Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Black Swan Author: Genetically Modified Organisms Risk Global Ruin

Posted by samzenpus on from the won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-world? dept.

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.

65 of 432 comments (clear)

  1. You mean the same precautionary principle that led by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You mean the same precautionary principle that led the US government to indoctrinate a generation of kids in the food pyramid, leading to generational highs of sugar intake and obesity, and probably millions of early death, because scientists thought that fat might be responsible for heart disease?

    Be careful with anything that starts with "ignore evidence to begin with"

  2. Nonsense. Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And we've been comparing apples to oranges for just as long.

  3. oooh GMO is to oscary u guys! by jeffmeden · · Score: 5, Informative

    What they don't bother to put in TFS is that the 85% of corn and 90% of soybeans currently running modified genes are only modified to make them immune to glyphosate (aka "Roundup-ready"). There only real risk is that maybe by some huge stroke of bad luck, some other plant (a weed, say) picks up glyphosate resistance from these genes. The thing about that fear tactic is that it's not too unlikely that pest plants will eventually pick up glyphosate resistance anyway, and it's not really a scary prospect since glyphosate is only relied on for farming, and if it stops working they can move on to a different herbicide for us to debate over.

    Making glyphosate resistant corn? Probably going to have 0 repercussions, and the worst-case scenario is not unlike the chemical resistance issues we face in almost every other area of biology (i.e. penicillin resistant bacteria). Making a corn-tomato-hemp hybrid that grows a foot a day and re-roots itself whenever it's cut down? OK maybe we should talk that one through a little more. Scare mongering with the "GMO will make our planet a Mad-Max wasteland of anarchy" is really unproductive.

    1. Re:oooh GMO is to oscary u guys! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:oooh GMO is to oscary u guys! by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I didn't read the thing, so I'm just guessing, but I suspect that the problem isn't with any given genetic modification, but with the unknown factor of how those modifications will impact the environment in the context of being spread throughout the world and replacing other varieties of the same crop. Nassim Nicholas Taleb is very interested in the concept of risk, particularly regarding unforeseen outcomes and consequences.

      So the idea probably isn't simply, "this specific genetic modification is bad" or "all genetic modifications are bad", but something like, "If we aren't careful with genetic modification and how it's applied on a global scale, what are the chances that someone, at some point, will screw something up really badly and cause a catastrophe?"

      Now, it may even be that some of the possible causes of danger are indirect. Do these practices encourage a mono-culture in agriculture, where farmers are all using the same genetic strain of seeds and the same farming methods? Mono-cultures generally tend to make any kind of failure or unforeseen consequence more serious. If there's a disease that attacks the crops, you're less likely to find a resistant strain if everyone is using the same strain. If it turns out that a certain farming method is causing a certain kind of environmental damage, the effect will be amplified if everyone is using that same method.

      It may be that the argument, then, is not about whether the plants are genetically modified, but more about global farming mono-culture. However, I'd expect that part of his argument would be that more "natural" methods of farming have been tested more thoroughly, and their global consequences are therefore more well known. Effecting a change in farming methods to any method which is novel, and therefore much less well-tested, is much more likely to have unforeseen consequences. Effecting such a change on a global level could be disastrous. Even if we can't see any way in which such a disaster would happen, unforeseen consequences are inherently unforeseen. The global biosphere is enormously complex, and unforeseen consequences are likely.

      Of course, that's what I would guess this is about, but I don't want to actually read the paper.

    3. Re:oooh GMO is to oscary u guys! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      It's only the plants that get their genes from evil technology which threaten to end human civilization.

      No, it's only the plants who are protected by intellectual property laws and belong to evil corporations which threaten to end human civilization.

      And shame on you for wanting to known if the food you eat has been licensed from the company that invented Agent Orange and dioxin, right? I mean, stupid people...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:oooh GMO is to oscary u guys! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      but something like, "If we aren't careful with genetic modification and how it's applied on a global scale, what are the chances that someone, at some point, will screw something up really badly and cause a catastrophe?"

      Exactly. And that doesn't even cover the potentially disastrous effect of having a handful of companies own the intellectual property to major foodstuffs.

      I guarantee, that no matter how reasonable or conservative your thoughts, if you even suggest the possibility that there might be a reason to so much as label GMO foods as GMO foods, the astroturfers from hell will descend upon you. If you suggest caution you will be labeled as a fear-mongering hysteric.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:oooh GMO is to oscary u guys! by nine-times · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:oooh GMO is to oscary u guys! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Monoculture is bad, remember?

