4 ms·

I think many do not understand typical practices of regulatory agencies. As a related example, what do you think the FDA requires in terms of genetically engine

by rjf72 8y ago

I think many do not understand typical practices of regulatory agencies. As a related example, what do you think the FDA requires in terms of genetically engineered foodstuffs? Many seem to think there's extensive oversight and safety testing. There isn't. They treat genetically engineered products and natural products identically. If a company has all their regulatory issues in order to market e.g. corn, they can cook up a new genetically engineered corn in the lab and bring it to market with literally 0 additional oversight necessary. All the FDA offers here is a completely voluntary consultation, and that in turn basically is little more than the company signing off on some checkboxes. This leads to a bemusing and disconcerting run around. Monsanto: "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for the safety and appropriate labeling of food and feed products grown from GM crops." [1] FDA: "It is the manufacturer's responsibility to ensure that the food products it offers for sale are safe and otherwise comply with applicable requirements." [2] Sound similar? It'll be the exact same story if/when a company inadvertently releases a harmful genetically engineered product. The assurance of safety provided by regulatory agencies is often illusory. As an aside, this is all clearly described on the FDA's page as well. [3] But the phrasing is designed to mislead consumers. They state repeatedly that it is unlawful to ship unsafe food to consumers without ever directly clarifying that they themselves never actually test the foods. Inventions go straight from Monsanto's lab to your plate. Obviously they have a major incentive to ensure their products are safe, but they have a long history of failing in that obligation yet remain a multi billion dollar company. [1] - https://monsanto.com/company/commitments/safety/statements/are-gmos-safe/ https://monsanto.com/company/commitments/safety/statements/a... [2] - https://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2013/04/25/gmos-a-breakthrough-or-breakdown-in-us-agriculture https://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articl... [3] - https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GEPlants/ucm461831.htm https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GEPlan...

avar 8y ago
Food safety isn't a function of relatively small changes in the genome of plants you eat, this is pseudo-scientific nonsense. The "natural" corn or animals you eat also experience genetic drift, and the FDA isn't tasked with sequencing them and certifying each "change". If the purpose of aircraft was to feed them to giants who'd digest them for their raw materials Boeing wouldn't need to certify the 737 MAX either. But aircraft are flown, so minute changes to their construction can make a lot of difference. This comparison of yours makes no sense.
- rjf72 8y ago
  Boeing obviously felt there was a basically 0% chance of their decision being in anyway unsafe. And they are, arguably, the most qualified people on this Earth to decide this. Of course they probably got blinded by profit a bit, but it's not like this was a Ford Memo moment. A single plane going down is a catastrophe. Two planes going down is something much worse. They obviously felt everything was perfectly safe; they were wrong. Lots of people died. Even though the most likely outcome is they'll get a slap on the wrist, I think there's no way they would have gambled on this. The reason I mention this is because I don't believe you believe it's impossible to create an unsafe product as you are implying in your statement. Genetic engineering technology enables us to hybridize anything. As a not entirely random example you could combine an orange with genomic data from an arbitrary virus or perhaps certain aspects of various plants in the nightshade family, if you so wished. You can theoretically do great things with genetic engineering, and you can certainly also do awful things. And there is no doubt that you can also accidentally do awful things. And I don't think short term safety is the real concern. You're not going to drop dead after drinking a cola because of some genetically engineered corn syrup in it. My concern would be longterm unforeseen consequences. For instance weight gain, fertility, and even cognitive and psychological factors are all connected to what we consume in various ways that remain poorly understood. And we're currently running a compulsory experiment in that nearly all foodstuffs in the US now contain substantial components of genetically engineered products. The rest of the world works as a control, to varying degrees, due to radically less consumption of engineered products. What will be the longterm consequences of this? Perhaps we're already seeing them. Or perhaps the issues plaguing the US are caused by something altogether different. The point I was making is that it's ultimately up to the individual to come to their own decisions here. If you're happy to consume any genetically engineered product in full faith then I fully respect your view, even if I might disagree with the soundness of it [1]. I'd ask for nothing but comparable treatment. [1] - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1
  - avar 8y ago
    Instead of a single study you should look at systematic reviews. Here's an article discussing a wide-ranging review the National Academy of Sciences conducted, which is the sort of thing that informs the current FDA policy: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/national-academy-of-sciences-report-on-gmos/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/national-academy-of-science... > I fully respect your view, even if I might disagree with the soundness of it. I'd ask for nothing but comparable treatment. I'm not claiming you have to eat GMO food, or food that's been exposed to cell phone tower waves or whatever. But you weren't expressing a personal preference. You were suggesting that a government organization like the FDA should be regulating something based on a hypothesis that the current scientific consensus shows is baseless. At that point you aren't asking for your view to be respected, you're suggesting that government policy should be changed to enforce it on the rest of us.

