Scientists Declare No Consensus on GMO Safety

[Underverse]

Right, but alot don't. So why not just focus on the ones who an academic background in that area? but even then, if they haven't done the research or peer reviewed any studies, their ability to talk on the subject is non-existent. But because they have a PhD attached to their name, people automatically accept what they say.

First, I don't think anyone's automatically accepting anything anyone is saying. It's logically impossible, considering that there are plenty of people with PhDs on both sides of the debate.

That being said, someone with a PhD in just about any field of biology is still more informed than someone without said PhD. Secondarily, someone with a PhD - someone who has dedicated their life to rational thinking and the application of scientific evidence - will probably not support a cause that is counter to their life's work. That isn't to say that some crazy people with PhDs exist. But they are most certainly an extreme minority.

[Catta]

This is why appeals to authority are fallacious. Ignorant masses will accept "trust me, I'm a doctor" over actual evidence, when the latter is what is actually compelling.

But the point here is that they might not actually understand the evidence and therefore need the doctors to explain it.

[Rukentuts]

But the point here is that they might not actually understand the evidence and therefore need the doctors to explain it.

Yeah, but I've found that 1) we should be presented with it and 2) many scientists are actually very adept at simplifying for their audience.

Just blindly accepting something without even being given the opportunity to examine it is silly.

[Twoflower]

This is a pure example of argument from authority.

This may sound insane to you, but when you have a question, wouldnt you ask the expert? Or are ALL experts authorities and therefore your "argument" can be used against anythign any educated person ever said? Why stop there? The law is an authority too, right? Let's not believe anything any more that anyone says "according to law".

I hope that my irony shows you how stupid your position is.

[darkwarrior42]

If you are in favour of more research, why are you seemingly bashing a list of scientists that also want more research?

Probably because of the OP. I almost closed the page the instant I saw this was a Swineflu thread (actually, I almost skipped it entirely because I figured it would be a Swineflu thread based on the title.) He has an extremely strong and obvious anti-GMO bias, coupled with a tendency to cite any study or experiment with results that support his viewpoint, regardless of the viability of the study/experiment or the credibility of those who carried it out. When called out on such things in the past, instead of reconsidering his position he just went out to find different evidence to support his position.

I'd love to see more real studies on the subject. I've wanted that since I did my first research on this subject back in 2000. Regardless of what it is, I will treat anything from Swineful as questionable until I can determine otherwise, because his bias is strong enough that even when he's presenting legitimate evidence I can't be sure he isn't hiding facts that would weaken his position.

Edit: Similarly, I'm not going to assume GMOs are safe just because a company that makes them says they are

- - - Updated - - -

This may sound insane to you, but when you have a question, wouldnt you ask the expert? Or are ALL experts authorities and therefore your "argument" can be used against anythign any educated person ever said? Why stop there? The law is an authority too, right? Let's not believe anything any more that anyone says "according to law".

I hope that my irony shows you how stupid your position is.

Nope. It shows you missed the point entirely.

An expert on a subject may be more likely to be right, but that is because of their knowledge and the evidence they can bring to bear.

Good example: As a physicist, I know that the force experienced by an object is equal to the product of its mass and its acceleration; therefore, when you accelerate an object more rapidly, it experiences greater force. Since there is a finite amount force the human body can endure before being damaged, acceleration beyond a certain point is dangerous.

Great example: Same as the good example, with experimental tests showing the levels of force a human can safely endure.

Bad example: Accelerating a human being too fast is dangerous. You should believe me because I'm a physicist.

[Mnevis]

informed public discussion on GM product safety

That's exactly what agribusiness doesn't want. Even if the end result is "All GMOs on the market are completely safe, you don't have to take our word for it", they'd rather we just don't think about it or have any reason to, because there are people who'd still avoid it if we labeled stuff.

[Osmeric]

The truth is that the anti-GMO position is horrific and evil.

There is huge need in the world for improved plants, both to improve human health, and to reduce the impact of agriculture on the biosphere. Those impeding GMOs and related yield- and nutrition-improving technologies are committing crimes against humanity, and against the Earth itself. The blood of millions are on their hands.

[Rukentuts]

The truth is that the anti-GMO position is horrific and evil.

Appeals to emotion are even less intellectually swaying than appeals from authority.

[Osmeric]

Appeals to emotion are even less intellectually swaying than appeals from authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A_deficiency

"Approximately 250,000 to 500,000 malnourished children in the developing world go blind each year from a deficiency of vitamin A, approximately half of whom die within a year of becoming blind."

Now explain to me how opposition to "Golden Rice" was anything other than a crime against humanity?

[Zecora]

The truth is that the anti-GMO position is horrific and evil.

