How I got converted to GMO food

Move along, nothing to see here!
Post Reply
User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

How I got converted to GMO food

Post by Ego »

Times op-ed made me think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/opini ... -food.html
After writing two books on the science of climate change, I decided I could no longer continue taking a pro-science position on global warming and an anti-science position on G.M.O.s.

There is an equivalent level of scientific consensus on both issues, I realized, that climate change is real and genetically modified foods are safe. I could not defend the expert consensus on one issue while opposing it on the other.
Is anti-GMO = anti-science? If not, how is it different?

slsdly
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:04 am

Re: How I got converted to GMO food

Post by slsdly »

Blind fear with respect to GMO is anti-science, sure. That is what the article talks about -- "Oh noes, I will get cancer from a more productive crop."

However that simplifies the problem to absurdity. What about terminator genes to ensure that the seeds produced are sterile? Cross pollination affects farmers who don't grow from GMO seeds (or at least ones without the terminator gene) and could ruin their crop the next year.

Monocultures are integral part of the insect and disease problem -- the more we reduce the genetic diversity, the more we can maximize production under ideal conditions, but the more we stand to lose in face of non-ideal conditions (e.g. new disease outbreak, our plant is susceptible due to genetic modifications, all of our plants die since there is little to no diversity). This isn't inherent to GMO though; if the mutation of interest evolved naturally, the plants would still be dead. Ideally we would be mixing in plants that solve these problems in different ways, and those modified aren't descended from a single plant to preserve the genetic diversity to hedge against unforeseen diseases/insects in the future.

Chad
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: How I got converted to GMO food

Post by Chad »

Yeah, I am slowly coming around to GMO food. My initial reluctance was really a lack of knowledge, which usually, for me at least, results in a default to a very cautious approach. I haven't read nearly as much on GMO's as I have on climate change. Plus, as the article points out there is a lot of propaganda out there that doesn't seem to be based in fact. This is something I need to get up to speed on, but haven't.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -our-food/

henrik
Posts: 757
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: EE

Re: How I got converted to GMO food

Post by henrik »

I am no expert, but I believe there are specific modifications made for specific purposes that have their specific sets of risks and benefits. Being pro- or anti-GMO makes about as much sense as being pro- or anti-technology or pro- or anti-legislation.

Tyler9000
Posts: 1758
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:45 pm

Re: How I got converted to GMO food

Post by Tyler9000 »

The climate change crowd tends to overlap the anti-GMO crowd on the basis of a shared admiration of nature and distrust of industry. Where they sometimes differ is that the former typically stays "pro-science" where the latter often leans "anti-technology". Fear is a powerful intellectual barrier.

It's nice to see someone come around on GMOs. All new things have risk. This one in particular is very well-studied and definitely worth the effort.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15910
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: How I got converted to GMO food

Post by jacob »

slsdly wrote: Monocultures are integral part of the insect and disease problem -- the more we reduce the genetic diversity, the more we can maximize production under ideal conditions, but the more we stand to lose in face of non-ideal conditions (e.g. new disease outbreak, our plant is susceptible due to genetic modifications, all of our plants die since there is little to no diversity).
I wouldn't worry about eating GMO. This I worry about though:

Doing grand experiences on the risk-aspects of global food supply is the ultimate progress trap. It's taking a system that's not only diversified but also hedged in a very integrated way and replacing it with a monocrop that's controlled by a handful of human institutions.

What could possibly go wrong?

Hey wait, let me answer that! It's easy because we humans already done something similar and screwed up other complex experiments on a global scale before. Lets see... over the next few decades or perhaps up to a century these new strains will start dominating the global ecology. This will happen as an emergent quality of the system with no singular point to assign responsibility. Cross pollination happens accidentally (it already has by the way). Some country decide on more lax policies because they need the food to "grow" (ditto). Soon enough scientists and systems analysts will give some early warnings and extrapolations that all seem to point to bad scenarios. These will be considered at the highest level (government, military), but the issues are too complex for democracies to process leading to sustained political inaction and merely calling for "more research". The UN starts holding meetings every 5 years. At each meeting the countries agree to reach an agreement at the next meeting. This repeats for the next 25 years. Meanwhile the economy keeps cranking. People are getting fed. Many jobs are created. Everything seems wonderful. The average voter will be looking at the plants in their backyard and notice that they're doing fine but crop failures seem to statistically become more frequent and more severe. People are getting concerned but mostly they just see it as one of these things. Crops have always failed before and this is nothing new goes the argument. The agro-industrial complex will launch a campaign saying that more science is needed while simultaneously blaming the scientists to be in it for the grant lucre. People will start arguments on the internet almost exclusively quoting "common sense" talking points from blogs despite having any personal experience with plants whatsoever. A senator from Oklahoma will throw an apple from the Senate floor to prove that plants still grow. He will convince exactly 50% of the population with this stunt. And so on and so forth ...

