        nothrabannosir 8y ago
        Complete outsider to this: any chance that is due to external factors, such as increase in number of competitors (perhaps foreign), or reduced demand (e.g. new alternatives)?
hueving 8y ago
This conveniently ignores the other side of the coin where interests are aligned and it's the conspiracy theorists that are harmful (e.g. vaccine manufactures and autism). All functioning economies have vested interests in things good and bad. The only thing a vested interest means is that scrutiny is needed on the actions of the vested parties.
- random4369 8y ago
  On what planet is the jury out about vaccines and autism? There's not a single research paper suggesting a link between those. You are falsely conflating scientific consensus with public opinion.
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    SO what about cell phone radiation and cancer, or maybe GMO food and cancer?
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      What about that fiction?
    - sincerely 8y ago
      a pretty informative read re: cell phones and cancer: https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/ https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-t... (as usual, article headline is clickbait, not chosen by writer, please do not judge the content based on the title)
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        Could you do the TL;DR of that? I skimmed it, because it's the long-form type of read I hate (little meat, lots of unrelated stories). Is there anything there that stands up to the standard counterargument called "non-ionizing radiation"?
  - 8y ago
jjoonathan 8y ago
In college, I did a deep dive into GMO safety research for journal club back when the Seralini "GMOs cause cancer in mice" paper hit (2010 or thereabouts) and found quite a counterexample to your rule: bogus (obviously p-hacked) science from Seralini and an aggressive misinformation campaign from Greenpeace to convince people that Monsanto was using terminator genes (bio-DRM) against poor farmers when the truth had been quite the opposite for some time (Monsanto patented the idea, promised not to use it, and kept the promise). Blind opposition to industrial progress -- which is what you are suggesting -- carried by the rising tide of public opinion will cause a ton of damage in the century to come, and the damage will never be repaid. EDIT: oh, and there's a National Toxicology Program study -- "cell phones cause cancer" would be the sensationalized headline -- working its way through the bureaucratic pipes at the moment with another round of "review" landing in a few months. Somehow it got through the first draft and review process while completely ignoring the first law of toxicology, so I suspect it will pass the second round as well, and while I trust the official document will contain sufficiently reserved wording the media circus that spins up around it will become a second excellent example of bullshit from the "little guys."
- headsoup 8y ago
  You're just throwing out the tu quoque fallacy for I'm not sure what reason. Hey the 'other side' does it too so let's not make a big deal here! Black and white opposition to everything with cherry-picked arguments is becoming more and more prevalent, and it doesn't help us solve (or even rationally discuss) any problems or even understand them better.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    That's in fact not an instance of the tu quoque fallacy.
    - headsoup 8y ago
      It is. You're implying that the other commenter's post is invalid as 'blind opposition' because 'their side' of the argument behaves the same. * Edit on below: On re-reading you're correct, you were categorising their comment. My apologies!
pilsetnieks 8y ago
> pesticides and bees The EU is implementing a total ban on neonicotinoid pesticides by the end of 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/27/eu-agrees-total-ban-on-bee-harming-pesticides https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/27/eu-agree...
- pluma 8y ago
  Only for outside use. They are still legal for use in greenhouses. I'm not disagreeing that this means they acknowledge the potential harm for bees, but it's not a "total ban".
topmonk 8y ago
Don't forget leaded gasoline: https://www.thenation.com/article/secret-history-lead/ https://www.thenation.com/article/secret-history-lead/
- buvanshak 8y ago
  I think that the common people have no way of knowing the real truth about something. And all our decisions should be based on this simple fact of modern life...
  - vincnetas 8y ago
    Why so pessimistic? Aren't there any independent labs where you can send your samples for testing and then see results for your self? Send to multiple labs for more control.
    - buvanshak 8y ago
      This is not always possible. For example, take the claim that a certain thing X in some eatables is harmful/not harmful for human beings. Such a thing might not be possible without long term study. Or the claim that smoking will kill you, but what if you want to know if smoking moderately is as bad as exposing to automobile pollution every day? Or living in an area with polluted air. Mainstream narrative today emphasizes on the dangers of smoking, but it does not really does the same with automobile pollution? What if you want to know the truth about this? Can this be so easily done by a common man? Even in cases where this is possible, like pesticide residue in vegetables, You might have to run the experiments for a large number of samples for some amount of time to get a real picture. Which might be feasible, but way out of the comfort zone of a concerned person, who has a normal life and the associated hassles to deal with...