There is huge need in the world for improved plants, both to improve human health, and to reduce the impact of agriculture on the biosphere. Those impeding GMOs and related yield- and nutrition-improving technologies are committing crimes against humanity, and against the Earth itself. The blood of millions are on their hands.

Actually, no. The blood of millions are on the hands of those who hog the resources of the globe to themselves, as there IS no shortage of food, or even resources, but instead a fundamentally skewed distribution which creates artificial shortages. In short, we don't need GMO's until we can be 100% sure that they are safe. What we need is more research (and I don't meen six-week sham trials done by the company that stands to lose millions if their product ISN'T deemed safe) to determine beyond a doubt whether or not each GMO product is safe. Then, and ONLY then should we allow GMO products to be released into the public.

[chazus]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding due to jargon.. But the entire point is basically saying a lot of experts are all saying "We aren't sure one way or another yet".

I also don't understand why 80% of the post needs to be a massive list of names, which doesn't prove anything one way or another.

[Osmeric]

Actually, no. The blood of millions are on the hands of those who hog the resources of the globe to themselves, as there IS no shortage of food, or even resources, but instead a fundamentally skewed distribution which creates artificial shortages. In short, we don't need GMO's until we can be 100% sure that they are safe. What we need is more research (and I don't meen six-week sham trials done by the company that stands to lose millions if their product ISN'T deemed safe) to determine beyond a doubt whether or not each GMO product is safe. Then, and ONLY then should we allow GMO products to be released into the public.

What you are doing ends up being a passive-aggressive approach to banning GMOs forever, since nothing can ever be "100% sure". At some point, one has to say the risks are low enough. For most scientists, that point has long since been passed.

Your attempt to say "no GMOs, just reinvent the world economic system" is, of course, an absurbly transparent rationalization of your inhuman position. Like it or not, you are advocating actions that will fail to reduce the horrible consequences of nutritional deficiencies as GMOs can. When your neurotic fetish for absolute and unattainable personal safety leads you to condemn millions of children to premature death, I will call you out as being a monster.

[Sting]

No consensus on safety doesn't automatically mean they are dangerous instead.

[chazus]

In short, we don't need GMO's until we can be 100% sure that they are safe.

I'll just be taking all your food, then. All of it. Anything. All your drink, too. Actually, anything you consume.

I'll also take.. well. Everything you own, want, and think about. Actually, I'm gonna go ahead and just stuff everything in the universe in this bag here and take that. You can't have. Not yours.

Nothing is, can be, or will be, 100% safe. Nothing.

[Arewn]

It's very important to establish if the individuals on the list are actually experts on something pertaining to GMO. Otherwise, their claim that "there's no consensus" is empty.
If there's a consensus about something in molecular biology, and then a bunch of physicists come in and say "No, we don't agree, there's no consensus", it doesn't actually matter. The consensus in that situation would still stand, because the views of physicists aren't part of the consensus making group for microbiology.

So if 90% of that lists contains people with random PHD who don't actually work with something pertaining to GMO, then that lists really does nothing to "break the consensus", and it really is just an appeal to authority.

[OneSent]

The word "duh" comes to mind.

[Zecora]

What you are doing ends up being a passive-aggressive approach to banning GMOs forever, since nothing can ever be "100% sure". At some point, one has to say the risks are low enough. For most scientists, that point has long since been passed.

YOU need to re-read the OP. There IS no consensus on the safety of GMO foods.

Your attempt to say "no GMOs, just reinvent the world economic system" is, of course, an absurbly transparent rationalization of your inhuman position. Like it or not, you are advocating actions that will fail to reduce the horrible consequences of nutritional deficiencies as GMOs can. When your neurotic fetish for absolute and unattainable personal safety leads you to condemn millions of children to premature death, I will call you out as being a monster.

Congratulations, you managed to pack both an ad hominem, a strawman and a red herring into the same few lines. I bet you're very proud, just too bad there was no room for an actual argument in there.

[Deleted]

Just blindly accepting something without even being given the opportunity to examine it is silly.

Same goes for people who claim that GMO's don't have a negative impact..

[Zecora]

So if 90% of that lists contains people with random PHD who don't actually work with something pertaining to GMO, then that lists really does nothing to "break the consensus", and it really is just an appeal to authority.

You do realize that any scientist is more than qualified to examine the amount of research done in a field, right? In fact, any somewhat intelligent person can do that and find out if there is any consensus.

Also, please list those you feel are not qualified to speak up on a lack of consensus.

- - - Updated - - -

100% is an impossible bar.

A degree of certainty approaching 100% to the point of statistical insignificance is not impossible.

[Dezerte]

YOU need to re-read the OP. There IS no consensus on the safety of GMO foods.

No consensus among the signed scientists (i.e. not all scientists in this field) I presume, because of this.