> I submit that this is why societies have developed systems for dealing with those problems, instead of avoiding risks entirely

And that's why I said before we roll over our entire food production system, not any of it.

What I'm saying is we should leave their risk preference up to individuals, and allow them to pick their exposure to new science -- using things like GMO labels. (Tracking numbers for cultivars in a databse would be good, just like chemical data.)

I just find your insistence that the public isn't allowed to give science as an institution a prior on "going to pose a health risk with new technology" to be unethical.

Science has had many high profile safety failures regarding new technologies being rolled out, particularly in food, and it's entirely fair for the public to respond, even if they don't have specific objections at present.

Why trust people with a history of systematic mistakes to be right at first blush?

Why single out GMO? Why not label food which has been made through mutation breeding / radiation breeding? That ought to be a bigger concern.

Except I guess this has been done for so long that pretty much everything already sold in the grocery store as well as organic food would be labeled.

You have already been eating tons of this stuff which is potentially more risky than GMO, yet you want to single out GMO for labeling?

Two points:

1. I can think there are things wrong with food safety and advocate for new things being done safely at the same time. To some degree, you have to make changes where there's the political will to improve, even if it's not perfect.

2. The rate of mutation and deployment of new cultivars is really the concerning aspect, not the mechanism. I think we should have to label and clone cultivars (while checking for drift) these days, which still isn't perfect but better.

I want to make wider changes, but there's no reason not to start with limited changes at the start, particularly if we can do it for the method that's likely to be the long-term winner.

GMOs have the economic advantage of precision and control, while they also have the political will around them to effect regulation. So you can effect long-term broad legislation by targetting GMOs at this early stage.

So let me ask you this, if I were broadly concerned by food as widely practiced, unregulated pharmacy, why wouldn't I target regulation on a politically hot portion of the market as the wedge for wider reform?

I would think you'd be concerned to get the food industry on your side. This seems likely to be more difficult than necessary if you propose to shift consumers away from some of their products and hand them inconsistent labeling standards across their product ranges.

Besides, free markets don't operate well if buyers have information on only half the products.

Holy smokes, that mutation breeding was news to me!

That's how typical plant selective breeding works. Plant a bunch of the plant, induce all the mutations you can with all the mutagens (radiation, chemicals, etc.) you can, and look for useful traits. Then use recombinant breeding techniques to try to breed just those traits back in.

This has been standard practice since at least the 40s. There's very little "natural" about it.

I think GMOs are not special in the health risks potentially posed, and as a result do not believe that GMOs should get special labeling requirements. I think doing otherwise is base fearmongering.

I do not think it's reasonable that the public is trying to give science-the-institution a prior on "be absolutely, 100% certain that no risks are posed with new technology". I think the public is unreasonably expecting proof of perfection and an impossible level of control via policy. Science doesn't produce infinite sigmas. You can't get that control over CRISPR, the equipment and skill required are too low.

Yes, there is a history that includes a number of failures. That history also includes stunning successes. I think it's unreasonable to demand that science only ever produce successes.

We trust people with a history of systemic mistakes because they're also the only ones with the history of systemic success in this arena.

I just think that GMO cultivars should be required to be identified the way chemicals are, and meet similar safety standards to other food additives. In many ways that's what they are: an added chemical to a standard product. (Though, I support identifying them by bundles, ie, cultivars.) Do you think that's an unfair standard -- that a new technology be labled like other technologies, so people can be aware that it's happening?

I get that you want to manipulate people and not allow them choice "for the right reasons", but do you really not understand why Im not okay with that? I can outline the history of that thought, and the dire consequences, if you'd like.

You also misunderstood the prior. The prior is merely on "this technology will be dangerous to use for the first N years". I think that's a perfectly fine prior to have, and science has a history of underestimating those risks because they're (understandably) confident in their work (and bear almost none of the cost).

No one is saying scientists have to always be right, just we should be cognizant of their systematic optimism about technology maturity and risk. And therefore, we should be about 3-4 decades more cautious than scientists call to be on technology rollovers of key infrastructure.

Which, given when they started to be rolled out, would be a couple decades from now for total adoption of GMOs.

Ed: I suppose my question about GMOs is this -- if there's no improper motive, what's the hurry to make the transition? We're not starved for land for farming in the US, farming is making acceptable profits, etc. We have the resources to easily sustain a culture wide trial period of a few more decades (a generation from the start), where I believe that GMOs will be able to mature and show their safety and benefit.

What I don't get is why most GMO proponents go "Nah, fuck safety, science didn't mess up this time." They won't benefit in any appreciable way, only companies of which they're not owners will, but they're taking on the risk for someone else's reward.

PR, eh?

>...I just think that GMO cultivars should be required to be identified the way chemicals are, and meet similar safety standards to other food additives.

This idea that GMOs are unregulated is a myth. If someone wants to argue for more testing, that is one thing, but in doing a simple google search it is easy to see that there is certainly oversight:

>...The three main agencies involved in regulating GMOs are the US Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

>...APHIS regulates the planting, importation, or transportation of GM plants pursuant to its authority under the Plant Protection Act (PPA),[23] which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to “prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of any plant, plant product [etc.] if the Secretary determines [it] is necessary to prevent the introduction . . . of a plant pest or noxious weed within the United States.”[24] By regulation, APHIS classifies most GM plants as plant pests or potential plant pests and as “regulated articles.”[25] Under the PPA, a regulated article must receive prior approval from APHIS before it is introduced.[26]

>APHIS grants authorization to use GM plants in three ways: through a notification process, a permitting process, or a determination of nonregulated status.

>...In a 1992 policy statement, the FDA reaffirmed that in most cases it would treat foods derived from GMOs like those derived from conventionally bred plants, and that most foods derived from GM plants would be presumptively GRAS. However, with respect to a GMO product “that differs significantly in structure, function, or composition from substances found currently in food,” premarket approval of the substance as a food additive would be required.[47]

>...The EPA regulates pesticides and microorganisms developed through genetic engineering.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php

I'd just like to address an overall sentiment. There is this idea that science screws up now and then and we all get hurt so it is ALWAYS good to be skeptical.

I think that is an equally dangerous thought. More people have died and gotten hurt from being skeptical to science than those who have died due to science.

When science suggested you should clean yourself before doing surgery, delivering babies etc, then Semmelweis got laughed at. People thought they should stick to what they "know".

People of science got burned for suggesting the earth orbited the sun.

A scientific approach determined that we should wear seat-belts in cars. Still a lot of people around the world being skeptical towards these expert suggestions die.

People die from not getting vaccines, because they believe more in their "feelings" then hard science.

The point is there is no alternative to science. If GMO was ever proved unsafe it would be through the scientific method, not by peopling "feeling" their way to an answer.

People like you are what's wrong with science. Get off the strawman soapbox.

The actual analogy of my position: "That washing thing is radical, let's trial it in a quarter of the cases based on early results and compare outcomes."

That's the perfectly rational response to a radical, but promising change. Not to switch all the ORs based on preliminary results.

Pretending that "we should roll out GMOs slowly because we're bad at systemic risk and this is important" is the same as "burn people for talking about heliocentric systems" is just nonsense zealotry from you. Which is why people are concerned about GMOs -- doubting zealots is good practice.

I think GMO cultivars are not different from any other plant cultivar. I think we should label them. All of them, without exception. I don't think this is misleading or manipulative. I do understand why people might disagree. For my own part, I think people should have all the information that can be reasonably made available for decision-making. This included both GMO and non-GMO cultivar information. I dp think giving people GMO data and witholding non-GMO data is an unfair standard.

I actually don't think this would frighten people. I think most people would realize they don't actually care. The ones who do could make their own choices.

The current public rhetoric is basically that scientists do have to always be right. That this technology is too scary unless it's perfect every time. People are terrified of berries that don't bruise when they get cold or apples that don't turn brown when cut open.

Of course we should be cognizant of the risks. We should also be cognizant that they are not fully controllable and act accordingly.

We agree on general labeling; our disagreement is limited largely to if we should implement that on the part of the market where there is political will for it as a start.

The rest of our disagreement is on the role scientists had in public perception of their trade. I think scientists have earned the scepticism they face; you (and another commenter) seem to feel the benefits of rapidly deployed science outweigh the risks; I think you're falling prey to a common human error of underestimating long-tail risk (particularly that others pay), which science has a history of underestimating.

I also think you only address strawman versions of the other side, and much of their blanket rejection of your position stems from openly mocking and strawmanning theirs, which when pressed on technical details, you admit is a valid concern.

To some capacity, GMO proponents arent necessarily wrong, theyre just assholes.

I think your approach, limiting implementation to the portion of the market where there is political will, is highly likely to bias results into producing a meaningless outcome. Scary labels on some things and not others really do scare people. That strikes me as poor experimental design, likely to show that if you put scary packaging on some products then fewer people will buy them.

I'm pretty sure we know that one already.

You're right. I don't believe that engaging with the concerns of anti-GMO activists is a productive course of action. I don't think being sympathetic and a good listener here will be any more helpful than being nice to antivaxxers has been. I think you cannot reason people out of a position rooted in fear.

It's very possible that scientists are as bad at handling systemic risks as you say. You very well may be right. However, in this case those systemic risks must be weighed against the other systemic risks we face without GMOs. We are not in a situation where there is a risk-free option on the table, and we do public policy a grave disservice by pretending otherwise for political expediency.

>People want to believe that there are easy, clear controls on this stuff. That we can stay on the safe system we have now if we wish.

I have been convinced for a while that it should be possible, easy even, to separate GMOs into two categories:

* those which are designed to kill something, be it an insect, fungus, bacterium, or whatever, by producing a chemical or something reasonably similar

* those which are designed for any other reason than killing pests

I think it isn't unfair that the first category should see more suspicion than the second category. A poison, regardless of what species it's directed at, is still a poison. I also think it would be reasonable to have separate labeling for the first category, but not for the second category, since it should be possible to test for foods being in the first category (by e.g. GC/MS).

One thing that we've learned from the history of antibiotics is that quick-fix chemical solutions to pest control are really hard to get right. In particular, an unexpected antimicrobial compound can interfere with existing microbiota of some person or animal; particularly if they are immune-deficient this is a serious concern.

One of the first GMOs that got people really worked up was the "fishberry". It's a fruit engineered to better resist low bruising in low temperatures. Nothing involved pesticides of any sort.

I suspect you will find most anti-GMO activists do not want and will not support separate labeling as you describe.

> Yes, there is a history that includes a number of failures. That history also includes stunning successes. I think it's unreasonable to demand that science only ever produce successes. > We trust people with a history of systemic mistakes because they're also the only ones with the history of systemic success in this arena.

You are factually wrong here. Science as we know it today is, what?, 150 years old? Are you really saying that all the achievements of human civilization up to ~1870 were plain dumb luck???? I don't know you, but, when I try to convince people of something, calling them idiots is generally a bad idea.

More over, your claim comes of as self serving and disengineous: "How dare you point out our mistakes, we have had plenty of successes too".

This attitude is eroding faith of the common people in science, and there's no one but the scientists to blame for that. The antivaxes might be all wrong, but I don't blame them for distrusting people that talks them down like that.

OK. What kind of attitude do you think should be adopted and how should it be different? How should I sound? I'm assuming you mean some kind of humility here.

Have you seen what happens when antivaxxers are treated with respect, heard out, and their fears listened to?

I have.

Personally, I do not really care what Kalium-the-person says or does.

