3 ms·

To be honest this whole "debate" reminds me more of the popular antivax movement than anything else. I suppose I can understand Europe's arch-conservatism rega

by mpyne 13y ago

To be honest this whole "debate" reminds me more of the popular antivax movement than anything else. I suppose I can understand Europe's arch-conservatism regarding food products after the thalidomide disaster, but I would certainly prefer to see actual evidence of harm from genetically-modified food, or even a plausible explanation of why a given GM food could cause injury and not just FUD FUD FUD.

DanBC 13y ago
You're correct that a lot of the anti-GMO side are spouting alarmist nonsense. But that doesn't matter. The reason we're careful about GMO technology is that there is a reasonable mechanism whereby harm may be the result. We thus require careful testing and good quality science before allowing these technologies. Unfortunately, politicians are often in the chain of "people granting permission", and many of them are stupid and ignorant and not interested in science. You ask for a plausible mechanism for harm, but you also mention thalidomide. Thalidomide is a great example of unknown unknowns - we didn't know that chirality was important, and it was only after many birth defects that we found out. So maybe there's something we don't know with GMOs, and we don't know that we don't know it so we can't reassure ourselves about it. We can do as much as we can to rule out those unknowns, and to reassure ourselves about the knowns.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- mpyne 13y ago
  Well GM foods certainly seem to have a much more substantial body of evidence in support of their safety than thalidomide did. E.g. even since I was a kid seedless grapes have been available here in America, and in fact the history of farming is of farmers forcing evolution along faster to get the genetic modifications that they want to make it easier to grow food. They just didn't know that it was actually genetics they were forcing to be modified. I think what it comes down to is that the human body is the descendant of billions of years of evolution to help survive the introduction of what could be quite poisonous foods without dying. We have large livers and kidneys for an eminently practical reason, and I simply don't see how a GM food can really be considered in general more hazardous on the balance than the kinds of things our ancestors had to eat because they had no clue if it was harmful or not.
Anonazon 13y ago
Well, if it makes you feel any better, I got hellbanned for that comment.

by mpyne 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

You're correct that a lot of the anti-GMO side are spouting alarmist nonsense. But that doesn't matter. The reason we're careful about GMO technology is that there is a reasonable mechanism whereby harm may be the result. We thus require careful testing and good quality science before allowing these technologies. Unfortunately, politicians are often in the chain of "people granting permission", and many of them are stupid and ignorant and not interested in science. You ask for a plausible mechanism for harm, but you also mention thalidomide. Thalidomide is a great example of unknown unknowns - we didn't know that chirality was important, and it was only after many birth defects that we found out. So maybe there's something we don't know with GMOs, and we don't know that we don't know it so we can't reassure ourselves about it. We can do as much as we can to rule out those unknowns, and to reassure ourselves about the knowns.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mpyne 13y ago
Well GM foods certainly seem to have a much more substantial body of evidence in support of their safety than thalidomide did. E.g. even since I was a kid seedless grapes have been available here in America, and in fact the history of farming is of farmers forcing evolution along faster to get the genetic modifications that they want to make it easier to grow food. They just didn't know that it was actually genetics they were forcing to be modified. I think what it comes down to is that the human body is the descendant of billions of years of evolution to help survive the introduction of what could be quite poisonous foods without dying. We have large livers and kidneys for an eminently practical reason, and I simply don't see how a GM food can really be considered in general more hazardous on the balance than the kinds of things our ancestors had to eat because they had no clue if it was harmful or not.

Anonazon 13y ago

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I got hellbanned for that comment.