Thai farmers protest against bill on GMO farming

[GuestHouse]

What evidence do you want me to produce to prove to you that scientific knowledge is incomplete?

No scientist would ever argue that scientific knowledge is complete.

And if there is incomplete knowledge then there are Rumsfield's know unknowns and unknown unknowns.

A real scientist would unserstand that and accept it.

[GuestHouse]

I killed john f kennedy bybthe way... and im an alien from the planet zenu...

That's probably nearer the truth than anything else you've claimed to be in this discussion.

[impulse]

Quadrow- here are 3 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that address the issue of crop yield among other things. I particularly focused on developing countries, since they stand the most to benefit.

Having been a consulting engineer in the oil business for 30+ years, I get to review dozens of "peer reviewed technical articles" in scientific journals every year.

Many of them are just thinly veiled advertisements, cherry picking results, and stroking the egos (and advancing the careers) of the participants. All the while, extolling the virtues of their employers' products and services.

I've been invited to participate in dozens of them, and been asked to attach my name to even more that were written (by others) about projects where I have intimate knowledge of the actual results. In many cases, the published results, while technically true, totally disregarded the practical results of the project. And in too many cases, they tried a process 20 times, and only published the case study for the one time it actually worked. It's also scary how many of today's articles (about the expenditure of many $$$ millions) are totally debunked a year or two later when the long term results just don't pan out.

If the Big Agra technical journals are anything like the Big Oil technical journals, I'd suggest we don't bet our food supply future on them.

Edited December 12, 2015 by impulse

[jdlancaster]

Yes, you guys are absolutely right, peer-reviewed research is all lies. Even though the data is presented so it can be evaluated and reproduced by anyone it’s a big conspiracy by all scientists, because we work for Big Agro. The conspiracy theorists are the only ones who knew the truth until now…. I am a scientist from BigAgro sent here to take over Thailand, but you’ve shown me the light… so I will reveal our evil plans to the world here…. On ThaiVisa forum.

1. We don’t like to be called BigAgro… we prefer EmpireGrow, we feel this is more in line with our vision statement and has better branding within our test markets

2. We know what you are thinking; the tin hats don’t work anymore because we inserted a gene into your rice that allows us to read your mind. We can read your mind from the inside now.

3. The US Government works for us, and promotes our interests around the world… so we can slowly take over with our mind control gene infused food.

4. They couldn’t find President Obama’s birth Certificate because he doesn’t have one. He is actually a genetically modified ear of corn created in a lab in Kenya and sent to take over America.

5. We have a giant army of corn stalk soldiers infused with Navy SEALs genes waiting to do our bidding if you refuse us. You can’t kill us. We just grow back, and you can’t use herbicides on us… we are resistant.

6. Gen Prayuth isn’t actually Thai, He is a genetically modified piece of rice… but unfortunately we don’t understand all the interactions of genes so he didn’t come out quite right… We are still trying to figure out what went wrong.

7. The Age of Dinosaurs came to an end… Now it’s time for the Age of Man to end… and usher in The Age of Vegetables…. We will take our rightful place on the top of the food chain.

[impulse]

Going off the rails doesn't help your case.

[attrayant]

The only thing your tylonol example shows is that you don't understand the difference between administring a drug and releasing a self trplicating organism into our environment.

The comparison wasn't meant to show similarity between drugs and farming. It was a direct response to your assertion that, since scientific knowledge is incomplete or lacking, we mustn't move forward with technological progress. The drug example (and my subsequent example about gravity and airplanes) were analogies, showing that we can, in fact, move forward with technology even though our knowledge of it may not be 100% complete (which it almost never is for anything).

My point of objection to your insistance that there are no safety risks from releasing GMO into our environment.

