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.

Comments

Nonsense. Again.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

oooh GMO is to oscary u guys!

[jeffmeden]

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.

Re:oooh GMO is to oscary u guys!

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:oooh GMO is to oscary u guys!

[nine-times]

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.

A mathematician commenting on biology

[Overunderrated]

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.

Re:Nonsense. Again.

[jamiesan]

Well, it worked for Siegfried.

Re:Nonsense. Again.

[PopeRatzo]

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.