by rjf72 8y ago

avar 8y ago

Food safety isn't a function of relatively small changes in the genome of plants you eat, this is pseudo-scientific nonsense. The "natural" corn or animals you eat also experience genetic drift, and the FDA isn't tasked with sequencing them and certifying each "change". If the purpose of aircraft was to feed them to giants who'd digest them for their raw materials Boeing wouldn't need to certify the 737 MAX either. But aircraft are flown, so minute changes to their construction can make a lot of difference. This comparison of yours makes no sense.

rjf72 8y ago
Boeing obviously felt there was a basically 0% chance of their decision being in anyway unsafe. And they are, arguably, the most qualified people on this Earth to decide this. Of course they probably got blinded by profit a bit, but it's not like this was a Ford Memo moment. A single plane going down is a catastrophe. Two planes going down is something much worse. They obviously felt everything was perfectly safe; they were wrong. Lots of people died. Even though the most likely outcome is they'll get a slap on the wrist, I think there's no way they would have gambled on this. The reason I mention this is because I don't believe you believe it's impossible to create an unsafe product as you are implying in your statement. Genetic engineering technology enables us to hybridize anything. As a not entirely random example you could combine an orange with genomic data from an arbitrary virus or perhaps certain aspects of various plants in the nightshade family, if you so wished. You can theoretically do great things with genetic engineering, and you can certainly also do awful things. And there is no doubt that you can also accidentally do awful things. And I don't think short term safety is the real concern. You're not going to drop dead after drinking a cola because of some genetically engineered corn syrup in it. My concern would be longterm unforeseen consequences. For instance weight gain, fertility, and even cognitive and psychological factors are all connected to what we consume in various ways that remain poorly understood. And we're currently running a compulsory experiment in that nearly all foodstuffs in the US now contain substantial components of genetically engineered products. The rest of the world works as a control, to varying degrees, due to radically less consumption of engineered products. What will be the longterm consequences of this? Perhaps we're already seeing them. Or perhaps the issues plaguing the US are caused by something altogether different. The point I was making is that it's ultimately up to the individual to come to their own decisions here. If you're happy to consume any genetically engineered product in full faith then I fully respect your view, even if I might disagree with the soundness of it [1]. I'd ask for nothing but comparable treatment. [1] - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1
- avar 8y ago
  Instead of a single study you should look at systematic reviews. Here's an article discussing a wide-ranging review the National Academy of Sciences conducted, which is the sort of thing that informs the current FDA policy: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/national-academy-of-sciences-report-on-gmos/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/national-academy-of-science... > I fully respect your view, even if I might disagree with the soundness of it. I'd ask for nothing but comparable treatment. I'm not claiming you have to eat GMO food, or food that's been exposed to cell phone tower waves or whatever. But you weren't expressing a personal preference. You were suggesting that a government organization like the FDA should be regulating something based on a hypothesis that the current scientific consensus shows is baseless. At that point you aren't asking for your view to be respected, you're suggesting that government policy should be changed to enforce it on the rest of us.