GMOs, Facts and Illusions, a summary sheet - by Nassim Nicholas Taleb

[bananas]

https://www.facebook.com/13012333374/photos/a.10150109720973375.279515.13012333374/10153322953343375/?type=1

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

GMOs, Facts and Illusions, a summary sheet

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/50282823/FictionAndFacts.pdf

September 14

[longship]

1. Yup. Fiction. This entire list can safely labelled as "special pleading"

A common ideological argument tactic.

[upaloopa]

2. I don't want to eat GMO food

I don't want one source for seeds
I don't want to give all food production over to corporations
What kind of argument is that?

[longship]

3. Nothing. But it also has nothing to do with genetic modification, per se.

Genetic modification is safe, BTW. Because it has been happening for thousands of years.

[upaloopa]

4. Well thanks but I won't use you to think for me

[longship]

5. I don't care at all what people think.

Just expect that if one posts ideological stuff that goes against all the evidence to be called out on it. By all means think what you want.

Also, you are already eating genetically modified food because all food is genetically modified. All of it.

[upaloopa]

9. You like me see the world through a paradigm

that you invented for yourself. You are no more assured that you have truth than anyone else. You may be better at selling your paradigm to people but that doesn't validate it.

[longship]

11. I assuredly do not have the truth. That is why I trust the science.

And the science thankfully delivers the closest thing to the truth, in spite of its flaws. Certainly no other discipline can make that claim.

[bvar22]

16. WRONG.

Selective Breeding has been happening for thousands of years.

Gene Splicing has been around for about 20.

The two are vastly different,
and if you had actually read the OP,
you would know that.

If you knew anything about either one,
you wouldn't make such embarrassing posts.

[longship]

17. Selective breeding splices genes!

For Christ sake! That is what it does!
And we've been doing it for thousands of years.

Biology 101.

[bvar22]

19. Yes. It does splice genes,

but there is a BIG difference.
The Earth/Nature prevents the production of an offspring that is radically different from the parents, and can survive and reproduce on its own.
There is no such limitation (Safety Valve) on Gene Splicing.

Have you ever considered the "Unintended Consequences" of Splicing Genes that do not (and can not) normally occur in Nature?
Especially since GMOs were approved by bought politicians and not by Peer Reviewed, independent scientists.

Hey. Monsanto said it was safe, and corporations could make a lot of money!
Whats not to like?


The Challenger exploded.
The Columbia broke up entering our atmosphere.
What happens when we have a disaster like that with our source of foods?
History demonstrates that We WILL have one.
Fukushima anyone?
History 101.

Why don't you post some cites or links to Peer Reviewed, Scientific Journals examining and testing the long term effects of GMOs,
as well as a discussion of the probability of Unintended Consequences.

I'll wait for your cites and links.

[longship]

20. Yes, I did pass Bio 101, just fine. That is why I don't take any anti-GMO crapola seriously.

The OP is just a bunch of special pleading.

And all one has to do is use the Google to find that out.

There is no line of demarcation between cross-breeding and what you call gene splicing, because it is all gene splicing.

And by the way, you have plenty of genes in common with fish, spiders, reptiles, bacteria, and all the rest of the extant life forms on this planet. As does ever other life form on the planet!

That's biology 101, too.

So far, all the anti-GMO arguments are just ideological bad science. You want peer reviewed journals? Start with PubMed.

[jeff47]

7. You have been eating GMO food your entire life.

We just modified the genes in a chaotic and unpredictable manner, instead of actually understanding what was happening.

If I hybridize a tomato and nightshade, I'm creating a genetically modified organism. It requires only "ancient" techniques. It also requires zero testing before sending the result to market.

I don't want one source for seeds

GMOs, in your overly-narrow definition, don't require that. Monsanto tries to do this in order to sell chemicals. Not all GMOs are from Monsanto.

I don't want to give all food production over to corporations

You're about 80 years too late.

[upaloopa]

8. You know repeating some corporation line

is not flattering
Here is a board where calling a candidate a corporatist gets you cudos but buying into corporation's propaganda is supposed to be enlightened science

[jeff47]

10. I'm not. I actually understand what they are doing.

That microbiology degree comes in handy sometimes.

What you oppose:
Inserting a gene known to increase the production of one, non-toxic protein. Also requires at least some manufacturer testing.

What you support:
Blasting a plant with gamma rays, and shipping the result to market with no testing.

Why you support this:
Organic crops make a higher profit per acre due to their higher consumer cost, so there is an active marketing campaign to make "GMOs" scary.

You'll note the people demanding labeling of GMOs are not organizing a "GMO-free" label. Even though it would give you the same information. Why? Because they'd rather you to buy food with an Organic label instead.

This is not a "sinners versus saints" battle. There is evil on both sides.