      GMO does not imply monoculture. GMO soybeans all have the gene for glyphosate resistance, but otherwise have a large amount of genetic variation.

    7. Re:oooh GMO is to oscary u guys! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      No, it's only the plants who are protected by intellectual property laws and belong to evil corporations which threaten to end human civilization.

      The patent for glyphosate (Roundup) has already expired. The patent on the gene for "Roundup-Ready" herbicide resistance expires in a few months.

    8. Re:oooh GMO is to oscary u guys! by Altrag · · Score: 2

      And shame on you for wanting to known if the food you eat has been licensed from the company that invented Agent Orange and dioxin, right? I mean, stupid people...

      Actually, that is pretty stupid. AO was 70 years ago, almost certainly made under the reign of a completely different set of directors and C?Os, and made under contract (as in, has fuck all to do with their regular commercial operations in the first place.)

      One mistake (especially one that only turns out to be a mistake in retrospect) does not define a company with the size and history of a Monsanto. Pretending that something they did three quarters of a century ago has any bearing on their modern operations is just silly.

      Which isn't to say you shouldn't hate their modern operations if you take a dislike to them.. but we're around 5-6 decades past where its meaningful to bring up AO anymore, if it ever was.

    9. Re:oooh GMO is to oscary u guys! by nine-times · · Score: 2

      Which is an argument from pure and total ignorance.

      No, it's an argument about the nature of ignorance. Again, we're talking about risk assessment, not genetics, and Taleb has made compelling arguments to the effect that we misunderstand how risk should be calculated. For example, you say, "the end results are exactly the same," and we can grant you for the sake of argument that there is absolutely no difference in the results, as far as we can tell, for any test that we can think to use to look for differences. But now we have to assess the risk of "what if there's a possible difference that we don't know how to test for?"

      This is madness akin to refusing a different path to work than normal for fear of possible world shaking consequence.

      With a big difference: I have a lot of experience with taking different paths, and so do you. So do many animals over millions of years. The results of taking different paths, in general, is well known. The same can't be said of this kind of genetic manipulation.

      If no one had every taken a different path before in the whole of human history, and we just recently discovered how to take different paths when traveling, then it might make sense to exercise some caution while we figured the whole "different path" thing out. And while the risk of taking a different path might not be very high, we might not want to wager the entire food chain of our planet on taking a different path until we've had some time to see how it all works out.

  4. I'm all in favor... by RingDev · · Score: 2, Insightful

    of extensive testing, trials, heck, even labeling. But after 20 years of GMO products, and absolutely no significantly measurable negative ecological/human impacts, I'm thinking maybe we should turn down the rhetoric a bit and continue on.

    Sure, there are risks with mono-culture corps (see: Bananas). And yeah, farmers who use excessive herbicides are dumb.

    But if there were truly a significant health risk in GMOs in general, we should have seen it develop by now. Odds are though that there will be some GMO products that aren't safe and that there will be some GMO products that enable dumb farming practices. But the exact same statement is true if you remove the letters "GMO".

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:I'm all in favor... by JWW · · Score: 2

      And yeah, farmers who use excessive herbicides are dumb.

      What I love is that the anti-GMO crowd is all about how bad herbicides are. Then they go on and freak out about plants that have been modified so that fewer herbicides are necessary.

    2. Re:I'm all in favor... by rycamor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and absolutely no significantly measurable negative ecological/human impacts

      You should try reading the actual paper. Taleb's precautionary principle comes from the acknowledgement that tiny, insignificant changes can become huge changes quite quickly, and quite suddenly, and that risk is a much more complex thing than most modern scientists acknowledge. That's the whole point of his warnings regarding Black Swan events. If you only look at the here-and-now small dangers and never prepare for the extended big ones, it's the big ones that get you in the end.

      Even better, read Taleb's later book "Antifragile". He lays out the wisdom of some more ancient thought patterns that the West has eschewed to its detriment.

      I'm starting to think that Western culture (especially the modern evolution of it) is a giant case of Aspberger's syndrome. Technically proficient and able to endlessly sort details but lacking in wisdom or deeper understanding.