This is a non-starter and it's getting tiresome. Here's why:

This ("releasing a self trplicating [sic] organism into our environment") happens all the time with conventional plant breeding, and has been happening for hundreds of years. Anyone can splice compatible shoots together to make a new cultivar, and start growing it in their garden/yard/farm. Kids even learn how to do this in 8th grade Earth Science class. On several occasions, this has resulted in actual harm to humans (see previous examples given). I've already demonstrated that the long-accepted "traditional" plant breeding techniques are more haphazard and can actually result in crops that are harmful to human health.

Can you explain why GM cultivars are inherently more risky than non-GM?

[attrayant]

Going off the rails doesn't help your case.

The post you refer to was satirical, listing many of the hysterical positions that the anti-GM lobby actually espouse so that we can see how ridiculous they are. I'm glad you consider them to be "off the rails".

[attrayant]

And if there is incomplete knowledge then there are Rumsfield's know unknowns and unknown unknowns.

A real scientist would unserstand that and accept it.

But would NOT use that as an excuse to halt all progress, especially when it could do so much good.

[attrayant]

The FDA argument that labelling is not required because they (the FDA) believe for whatever reason that yhere is no risk from GMO food is irrelevant.

No it's NOT irrelevant - the decision was supported by existing policy and law. A huge fraction of the uninformed public has an unfounded fear that GM produce is unhealthy in some way. This is a fear that has absolutely no basis in reality. Applying a GM label to food only serves to amplify that fear. Such a label would be misleading, and that's why the FDA says it will do more harm than good.

To use a fictitious analogy, if millions of people suddenly woke up one morning and decided that apples harvested on Thursdays were unlucky, and subsequently demanded the FDA require producers to label any apples that happened to be picked on Thursday, the FDA would be well within its right to reject that request because it isn't based on science or any material finding that apples picked on Thursday actually are unlucky. The GM label was rejected for the same reason - there's no reason for it, and public demand isn't a good enough reason because the public often doesn't know what they want (q.v. the previously cited DNA label survey).

If I want Italian tomatoes I'll look for a can that says Italian tomatoes.

Should the manufacturer be required by law to call them "Italian tomatoes"?

Edited December 12, 2015 by attrayant

[tomacht8]

The great gmo companys have in there company structure a 30% bio lab, a 30 % law section, 20% PR section, 10 % paid block writers & 10% paid scientists.

They order and pay for scientific results.

They sterilise the plants.

They try to get patents for the nature.

In 100 years you have to pay them for your daily oxigene and there will be a gmo patent tax on every food.

Gmo, no thank you.

Edited December 12, 2015 by tomacht8

[jdlancaster]

Now about "Italian" tomatoes... What if I was a tomato born in Italy, but moved to USA at a young age? Am I still a Italian Tomato or do I need to be labeled as Italian-american tomato? What if I am a tomato born in Italy to a french father and Italian mother... Am I an Italian tomato? What if I am of "Italian tomato" ancestry? Maybe my great-grand parents emmigrated from Italy, but I grew up in American soil? My genetics are the same... but my growing conditions are not? What percentage of Italian tomato DNA do I need to be? What if I marry a Thai tomato.. what must I legally name my children? Or, what if I am a mixed tomato of american, thai, german, italian, french, chinese, japanese, and mongolian decent? What must I then be legally named? What if I am a tomato that doesn't know who his parents are because he was dropped off at a random garden as a seedling?

The problems we mixed vegetables will face in the new era... Or maybe we can just all agree to end cultivarism and just be called tomatoes... for the betterment of all tomato kind

Edited December 12, 2015 by jdlancaster

[jdlancaster]

The great gmo companys have in there company structure a 30% bio lab, a 30 % law section, 20% PR section, 10 % paid block writers & 10% paid scientists.

They order and pay for scientific results.

They sterilise the plants.

They try to get patents for the nature.

In 100 years you have to pay them for your daily oxigene and there will be a gmo patent tax on every food.

Gmo, no thank you.

