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.
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"
And we've been comparing apples to oranges for just as long.
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.
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
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?
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....
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.
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?
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.
Well, it worked for Siegfried.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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...
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".
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.
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.'"
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
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.
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.