    3. Re:I'm all in favor... by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:I'm all in favor... by AaronW · · Score: 2

      On top of that, glyphosphate is one of the least toxic herbacides out there that generally breaks down relatively quickly in the environment.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    5. Re:I'm all in favor... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      I'm starting to think that Western culture (especially the modern evolution of it) is a giant case of Aspberger's syndrome. Technically proficient and able to endlessly sort details but lacking in wisdom or deeper understanding.

      Someone posted a partial quote and this link in another thread. You might find it interesting and relevant with-regard-to the above sentiment: The Death of Expertise

      I think it applies to a great many of the posts here on /. ...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    6. Re:I'm all in favor... by RingDev · · Score: 2

      That isn't how evolution works.

      Roundup ready corn isn't breeding with crab grass to make roundup ready crab grass.

      Genetic mutations are largely a constant. Every generation will continue to exhibit mutations, the vast majority of which have no impact on procreation and are either carried on, or not.

      At some point in time, over a large enough scale, some weeds have mutated to be resistant to round up. Since some weeds were resistant, and others were not, when sprayed with roundup, those that aren't die. since they are dead, they stop competing with the mutants that are resistant, so the mutant plant grows and procreates much more quickly than it would otherwise.

      And tada: you now have a roundup resistant weed. This is why we've always been critical of people who overuse/overspray as it increases the odds of developing resistant plants.

      It has nothing to do with a black swan event. This is a completely predictable occurrence that was know to agronomists. Just as doctors have been cautioning against excessive antibiotic prescription for decades (as we do in farm animals as well).

      To say that GMOs, as a whole, represent a Black Swan is akin to claiming that the theory of gravity is a Black Swan because some day it may invert and we will all be shot off of the face of the Earth.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    7. Re:I'm all in favor... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      But after 20 years of GMO products, and absolutely no significantly measurable negative ecological/human impacts,

      Whoa nellie! That's not exactly true.

      In areas where Roundup-ready corn has established hegemony, such massive quantities of pesticides have to be used that half a dozen studies have shown sick people with high concentrations of those pesticides in their internal organs.

      http://www.reuters.com/article...

      There is actually a growing body of scientific literature that raises questions about the direct safety of GMOs. Any scientist who publishes such research will have his funding pulled, have donors start contacting his department to try to get him fired, right on up to death threats (and there's even some evidence that those threats have been acted upon in a few cases). Anyone who posts links to such research will be drowned in a sea of astroturf butthurt like you've never seen before, by people whose only comments on the internet ever have been in support of GMOs.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:I'm all in favor... by RingDev · · Score: 2

      You know what the alternative to roundup is? Depending on your climate/crop/competing plants it's a cocktail of 2-5 different herbicides that are significantly more risky to humans and the environment and must be sprayed more often.

      So yeah, roundup ready crops lead to lower levels of herbicide usage by anyone with half a brain on a traditional farm.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    9. Re:I'm all in favor... by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Taleb's precautionary principle comes from the acknowledgement that tiny, insignificant changes can become huge changes quite quickly, and quite suddenly, and that risk is a much more complex thing than most modern scientists acknowledge.

      Most modern scientists fail to acknowledge this threat because this idea is bullshit. I think the great irony of the Precautionary Principle is that the advocates don't eat their own dog food. For if they did, then they would have to rule out use of the Precautionary Principle on the grounds that the harm caused by the rule inherently can't be quantified or understood

    10. Re:I'm all in favor... by khallow · · Score: 2

      And then there's this straw man argument about the conflict being between knowledgeable experts and the completely ignorant. It's not. It's between experts in some fields and knowledgeable outsiders. The outright ignorant play no serious role aside from adding noise and never has. And I can't overemphasize the importance of conflict of interest.

      For example, I once sat on a murder trial as a juror. During that time, various experts were brought in to testify on various aspects of the case, particularly the physics of the slaying in question (a son struck down his father with a baseball bat, a fact which wasn't disputed, the key consideration being instead whether the killing was justified and if not, what level of punishment to apply if it were not).

      At one point, blood spatter experts were brought in by both sides (there were numerous blood spatter evidence throughout the father's house where the slaying occurred). Each one had testified numerous times, I got the impression dozens or even hundreds of times each. I believe the prosecutor's witness was a technician working with a large city coroner's office while the defendant's expert admitted on the stand to testifying for numerous court defenses.