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        Those cases have another interesting feature - you're wasting time worrying about them. When scientists have problems figuring out whether or how much something is harmful, it's because it's so harmless it's hard to measure. If e.g. artificial sweeteners caused cancers the way many believe, you'd see people dropping dead left and right, with cancers clearly linkable to the use of sweeteners. Those studies are obviously important, on a population scale. For individuals, obsessing about those things too much puts you in more danger to your health than those things could ever cause.
hawkice 8y ago
Not all ignorance is deliberate. Almost none of it is -- ignorance is the default. Some things we don't know yet. Others have effect sizes so small distinguishing them from zero is a true and deep challenge, even with tremendous study done. Some things actually do have effect sizes of zero, and no amount of evidence will stop people from demanding more study.
- buvanshak 8y ago
  And also, Any amount of study does not say much if all of them uses flawed methodologies ("but that is the best we have" does not make it any better), which has been a serious issue lately..
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
Anti-GMO is a multibillion industry. There are rich, vested interests on both sides of this debate.
resnapremi 8y ago
> See: pesticides and bees, fossil fuels and climate change, food packaging plastics and cancer, pain treatment meds and addiction. Cigarettes come to mind, too.
credit_guy 8y ago
>The Wikipedia section that the parent post links to straight up says that the only research that found no links was sponsored by Monsanto. By my count the section lists 7 studies, 3 show no links and 4 show links.
rapind 8y ago
You can probably add cigarettes to that list.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
> "All made possible with a series of comparatively small investments to buy scientific research to keep the jury out." I agree with 99.9% of what you said, except this bit. I hate to mince words __but it's essential to this tactic__. Simply put: This is __not__ - and never should be considered - scientific research. It's fiction. It's a perversion. It's the kind of nonsense Orwell warned us about. There is only one thing more unconscionable: "Real" Science and its ilk remains silent. In addition, certainly, the FDA isn't the only lab capable of making making these test. But this is contemporary / modern science. Again. Is it any wonder so many have so much doubt?
hannob 8y ago
>Every time the jury is out on a topic where one side has a vested interest and a billion dollar budget to protect it, > you can be reasonably sure what the outcome will be. > See: pesticides and bees, fossil fuels and climate change, food packaging plastics and cancer, pain treatment meds and addiction. I'm not sure you notice the grave strangeness of your comment. There's no jury out there on climate change. The basics are pretty clear. I also think the relation of some pesticides and bees dying is hardly controversial (though it gets muddy when you get into the details and ask which pesticides). For plastic packaging and cancer I'm not sure what the evidence says, but I guess it's complicated. I don't think any scientist seriously doubts that pain medication can be addictive (again, details may be more complicated and uncertain). So you have 3 examples where the science is contrary to the interest of a billion dollar vested interest. What do you make of that? (Of course having settled science doesn't mean political action follows, which is most evident when it comes to climate change. But that's a different question.)
- ipioxu15 8y ago
  There's nothing strange: GP is giving those as historical examples of this sort of behavior by the industry, not claiming the jury is out today on these topics. Especially with climate change, there is no doubt the industry has done all it can to cloud the issue in the past, and still continues it. You could add other things (e.g. smoking) to the list.
jamespo 8y ago
You know there is a multibillion industry with vested interests against GMO: the organic food lobby.
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
>> See: pesticides and bees, fossil fuels and climate change, food packaging plastics and cancer, pain treatment meds and addiction. Also, Asbestos, DDT, Thalidomide, etc. I find that in discussions like this people often automatically adopt a defensive stance For Science, Technology and Progress, but they're missing the point that it is not science (i.e. scientists, or the scientific method) that is responsible for disasters like that- it's corporations. And they care not one jot about science, technology or progress, let alone feeding the poor or curing the ailing, or anything humantiarian and compassionate like that. It's the industry that destroys the environment and causes public health disasters, then tries its best to keep it all under wraps while people die. Bottom line- defending big financial interests is not defending science. It's just defending someone else's money.
cryoshon 8y ago
yep, you hit the nail on the head here. often, the real evidence is extremely clear, but there is enough obfuscation created by those with an agenda to make things look inconclusive. yet another example is polygraph tests and similar more modern devices. all of the independent evidence says they're trash. but "the jury is still out" because there are a slew of very low quality studies performed by people hired by the companies who make the devices. anyhow, we've known that monsanto was lying about this for quite some time, and we have also known that they have corrupted the parts of the US government responsible for regulating their behavior for quite some time. it isn't okay for pesticides to be in our food.

