4 ms·

I don’t buy this. It is 100% guaranteed that these GMO tomatoes are safer than alcohol and tobacco. Yet the ‘old and boring’ approach has deemed these clearly p

by Gatsky 8y ago

I don’t buy this. It is 100% guaranteed that these GMO tomatoes are safer than alcohol and tobacco. Yet the ‘old and boring’ approach has deemed these clearly poisonous substances safe, and allows billion dollar industries to exist selling them. This is totally illogical.

SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
> alcohol and tobacco. Yet the ‘old and boring’ approach has deemed these clearly poisonous substances safe It has not deemed them safe - They are "grandfathered" in. There is absolutely no way that you could introduce tobacco as a new product today.
- Gatsky 8y ago
  This is the point - there is no scientific integrity with the current approach.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
    Suddenly and totally banning tobacco products would have "scientific integrity" sure, but is practically impossible due to how human beings work. However, tobacco is actually being gradually phased out across Europe. Compare smoking prevalence in a city now vs 20 years ago. Extrapolate out another 20 years.
    - Gatsky 8y ago
      This is a separate issue. My point is that the current regulatory approach to GMO lacks scientific integrity, and is anachronistic and hypocritical. Alcohol can be justified as having some cultural merit, and there are many people who use it moderately. Tobacco is just making money from nicotine addicts while they kill themselves slowly. No need to ban it outright, just double the price every few years.
tomp 8y ago
What's the proof? The article says: > a cupboard full of genes with known effects, that can each be adjusted to turn an unruly wild plant into a valuable domesticated one which I don't believe at all - if we really knew exactly what genes do, we could construct new life-forms artificially. But we don't biology is far too complicated for us (for the time being). We don't even understand climate (even the best models consistently overstated the predicted temperature rise).
- sp332 8y ago
  It doesn't say we know what every gene does. It says they have a "cupboard full".
- Gatsky 8y ago
  You lack any sense of proportionality. Compare a theoretical and frankly implausible risk of harm from a vegetable to an aerosolised highly addictive carcinogen. Which do you think deserves closer scrutiny? The ‘life is too complex argument’ leads no where. There is far more genetic experimentation going on in your gut bacteria as we speak than there ever will be in a GMO tomato.
  - tomp 8y ago
    Yeah comparing GMO to smoking is a bit of a red herring... Like, who cares, everybody knows that smoking is bad and driving is very risky, but these are known risks, we choose to do them. I'm comparing GMO tomatoes to non-GMO tomatoes and frankly, I don't see that much potential benefit at all, especially if you buy locally grown tomatoes (which already taste amazing).

by Gatsky 8y ago

SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago

> alcohol and tobacco. Yet the ‘old and boring’ approach has deemed these clearly poisonous substances safe It has not deemed them safe - They are "grandfathered" in. There is absolutely no way that you could introduce tobacco as a new product today.

Gatsky 8y ago
This is the point - there is no scientific integrity with the current approach.
- SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
  Suddenly and totally banning tobacco products would have "scientific integrity" sure, but is practically impossible due to how human beings work. However, tobacco is actually being gradually phased out across Europe. Compare smoking prevalence in a city now vs 20 years ago. Extrapolate out another 20 years.
  - Gatsky 8y ago
    This is a separate issue. My point is that the current regulatory approach to GMO lacks scientific integrity, and is anachronistic and hypocritical. Alcohol can be justified as having some cultural merit, and there are many people who use it moderately. Tobacco is just making money from nicotine addicts while they kill themselves slowly. No need to ban it outright, just double the price every few years.

tomp 8y ago

What's the proof? The article says: > a cupboard full of genes with known effects, that can each be adjusted to turn an unruly wild plant into a valuable domesticated one which I don't believe at all - if we really knew exactly what genes do, we could construct new life-forms artificially. But we don't biology is far too complicated for us (for the time being). We don't even understand climate (even the best models consistently overstated the predicted temperature rise).

sp332 8y ago
It doesn't say we know what every gene does. It says they have a "cupboard full".
Gatsky 8y ago
You lack any sense of proportionality. Compare a theoretical and frankly implausible risk of harm from a vegetable to an aerosolised highly addictive carcinogen. Which do you think deserves closer scrutiny? The ‘life is too complex argument’ leads no where. There is far more genetic experimentation going on in your gut bacteria as we speak than there ever will be in a GMO tomato.
- tomp 8y ago
  Yeah comparing GMO to smoking is a bit of a red herring... Like, who cares, everybody knows that smoking is bad and driving is very risky, but these are known risks, we choose to do them. I'm comparing GMO tomatoes to non-GMO tomatoes and frankly, I don't see that much potential benefit at all, especially if you buy locally grown tomatoes (which already taste amazing).