4 ms·

This author's example does not inspire confidence in the rest of the article: > "Take the matter of genetically modified (GM) foods, which are overwhelmingly c

This author's example does not inspire confidence in the rest of the article: > "Take the matter of genetically modified (GM) foods, which are overwhelmingly considered to be safe based on current scientific knowledge. Research has shown that people who hold the strongest anti-GM views, believing that they are harmful, are the most inclined to overestimate their relevant knowledge." If I insert the genes coding the enzymatic pathway for production of a virulent mammalian toxin into a maize plant, that's going to be very unsafe, particularly if pollen from that plant can carry those genes into someone's non-GMO cornfield. On the other hand, if I make a minor specific edit to the regulatory region upstream from a gene that controls the onset of flowering in a tomato plant, with the idea of producing an early-flowering varietal for northern climates, that's entirely safe (assuming no other accidental changes were made). Claiming that GMO foods are 'universally acknowledged to be safe' is like claiming metallurgy is universally acknowledged to be safe. It all depends on the specific application and how it's done, e.g. heavy metal pollution is a major issue in many places because of lack of pollution controls. Placing blind faith in governmental and corporate scientists because they wear the white coats of authority is not that different from blind obedience to the priestly caste of prior centuries. If they can't provide explanations that the educated layperson can understand, and if they can't respond to detailed criticisms of their claims, then they should not be trusted.

renewiltord 3y ago
> On the other hand, if I make a minor specific edit to the regulatory region upstream from a gene that controls the onset of flowering in a tomato plant, with the idea of producing an early-flowering varietal for northern climates, that's entirely safe (assuming no other accidental changes were made). No, this is not true if someone is pointing a nuclear missile at NYC and will fire it if you "make a minor specific edit to the regulatory region upstream from a gene that controls the onset of flowering in a tomato plant". It's important that you clarify the point by also adding in the caveat excluding this case. I am also told that what you propose is unsafe in the event that there is a terrorist with a bomb who will explode in Penn Station if you make that edit. It is important that we be precise with safety language since otherwise we may mislead people about the state of the field. Please be more responsible.
- ntumlin 3y ago
  This is nonsense, it’s obvious what type of safety OP meant. I have no idea what could be irresponsible about not including contrived, ridiculous scenarios. It’s like saying he also should have accounted for the possibility fairies will turn you into a newt if you edit a gene, or into a rabbit, or if a wizard will turn you into a newt. You can make up an infinite amount of this bs.
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    That's a pretty good point. We can make up an infinite number of contrived scenarios and it is obvious from context what type of safety is meant.
adr1an 3y ago
First, even if the author is mistaken with regards to GM foods, it's credibility with regards to shoshin shouldn't be affected (e.g. how are GMO and shoshin related??) Secondly, your hypothetical super toxic GM food doesn't exist. He was referring to reality, not to sci-fi horror movies GM food where a mad scientist makes a maize expressing lethal bacterial toxins.
- photochemsyn 3y ago
  About 20 years ago 'mad scientists' were proposing introduction of Antarctic fish antifreeze proteins into strawberries and tomatoes to improve their shelf life...
zackmorris 3y ago
I can offer an analogy. Growing up in the northwestern US, I've seen firsthand how 95% of the forest in the lower 48 was harvested for timber, leaving only small pockets of primordial forest. That and global warming delivered us the runaway fire seasons we have today where summer is synonymous with poor air quality, poor water quality, erosion, loss of habitat, etc etc etc. There are countless propaganda billboards here that say stuff like "thin the threat". The timber industry really wants to get back into wilderness areas and places designated roadless by the Clinton administration back in the 90s. But what I think most of us want is for the timber industry to admit their guilt. Basically that would look something like a bankruptcy and a multi-billion dollar apology in the form of trusts and endowments to leave forests alone and invest in stuff like tree farms and hemp. Which will never come. I've yet to see a major apology from GMO companies for the ways they've corrupted staple crops like wheat. We're eating processed whole grains today that were meant for animal feed (cows have 4 stomachs that can handle it, we can't), stuff like oatmeal loaded with glyphosate, and it's attacking our gut lining and causing autoimmune diseases at a scale that the previous generation can't understand. So until there are reparations for the damage done, we simple can't trust those companies or the government agencies they've captured, or the politicians they've bought, or the court justices they've installed. The problem goes so deep in our political system that people can't even see it anymore. That's why the wealthy owners of those companies keep us divided over the merits of various remedies, so we don't wake up to the facts of how we're being manipulated into giving up our health to shave a few pennies off the price to increase their profits. Edit: I'm struggling to find evidence for the effects of whole grain husks on the gut lining. But basically, the anti-pest compounds in grain husks make it past stomach acid, and when the villi (papillae was maybe the wrong term) in the lining of the small intestine try to eat the partially-digested proteins, it damages or kills them. The cycle of damage and repair continues through life until middle age, when the cells start losing their healing ability. Then one acquires sensitivity to wheat and other grains like I did, which I originally thought was sensitivity to legumes and nightshades: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2020.517313/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2020.51731... Then the villi become sparse or die, leaving the person unable to easily absorb vitamins and minerals, sending them into chronic starvation mode and obesity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intestinal_villus#Villous_atrophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intestinal_villus#Villous_atro... GMOs exacerbate this by increasing the percentages of anti-pest compounds in husks. I try to avoid whole grains now after a lifetime of seeking them. If I must eat them, I try to stick to organic.