The end will probably look just like the Idiocracy movie... although one could hope it'd look a little bit more like Jurassic Park.

In my very humble opinion ... just because we understand how to manipulate genes doesn't mean we understand how to manipulate the entire ecology. I'm not inherently afraid of GMO as much as I'm afraid of the emergent behaviour of humans collectively "just doing their jobs" without any regard for systemic consequences.

George the original one
Posts: 5404
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
Location: Wettest corner of Orygun

Re: How I got converted to GMO food

Post by George the original one »

Eating GMO food? No, not much problem doing that. 'Tis as safe as most foods can be.

Stifling legal aspect of GMO organisms being loose in the environment? Huge problem. When Monsanto wants to defend their patents because GMO DNA managed to leak into your non-GMO crop that you were using for seed-saving and puts you out of business because you don't have a license to sell their GMO product, then it's wrong. We've seen that story in soybeans and corn and it will happen in other major crops in time.

In Oregon, we've had GMO wheat contaminate a regular crop and the origin of the GMO crop has never been identified!

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15910
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: How I got converted to GMO food

Post by jacob »


workathome
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:06 pm

Re: How I got converted to GMO food

Post by workathome »

I was glad to see Chipotle remove all GMOs. I eat there once every month or two (shhhh).

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: How I got converted to GMO food

Post by Ego »

The title of the op-ed piece is, “How I Got Converted to GMO Food“. I should have made it clear that I personally am not a true convert in the same way that I do not believe that messing with germline modification is good.

The thing I am grappling with is that it was an easy decision to not eat GMO when it was considered bad for me. But now it seems that I can get a benefit, cheaper and cleaner food, and ignore the potential harm because I will probably not live to see the damage. How is this different from my love of travel which usually involves flying? Flying is unquestionably bad, from a climate-change perspective. Or owning stocks of companies that make foods using GMO products? Or the increased environment damage from eating meat.... and so on.

I looked at the responses to Zalo’s question about taking a job that conflicts with his personal ethics and was surprised by the responses. Obviously I am not completely consistent and I have converted to Dragline’s position of foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds.

The question is, at what point does consistency become foolish? Or to put it another way, at what point does motivated thinking cause me to believe that being any more consistent is just the hobgoblin in my little mind?

Tyler9000
Posts: 1758
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:45 pm

Re: How I got converted to GMO food

Post by Tyler9000 »

IMHO, consistency is foolish at the point that it substitutes for new thinking. While the author includes a line about consistency in supporting scientific consensus (I found it more lamely self-congratulatory in a book-promoting kinda way than anything), his position on GMOs seems pretty well researched and thought out. I took it as more of a side note than the main reason he changed his mind. However, if internal consistency (all scientific consensus should be trusted at face value) was his primary motivator then that would have carried no more weight to me than changing his belief in climate change solely because it was inconsistent with his distrust of GMO scientific consensus (no scientific consensus should be trusted at all). That's simple intellectual laziness.

In any case, I think nuance is a grossly under-appreciated skill in modern culture. Everything is all or nothing these days. I believe it's perfectly reasonable to concede the that GMOs are healthy to eat, present tremendous potential to help both people and the environment, and totally deserve intensive research and development while at the same time being worried about legal issues around their distribution and the potential for serious unforeseen systemic consequences. Differing personal weightings of these benefits and risks are also fine, as that fuels productive research and regulation from many angles. But being all-for or all-against with no qualifications is consistency run amok.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: How I got converted to GMO food

Post by Ego »

Tyler9000 wrote: In any case, I think nuance is a grossly under-appreciated skill in modern culture. Everything is all or nothing these days. I believe it's perfectly reasonable to concede the that GMOs are healthy to eat, present tremendous potential to help both people and the environment, and totally deserve intensive research and development while at the same time being worried about legal issues around their distribution and the potential for serious unforeseen systemic consequences. Differing personal weightings of these benefits and risks are also fine, as that fuels productive research and regulation from many angles. But being all-for or all-against with no qualifications is consistency run amok.
Very well said. Thank you for that.

Chad
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: How I got converted to GMO food

Post by Chad »

Yeah, much better explanation than my previous one.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: How I got converted to GMO food

Post by jennypenny »

Yeah, I don't get the author's argument that anti-GMO is anti-science. Using that argument, I could say that a person is anti-science if they're against nuclear power.

Regarding GMO's in particular, I tend to fall into the GMO=frankenfood camp. It's not all the same however. If they are tinkering with plants to get food to grow where nothing grows now, I could probably be talked into it. If you're talking about growing large tracks of GMO corn where heirloom corn used to grow, then I have a problem with it. If food production issues stem from monocropping and inadequate food supplies, treat those issues instead of making the system more fragile by introducing food sources that rely on seeds that need to be 'produced' every year.