But as long as you are donning the hat of Kalium-the-spokeperson-of-Science, you are displaying ignorance and comptept for human nature. You seem to confuse the fact that Science is able to get the material facts more or less right, with the assertation that people should automatically trust/obey what scientists say.

They did just that, during the 20th century... and then (some of) the scientist sold out to moneyed interests. They made claims that were not 100% supported by the facts, but they did it anyways because their sponsors asked for it very nicely. Then, when (some of) those claims turned out to be false... it was not the sponsors or the guilable individual scientists who received the hit to their reputations, Science-the-institution did.

So, people have reason to distrust. And the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that much and demand compliance because you happen to be donning a white labcoat makes all of us look bad.

You say that it is unfair that others only point to our mistakes and forget our successes. That's Standard-Operations-Procedure in politics, everybody does it. Heck, even you do the same, it is just that you don't notice.

So given that the other people are not going to listen to you... what's to do? Throw a tantrum? Or engage the others with the tools of the politician?

Comparing anti-GMOers to antivaxxers is disingenuous.

Anti-GMOers not eating GMO food doesn't hurt you, antivaxxers doing their thing does.

They may not be hurting me directly, but there are certainly people who are being hurt by lack of access to GMOs because of anti-GMOers. Golden rice could help a great many people, but activists against it have helped make sure it doesn't.

Their fear has not been without a human cost.

So we agree anti-GMOers not eating GMO food does not hurt you or anybody else.

There may be people who would benefit from GMO food, but there aren't any food products that are available only as GMO versions. This makes it a political problem, not a "you can't have it if there is no GMO".

And equating anti-GMOers with anti-vaxxers isn't a solution to any problem nor reasonable.

My position is not, was not, and shall never be that people should be coerced into eating GMO foods against their will. My position is that people who don't want GMO foods on their plate should not obstruct everyone else.

GMO foods are capable of addressing specific problems, like vitamin deficiencies. People should be offered that choice. Anti-GMO activists, like anti-vaxxers, are hurting people by denying them helpful scientific advances.

I've probably missed it, but I haven't seen anyone here arguing that GMO should be banned. I've seen a few people arguing for more testing. I've seen most arguing for labeling.

Who here do you see arguing to ban GMO? Perhaps I just haven't looked closely enough.

I haven't seen anyone make the argument here. I've seen plenty of people make it in real life.

What I have seen is people call for more testing, without defining what's enough for them to be confident in results. I've also seen people call for labels, but only on GMOs. I think the former is a backdoor ban. The latter should be applied to all foods.

When millions are hungry because of precious first-world sensibilities, it becomes more reasonable to equate these things.

There's enough food in the world to feed everybody. GMO is not going to change that. The problem is distributing that food, not producing it.

Still no reason to equate anti-GMOers with anti-vaxxers.

There's been enough food, solely because of the growth of hybrid crops and GMO techniques. We didn't get here by accident. It took lifetimes of effort. Read the biographies of Norman Borlaug and Henry A Wallace. They are credited with feeding billions.

It does hurt less than you'd think.

It's antivaxers' children the ones that suffer the most, but as long as they remain a minority, the risks of an epidemic getting out of control is very small.

And no, we are not going to eliminate infectious disease any time soon. AFAIK, the only disease we have "eliminated" in recorded history is small pox; and what that means is that maybe a dozen governments have their stash of samples that they can turn in biological weapons... all while the rest of us slowly breed resistance out of the gene pool.

Sure, it hurts the anti-vaxxers and their offspring the most, but it becomes a problem if herd immunity is lost.

Plus since we can't just off the anti-vaxxers or let their sprogs die, society bears the cost of dealing with the messes they create.

So... You're explaining that's it's too dangerous and too difficult to control? And so people would be "unreasonnable" in trying to prevent it? Are you serious?

Also, big news. High school kids have knives at schools! Is that also a case of... "The genie's out of the bootle" BS?

Dangerous? No. It's just not practical to control in the same way it's not practical to control who has access to compilers.