asfasgasg 8y ago

Counterexamples: asbestos, tobacco, alcohol, fossil fuels, climate change. (On the latter two, the studies mostly have the correct outcome. What is difficult is convincing half of the American population that that matters.)

briandear 8y ago
Who has supported the asbestos industry? Has there ever been a company that actually promotes asbestos?
- dvogel 8y ago
  Yes, in fact asbestos is still mined and marketed today: https://youtu.be/cy3piCUPIkc https://youtu.be/cy3piCUPIkc
  - userbinator 8y ago
    Only white asbestos (also known as Chrysotile) --- and the great number of people who have been exposed to large amounts of it and lived long healthy lives certainly makes one wonder; AFAIK it's only the other types, particularly blue asbestos, which are unanimously carcinogenic and the industry stopped using them a long time ago, but the effects from that (and contamination of white asbestos with the other types) have continued and led the majority of fears. This article is worth reading: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3581056/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3581056/
    - dboreham 8y ago
      In the case of Mesothelioma I believe there's a fair amount of evidence that you need both : 1) Asbestos exposure and 2) to be a smoker. This might explain why some people exposed to asbestos remain healthy. https://www.mesothelioma.com/blog/authors/staff/smoking-asbestos-and-asbestosis-increases-risk-for-lung-cancer.htm https://www.mesothelioma.com/blog/authors/staff/smoking-asbe...
- Bud 8y ago
  Well, um, definitely yes. https://www.pinterest.com/braytonpurcell/vintage-asbestos-advertisements/ https://www.pinterest.com/braytonpurcell/vintage-asbestos-ad...
- fbarred 8y ago
  Not a company exactly, but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POB3Dr0uonc&t=75 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POB3Dr0uonc&t=75
quietbritishjim 8y ago
Tobacco is definitely not a counter example; the industry managed to cover up / confuse the evidence for years.

vkou 8y ago

Also see: Aircraft contrails and mind control, water flouridation and turning our children into Communists, cell phone towers and cancer, vaccination and autism. [1] [1] None of these associations are actually true, but much ink and some research funding was spilled on the subject.

dbasedweeb 8y ago
None of those are what an honest/sane individual would call borderline either, so why bring them up?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
buvanshak 8y ago
>None of these associations are actually true, Have you done research on any of these yourself? Also, I don't think you can put all those things in the same basket. For example, the last two. Doing the research on those might require huge resources that are way above the head of a single individual or small organization... And in similar manner, every such issue might have different aspects that it might be stupid to generalize all of them into one category. Human beings have a natural tendency to do this, which is why we are so easy to fool. May be, don't try to do that...