      Not only did their respective testimonies slant in favor of the respective arguments of the prosecution and defense which had employed them, but they had made careers of providing expert testimony exclusively to prosecution or defense in many court cases outside of the case I attended.

      That's why I don't buy the claims of "The Death of Expertise". A heavily biased expert is not necessarily going to be more correct than a knowledgeable, relatively objective layperson though it could happen.

    11. Re:I'm all in favor... by khallow · · Score: 2
      Again, if you use the PP on itself, then "never" is how often you should apply it. Opportunity cost is the most subtle of harms since it is the one never seen. And as was noted elsewhere, proving a negative (absence of sufficient harm) is typically impossible work except for a few contrived situations.

      Also, go back and analyze the banking crisis with your bullshit logic and see how far you get before your brain explodes.

      The banking crisis is easily explained by conflict of interest. It wasn't in the interest of the many involved parties to avoid a banking crisis, because they profited from it, it was their job to ignore it, and it wasn't their money at stake. So will that be the case for the many economic and market crises that follow in the future.

      And PP has nothing to say about banking crises. Are we supposed to not have a society and starve in caves in order to avoid the threats of banking crises? Are we supposed to only have economic growth and not have economic declines no matter how irrationally the growth overbuilt certain areas?

      And such an observation ignores that the greatest harms are rather "in your face". Collapse of industries and markets is a common factor in large declines and contrary to a couple of the assertions here not that hard to anticipate. Similarly, the consequences of bailouts of said industries and markets is pretty well known.

  5. Re:Nonsense. Again. by ClioCJS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yet, let's equivocate all forms of modification to mean the exact same thing, rather than accept complexity and think about the specific details.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  6. Why would I assume it has been settled? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Why would I assume it has been settled? by itzly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just like with old fashioned breeding.

  7. QUestion on dietary restrictions by plopez · · Score: 2

    For example, if something, say corn, is genetically modified to have DNA from a non-kosher animal in it does that food item also become non-kosher? The same could be asked of if the restriction was vegetarian or vegan. How exactly would that work out?

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:QUestion on dietary restrictions by jeffmeden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For example, if something, say corn, is genetically modified to have DNA from a non-kosher animal in it does that food item also become non-kosher? The same could be asked of if the restriction was vegetarian or vegan. How exactly would that work out?

      If you manage to engineer bacon-corn, you will face far more risk from the hordes beating their way to your door demanding the seeds than you will from the Kosher observers who protest.

  8. Re:You mean the same precautionary principle that by tnk1 · · Score: 2

    As a child who was indoctrinated under the food pyramid, I can categorically tell you that I completely ignored it.

    Of course, I'm also not obese, so perhaps you are on to something.

    Seriously, though, how much impact did that program really have? I think the real issue with sugar intake is that sugar (or HFCS) is cheap, is tasty, and is in everything. Also, unlike say arsenic, any bad effects are usually deferred. That seems like the actual issue, and is probably why there are still obesity today.

  9. Re:Nonsense. Again. by JWW · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey. I like this approach.

    For everyone that believes GMO's are EVIIIIIILLLL, if they ever want a dog or cat for a pet they should only be allowed the choice to take a wolf or a tiger home....

  10. Re:Nonsense. Again. by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Oh sh8t, we are....Creationists!? See, there is a Creator, and we are him (or her).

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  11. A mathematician commenting on biology by Overunderrated · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The first half of the paper (dealing with statistics) is all well and logical.

    The second half (dealing with GMO) makes several unfounded claims with no citation. Why does the author assume that GMOs have a non-zero risk of causing global catastrophe? Without any justification for that statement, you can just as easily claim that *not* using GMOs have a non-zero risk of causing global catastrophe.

    1. Re:A mathematician commenting on biology by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 2

      The risk is (meaningfully, not formally) non-zero because GMOs ride the most potent distribution mechanism in existence for free -- natural replication and multiplication. An error in a nuclear reactor doesn't affect other nuclear reactors, but a "faulty" GM organism with potentially bad consequences (for us) can be everywhere just a few generations down. And unlike a computer virus for example, we may not be equipped to deal with the spread in the material worlds.

      A fair question would be why that is different from "natural" mutations of living things. (Which could also wipe us out some day.) The answer, as I understand it, is that natural mutations introduce a small delta of change at once, so there is more opportunity for the entire biosystem to adapt to them or neutralize them if harmful for the system. With GMOs, the delta of change is large and very structured, and that delta propagates at the same speed as the small "natural" deltas.