renewiltord 3y ago

> On the other hand, if I make a minor specific edit to the regulatory region upstream from a gene that controls the onset of flowering in a tomato plant, with the idea of producing an early-flowering varietal for northern climates, that's entirely safe (assuming no other accidental changes were made). No, this is not true if someone is pointing a nuclear missile at NYC and will fire it if you "make a minor specific edit to the regulatory region upstream from a gene that controls the onset of flowering in a tomato plant". It's important that you clarify the point by also adding in the caveat excluding this case. I am also told that what you propose is unsafe in the event that there is a terrorist with a bomb who will explode in Penn Station if you make that edit. It is important that we be precise with safety language since otherwise we may mislead people about the state of the field. Please be more responsible.

ntumlin 3y ago
This is nonsense, it’s obvious what type of safety OP meant. I have no idea what could be irresponsible about not including contrived, ridiculous scenarios. It’s like saying he also should have accounted for the possibility fairies will turn you into a newt if you edit a gene, or into a rabbit, or if a wizard will turn you into a newt. You can make up an infinite amount of this bs.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  That's a pretty good point. We can make up an infinite number of contrived scenarios and it is obvious from context what type of safety is meant.

adr1an 3y ago

First, even if the author is mistaken with regards to GM foods, it's credibility with regards to shoshin shouldn't be affected (e.g. how are GMO and shoshin related??) Secondly, your hypothetical super toxic GM food doesn't exist. He was referring to reality, not to sci-fi horror movies GM food where a mad scientist makes a maize expressing lethal bacterial toxins.

photochemsyn 3y ago
About 20 years ago 'mad scientists' were proposing introduction of Antarctic fish antifreeze proteins into strawberries and tomatoes to improve their shelf life...

zackmorris 3y ago

I can offer an analogy. Growing up in the northwestern US, I've seen firsthand how 95% of the forest in the lower 48 was harvested for timber, leaving only small pockets of primordial forest. That and global warming delivered us the runaway fire seasons we have today where summer is synonymous with poor air quality, poor water quality, erosion, loss of habitat, etc etc etc. There are countless propaganda billboards here that say stuff like "thin the threat". The timber industry really wants to get back into wilderness areas and places designated roadless by the Clinton administration back in the 90s. But what I think most of us want is for the timber industry to admit their guilt. Basically that would look something like a bankruptcy and a multi-billion dollar apology in the form of trusts and endowments to leave forests alone and invest in stuff like tree farms and hemp. Which will never come. I've yet to see a major apology from GMO companies for the ways they've corrupted staple crops like wheat. We're eating processed whole grains today that were meant for animal feed (cows have 4 stomachs that can handle it, we can't), stuff like oatmeal loaded with glyphosate, and it's attacking our gut lining and causing autoimmune diseases at a scale that the previous generation can't understand. So until there are reparations for the damage done, we simple can't trust those companies or the government agencies they've captured, or the politicians they've bought, or the court justices they've installed. The problem goes so deep in our political system that people can't even see it anymore. That's why the wealthy owners of those companies keep us divided over the merits of various remedies, so we don't wake up to the facts of how we're being manipulated into giving up our health to shave a few pennies off the price to increase their profits. Edit: I'm struggling to find evidence for the effects of whole grain husks on the gut lining. But basically, the anti-pest compounds in grain husks make it past stomach acid, and when the villi (papillae was maybe the wrong term) in the lining of the small intestine try to eat the partially-digested proteins, it damages or kills them. The cycle of damage and repair continues through life until middle age, when the cells start losing their healing ability. Then one acquires sensitivity to wheat and other grains like I did, which I originally thought was sensitivity to legumes and nightshades: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2020.517313/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2020.51731... Then the villi become sparse or die, leaving the person unable to easily absorb vitamins and minerals, sending them into chronic starvation mode and obesity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intestinal_villus#Villous_atrophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intestinal_villus#Villous_atro... GMOs exacerbate this by increasing the percentages of anti-pest compounds in husks. I try to avoid whole grains now after a lifetime of seeking them. If I must eat them, I try to stick to organic.