Our tests are not only limited in time, but also in complexity. Scientists take a sample of subjects in a defined environment. The benefit of that is that they can draw definitive conclusions because of the manageable variables. The problem with it is that you fail to see the big picture, the many interactions with the numerous components of a real life activity, and on the long run.
When talking about living things and food, or in that case, living things that are food, the context is incredibly important to define what is safe or not.
The food we consume now has little resemblance past a visual one (and even not that in some cases), to food of the past.
Time-tested? Only in the past 60 years or so have we actually been able to begin to understand the effects of any food, natural or GMO. That our ancestors didn't keel over immediately after consuming these "same" foods does not mean they are anymore "safe to consume" than GMO foods.
I think this is the wrongest statement I've ever read on HN.
When did strawberries change?
Unfortunately "time" doesn't test for cancerogenicity, as laypeople are terrible at inferring causality that may span months or years. Case in point [1]: several "herbal remedies" used in China for hundreds of years are linked to kidney failure and kidney cancer.
We don't know if something is dangerous until we deliberately and scientifically test it. Given that "non-natural" stuff (e.g. GMO) is thoroughly tested, I would expect that it's way safer than "natural" one that was never really tested.
[1]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/1343598/Chinese-herb-...
Its not so simple. When you consider the significantly lower yields of organic farming[0], combined with a growing world population 71% of which lives on less than $10 a day[1] that will not be able to afford these increased food costs you are left with a question. Do you prefer to add perhaps a few years to the end of your life or do you prefer to allow a great many others to live?
Personally even if GMO and others took a decade from me (I have seen no evidence this is the case. Humans are living longer lives than ever before.) if it allows more children to eat I support it.
[0]https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/20... [1]http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/08/news/economy/global-low-inco...
This also applies to tobacco.
I'd be curious to find out if there's any place with a history of consumption of fresh tobacco leaves as a food item.
It doesn't help when those who have to prove their validity have to resort to regulatory capture so often.