      "Natural" is btw only a statistical description. The processes we call natural have in the past occurred many orders of magnitude more times than those we call "artificial" and so their consequence is far more known.

  12. Re:Nonsense. Again. by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And we've been comparing apples to oranges for just as long.

    Actually, before there were apples and oranges, there were some people cultivating a variety of bushes with barely edible fruit and wondering if there was any way to get them to ripen larger, taste better, and spoil slower. 500+ years later, here we are, comparing apples to oranges (neither of which existed in its current form back then).

    Or, were you trying to make a joke?

  13. Re:Nonsense. Again. by jamiesan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, it worked for Siegfried.

  14. Re:More conservative fear-mongering by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

    Yep, there's a sharp divide among us peoples on the left involved in environmentalism between those who see our environmental stability as crucial to human happiness and preserving natural beauty for future generations versus those who think "natural=good" "unnatural=bad". We put up with the latter group because a lot of times the goal is the same(save our national parks, keep our drinking water free of contaminants, limit global warming) and allies are necessary to win elections.

    But we also have to repeatedly distance ourselves from the "no nuclear ever", "GMOs are evil", "herbal remedies are better" beliefs that can actually hurt the environment. And some of the biggest environmental concerns pragmatists(natural runoff pollution affecting river DO levels, water rights concerns, the occasional animal population control measure) have don't excite those groups, which sucks too.

  15. Re:Bad argument by sjames · · Score: 2

    Because we have never made something we thought was absolutely safe and then had decades of remediation and lawsuits when it turned out to be a very bad idea.

    The people who pit asbestos in everything thought it was 'just a mineral' and a non-toxic one at that, so what could go wrong with that durable, effective, and fireproof insulation?

  16. Re:Nonsense. Again. by mspohr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What is the difference between selective breeding and genetic modification?... nothing.
    GM is more efficient at selecting genes but no qualitative difference.
    BTW, mother nature has been doing GM for millions of years and randomly inserting genes across all types of organisms and so far, that seems to be working out just fine.
    So please, Keep Calm and Don't Panic.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  17. Re:Nonsense. Again. by ClioCJS · · Score: 2
    Declaring "nothing" doesn't make it so. Somehow, they decided that a new word with a new definition must be used. Breeding and genetic modification are not the same thing, as much as you want them to be in order to avoid your own silly cognitive dissonance.

    TL;DR: You waived your hands like OP, but it's still not a magic trick.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  18. Re:You mean the same precautionary principle that by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    I think the real issue with sugar intake is that sugar (or HFCS) is cheap, is tasty, and is in everything. Also, unlike say arsenic, any bad effects are usually deferred. That seems like the actual issue, and is probably why there are still obesity today.

    You might find this interesting: Sugar: The Bitter Truth by Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology. It's about 90 minutes, but worth the watch. He describes how Fructose (from wherever, sugar, HFCS, etc...) is metabolized by the liver in a similar fashion as alcohol, but w/o the physical limitations of consuming too much alcohol, and raises triglycerides and cholesterol, etc...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  19. Re:More conservative fear-mongering by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

    No, sorry, you have to have a justifiable concern, even if questionable, to object to something. "It could be bad, maybe, we just don't know" isn't enough.

  20. Re:Bad argument by rasmusbr · · Score: 2

    I skimmed the paper and the paper is a bit air-headed and unfocused when it comes to the biology.

    They are a bit implicit, but it appears that their main failure scenario depends on the idea that with GMO you get huge monocultures where agriculture is dominated by relatively untested species, which could be susceptible to plant diseases. This is true, as far as I know. And I suppose that the risk of global catastrophic outcomes could very well be real.

    They also seem to assume that with non-GMO breeding techniques you do not get huge monocultures where agriculture is dominated by relatively untested species, which could be susceptible to plant diseases. This is not true AFAIK.

    So yeah, there is risk. But I don't understand where the GMO factor comes into the equation.

  21. Re:Nonsense. Again. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Breeding is riskier

    Here they come. There is an absolute army of pro-GMO astroturfers who set their RSS feeds to trigger a fire alarm whenever GMOs are mentioned. They admit this.