briandear 8y ago

So every single time a “vested interest” cares about something, they are wrong? Environmental groups have a vested interest in promoting catastrophe as it increases fundraising and their influence and power. I am not saying that all environmental groups are “bad” or “wrong” but they have equal incentive to trumpet their view of the world. You don’t think billion dollar alternative energy companies don’t have incentive to overstate the case against fossil fuels? Guys like George Soros, often seen as charitable, have made billions of dollars by sowing discord and destabilization. His massive profit in shorting the pound is legendary. Could it be at least a little possible that everyone has a vested interest in something and facts don’t necessary matter? The Sierra Club CEO makes over $600,000 per year at a non-profit! You don’t thing the Sierra Club has any vested interests tied to promoting specific agendas? There are multiple sides to every story and it’s folly to assume that any side is acting benevolently.

gowld 8y ago
Soros didn't destabilize the pound. The Bank of England destabilized the pound. Soros said it was a bad idea, and put his money where is mouth was, and made a fortune because he was right.
cure 8y ago
The "vested interests" have the sole purpose of making money for their shareholders. They are corporations, and that is the definition of capitalism. The purpose of environmental groups is to protect the environment. Who would be the most likely to act benevolently? Are the environmentalists perfect? No. They are human. They make mistakes. Sometimes they do things that are counterproductive or totally ineffective. But their goal is to protect the environment. I'd call that benevolence. On the whole, it's also far more likely for the environmentalists to get hurt or killed than the other way around. In 2017, four environmentalists were killed every week by the "vested interests". Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/02/almost-four-environmental-defenders-a-week-killed-in-2017 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/02/almost-f... To summarize, your argument seems to be something like "Hey, look, the environmentalists are not perfect, we can't trust anyone, so we must stop attacking the polluters, they must be totally innocent!". And that's just FUD.

tptacek 8y ago

Much of what's been written about bees and pesticides is also probably bullshit (not to put too fine a point on it). American honey bees are livestock, not wildlife.

gerbilly 8y ago
>American honey bees are livestock, not wildlife. Then if it's harming European honeybees, which are livestock as you say, do you not think it might be plausible that native pollinators and others insects might also be affected? The "livestock" line is just a talking point, and the pesticide industry is pleased as punch every time we repeat it for them.
- tptacek 8y ago
  I think if we were serious about native wildlife we'd address habitat loss instead of fixating on comic book opponents like "the pesticide industry". Either way: reports of the impending bee-pocalypse are extraordinarily overrated.
  - kaitai 8y ago
    Can't agree; know too many hobbyist beekeepers who've had 20-40 years beekeeping who can't keep a hive alive through a winter now. When I was a kid peoples' hives survived a harsh Minnesota winter. Now they all die even though we don't have enough snow to ski.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      We don't have to guess or extrapolate from anecdotes; the price of pollination services are tracked, and have grown low single-digit percentages over the last several years, just like prices in general.
      - nothrabannosir 8y ago
        Complete outsider to this: any chance that is due to external factors, such as increase in number of competitors (perhaps foreign), or reduced demand (e.g. new alternatives)?

hueving 8y ago

This conveniently ignores the other side of the coin where interests are aligned and it's the conspiracy theorists that are harmful (e.g. vaccine manufactures and autism). All functioning economies have vested interests in things good and bad. The only thing a vested interest means is that scrutiny is needed on the actions of the vested parties.

random4369 8y ago
On what planet is the jury out about vaccines and autism? There's not a single research paper suggesting a link between those. You are falsely conflating scientific consensus with public opinion.
- rohit2412 8y ago
  SO what about cell phone radiation and cancer, or maybe GMO food and cancer?
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    What about that fiction?
  - sincerely 8y ago
    a pretty informative read re: cell phones and cancer: https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/ https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-t... (as usual, article headline is clickbait, not chosen by writer, please do not judge the content based on the title)
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Could you do the TL;DR of that? I skimmed it, because it's the long-form type of read I hate (little meat, lots of unrelated stories). Is there anything there that stands up to the standard counterargument called "non-ionizing radiation"?
- 8y ago

