107 Nobel laureates sign letter blasting Greenpeace over GMOs

Re:107 Nobel laureates sign letter blasting Greenpeace over ... by unclebucknasty on Friday July 01, 2016 @08:34AM (#12015471)

>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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:107 Nobel laureates sign letter blasting Greenpeace over ... by collyw on Friday July 01, 2016 @12:38PM (#12017610)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:107 Nobel laureates sign letter blasting Greenpeace over ... by unclebucknasty on Friday July 01, 2016 @04:47PM (#12019523)

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.)

[ Parent | on HN ]