See, that's fine, it's a totally valid point you're raising. The issue here, the thing that bugs me the most is that they're appealing to fear of unknown with this hurr-durr GMO bad to eat not natural mantra. That is a lie. Most attacks on GMO don't come from some ecological concern, they come from the "How do we know they're safe to eat" angle. And that is totally idiotic and I can not sustain a conversation along that line. So of course, that gets shut down because it does not promote valid conversation.

I guess i understand _why_ people go and promote this line of thinking - because it appeals to the self-interested natureof humans. We are interested about threats to our existance now, because we are afraid for us that what we eat is poisonous. We would care less about some future potential threat for the ecosystem, something that would affect _other_ people (or so our brain thinks)

> they're appealing to fear of unknown with this hurr-durr GMO bad to eat not natural mantra. That is a lie.

Some GMO product can be safe and beneficial, but it is hard to say all of them are properly tested as rigorously as a medicine, that you also take into your body.

Some of us still remember when DDT and asbestos were considered safe.

Fear of the unknown is perfectly rational when what is at stake is something as critical as the food chain. What is needed is more edifying public debate than "You're evil" vs "You're stupid". Ideally I'd like to see these technological advances take place in a non-commercial setting, or at least a more rigorous form of commericalisation than the one used for iPhones, McDonalds and Olestra.

>they're appealing to fear of unknown

Is it ever rational to have concerns about the unknown? The human organism is very complex, and we know that there is much we don't know about it. For instance, there are certain conditions that are on the rise, and we do not know why.

Obviously, you cannot just conclude that it must be GMOs. However, is it possible that we should have some concern around wholesale modifying various food sources to the extent that we are now introducing new proteins and new organisms into the human organism em masse?

Given all that we know we don't understand, I just don't get the conclusion that it must be safe because we haven't yet been able to prove otherwise.

And, we've seen how this line of thinking has worked out in the past so many times.

We have been modifying foods for centuries with selective breeding. Why do you think targeted genetic modification will be any different from the random genetic modification that occurs in nature? They aren't adding new proteins "en mass" as you describe it, its usually specific and minimal.

I don't think random genetic modification in nature is the same as using a gene gun to splice genetic material from organisms in a manner as would never occur in nature? Do you?

And, of course, some of these "unnatural" GMOs explicitly have toxins added to them to kill pests. Obviously we would not be otherwise consuming these.

I'm also sure you're not contending that everything found in nature is safe for human consumption, are you?

Altogether you seem to be suggesting that anything which can occur (whether in nature, or otherwise) must be safe. There really is nothing else to your "argument".

>They aren't adding new proteins "en mass" as you describe

I wasn't suggesting that they are adding them en masse; only that we are consuming them en masse (especially given their pervasiveness in staples such as corn, soy, canola, etc.)

You've hit upon my concerns. For me the consistent messaging from Monsanto and other GMO backing corporations about "There's no evidence it's unsafe to eat." is a red herring. I know some people are concerned about eating GMOs, but personally I'm a lot more concerned with the long term environmental impacts.

Even setting aside the possibility of GMO strains of life (whether plant or animal) reproducing and escaping containment; what about side effects on other species? We know insecticides have had many unforeseen side effects, it's not unreasonable to expect that GMO plants might also have impacts on insects, birds and other animals.

Then there's the business aspects where these mega corporations will use their GMO crops to force onerous contracts/purchasing agreements on farmers.

The way they always try to turn the issue on "There's no evidence its unsafe to eat." is telling to me; they have picked one issue to focus on to try to keep the public from noticing all the other issues with GMOs.

I don't think GMOs need to be made illegal, but I do think the public has a right to know if the food they are consuming comes from GMOs not because I'm worried necessarily about safety of eating, but so that we can choose to support or not support them with our purchasing power.

>they have picked one issue to focus on to try to keep the public from noticing all the other issues with GMOs

They're not the ones that picked that focus, people that rally against GMOs did, they're just refuting the most common "mainstream" complaint about GMO.

>it's not unreasonable to expect that GMO plants might also have impacts on insects, birds and other animals.

Well it's just as reasonable as expecting plants modified through selective breeding to have those same effects.

> They're not the ones that picked that focus, people that rally against GMOs did, they're just refuting the most common "mainstream" complaint about GMO.

I disagree. I think the pro-GMO people like to pretend it's the main objection, but it isn't. Most people I know with concerns about GMOs are concerned not about eating them as much as what kind of impacts they could have on the environment.

> Well it's just as reasonable as expecting plants modified through selective breeding to have those same effects.

Oh god not this ridiculous canard again. Pretending that bananas which have been bred to be softer are the same as bananas that have been engineered to secrete Miracle Gro is just ridiculous.

Bananas are the worst example to use, as we've modified them so much that they can't even reproduce, and that's using only selective breeding.

There are no Bananas that secrete miracle gro. GMO plants are generally just resistant to a specific pesticide. You could probably achieve the same effect selectively breeding the most hardy plants sprayed with low amounts of the pesticide, but that would take MUCH longer.

As far as eating GMO not being the main objection, it's literally the only one I've heard in person, and hear it semi frequently. I have only heard environmental concerns brought up if the discussion was about environmental impacts themselves, not specifically anti/pro gmo.

> These things spread in the wild, and we are basically playing god with the building blocks of (plant) life itself, which we definitely do not fully understand. If we fail to acknowledge some detail after meddling with something that could not have happened in nature, we might not find out until it's reaped devastating effects on global agriculture or even long-term human health. Even if GMOs can do a lot of good in the short-term, it would be terrifying to find out in the long-term that we've caused horrific damage due to our arrogance.

But as a species, we've been "playing god with the building blocks of plant life itself" for several thousand years - in far more dramatic and riskier fashion than any current modern biotechnologies would be capable of. Selective and cross breeding of plants has brought about all modern vegetables and fruits we eat today, and has dramatically altered their genetics, biochemistry, and phenotypes in ways that at the time we never understood and certainly could never control. Yet, nothing inherently disastrous happened - some scary mega plant of our design never took over the world out of our control. With modern biotechnology, scientists are not only able to be a LOT more sure of what the heck they're doing when they're editing a plant by specifically targeting understood and characterized genes, they are also far better able to characterize and test the nutritional and safety profile and ecological impact of a genetic modification.

We've been playing God with plants for thousands of years, and there has been no disastrous implications, and it seems like now that we have technologies that make that safer than ever, people are suddenly crying alarm.

Also, out of curiosity - what sort of "devastating effects" could you realistically imagine? As a biologist, it's hard to imagine anything "devastating" that sounds realistic. I could imagine critical biological impacts - such as perhaps the impact of bt-corn on Monarch butterflies - but nothing that we wouldn't be able to recognize and swiftly respond to. Of course, if there's some malevolent people who seek to hide or discredit such findings, or disrupt such a response (as we see today with fossil fuel funded climate change denial), then that's a whole different, but entirely political, apple.

I really think that messing with the underlying DNA of plants is more severe than trying to cross breed and selectively breed certain desirable traits.

> Also, out of curiosity - what sort of "devastating effects" could you realistically imagine?

Hard to say. We have a pretty lousy track record of thinking certain foods/drugs are safe, and then finding out years later that actually, they're quite bad for us.

Anything is possible. What if our change results in the plant becoming susceptible to a new bacteria that devastates entire crops? What if it undergoes a change in the wild, thanks to our editing, that starts producing huge amounts of amygdalin? What if we find out that a side-change that doesn't affect humans was actually contributing to something like bee colony collapse? What if something like this happens, and the plant spreads out of control in the wild?

But like I said, I'm not arguing for a ban on GMOs, either. I just think it's a situation where both solutions have their risks and rewards. I'm not prepared to give science a total pass, nor pass off people with GMO concerns in the same light as anti-vaxxers or climate change deniers.

In a way, when we cross breed, we mess with the DNA on a genome wide scale hoping to end up with a particular combination of genes from the two original parents.

GMO can of course be applied in many different contexts. One for me seemingly benign application of GMO is when a gene in a particular crop variety is desired in another variety - instead of doing a messy and expensive breeding process to get an offspring with the desired gene, transfer the desired gene directly between the crops using gene technology.

As in all research, there are rightful concerns and less rightful concerns. What concerns me is when unscientific concerns dictates how science should be done.

"I really think that messing with the underlying DNA of plants is more severe than trying to cross breed and selectively breed certain desirable traits."

Its the same thing. One is relying on nature to do it randomly until the desired effect is achieved, the other is being more specific.

My main issue is that this is mostly raised in relation to 'GMO' crops, which seems arbitrary. We do it by cross-breeding, sure, but we've also been doing crazy stuff like mutation breeding for decades (blast tons of seeds with radiation and chemicals and see what shakes out). That's considered 'non-GMO' by, for example, the EU. The whole thing feels like a false dichotomy.

You could make a similar argument about any technology: we don't fully understand nature, so messing with it is dangerous. Luckily we've come up with techniques of science and engineering that help us mitigate the danger. We can run experiments, do focused testing, build and validate models, and so on. Is there something unique about GMOs that would make these techniques not work? How do you feel about pharmaceuticals that often "play god" at a more fundamental biochemical level with even more poorly-understood mechanisms?

I agree but also think that a self-replicating experiment is a different class of danger than a one-off experiment. If we get to self-replicating nanobots, I hope the level of caution there goes well beyond that of the Manhattan project.

> If we get to self-replicating nanobots, I hope the level of caution there goes well beyond that of the Manhattan project.

We already have those and they are called viruses and bacteria for which we have pretty good defenses against them.

From-scratch nanobots won't be facing pretty good defenses. That said tinkering with viruses is scary too.

Any mistakes made by biotechnology would be short-term rather than long-term. Absent artificial selection pressures, something like golden rice would quickly revert to regular rice. What usually gets brushed aside is the fact that resources are not unlimited, and it takes extra energy for rice to produce that extra vitamin A, meaning it probably grows slower compared to unmodified rice. If we just left it unattended, not selecting the golden rice kernels for replanting, all the rice would eventually shed themselves of this useless gene that's slowing them down.

Same with the bt crops. The fear about the genes getting out in the wild is greatly exaggerated. Individuals with those extra energy-sucking genes are really at a disadvantage once the selection pressure is turned off.

If the internet was invented before antibiotics or animal husbandry, you could post the exact anti-GMO argument for those technologies as well.

>Even if GMOs can do a lot of good in the short-term, it would be terrifying to find out in the long-term that we've caused horrific damage due to our arrogance.

Same thing can be said for selectively breeding plants.

If you paint with broad strokes, yes. But selective breeding doesn't have the power genetic modification does and thus more caution ought to be exercised. And frankly it isn't an argument. Selection ought to be taken seriously. The misuse of antibiotics has contributed to antibiotic resistant strains that are a serious threat. Furthermore, the social dimension is important. Corporations like Monsanto are been involved in corrupt practices that aim to expand their control over agriculture. It's not necessarily the GM per se but the kind of GM they're doing (producing sterile crop that would force farmers to purchase more, or patents and the ridiculous royalties around them). Third world countries stand to loose in these cases because the crop is being pushed on them for nutritional reasons without considering the strings attached to them. Furthermore, Europeans tend to take a precautionary approach whereas Americans tend to release something to market and watch for effects. It's frankly a general practice that is a bit worrying and boorishly pragmatic. So there's that. The GMO bit is kind of a red herring here.

I'm not anti-GMO per se, but the behavior of Monsanto and its ilk cloud the issue.

Also, CRISPR and related biotech advances are a completely different level of impact. Should we wipe out mosquitos? See eg https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601213/the-extinction-inv... Selective plant breeding, this aint.

>I have to admit that the science side of this is very compelling: zero documented negative health outcomes is pretty compelling evidence for its safety.

Until there is, of course. And if it turns out that this evidence comes out decades later or in next generation, it will of course, a little bit too late for them.