3 ms·
If you prefer a more scientific rationale to be cautious of GMOs, check out any of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's books on risk. The short version is, our standards fo
by KingMob 11y ago
If you prefer a more scientific rationale to be cautious of GMOs, check out any of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's books on risk. The short version is, our standards for safety must match the potential dangers.
E.g., you're dying of cancer? No need to worry about minor (or even major) side effects of medication, because you're facing death. There's a 1 in a million chance of producing a GMO with worldwide consequences? You have to be absolutely positive, nearly 100% certain they're harmless. A handful of studies is nowhere near sufficient (without even addressing the inherent conflict of interest in investigating your own GMO for safety). Even if you had a couple dozen studies on one GMO, could you ensure that level of caution for all?
- tptacek 11y agoYes, you could; GMO crops are studied far more carefully than the grab-bag of interventions routinely used in conventional farming is. GMO crops are more efficient --- that being the point of spending more money on GMO stock than on conventional plants --- and so require fewer pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, which in conventional agriculture also contaminate the land and food supply with carcinogens and endocrine disruptors.