3 ms·

It is not possible to prove that genetically engineered food is safe. It is not possible to prove that any food is safe. Therefore it is unreasonable to require

It is not possible to prove that genetically engineered food is safe. It is not possible to prove that any food is safe. Therefore it is unreasonable to require that something, including GMOs, would be entirely without risks. But the scientific consensus is: “Consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.” And when you think of it, the "conventional" techniques mean that seeds (etc) are exposed to ionizing radiation, carsinogenic chemicals and whatever. Then you wait for random mutations. Then you pick some of them, examine them, and hope they're not hurting anyone. That sounds much more dangerous than the approach of genetic engineering (research genes, then modify only the parts that you have identified, nothing else).

joelthelion 12y ago
And yet, is that argument strong enough to start using GMOs on 80%+ of the cultivated surface right away? ( Source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-geneticall... )
- falcolas 12y ago
  It's my understanding (I don't have a source, just a recollection of a BS episode on "organic" food) that we would be unable to support our current population with non-GMO crops, let alone support the growth in population we are anticipating. So, what's the alternative? Let 30% of our population starve because food prices shoot through the roof?
tomp 12y ago
> It is not possible to prove that genetically engineered food is safe. It is not possible to prove that any food is safe. Of course, and I don't expect proof. I just expect long (20-years plus) studies that are unencumbered by commercial interests). > And when you think of it, the "conventional" techniques mean that seeds (etc) are exposed to ionizing radiation, carsinogenic chemicals and whatever. Then you wait for random mutations. So basically, it's not safe at all. IMO, that's a serious misinterpretation of the word "conventional" - for me, conventional plant improvement techniques is interbreeding and selection (i.e. find plants that are "better" according to some criteria and take their seeds, thus slowly improving it over generations). I'll definitely look into these "conventional" techniques; I guess this limits the food choices I have even more :) Thank god I live in Europe, I'm assuming we're growing more traditional variants here.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  Where do you think the "better" varieties that get interbred come from?
- Oletros 12y ago
  > Of course, and I don't expect proof. I just expect long (20-years plus) studies that are unencumbered by commercial interests). GMO's have been studied for more than 20 years
tomp 12y ago
I just found out that there is really no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs. Apparently, more than 300 PhDs signed a disagreement [1]. There is also an article accompanying it [2]. [1] http://www.ensser.org/fileadmin/user_upload/150120_signatories_no_consensus_lv.pdf http://www.ensser.org/fileadmin/user_upload/150120_signatori... [2] http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2766504/there_is_no_scientific_consensus_on_gmo_safety.html http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2766504/there...
- Oletros 12y ago
  Apart that 300 signatures is an small number of scientifics working on biology, if the first reference in the article is to Séralini experiments it flashes a very big red light.
  - ptaipale 12y ago
    Indeed. It was just dishonest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

joelthelion 12y ago

And yet, is that argument strong enough to start using GMOs on 80%+ of the cultivated surface right away? ( Source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-geneticall... )

falcolas 12y ago
It's my understanding (I don't have a source, just a recollection of a BS episode on "organic" food) that we would be unable to support our current population with non-GMO crops, let alone support the growth in population we are anticipating. So, what's the alternative? Let 30% of our population starve because food prices shoot through the roof?

tomp 12y ago

> It is not possible to prove that genetically engineered food is safe. It is not possible to prove that any food is safe. Of course, and I don't expect proof. I just expect long (20-years plus) studies that are unencumbered by commercial interests). > And when you think of it, the "conventional" techniques mean that seeds (etc) are exposed to ionizing radiation, carsinogenic chemicals and whatever. Then you wait for random mutations. So basically, it's not safe at all. IMO, that's a serious misinterpretation of the word "conventional" - for me, conventional plant improvement techniques is interbreeding and selection (i.e. find plants that are "better" according to some criteria and take their seeds, thus slowly improving it over generations). I'll definitely look into these "conventional" techniques; I guess this limits the food choices I have even more :) Thank god I live in Europe, I'm assuming we're growing more traditional variants here.

tedunangst 12y ago
Where do you think the "better" varieties that get interbred come from?
Oletros 12y ago
> Of course, and I don't expect proof. I just expect long (20-years plus) studies that are unencumbered by commercial interests). GMO's have been studied for more than 20 years

tomp 12y ago

I just found out that there is really no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs. Apparently, more than 300 PhDs signed a disagreement [1]. There is also an article accompanying it [2]. [1] http://www.ensser.org/fileadmin/user_upload/150120_signatories_no_consensus_lv.pdf http://www.ensser.org/fileadmin/user_upload/150120_signatori... [2] http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2766504/there_is_no_scientific_consensus_on_gmo_safety.html http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2766504/there...

Oletros 12y ago
Apart that 300 signatures is an small number of scientifics working on biology, if the first reference in the article is to Séralini experiments it flashes a very big red light.
- ptaipale 12y ago
  Indeed. It was just dishonest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair