Slashdot Mirror
Black Swan Author: Genetically Modified Organisms Risk Global Ruin
KentuckyFC writes It's 20 years since the FDA approved the Flavr Savr tomato for human consumption, the first genetically engineered food to gain this status. Today, roughly 85 per cent of corn and 90 per cent of soybeans produced in the US are genetically modified. So it's easy to imagine that the scientific debate over the safety of genetically modified organisms has been largely settled. Not for Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of The Black Swan and several academic colleagues who say that the risks have been vastly underestimated. They say that genetically modified organisms threaten harm on a global scale, both to ecosystems and to human health. That's different from many conventional risks that threaten harm on a local scale, like nuclear energy for example. They argue that this global threat means that the precautionary principle ought to be applied to severely limit the way genetically modified organisms can be used.
In a world where shit like aspartame is railroaded through approval because of political connections, why in the fuck would I assume anything is "settled", just because it is commonly sold and used?
it's not too unlikely that pest plants will eventually pick up glyphosate resistance anyway
Plenty of weeds have already done that. So far, all of these weeds resist glyphosate via a completely different mechanism from the way GMO plants do it.
And the other key part is that the danger of potential consequences should be weighed against the expected benefit. Eg. if we are about to starve because a disease is wiping out corn, it's better to risk with GMO corn that to have no corn. And likewise we shouldn't introduce potentially huge unknown risks that could take decades to show -- like trans fat, if we can even trace those back -- for small benefits like 10% lower price or slightly longer shelf life.
But you're right, we in the modern society are unable to see things deeper, even using our own logic. I was somewhat open before reading Antifragility and still felt shock and hostility to Taleb's ideas, took me quite some time to start digesting them. In some ways those aren't necessarily his ideas even, it is a wisdom of humanity that has been lost temporarily. But he gets the credit for reminding us of those despite the hate he gets.
And that doesn't even cover the potentially disastrous effect of having a handful of companies own the intellectual property to major foodstuffs.
Also, frankly, that those handful of companies stand to make so much money from these crops. Not to get all conspiracy-theory, but if you have a couple of companies controlling global agriculture, and they're making billions of dollars from these GMO crops, and then they discover there might possibly be a problem, their motivations are all pointed at burying that problem rather than bringing it to light.
And this is part of what's become very scary about "how the world works" now. We've gotten very good at manipulation and propaganda. If someone comes out saying that GMOs are bad, there are a bunch of very good propaganda spin doctors for hire who can make those people look like crackpots. They can't convince everyone, but they can convince enough people to gridlock the debate. Meanwhile, these companies can send lobbyists and campaign contributions to all the politicians they want, and make sure the laws are rewritten to help them out.
Now I'm not saying that GMOs are bad and dangerous. However, I do think that it should be pointed out that, if they were dangerous, some very wealthy companies would devote a lot of resources to hiding/obscuring that fact, and they would be largely successful. This is, in itself, grounds for concern. And not just regarding genetically modified food.
Oh, for chrissake:
http://omicsonline.org/open-ac...
http://www.theatlantic.com/hea... (this one is notable because the author received death threats immediately after publication)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05...
Did I call it or what? My first post in this comments section predicted that I would be compared to anti-vaxxers. If I were to continue, I guarantee I would soon be compared to racists, Nazis and worse.
Look, I don't care if there are GMO plants. I just want it to be spelled out, right in the "nutritional data" that is already on the label, that this food is the product of a patented organism.
I find it interesting that all these "pro-Science" people are so vehemently opposed to this one bit of truthful information being given to consumers. For some reason, the believe there is a fact that consumers don't have the right to know. Further, there have been industry lawsuits attempting to stop companies who do NOT use GMOs from labeling their products as NOT containing GMOs. Go figure. I guess "Science" is fungible when it comes to people's right to know what they're eating. Since when has "Science" been in favor of people not knowing something.
You are welcome on my lawn.