My biggest objection is that there's no way to control the GMO's once they are out in the fields. It's the same objection that I have with medical/biological modifications. I don't mind medical developments that can change a single person so that they are healthier. I don't like the concept of manufactured viruses that are designed to combat medical issues. Viruses are more resilient than people. You can't get that genie back in the bottle.

Even if GMO food is safe, I won't eat it. It's the best way to voice my opinion about GMO's.
Last edited by jennypenny on Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15910
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: How I got converted to GMO food

Post by jacob »

@Tyler9000, Ego, Chad - Well, I'd have to disagree with that one. Not on general principle but in certain cases, such as this.

Basically, you're saying that my value = my weight * importance of health + my weight * potential to help people environment + my weight * legal issues + my weight * unforeseen consequences ... and your value = your weight * ... and so on for everybody else will all be tallied up ending up in some kind of debate and consensus.

And this works fine if the issues are local, reversible, linear, and tradeable. In such a case mistakes can be reversed. Costs can be traded for benefits at any level. Our democratic or market based approach can converge on some kind of "best solution".

However, in cases where the issues are global, irreversible, bifurcated, and nontradeable, there are areas of the "map" where the costs are infinite and from which we can not return. This is where standard democratic market-based consensus methodology breaks down. If we hit the zone of ruin/death/extinction, it doesn't matter that there have might be a solution because we can not re-enter the game. We're permanently out.

This is why we calculate SWR because if you run out, it doesn't matter what the subsequent market returns are. It doesn't matter because your principal remains at zero. Similarly, if the human species goes extinct or is sent back to a population of 20000 people, it doesn't matter what the legal issues are or whether it's healthy to eat GMO. Systemic risks become irrelevant after systemic catastrophe has occurred. The situation can not be reversed or scaled/traded back to where it was. That world is gone.

The standard conventions/methods are broken for these issues. Mathematically speaking it happens whenever one of the variables in your style of math is infinite. That breaks it. Another way of grokking the breaking is that like good economists(*) you're presuming that all your variables can substitute for each other. However, things like ruin, death, or extinction have no substitution. Permanent death can't be traded for more favourable legal treatment because legality no longer matters when you're dead. Permanent ruin can't be traded better future returns.

(*) This is why I am very afraid of the kind of thinking Lomborg promotes.

Basically, you can't treat them using a risk perception applicable to a paintball game with flags and points and tactics that reflects that the only cost of getting hit is a 30 second break before you "respawn".

You have to treat them like a war with real bullets and a likelihood of personal death that permanently ends the game.
http://paintball.about.com/od/howtoplay ... oldier.htm
Paintball has objectives such as eliminating the opposing team, collecting flags, holding outposts, finding hidden treasures and other, ultimately meaningless objectives on a finite playing field in a limited amount of time. Wars cover huge areas with countless objectives and often last for years. In paintball the goal is to engage the opposing side, while in war you generally seek to minimize conflict.
Things like climate change, GMO agriculture, and antibiotics are infinite games on a global scale where the objective is to keep playing.

Whereas things like legal issues, democracy and politics, individuals getting cancer, local hunger crises, nuclear reactor accidents, ... is a series of finite independent and local games.

Also see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_and_Infinite_Games

black_son_of_gray
Posts: 504
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 7:39 pm

Re: How I got converted to GMO food

Post by black_son_of_gray »

jacob wrote:And this works fine if the issues are local, reversible, linear, and tradeable. In such a case mistakes can be reversed. Costs can be traded for benefits at any level. Our democratic or market based approach can converge on some kind of "best solution".

However, in cases where the issues are global, irreversible, bifurcated, and nontradeable, there are areas of the "map" where the costs are infinite and from which we can not return. This is where standard democratic market-based consensus methodology breaks down. If we hit the zone of ruin/death/extinction, it doesn't matter that there have might be a solution because we can not re-enter the game. We're permanently out.
This reminds me of Peter Singer's argument about old growth forests. If I remember correctly, his point was that most people would see the last patch of old growth forest and evaluate it purely on how much the lumber board feet would go for economically. What he would say is that clear-cutting the old growth forest essentially permanently destroys it for all future generations, and when it is gone forever, something fundamental and invaluable has been lost. It's just gone forever (or within a practical time period, say 1000 years).

Similarly, with respect to GMOs and biodiversity, it rapidly gets into "where do we draw the line" territory. How much of the last old growth forest do you need to keep? How many GMO crops to keep X biodiversity? A single transgene in a single houseplant to make it glow under blue light probably isn't going to ruin the planet....but what about 500 GMO crops that represent 80% of agriculture and 50% of food? I personally prefer to be very conservative in these situations, but then again, I am in a position where I can afford to be.

Chad
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: How I got converted to GMO food

Post by Chad »

Interesting article on some foods that changed over the years through breeding and now GMO.

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/15/6982053/s ... on-peaches

Post Reply