[NRaleighLiberal]

12. Of course living things are GMO - genetically modified. Genetically engineered

such as inserting genes from species that don't naturally cross - that's another thing altogether.

And that is what has received, in my mind, insufficient testing - not just for personal consumption, for impact of pollen on pollinators.

The science in that area is not only not settled, but insufficient in terms of time and truly objective testing.

This is a highly nuanced, very grey area for much discussion - but black and white all or nothing stances are not all all scientific. They are purely political - or commercial.

And I do know a thing or two about science, having an Ivy League PhD in chemistry. True scientists keep their minds open and continue to seek answers - but independent from those whose best interests have particularly well suited answers. I worked in Pharma far too long to not see how good science can be misinterpreted for corporate profits.

[jeff47]

13. Is it different?

What's the difference between me literally inserting the gene, and me using artificial selection to cause the plant to randomly insert that gene?

And yes, you can get a "spider" gene into a plant via artificial selection. It just takes more time. The prehistoric relatives of our food crops are absolutely nothing like their current forms entirely due to our patient manipulation of their genes.

And that is what has received, in my mind, insufficient testing - not just for personal consumption, for impact of pollen on pollinators.

Yet if I use gamma rays to jack up the mutation rate, I need zero testing. Same if I use chemical mutagens.

If we need more testing, we need more testing of everything. Not just GMOs. My nightshade-tomato hybrid sure should be tested before I can sell it. Yet it requires zero testing now.

but black and white all or nothing stances are not all all scientific. They are purely political - or commercial.

Yes, and currently some commercial interests are making a black-and-white stance that directly interacting with genes is "scary". That's why the obvious solution of a "GMO-free" label is not what they support. They'd rather people pay more for an Organic label.

(Btw, there are a few people making their own GMO-free labels. You can get GMO-free salt now. )

[progressoid]

14. Love the comments section for the GMO free salt.

I was in the market for an organic salt such as sodium tosylate or pyridinium chloride in order to complete my evil science experiments to disprove the Gaia hypothesis. When I saw this product, I nearly jumped for joy! I thought it was a bit weird that the sellers don't specify which organic salt they're selling, but I figured it was a sort of grab-bag or mystery box-type deal. When my product arrived, the first thing I did was to get an IR spectrum to see which organic salt I had received. My smile quickly turned upside down as I saw that there was not a single peak in my spectrum! After several more failed IR's I performed a crude analysis with my tongue which confirmed that this product is actually sodium chloride, AN INORGANIC SALT! And these sellers have the gall to label their product "organic"? This is a clear case of false advertising. WOULD NOT BUY AGAIN.

I was super-enthusiastic to finally discover a salt that has not been genetically modified by Monsatan. It's seems that Monsatan is everywhere, modifying genes in places I didn't even know they existed! It is a relief to be able to cook my favorite Kosher meals without the worry of growing gigantic tumors all over my body.

Perhaps it is a little inconvenient to buy salt over the internet and wait for it to arrive, but the supermarket Morton salt comes from one of those sinister, conspiring companies that refuses to label its salt as GMO to hide the fact that they lace their salt with dextrose! They "claim" it's an infinitesimal amount of dextrose in their iodine adulterated salt, but dextrose comes from corn syrup which comes from genetically modified corn!!! Which means iodine, glyphosphate, and frog DNA and God only knows what freaky franken-thing else! Chemicals, no thank you! When I make a big pot of organic gluten-free pasta I don't expect to be exposed to a homeopathic overdose of GMOs. Because according to the principles of homeopathy, the more sparingly I use Morton's iodized mutant salt the more likely I am to have Jurassic Park crawl out of my kitchen. "Life will find a way..."

So I am so glad I discovered this Himalayan Pink Gourmet No Chemicals Non-GMO Organic Halall Kosher Fine Grind Salt. It was mined with organic explosives and, more importantly, no Yetis were injured in the mining or the milling of this salt. This is critical to me because Yetis are a gravely endangered species.

[GoneFishin]

6. Clear, compelling information. Free from the weasely rhetoric we get from Philip Morris, err,

I mean Monsanto.

[progressoid]

15. "Preliminary version; not (yet) for publication"

I should hope not. Since it's chock-full-o-bull.

[bvar22]

18. Thank You.

DURec.

I've noticed a few water carriers trying to insist the Gene Splicing is the same thing as selective breeding.

[bemildred]

21. +1.

He understands the math.

Some things have no closed form solution, you have to do the experiment to see what happens. And that is the concern with GMOs, until you put them in the wild, you don't really know what will happen when you do. This is also true with invasive species, the considerations are much the same.

And with GMOs, as our capabilities improve, the tendency will be to add more "features", adding to the complexity.

And sometimes you cannot undo things.