jjoonathan 8y ago

In college, I did a deep dive into GMO safety research for journal club back when the Seralini "GMOs cause cancer in mice" paper hit (2010 or thereabouts) and found quite a counterexample to your rule: bogus (obviously p-hacked) science from Seralini and an aggressive misinformation campaign from Greenpeace to convince people that Monsanto was using terminator genes (bio-DRM) against poor farmers when the truth had been quite the opposite for some time (Monsanto patented the idea, promised not to use it, and kept the promise). Blind opposition to industrial progress -- which is what you are suggesting -- carried by the rising tide of public opinion will cause a ton of damage in the century to come, and the damage will never be repaid. EDIT: oh, and there's a National Toxicology Program study -- "cell phones cause cancer" would be the sensationalized headline -- working its way through the bureaucratic pipes at the moment with another round of "review" landing in a few months. Somehow it got through the first draft and review process while completely ignoring the first law of toxicology, so I suspect it will pass the second round as well, and while I trust the official document will contain sufficiently reserved wording the media circus that spins up around it will become a second excellent example of bullshit from the "little guys."

headsoup 8y ago
You're just throwing out the tu quoque fallacy for I'm not sure what reason. Hey the 'other side' does it too so let's not make a big deal here! Black and white opposition to everything with cherry-picked arguments is becoming more and more prevalent, and it doesn't help us solve (or even rationally discuss) any problems or even understand them better.
- tptacek 8y ago
  That's in fact not an instance of the tu quoque fallacy.
  - headsoup 8y ago
    It is. You're implying that the other commenter's post is invalid as 'blind opposition' because 'their side' of the argument behaves the same. * Edit on below: On re-reading you're correct, you were categorising their comment. My apologies!

pilsetnieks 8y ago

> pesticides and bees The EU is implementing a total ban on neonicotinoid pesticides by the end of 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/27/eu-agrees-total-ban-on-bee-harming-pesticides https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/27/eu-agree...

pluma 8y ago
Only for outside use. They are still legal for use in greenhouses. I'm not disagreeing that this means they acknowledge the potential harm for bees, but it's not a "total ban".

topmonk 8y ago

Don't forget leaded gasoline: https://www.thenation.com/article/secret-history-lead/ https://www.thenation.com/article/secret-history-lead/

buvanshak 8y ago
I think that the common people have no way of knowing the real truth about something. And all our decisions should be based on this simple fact of modern life...
- vincnetas 8y ago
  Why so pessimistic? Aren't there any independent labs where you can send your samples for testing and then see results for your self? Send to multiple labs for more control.
  - buvanshak 8y ago
    This is not always possible. For example, take the claim that a certain thing X in some eatables is harmful/not harmful for human beings. Such a thing might not be possible without long term study. Or the claim that smoking will kill you, but what if you want to know if smoking moderately is as bad as exposing to automobile pollution every day? Or living in an area with polluted air. Mainstream narrative today emphasizes on the dangers of smoking, but it does not really does the same with automobile pollution? What if you want to know the truth about this? Can this be so easily done by a common man? Even in cases where this is possible, like pesticide residue in vegetables, You might have to run the experiments for a large number of samples for some amount of time to get a real picture. Which might be feasible, but way out of the comfort zone of a concerned person, who has a normal life and the associated hassles to deal with...
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Those cases have another interesting feature - you're wasting time worrying about them. When scientists have problems figuring out whether or how much something is harmful, it's because it's so harmless it's hard to measure. If e.g. artificial sweeteners caused cancers the way many believe, you'd see people dropping dead left and right, with cancers clearly linkable to the use of sweeteners. Those studies are obviously important, on a population scale. For individuals, obsessing about those things too much puts you in more danger to your health than those things could ever cause.

hawkice 8y ago

Not all ignorance is deliberate. Almost none of it is -- ignorance is the default. Some things we don't know yet. Others have effect sizes so small distinguishing them from zero is a true and deep challenge, even with tremendous study done. Some things actually do have effect sizes of zero, and no amount of evidence will stop people from demanding more study.

buvanshak 8y ago
And also, Any amount of study does not say much if all of them uses flawed methodologies ("but that is the best we have" does not make it any better), which has been a serious issue lately..

