It tastes like the inside of an Erlenmeyer flask?

Mark, can you tell us any more about the risks, in terms of epigenetics, in GMO's and in controversies over the use of fetal cell lines in the rubella vaccine?
 
originally posted by Cliff:
Where is this pure science people seem to be suggesting exists someplace? In a laboratory? Really? Science without political or economic consequences, without prestige and career considerations at stake? Do we believe the physicists and chemists but not ag scientists and engineers? None of which is to take a position on whether GMO is good or bad.
Click to expand...
Cliff -- I'm old enough to remember when it was considered unethical for private interests that had a stake in the outcome to sponsor scientific studies at universities. That day is long past, though. Everyone's got his/her price, I guess.
 
originally posted by MLipton:

No problems at all, Otto? Two that come readily to mind are the inadvertent spread of pollen from BT corn leading to widespread butterfly die-offs in neighboring plots, compounding the problem created by loss of habitat due to the widespread application of Roundup made possible by using Roundup-ready crops. There's also the danger posed by establishing monocultures of food staples, but that's not strictly limited to GMOs.

Hyperbole on both sides of the issue damages the respective positions. GMOs are neither an unalloyed good nor an unalloyed evil.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

Are you now referring to the monarch butterfly? There was a paper published in Nature in 1999 that suggested that Bt corn might have an impact on monarchs (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6733/abs/399214a0.html) but science does what it always does and moves on and more studies were made. Nature might be the most prestigious journal on the planet so one should pay attention if something is published there. So a couple years later a new paper came out in PNAS (http://www.pnas.org/content/98/21/11937.abstract), also a very high impact factor journal, that was more extensive than the Losey study and came to this conclusion: "the impact of Bt corn pollen from current commercial hybrids on monarch butterfly populations is negligible". I haven't seen GMOs and monarchs an issue since then except in anti-GMO rhetoric. Or is there perhaps some other butterfly that I wasn't aware of that you meant instead?

As you rightly say, monocultures are very likely a problem. And as you also rightly say it's a problem with agriculture in general and not GMOs.
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
20 years with no problems at all. This is dangerously starting to sound like no amount of study on GMOs is going to be enough for you!
Click to expand...
How dare you accuse me of such! I have already given my conditions: 40-50 years of 'no problems'.

And you do not have a spotless track record yet. Where there's smoke, there's fire, and there's a lot of smoke. I'm willing to be convinced but simply repeating what you want does not make it so.

Which reminds me to comment on the so-called 'argument from ignorance' that one of your online pals mentioned. It sounded wrong but it took me a while to figure out why: The onus of proof is upon those who wish to release something new into the wild, not upon those of us in the frame of reference. You have to prove that GMO crops (and GMO farming) are sound. I do not have to disprove them for I have not posed the question! The onus is on you doubly, in fact, because your effort entangles me whether I like it or not, and your failure starves me just as it starves you.

In my opinion, as I have stated (and as you have refused to read, again and again) you cannot make this case until enough time has passed.

GMOs and normal crops do not spread in such a fashion as you fear. So that's really not something you need to worry about.
Click to expand...
GMO and normal crops don't propagate using pollen?

I think conversation with you has reached an end. Thanks for playing, Otto.
 
Why such an arbitrary figure of 40-50 years? If you really think the burden of proof is on me at this point when there is so much study done on the topic, literally thousands of papers all to do with safety, and just a handful of papers claiming dangers - all of which are heavily criticized or even retracted - then we can't go on on this topic. Now, the burden of proof is on those who claim dangers.

I didn't make claims of plants somehow propagating in new ways. I just said that crop plants don't spread as widely nor so easily as you seem to think. One doesn't tend to see our usual crops growing completely wild in the vicinity of fields taking over pristine land.

Cool things off for a couple days and try this all again? :)
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
I just said that crop plants don't spread as widely nor so easily as you seem to think.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an argument that his 40-50 years was too low due to incorrect assumptions.
 
And you have some sort of evidence that there might be potential harm over longer periods than have so far been studied? Or is that you just have vague fears and feel that Taleb's precautionary principle is justified? The problem is that the Taleb paper wasn't very good on the biology part. "Mathematically sound but biologically naive," seems to be the refrain from people in biology. Two great criticisms as to why his version of the precautionary principle isn't really relevant with GMOs: http://debunkingdenialism.com/2014/05/04/choking-the-black-swan-gm-crops-and-flawed-safety-concerns/ and http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/nassim-taleb-the-precautionary-principle-and-gmos/
 
Otto, you seem not to understand. You don't know what you don't know. There is nothing you can write about because, well, you don't know what to write about.

What you can do is understand risk and minimize it.

Unfortunately for GMO, there is only one experiment -- the whole world. And if that gets fucked up, somehow, there is no going back. That is an unusual risk.
 