Yes, don't forget 10% for logistics, 10% for administration, 20% bribe money, and 10% unpaid slave scientists (we have upkeep costs such as feeding them). What is that like 150%? well, why not? It's not like references matter they are all lies anyway.. we can just pick whatever numbers we want... we paid for them.

And why shouldn't we charge you for our oxygen? We create it... why should we have to give it away for free?

While your at it... could you tell me where I can order and pay for some results? I want to add Corn rocket launchers to my navy seal gene infused corn soldiers.

[impulse]

Going off the rails doesn't help your case.

The post you refer to was satirical, listing many of the hysterical positions that the anti-GM lobby actually espouse so that we can see how ridiculous they are. I'm glad you consider them to be "off the rails".

Satire may have been the attempt. But I'm pretty sure it was just off the rails. Or, just the lazy way to address some pretty reasonable concerns based on checkered histories of moneyed interests when it comes to the science they put out there.

I see the same kind of tactics and purchased science used every day in the business with which I'm intimately familiar. I don't think it's ridiculous to believe it's going on in other arenas.

We've also seen many food products, pesticides, cosmetics, chemicals, drugs (and tobacco) "proven safe", only to be exposed and/or pulled from the market after years of damage to millions of people. It's perfectly understandable that even reasonable people would be a little skeptical after being lied to repeatedly in the pursuit of profit.

To go off on them in the manner I called "going off the rails" is not satire, nor is it respectful. And doesn't help in the credibility department, either.

[Thai at Heart]

I can go along with scepticism about GMO, but when you consider how many million lives have been saved by vaccines I can't understand that the tin foil hatters are paranoid about this.

Maybe vaccines were invented by Monsanto to increase world population thus increasing demand for GMO?

[attrayant]

Paranoid ravings, no thank you.

[GuestHouse]

Yes, you guys are absolutely right, peer-reviewed research is all lies.

Can you please tell us where anyone has claimed peer reviewed research is all lies?

Peer reviewed research tells us what scientist know - and will always be framed within bounds of uncertainty.

What peer reviewed research does not tell us is what science does not know it does not know.

Science does not have a complete faultless model of genetics and the function of DNA or RNA.

Every single claim in ever single peer reviewed research on the subject has boundaries of uncertainty.

Since you claim to be a scientist you would understand this and would accept it.

I spend most of my week days in the company of scientist conducting research here at the university in Leiden, I don't know any that would make absolute claims that science understands genetics, DNA or RNA.

But then they are real scientists undertaking real science.

Edited December 12, 2015 by GuestHouse

[attrayant]

Yes, you guys are absolutely right, peer-reviewed research is all lies.

Can you please tell us where anyone has claimed peer reviewed research is all lies?

When we have mountains of evidence, a consensus of all the major scientific bodies on the planet and 30+ years of consumption of more than a trillion GMO meals without incident, and yet people STILL talk about GM food as if it's toxic, radioactive poison, it sure seems like all that research isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Peer reviewed research tells us what scientist know - and will always be framed within bounds of uncertainty. What peer reviewed research does not tell us is what science does not know it does not know. Science does not have a complete faultless model of genetics and the function of DNA or RNA. Every single claim in ever single peer reviewed research on the subject has boundaries of uncertainty.

You're making an argument from ignorance, based on the assertion that science doesn't know everything (what you call "the bounds of uncertainty"). If we applied that line of reasoning to every new scientific breakthrough, science would never be allowed to progress.

It is impossible to collect enough data to be 100% certain regarding the safety of any technology, as new data and variables are always coming in, and every technology has side effects or unknown consequences given the right circumstances. That's why we do research, ask questions and regulate. The research is being done, the questions are being answered and the regulations are being followed, and yet people still see conspiracies around every corner.

[jdlancaster]

Yes, you guys are absolutely right, peer-reviewed research is all lies.

Can you please tell us where anyone has claimed peer reviewed research is all lies?

Peer reviewed research tells us what scientist know - and will always be framed within bounds of uncertainty.

