That’s true, 20 years wouldn’t necessarily bring to light a delayed effect.
However the GMO case is interesting because we have in effect a massive scale natural experiment, where hundreds of millions of people on one continent have eaten lots of GMO food while hundreds of millions on another continent have eaten very little, over a period of 10-15 years. There is also a highly motivated group of people who bring to the public attention even the smallest evidence of harm from GMOs.
While I don’t rule out a harmful long-term effect, GMOs are a long way down on my list of things to worry about, and dropping further over time.
However the GMO case is interesting because we have in effect a massive scale natural experiment
Not really, because the two groups differs in many attributes. You can’t draw any reliable conclusions from that if you don’t know individual consumption. If you could draw that conclusion we could conclude from US bee deaths that GMO’s are bad.
But there also no reason to assume that risk from GMO would be equally distributed among different GMO foods.
Letting plants produce poisons so that they won’t get eaten by insects is likely more risky than doing something to improve drought resistance.
Our ability to manipulate organism increases as time goes on. Organisms where multiple genes are added might be more risky than organisms where only a single gene was added.
Valid arguments against early GMO that they spread antibiotic resistance genes also don’t hold against newer GMO’s.
While I don’t rule out a harmful long-term effect, GMOs are a long way down on my list of things to worry about, and dropping further over time.
Bioengineered pandemics frequently top the LW census as an X-risk concern. Commerical usage of GMO’s pays for technology development to produce more capabilities on that front.
Bioengineered pandemics frequently top the LW census as an X-risk concern.
yes.
One difficulty about GMO specifically is that as you said,
But there also no reason to assume that risk from GMO would be equally distributed among different GMO foods
Golden rice—probably fine. Pesticide resistant stuff, probably not as fine for various reasons already published in the public domain.
The problem is when talking about GMO you cover the existing proven bad (and since no longer used) as well as the unproven bad. As well as the good and the unproven good and the neutral. you just talk about GMO. It might help to be more specific. Can you be more specific about what you are calling GMO? And what you are saying is the problem? There is no inherent problem with the concept of GMO (modifying genes). It depends on how you use it (which genes and how you modify).
Can you be more specific about what you are calling GMO?
In a world of labeling I have no problem with having more specific labels for different types of it.
And what you are saying is the problem?
Goodhard’s law is generally a problem when you have strong optimisation tools.
With unlabeled GMO’s the commercial pressure is to create food that is as cheap as possible without regard for whether it’s healthy. If you require labeling than the companies producing the food have incentives to produce healthy food.
GMO’s reduce diversity of agriculture. That produces a systems that generally less robust, for reasons that Nassim Taleb talks about frequently.
Golden rice—probably fine.
Do you believe that people shouldn’t know whether or not their rice has added Vitamin A? I think it’s very worthwhile for people to know about it.
Do you believe that people shouldn’t know whether or not their rice has added Vitamin A? I think it’s very worthwhile for people to know about it.
You are jumping topic. GMO risk is different from GMO labeling. However, it is true that labeling nutrition information is good, regardless of GMO status, and that GMO may have more variation in nutritional content (positive and negative) than non-GMO.
No, there are practical healths risks that come from food containing substances that I don’t expect. I might get too much of a certain vitamin if I don’t know that it’s added to my food.
Yes… but this is not an issue of GMO. This is an issue of additives. You should require information that is clearly relevant to health regardless of GMO status. GMOing is a way of adding nutrients, but we would want additives labeled regardless of how they are added.
Or, to put it another way, this is a case where the GMO change is something that should be labeled, because there is a possible effect on health. But the factor under consideration isn’t that it is GMO, it is that it there is an possible effect on health.
No, we don’t want to require everybody who sells an orange to pay for lab tests that determine for every vitamin how much is contained. Making such a requirement would be a death sentence for farmers markets.
A customers has certain expecations about what an natural orange happens to be. It’s a class of objects that shares basic traits. GMO allows giving the orange traits that oranges generally aren’t expected to have.
GMOing is a way of adding nutrients, but we would want additives labeled regardless of how they are added.
Any GMO interventions adds new molecules. If you follow that framework, if you add genes that produce 3 new proteins, put those three proteins on the label.