    You are not allowed to suggest there are dangers to GMOs. You are not allowed to point out any studies that suggest there are dangers to GMOs, because they will answer, "It's just one study" or, "It was a flawed study" or, "The researcher is being paid by the global anti-GMO elite!". You are not allowed to know whether the food you buy is licensed by Monsanto. You are not allowed to object to intellectual property laws being applied to basic foodstuffs. You are not allowed to know whether what you feed your family is made from GMO products for any reason whatsoever. If you say, "As a consumer, I want to know the provenance of the food I eat," they will say, "You are stupid and bad and anti-science". They will compare you to anti-vaxxers, Nazis, Michael Vick, Nickelback and Stalin if you suggest that GMO foods should be labeled as such. They will tell you that companies should not be allowed to label their food as "Contains no GMOs" if it does not in fact contain no GMOs because that would be unfair to the chemical industry.

    They use approximately the same sealion techniques as GamerGate. They will politely ask the same questions, over and over, saying "Where is your proof!" and when you show them the proof, they will say, "Those scientists are all being paid by Al Gore/Whole Foods/PETA;/George Soros/or the worldwide cabal of billionaire organic farmers.

    They will come by the dozens. You cannot win. I'm telling you, leave this one alone.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  22. Re:Nonsense. Again. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    if they ever want a dog or cat for a pet they should only be allowed the choice to take a wolf or a tiger home....

    Yes, because your dog Sniffles is actually the product of genesplicing of a dog and fish genes and requires massive amounts of pesticides to live.

    So, SHUT UP YOU ANTI-GMO PEOPLE. You are stupid, and wrong and want people to starve because you would like to know the provenance of the food you give your families.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  23. I think you nailed it there by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the proposition that NOT using GMOs risks global catastrophe might have more odds in its favor than using GMOs.

    Consider:
    Bananas, citrus, chocolate, coffee are all threatened by pathogens or climate change. There are some credible pathogen threats to wheat as well.

    In the case of citrus, the ONLY (**ONLY**) resistant variety to citrus greening disease, out of ALL the citrus varieties on the plant, is a GMO variety that has genes from spinach spliced in.

    So we have a case of, worldwide collapse of citrus production, OR GMO citrus.

    I think I'll take the GMO citrus, thank you very much. If I were a Florida planter, and I weren't worried about anti-GMO hysteria, I'd be replacing my citrus orchards (as they die) with GMO plants.

    As I referred to above, similar threats are either now or are poised to decimate bananas, coffee, chocolate, and wheat, though I'm not so sure that the naturally resistant variety situation is so dire in those cases.

    Best,

    -PeterM

  24. Re:Nonsense. Again. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    Actually yes, because we now know that transgenic processes occur in nature too.

  25. Re:Nonsense. Again. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, before there were apples and oranges, there were some people cultivating a variety of bushes with barely edible fruit and wondering if there was any way to get them to ripen larger, taste better, and spoil slower. 500+ years later, here we are, comparing apples to oranges (neither of which existed in its current form back then).

    This is not even remotely the same thing as modern gene-splicing. People have NOT, for thousands of years, implated jellyfish genes into food crops, and set them loose in the wild. Talk about comparing apples to oranges! You're comparing kittens to fireflies.

    Wait! Never mind. They've crossed those, too. (Actually it wasn't fireflies, but some kind of bioluminescent bacteria, if I remember correctly.)

    Apples and oranges indeed. Comparing this to gene splicing between unrelated organisms really is more like comparing bacteria to kittens.

  26. And the biologist on the author list is....? by zerobeat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No one. Taleb et. al. claim that GMOs are under the precautionary principle (PP) - something they just invented.. I mean formalized. A nuclear accident is not because its effects are local. GMOs are, I assume because they can spread. They are 'pro-ruin'. I wonder on what time scale they expect this ruin to happen since we have been fucking with plants an animals for thousands of years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... . There is no accurate estimation of the chances that GMOs will ruin us because they don't understand the risks or lack of risks because they don't understand the technology and biology they are talking about. They don't understand the 'risk' of what might happen when one strain crosses with another and just how much gene mixing is going on without humans doing a single thing to guide it. But let me explain it fatuously... what happens if a naturally occurring drought resistant plant crosses with a nearby fungal resistant plant? MAYBE DEATH GENES!!!! It might spread! And humans don't need to be involved!!! Did I say DEATH??? Why aren't we all dead by now? Is it perhaps because Taleb et al really don't understand what happens when genes mix and spread? Do they not know that genes aren't magic monoliths that have been around for years, unchanging? More "weird" crossing happens every single day in Spring than mankind is likely to do in the next 50 years of cross breading (and in the next 100 years inside a lab). If they are concerned about the random events that might happen when one plant crosses with another we should immediately slash and burn all sexually reproducing crops whether GMOed or not. I see less fear mongering about Ebola on FOX News. This is appalling.