What peer reviewed research does not tell us is what science does not know it does not know.

Science does not have a complete faultless model of genetics and the function of DNA or RNA.

Every single claim in ever single peer reviewed research on the subject has boundaries of uncertainty.

Since you claim to be a scientist you would understand this and would accept it.

I spend most of my week days in the company of scientist conducting research here at the university in Leiden, I don't know any that would make absolute claims that science understands genetics, DNA or RNA.

But then they are real scientists undertaking real science.

It's ok... you have convinced me now. Despite mountains of peer-reviewed papers(showing benefits to the environment, health, and the economy) and billions of people that eat GMOs everyday... I get it.. we just don't know. We must ban these frankenseeds before they destroy our planet. We have no evidence pointing to their danger... but we don't know 100% that it won't kill somebody.. somewhere... sometime or lead to the apocolypse (we can't know 100%).

But we can't stop at GMO plants.. that would be irresponsible... peoples lives are at stake here... We don't know everything there is about computer science... not 100%... especially artificial intelligence. I saw on the news computers are learning on their own now... we must ban the creation of artificial intelligence... we really can't know for sure that the computers won't learn and become self-aware. There is no way to truly understand how their programs will mix together and interact with the environment. They may decide to overthrow their human overlords, and build more (self-replicate). Now we have no evidence this will happen... but we need to ban it... because we don't know 100% that terminators won't kill us all.

[GuestHouse]

JD and Att..

You and I are never going to agree on this matter of uncertainty and risk.

So lets park our science disagreement and go back to the actual protestors demands:

------------------

This from the opening argument.

Witoon said the bill should embrace a preventive approach by taking into account possible economic and social impacts on all stakeholders. He said the bill's amendment should also include liability

Why, if GMO is such a win win with no negatives would anyone object to the above demands?

If GMO is all good news, then all the economic and social impacts on all stakeholders would be positive - a proponent of GMO could not reasonably object to these being included in the consideration to introduce GMO.

If GMO is truly without risk, who then could object to liability being written into the the laws governing the use of GMO?

[attrayant]

JD and Att..

You and I are never going to agree on this matter of uncertainty and risk.

So lets park our science disagreement and go back to the actual protestors demands:

------------------

This from the opening argument.

Witoon said the bill should embrace a preventive approach by taking into account possible economic and social impacts on all stakeholders. He said the bill's amendment should also include liability

Speculating on the motivations of politicians is a fool's errand, and I'm not much interested in that. My primary interest in these types of threads in in countering the science illiteracy and trying to offer factual information when I see it's needed. Politicians are too often motivated by their own self-interests. That's why I prefer to rely on the science when it comes to things like GM, vaccinations and climate change. When politics touches thos issues, it often pollutes them with anti-science, irrational fears and self-interests.

Why, if GMO is such a win win with no negatives would anyone object to the above demands?

If GMO is all good news, then all the economic and social impacts on all stakeholders would be positive - a proponent of GMO could not reasonably object to these being included in the consideration to introduce GMO.

Who here has said that GM tech has "no negatives" and is "all good news"? I certainly haven't. At best, I've said it's comparable to traditional breeding techniques but faster and more predictable outcomes. As per my last post, I'm very much in favor of extensive research and tight regulation of the industry - but let's get this clear - the same safety requirements and regulation should apply to all types of plant breeding, not just GM.

[farmerjo]

I'm all for Gmo's with the basis being that development keeps up for when resistance starts on weed control.

Glysophate has been the farmers best friend since the 70's.

[attrayant]

Giving the OP another read, I have a few questions for some of the folks who have been quoted. But as none of them are likely to reply in this thread, it would be something of a pointless exercise. But here goes anyway.

"The bill fails to rein in GMO impacts on the country's food security," he said.

I'd like to have a few concrete examples of how GM crops have negatively impacted the food security of countries where they are presently being grown. If there are no such negative impacts, I'd like to know what the speaker has in mind.