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

Anti-GMO is a multibillion industry. There are rich, vested interests on both sides of this debate.

resnapremi 8y ago

> See: pesticides and bees, fossil fuels and climate change, food packaging plastics and cancer, pain treatment meds and addiction. Cigarettes come to mind, too.

credit_guy 8y ago

>The Wikipedia section that the parent post links to straight up says that the only research that found no links was sponsored by Monsanto. By my count the section lists 7 studies, 3 show no links and 4 show links.

rapind 8y ago

You can probably add cigarettes to that list.

chiefalchemist 8y ago

> "All made possible with a series of comparatively small investments to buy scientific research to keep the jury out." I agree with 99.9% of what you said, except this bit. I hate to mince words __but it's essential to this tactic__. Simply put: This is __not__ - and never should be considered - scientific research. It's fiction. It's a perversion. It's the kind of nonsense Orwell warned us about. There is only one thing more unconscionable: "Real" Science and its ilk remains silent. In addition, certainly, the FDA isn't the only lab capable of making making these test. But this is contemporary / modern science. Again. Is it any wonder so many have so much doubt?

hannob 8y ago

>Every time the jury is out on a topic where one side has a vested interest and a billion dollar budget to protect it, > you can be reasonably sure what the outcome will be. > See: pesticides and bees, fossil fuels and climate change, food packaging plastics and cancer, pain treatment meds and addiction. I'm not sure you notice the grave strangeness of your comment. There's no jury out there on climate change. The basics are pretty clear. I also think the relation of some pesticides and bees dying is hardly controversial (though it gets muddy when you get into the details and ask which pesticides). For plastic packaging and cancer I'm not sure what the evidence says, but I guess it's complicated. I don't think any scientist seriously doubts that pain medication can be addictive (again, details may be more complicated and uncertain). So you have 3 examples where the science is contrary to the interest of a billion dollar vested interest. What do you make of that? (Of course having settled science doesn't mean political action follows, which is most evident when it comes to climate change. But that's a different question.)

ipioxu15 8y ago
There's nothing strange: GP is giving those as historical examples of this sort of behavior by the industry, not claiming the jury is out today on these topics. Especially with climate change, there is no doubt the industry has done all it can to cloud the issue in the past, and still continues it. You could add other things (e.g. smoking) to the list.

jamespo 8y ago

You know there is a multibillion industry with vested interests against GMO: the organic food lobby.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

>> See: pesticides and bees, fossil fuels and climate change, food packaging plastics and cancer, pain treatment meds and addiction. Also, Asbestos, DDT, Thalidomide, etc. I find that in discussions like this people often automatically adopt a defensive stance For Science, Technology and Progress, but they're missing the point that it is not science (i.e. scientists, or the scientific method) that is responsible for disasters like that- it's corporations. And they care not one jot about science, technology or progress, let alone feeding the poor or curing the ailing, or anything humantiarian and compassionate like that. It's the industry that destroys the environment and causes public health disasters, then tries its best to keep it all under wraps while people die. Bottom line- defending big financial interests is not defending science. It's just defending someone else's money.

cryoshon 8y ago

yep, you hit the nail on the head here. often, the real evidence is extremely clear, but there is enough obfuscation created by those with an agenda to make things look inconclusive. yet another example is polygraph tests and similar more modern devices. all of the independent evidence says they're trash. but "the jury is still out" because there are a slew of very low quality studies performed by people hired by the companies who make the devices. anyhow, we've known that monsanto was lying about this for quite some time, and we have also known that they have corrupted the parts of the US government responsible for regulating their behavior for quite some time. it isn't okay for pesticides to be in our food.