    --
    What other people think of me is none of my business
    1. Re:And the biologist on the author list is....? by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They didn't invent the precautionary principle. It's been around for a while. The idea is that you have to prove something is safe before you do it. Sounds reasonable to the layperson, but of course it's an impossible burden to meet (see "proving a negative")

  27. 11 billion people soon we have no choice by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    11 billion people is the current population projection for humanity, and that's a projection you can have some real confidence in. So the question is do you take the best means the incoming billions off the table or do we get cracking and throw everything we have at the problem. Pretty sure if we don't solve the problem nature in her usual fashion will do so for us.

  28. Re:Nonsense. Again. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    The greatest danger from GMO technology is that it enables malice. If ISIS taps the House of Saud bank account deeply enough, it could come up with an Ebola-rabies-common cold doomsday virus much faster and more certainly than by hybridization.

    Fortunately, the same technology allows us to develop treatments to diseases, malicious or natural, correspondingly faster than before:
    http://www.iflscience.com/heal...
    We can't put the toothpaste back into the tube. Our 'recusing' from GMO technology would do nothing to prevent misuse of the tech by anyone still using it. It would only prevent us from developing a response.

  29. Re:Nonsense. Again. by mspohr · · Score: 3, Informative

    Billions of times a day, natural processes substitute random genes from all different kinds of organisms.
    Natural selection takes care of it.
    We are not in a Frankenstein movie... more like Rube Goldberg.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  30. Re:Nonsense. Again. by ray-auch · · Score: 3, Funny

    Have you compared the size of a pig and a glow worm ?

    I think a glow worm would be pretty well fucked if a pig stood on it...

  31. Re:Nonsense. Again. by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, the modern gene-splicing is much safer. Do you know that wheat lost most of its protein content due to selective breeding? Maize lost most of its fat content due to a genetic error (so its wild predecessors are much healthier).

    If the same happened to a GM food then it'd be banned quicker than you can say "paracetomoxyfrusebendroneomycin".

  32. This book is BS by Cyberax · · Score: 2

    If we follow the logic in this book, then we should ban everything up to and including stone tools and fire. For example:
    - Computers: might give rise to an artificial intelligence that will destroy everything. Ban them.
    - Agriculture: might cause people to lose their natural aggressiveness so they'll be easily conquered by the alien invaders. Ban agriculture.
    - Fire: might cause the global firestorm that will destroy all the life. Ban it.
    - Stone tools: they might spark the fire that will destroy all the life. Ban it.
    - Medicine: might cause humanity to lose natural immunity to diseases. Ban it.

    And so on.

  33. Re:Nonsense. Again. by Kaenneth · · Score: 2

    You might want to loosen the tin foil on your head a bit.

  34. Africanized swans: by Hartree · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nasty. Swans are already mean as all get out and now you want to genetically engineer them with African bee dna, so they behave like killer bees.

    Black swan: Cygnus atratus
    Africanized honey bee: Apis mellifera adansonii

    Africanized Black Swan: Cygnus atratus adansonii (variety: Winged Death).

    Attacks in flocks of thousands and chases you for miles. Almost as bad as sharks with lasers, but can fly and travel on land. Doctor Evil would be proud.

  35. Re:Nonsense. Again. by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, the modern gene-splicing is much safer.

    Tee hee

    Do you know that wheat lost most of its protein content due to selective breeding?

    Do you realize that this was the desired outcome? Other varieties of wheat still exist. We don't use them for most things on purpose.

    Maize lost most of its fat content due to a genetic error (so its wild predecessors are much healthier).

    But we cultivated the less-healthy kind on purpose. And if you made it healthier, it wouldn't taste as sweet.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  36. Precautionary principle at work. by goodmanj · · Score: 2

    Let me demonstrate the authors' "precautionary principle", which says that if an action has even a slight or unknowable risk of causing absolutely devastating harm, you shouldn't do it.