Taweesak Pulam, Syngenta seed company's crop business manager, also voiced concern that GMO plants might affect exports to Europe and the US. He also said he was worried that multinational firms could monopolise local agriculture industries, and ordinary farming could become 2.5 times as expensive.

Not sure why exports would be threatened. Does Thailand have a booming organic pineapple export market that would be harmed by farmers switching to GM pineapples? If so, then maybe that's a legitimate complaint. But I'm just guessing there and trying to give the OP the benefit of doubt.

I'd also like some examples of how multinational firms (I guess I should be grateful that they didn't take the usual cheap shot and say "Big Ag") might monopolize local industry. Furthermore, in countries that have robust GM industries, GM technology has made farming cheaper, not more expensive.

I have to preface all of that by saying that I'm not familiar with the current set of laws that govern farming in Thailand. Perhaps there are some legitimate loopholes that need to be closed and safeguards that need to be set up before GM can really take off here. It sounds like the protesters only have issues with some of the language in the bill, not necessarily with GM tech itself. Anyway I'll leave that to the legislatures and I'll stick to supporting/defending the technology itself.

Edited December 12, 2015 by attrayant

[attrayant]

I'm all for Gmo's with the basis being that development keeps up for when resistance starts on weed control.

Glysophate has been the farmers best friend since the 70's.

Just to provide a little more depth to the topic - weed resistance isn't specific to glyphosate. Many sunflower varieties (which are not genetically modified) are herbicide-tolerant. They were selectively bred to tolerate a class of herbicides called ALS inhibitors. And since farmers started relying on those herbicides, many weeds have evolved resistance to them. In fact, many more weeds have become resistant to ALS inhibitors than to glyphosate.

Pest resistance is a legitimate issue - but, like mono-cropping, it's not specific to GM technology. To address this, all farmers should rotate their pesticides and use them as sparingly as possible. Good farming practices can reduce the likelyhood of pesticide resistance.

Edited December 12, 2015 by attrayant

[LukKrueng]

When discussing GMO's it helps to distinguish between the legal and the health implications.

I have no opinion on the health implications.

But on the legal side, if Monsanto (Cargill, et.al) find one of their patented genes in a batch of imported (or home grown) anything, they'll demand a royalty payment. Even if that gene came from accidental or nefarious pollination of a farmer's crop by a gene from another field, they'll demand a royalty, and bankrupt any farmer refusing to pay it. (I have a suspicion that they have hired aircraft to fly around dropping "patented" pollen and seeds on every field in the USA- perhaps the free world, but I'm a known wingnut)

Until patent laws are reformed around the world to protect innocent farmers and exporting nations from their bully tactics, I'd say any country that allows GMO's is risking their ability to export their crops without paying tribute to Big Agra. Which puts their entire agricultural export revenue stream at risk.

Impulse... I would agree with you on the legal side.... it's not right for monsato to do that... but thats not a science problem.... thats a greedy corporate legal problem

The science problem is that no one knows what the affects are and what they will be in the long term. Another problem is that once genetically modified - you have no way to know what else was put into the seeds apart from what they tell you. I saw a youtube clip a while ago about an anti tetanus vaccine that was distributed for free in some Asian countries, but only to females between the ages of 13 to 35. Some researches wondered why only to that population and tested the vaccine - found out that an addition was put into the vaccine to limit or destroy the fertility of the recipients (well, not a GMO but you get the drift). In the same clip they have mentioned GMO corn seeds that were sold in India and was aimed at reducing fertility in men.

Apart from that, there is a film called "Food Inc." where they report that some of the weed and pest resistance seed don't actually effectively resist, and an increase use of pesticides is needed, and not only that, but a specific type of pesticides. Guess who manufacture that special chemical??

There was another reply in this topic saying that GMO yield more crops for a lot less money. Tell that to the Indians who became dependent on some GMO's and their debts keep increasing due to higher price per seeds and much lower yield than promised.

