4 ms·
The potential downside of GM food is human extinction. In the 80s and 90s the beef industry meddled with nature and started feeding animal meat to cows. The re
by DVassallo 7y ago
The potential downside of GM food is human extinction.
In the 80s and 90s the beef industry meddled with nature and started feeding animal meat to cows. The result was a disease that could have killed us all if we had eaten contaminated beef in the previous 10 years. If the genetic conditions that make people susceptible to vCJD were more common or universal, we might not be here today [1].
Grass-fed beef can be assumed safe because it has been eaten by humans for 200,000 years. Animal-fed beef turned out to be very dangerous very quickly. People who think GM food is as safe as food we’ve been eating for hundreds of thousands of years are highly delusional.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variant_Creutzfeldt–Jakob_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variant_Creutzfeldt–Jakob_dise...
- ex3ndr 7y agoHow this relates to GM?
- DVassallo 7y agoYou really don’t see the relationship? The potential consequence of eating unnatural food that did not pass the test of time is catastrophic. Do this on a global scale, and the consequences could be global. Trans fats are another example.
- ehmish 7y agoWhy do you think natural things are prima facie good ?
- DVassallo 7y agoWith “natural” I mean natural for humans to eat them. Those foods can be assumed safe because, by definition, they have been eaten by humans for hundreds of thousands of years. Can you say the same thing for GM food?
- tptacek 7y agoYou can’t even say the same thing about broccoli.
- DVassallo 7y agoBroccoli have been eaten for over 2000 years. If they killed us, we would have known.
- tptacek 7y agoOh, that’s the cutoff? What about Brussels sprouts?
- DVassallo 7y agoYou think that the risk of consequential harm (say, death within 10 years) is the same for Brussels sprouts and GM foods? Haven’t we learned anything from mad cow and trans fats? Edit: The risk is reduced significantly after we’ve eaten something for a few generations. The problem is if we test something new on the global population before a local tribe tries it on themselves for a few generations.
- tptacek 7y agoWhat does mad cow have to do with GM? Ironically: the process that begat mad cow: also "natural".
- DVassallo 7y agoEating meat-fed cows is not natural. Eating trans fats is not natural. Eating GM foods is not natural. The first two proved to have catastrophic harm. Why are we confident GM foods are safe? We’re treating no evidence of harm as evidence of no harm. And we’re doing it on a global scale.
- 7y ago
- sbenitoj 7y agoWhy do you assume unnatural foods are inherently safe for human consumption?
- a_wild_dandan 7y agoThe potential downside of not worshiping Roko's Basilisk: Superintelligent Godess is similarly human extinction. She kills all pagans, you see. That's her thing. Kill the non-believers. Which is everyone, currently. Come to think of it...there are a literal infinitude of things which may result in our extinction. Zombies. Aliens. Rogue trapezists. Who knows! But we don't sweat the zombie thing. There's not sufficient evidence that Roko's Basilisk will destroy us. Or aliens. And so on. And until significant evidence shows that GMOs will destroy us, they're in the same boat. As the old saw goes: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Doubly so for extinction claims.
- DVassallo 7y agoThe burden of the proof is on the GMOs. We have plenty of evidence that eating food that we’re not used to eat can cause catastrophic harm. If this was a local tribe experimenting with GMOs, then it’s fine. But if we expose virtually every person to that downside, the risks are considerable.
- chii 7y agoGMO foods have been eaten for well over 3 decades. I think if there were adverse health effects, we would've seen 'em. The only reason to dislike GMO is if they increased herbicide usage (e.g., roudup). But from what i hear, using GMO to reduce herbicide usage is more likely, and therefore, is better than a non-GMO version of the crop.
- DVassallo 7y agoEvery GM product is different.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]