    If I leave the house tomorrow morning, there is a chance I might get run over by a truck and killed -- as far as I'm concerned, that's the ultimate in devastating harm. In contrast, the benefits of me leaving the house on a given day (earning some money, keeping my job, seeing the sun) are modest. Therefore I should just stay in bed.

    It's ridiculous, but that is *exactly* the argument they're using against GMOs.

  37. Re:Nonsense. Again. by Cyberax · · Score: 2

    Do you realize that this was the desired outcome? Other varieties of wheat still exist. We don't use them for most things on purpose.

    Modern wheat has much lower protein content than it would be possible with a healthy genome. Also, modern wheat plants are little Frankenstein monsters with highly polyploid genomes riddled with mobile elements. Turns out that higher protein content can be achieved by fixing some of the problems caused by inbreeding during selection: http://www.researchgate.net/pu...

    But no, that's eviiiiiil GMO and natural breeding can't be wrong.

    But we cultivated the less-healthy kind on purpose. And if you made it healthier, it wouldn't taste as sweet.

    Not modern "we". Maize was cultured by Native Americans and its loss of fat was a genetic accident. Corn with higher fat content would have been even more nutritional (fat is more energy-rich), healthier (less sugars!) and probably just as tasty. See: http://www.plantphysiol.org/co...

    Then there are soybeans. Do you know that soy can't be eaten without processing because it's enriched in anti-nutritional compounds? We can now eliminate them through GM by knocking out relevant genes. Is it also TEH EVILZ?

  38. Re:Monsanto is evil, but your anti-GMO screed is F by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you cannot show harm

    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...

    then you are in exactly the same position as anti-vaxxers.

    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.
  39. Re:Monsanto is evil, but your anti-GMO screed is F by tibit · · Score: 3, Informative

    The first reference doesn't talk about evils of GMO, but about the evils of a particular herbicide. The second one talks about miRNA and how genetic material transfers directly from the food we eat into our bodies. This is not by itself pro- or anti-GMO, it's merely a strong point that supports proper testing of GMO foods - something that, admittedly, Monsanto has long argued unnecessary. Again, this doesn't make any particular GMO dangerous, it merely prompts at what should we look at when testing such organisms for consumption by humans and livestock. The third reference shows some fallout from RoundUp-resistance genes jumping from crops to weeds. Again, this doesn't show any danger ingerent in GMOs themselves, but in a particular modification. Just as software development techniques can be used for good and bad, the genetic modifications can be used for good and bad. We need to learn how to use them for good. DUH :)

    Has Monstanto been demonstrably lying through its teeth to the public, repeatedly? Sure. There's no news here.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  40. Re:Nonsense. Again. by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

    it's still just DNA. who cares where it came from, what's important it what it does!...

    What's important is "what it does" in combination with other DNA and mutates in ways that almost certainly would not have occurred without invasive genetic modification. Not to mention "what it does" in combination with other organisms and with its environment.

    The point here is that the interactions of the systems we're dicking with are so complex that we have no possible way of even predicting the outcomes, never mind controlling them. If you're not into reading what Taleb has to say, you might want to at least have a(nother?) look at the concept of Requisite Variety.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  41. Re:Monsanto is evil, but your anti-GMO screed is F by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 2

    Oh no, glyphosates(round-up) and some GMO crops in some study show a possible statistical correlation with negative health factors! We should quickly abandon all of modern agriculture to make sure we don't destroy the health of western civilization! Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

    GMO foods are have been ubiquitous in the western diet for multiple generations already. How to health factors and benchmarks for those generations compare to the ones prior to them? They are radically better. GMO fruits and vegetables that have longer shelf lives alone have vastly improved the health of people across the region. That longer shelf life doesn't just mean a corporate mega supermarket chain can buy more yachts because they reduced losses to waste and increased sales. Those increased sales also mean that lowered prices and greater geographic availability of fresh fruit and vegetables improved the diets of consumers. Even as a kid in central Canada fresh fruits and berries were very limited, but today it's taken as a matter of course you can go out and buy fresh anything in the dead of winter if you're willing to brave the 10foot snow banks between you and the store.

    Sorry, all the fears and studies about potential small scale impacts of GMO crops is dwarfed by the current good of the dietary improvements that GMO has brought.