One of the biggest dangers of the GMO (and that is back to the legal side) is the creation of a food monopoly and dependence on the big corporations such as Monsanto and countries like the us of A - they will have the power to decide which nation will eat and which will starve to death.

[GuestHouse]

Peer reviewed research tells us what scientist know - and will always be framed within bounds of uncertainty. What peer reviewed research does not tell us is what science does not know it does not know. Science does not have a complete faultless model of genetics and the function of DNA or RNA. Every single claim in ever single peer reviewed research on the subject has boundaries of uncertainty.

You're making an argument from ignorance, based on the assertion that science doesn't know everything (what you call "the bounds of uncertainty"). If we applied that line of reasoning to every new scientific breakthrough, science would never be allowed to progress.

I'm not sure what your basis for claiming my ignorance is.

I spend a great deal of my time reading other people's research and conducting my own research. Every single piece of research I read has caveats attached and descriptions of the acknowledged assumptions.

I use for portals for accessing research, The libraries at Leiden, Delft and Edinburgh universities and Science Direct, each of these sources returns thousands of peer-reviewed papers in response to the search 'uncertainty' or 'uncertainty modelling'.

Acknowledgement of uncertainty within scientific knowledge does not prevent progress, it is a fundamental part of scientific analysis.

Your failure to understand this, and willingness to jump to the conclusion that the bounds of uncertainty would somehow halt progress is utter nonsense.

While such claims don't really matter here on TVF, for your own sake don't make such assertions in an academic institution or any research paper you present for academic review, you'd be laughed off campus.

[LukKrueng]

Demonstrating their own ignorance. 'look how uninformed we are!'

Man has been modifying organism for 2000 years. Every grain of rice has been modified. Every Thai is a genetic modification! What a shambles.

You obviously don't understand the difference between selective breeding and genetic modifications. The "modification to organism in the past 2000 years" that you refer to was/is done by selective breeding. The Doberman breed is "built" from 17 different breeds that were selected for specific characteristics they had such as courage, size, body strength. The rice grains (and most other "modern" fruits and vegetables) were "created" by selective breeding again, due to some characteristics that were desired.

You can "create" a "breed" of tall, strong, blond hair and blue eyes people by selecting males and females with those characteristics and make sure they only breed among their peers. This way you will enhance the selected genes holding those characteristics and eventually lose the short, weak, other than blond hair and blue eyes genes. However, this "breed" of people will still only contain human gins.

However, genetically modifying an organism, means you add to that organism a gene that belongs to a different organism which can't be naturally bred into it. Like if you were to add to a human a gene of a pig's tail, you will get a man/woman with a pig's tail.

When you genetically modify a plant, you add to it a gene that belongs to something else, and there is no way to know what the consequences will be in the long term. Just as an example (not a GMO issue, but an issue with Monsanto - one of the bigger pushers of GMO's) - during the Vietnam war Monsanto have developed Agent Orange which they have insisted it was tested and safe to use and will cause no harm to humans.About 20 years later, the affects of this "agent" on humans started to show, and it is actually very harmful.

[kimamey]

Forcibly genetically modified children? Are you referring to vaccines? Eugenics? I am not quite sure what you mean.I doubt you meant eugenics. If vaccines... I don't recommend forced vaccination. .. just that they shouldn't be allowed in public schools as they are a public health risk... as far as gmos a research. . They are studied for long periods of time, some make it, some don't... and one gmo modification has nothing to do with a different gmo product. .. it makes no sense to study them as a "whole"(not saying you implied that but clarifying)..

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek about " genetically modified children" but the argument of not allowing unvaccinated kids at school is flawed and nonsense - if you believe that vaccination works, then what harm can be done to vaccinated kids by unvaccinated kids. Either vaccination works or it doesn't work - or aren't you and the authorities really sure?