As another example of probably fine GMO, I’ve just come across a review highlighting the urgency of engineering microbes able to assimilate lactose (to use whey and other wastes of dairy industry as substrates for exopolysaccharide synthesis). They also argue for creating (more) efficient EPS-producers culturable on cellulose-containing wastes, although that does seem to me rather more dangerous, on technical glycerole after biodiesel production, etc.
That’s true, 20 years wouldn’t necessarily bring to light a delayed effect.
However the GMO case is interesting because we have in effect a massive scale natural experiment, where hundreds of millions of people on one continent have eaten lots of GMO food while hundreds of millions on another continent have eaten very little, over a period of 10-15 years. There is also a highly motivated group of people who bring to the public attention even the smallest evidence of harm from GMOs.
While I don’t rule out a harmful long-term effect, GMOs are a long way down on my list of things to worry about, and dropping further over time.
Not really, because the two groups differs in many attributes. You can’t draw any reliable conclusions from that if you don’t know individual consumption. If you could draw that conclusion we could conclude from US bee deaths that GMO’s are bad.
But there also no reason to assume that risk from GMO would be equally distributed among different GMO foods. Letting plants produce poisons so that they won’t get eaten by insects is likely more risky than doing something to improve drought resistance.
Our ability to manipulate organism increases as time goes on. Organisms where multiple genes are added might be more risky than organisms where only a single gene was added.
Valid arguments against early GMO that they spread antibiotic resistance genes also don’t hold against newer GMO’s.
Bioengineered pandemics frequently top the LW census as an X-risk concern. Commerical usage of GMO’s pays for technology development to produce more capabilities on that front.
yes.
One difficulty about GMO specifically is that as you said,
Golden rice—probably fine. Pesticide resistant stuff, probably not as fine for various reasons already published in the public domain.
The problem is when talking about GMO you cover the existing proven bad (and since no longer used) as well as the unproven bad. As well as the good and the unproven good and the neutral. you just talk about GMO. It might help to be more specific. Can you be more specific about what you are calling GMO? And what you are saying is the problem? There is no inherent problem with the concept of GMO (modifying genes). It depends on how you use it (which genes and how you modify).
In a world of labeling I have no problem with having more specific labels for different types of it.
Goodhard’s law is generally a problem when you have strong optimisation tools.
With unlabeled GMO’s the commercial pressure is to create food that is as cheap as possible without regard for whether it’s healthy. If you require labeling than the companies producing the food have incentives to produce healthy food.
GMO’s reduce diversity of agriculture. That produces a systems that generally less robust, for reasons that Nassim Taleb talks about frequently.
Do you believe that people shouldn’t know whether or not their rice has added Vitamin A? I think it’s very worthwhile for people to know about it.
You are jumping topic. GMO risk is different from GMO labeling. However, it is true that labeling nutrition information is good, regardless of GMO status, and that GMO may have more variation in nutritional content (positive and negative) than non-GMO.
No, there are practical healths risks that come from food containing substances that I don’t expect. I might get too much of a certain vitamin if I don’t know that it’s added to my food.
Yes… but this is not an issue of GMO. This is an issue of additives. You should require information that is clearly relevant to health regardless of GMO status. GMOing is a way of adding nutrients, but we would want additives labeled regardless of how they are added.
Or, to put it another way, this is a case where the GMO change is something that should be labeled, because there is a possible effect on health. But the factor under consideration isn’t that it is GMO, it is that it there is an possible effect on health.
No, we don’t want to require everybody who sells an orange to pay for lab tests that determine for every vitamin how much is contained. Making such a requirement would be a death sentence for farmers markets.
A customers has certain expecations about what an natural orange happens to be. It’s a class of objects that shares basic traits. GMO allows giving the orange traits that oranges generally aren’t expected to have.
Any GMO interventions adds new molecules. If you follow that framework, if you add genes that produce 3 new proteins, put those three proteins on the label.
As another example of probably fine GMO, I’ve just come across a review highlighting the urgency of engineering microbes able to assimilate lactose (to use whey and other wastes of dairy industry as substrates for exopolysaccharide synthesis). They also argue for creating (more) efficient EPS-producers culturable on cellulose-containing wastes, although that does seem to me rather more dangerous, on technical glycerole after biodiesel production, etc.