But if you take PP to that extent, no science could ever be done because nothing is entirely without risk. What can be done is to look at the risks and make a decision that balances risks and benefits. And with any potential risks being small and localized despite what Taleb likes to say, then I say the benefits far outweigh the risks with GMOs.
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
And you have some sort of evidence that there might be potential harm over longer periods than have so far been studied? Or is that you just have vague fears and feel that Taleb's precautionary principle is justified? The problem is that the Taleb paper wasn't very good on the biology part. "Mathematically sound but biologically naive," seems to be the refrain from people in biology. Two great criticisms as to why his version of the precautionary principle isn't really relevant with GMOs: http://debunkingdenialism.com/2014/05/04/choking-the-black-swan-gm-crops-and-flawed-safety-concerns/ and http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/nassim-taleb-the-precautionary-principle-and-gmos/
Click to expand...
Again, as Jeff pointed out, the benefit is on the GMO proponents to prove it is safe, not on those who don't want to see it implemented to come up with something. By definition, unintended consequences can't be foreseen.
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
But if you take PP to that extent, no science could ever be done because nothing is entirely without risk. What can be done is to look at the risks and make a decision that balances risks and benefits. And with any potential risks being small and localized despite what Taleb likes to say, then I say the benefits far outweigh the risks with GMOs.
Click to expand...

But not all risks are the same. If you plant Pinot droit instead of Pinot fin, in a generation, you can go back to Pinot fin. GMO isn't like that; it's a biggie.
 
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

Attributed to Stephen Hawking but actually by Daniel J. Boorstin.
 
Why aren't GMOs like that? Why can't you go back? Why do think that any problems will be wide-spread and irreversible?

I really don't know how better to explain why opponents actually have the onus of proof. When you have a situation like you do with GMOs where scientists test threats before a new product is put on the market, where it is monitored after that, where nothing bad has been noticed and no theoretical risks are known, then it has to be that those who make a claim for harm have to provide evidence for harm. That's just how science works. Sorry if you feel that your vague feelings of risk are now elevated.
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
But if you take PP to that extent, no science could ever be done because nothing is entirely without risk.
Click to expand...
Reductio ad absurdum -- not admissible.

What can be done is to look at the risks and make a decision that balances risks and benefits.
Click to expand...
Yes.

And with any potential risks being small and localized despite what Taleb likes to say, then I say the benefits far outweigh the risks with GMOs.
Click to expand...
In your opinion. In my opinion not. Neither one is scientific.

Do you appreciate that the only science here is the science that involves direct gene manipulation? The ability to predict what will happen in the future on a global scale is not.
 
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
Why aren't GMOs like that? Why can't you go back?
Click to expand...
OK, tell me: where do I find another biosphere into which no GMO plants have ever been introduced?

Why do think that any problems will be wide-spread and irreversible?
Click to expand...
I don't. But I want a contingency plan.

I really don't know how better to explain why opponents actually have the onus of proof.
Click to expand...
That's because we don't.

You are blinded by your faith. Enjoy it. It's not a terrible thing, but it isn't good for conversation.
 
I'm just going to weigh in that I'm with Otto on this. There are no studies that haven't been debunked showing any health risks to GMO food. The risks being raised with regard to affect on the environment have no evidential basis that I can see and the bars set for showing those risks don't exist are so high as to simply disallow based on not knowing. And moreover there is really no reason to single out GMOs for such high bars. Cross-polination outside laboratories does genuinely modify genes and could, conceivably, create (and probably has created) varieties that are highly destructive to their environments.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by Otto Nieminen:
20 years with no problems at all. This is dangerously starting to sound like no amount of study on GMOs is going to be enough for you!
Click to expand...
How dare you accuse me of such! I have already given my conditions: 40-50 years of 'no problems'.

And you do not have a spotless track record yet. Where there's smoke, there's fire, and there's a lot of smoke. I'm willing to be convinced but simply repeating what you want does not make it so.

Which reminds me to comment on the so-called 'argument from ignorance' that one of your online pals mentioned. It sounded wrong but it took me a while to figure out why: The onus of proof is upon those who wish to release something new into the wild, not upon those of us in the frame of reference. You have to prove that GMO crops (and GMO farming) are sound. I do not have to disprove them for I have not posed the question! The onus is on you doubly, in fact, because your effort entangles me whether I like it or not, and your failure starves me just as it starves you.

In my opinion, as I have stated (and as you have refused to read, again and again) you cannot make this case until enough time has passed.

GMOs and normal crops do not spread in such a fashion as you fear. So that's really not something you need to worry about.
Click to expand...
GMO and normal crops don't propagate using pollen?

I think conversation with you has reached an end. Thanks for playing, Otto.
Click to expand...

Jeff and Claude,

Would you make the same argument regarding the (relatively new) vaccine schedule?
 
One part of all of this that has bothered me since early in this thread (I believe I read it right!?!) is the contention that profit incentive is a negative.

Countless things that have been developed so as to create value or profit have greatly benefited the population.

. . . . Pete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top