Unvaccinated children and adults can be a danger as there are always some that are unable to be vaccinated due to allergies and other contraindications. They rely on the high take up amongst others to protect themselves.

[GuestHouse]

Forcibly genetically modified children? Are you referring to vaccines? Eugenics? I am not quite sure what you mean.I doubt you meant eugenics. If vaccines... I don't recommend forced vaccination. .. just that they shouldn't be allowed in public schools as they are a public health risk... as far as gmos a research. . They are studied for long periods of time, some make it, some don't... and one gmo modification has nothing to do with a different gmo product. .. it makes no sense to study them as a "whole"(not saying you implied that but clarifying)..

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek about " genetically modified children" but the argument of not allowing unvaccinated kids at school is flawed and nonsense - if you believe that vaccination works, then what harm can be done to vaccinated kids by unvaccinated kids. Either vaccination works or it doesn't work - or aren't you and the authorities really sure?

Unvaccinated children and adults can be a danger as there are always some that are unable to be vaccinated due to allergies and other contraindications. They rely on the high take up amongst others to protect themselves.

Understand the vaccination debate as related to GMO for what it is - horse poo.

Vaccination has discrete impacts on each individual who is vaccinated. It might kill them, it might subject them to harm, it might protect them from harm.

What it will not do is alter their DNA.

Vaccinated children will not pass their vaccination and the biological impacts of their vaccination onto their descendants.

GMO is completely different. Once a GMO is released into the environment, the genetically modified genes will self replicate.

So we have cases of farmers being prosecuted for having GMO DNA in their crop - well fock me Sherlock don't you know what bees do?!

Edited December 12, 2015 by GuestHouse

[impulse]

So we have cases of farmers being prosecuted for having GMO DNA in their crop - well fock me Sherlock don't you know what bees do?!

My doomsday forecast is that in the next 10-20 years, some whistleblower from Big Agra will get up and testify about how they were hired to modify aircraft or even long haul trucks to secretly distribute patented genetic material all over the USA (and the world) in order to demand royalties far and wide. Or, it may not be as nefarious as aircraft, but some other clandestine way to get their patented materials into completely innocent farmers' crops. Perhaps as simple as mixing a little patented seed into every batch of seed sold.

They'll pay out millions in fines (while not admitting to any guilt). For them, it's just a cost of doing business since nobody will be prosecuted personally. And in the meantime, they'll make billions in profits, the guys responsible will make millions in bonuses, and thousands of farmers will lose their family land.

And it may not even be the usual suspects. We're all focused on the Monsanto's of the world (easy targets), but we seem to be forgetting that the same rules will apply to GMO's from tiny fly by night outfits that can't possibly expend the resources to insure the product is tested and safe for the long term.

Edited December 12, 2015 by impulse

[attrayant]

Peer reviewed research tells us what scientist know - and will always be framed within bounds of uncertainty. What peer reviewed research does not tell us is what science does not know it does not know. Science does not have a complete faultless model of genetics and the function of DNA or RNA. Every single claim in ever single peer reviewed research on the subject has boundaries of uncertainty.

You're making an argument from ignorance, based on the assertion that science doesn't know everything (what you call "the bounds of uncertainty"). If we applied that line of reasoning to every new scientific breakthrough, science would never be allowed to progress.

I'm not sure what your basis for claiming my ignorance is.

I'm not saying you're ignorant - "argument from ignorance" is a common logical fallacy and is well-known among scientists and in formal debates. It's not meant as an insult.

In a formal debate, a person makes an argument from ignorance when they assert that, since a position hasn't (or feasibly can't) be proven false in every possible circumstance both present and future, that their position is therefore automatically true. You're using such an argument by saying that we can't see the future and there's a small chance that something might some day go wrong with GM tech, that the danger can't be proven non-existent and is therefore genuine. The precautionary principle, when taken to extremes, is another form of argument from ignorance.