Oh, I forgot. You're about to ask for a citation, so...

http://articles.latimes.com/20...

I lost track, were you talking about GMO foods or anthropogenic global climate change? Ironic isn't it? To hear the anti-GMO crowd cry about how they aren't allowed to dissent, while I suspect there is a strong correlation between those folks and those who believe in anthropogenic global climate changes crying out "settled science!"

Well, there's been gene-splicing in the lab for a few decades. Climate has been around a lot longer.

Hard to get "settled science" in such a short period, don't you think? How do you test for long-term effect if something has only existed for 20 years? Give it a little thought.

And the fact that GMOs are patented has made it a lot harder for studies to be done. Researchers have been sued for studying GMOs. For the industry, this is a feature, not a bug. It's like people who say "fracking is safe...SETTLED SCIENCE", when we aren't even allowed to know what's in hydrofracking fluid because it's protected as a "trade secret".

I'll tell you what IS settled science: Transnational corporations would throw a baby off a bridge for a $1 jump in stock price. These are not people you want controlling the food supply. I'm sure you agree.

And Windows doesn't require you to jump through hoops to get it to "a certain level of functionality, depending on your Windows experience"? It takes me ages to make a Windows machine act like a civilized Unix box. It seems it takes you as long to make Linux act like Windows. I don't think that's a fair criticism of either OS.

So glyphosate, harmless to humans,

"Harmless to humans"? Wow, where did you get that?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Retroviruses are helpful like that.

And think of the number of those genetic "experiments" that failed because the result just wasn't successful.

Do you really trust a transnational corporation whose only goal is profits to take the place of the trial and error of natural selection? Good luck with that.

There are no long stem roses in the wild.

Why are you eating long-stem roses?

Oh, before I offend you too much, that wasn't my own statement, but Neil deGrasse Tyson. [youtube.com] A fairly widely well thought of spokesman for science within the scientific community.

Again, if your main source for information about nutrition is a TV astrophysicist, there's a problem.

And the problem with Tyson is that his status as a popular TV star on the Fox Network has led him to believe that he is an expert in all fields, and has led TV viewers to believe that he speaks for all of science.

We should quickly abandon all of modern agriculture

You make a mistake if you believe "modern agriculture" only means what goes on in a laboratory.

How to health factors and benchmarks for those generations compare to the ones prior to them?

What year do you place the beginning of widespread use of GMOs? I think if you look at those "health factors and benchmarks" for the years after that among the populations eating GMOs you will find that there is no evidence of improvement and some evidence for the opposite.

Sorry, all the fears and studies about potential small scale impacts of GMO crops is dwarfed by the current good of the dietary improvements that GMO has brought.

non-industry citation needed for dietary improvements from GMO crops.

It also shows, however unfortunately, the futility of trying to protect everyone against everything all the time. Who needs to blow themselves up, or even risk the explicit criminal sanctions you'd face for making a bomb threat, when you can just co-opt some unwitting and otherwise innocent traveller's personal device somewhere outside a travel hub or other likely target for an attack?

If our threshold for fear has become so low that some kid's not-so-funny practical joke can now result in several hours of delays to long distance transportation, then apparently in a very literal sense the terrorists have already succeeded. Next you'll be telling me we spend time and money prosecuting angry travellers over tweets sent in frustration when airports are closed.

I'm not anyone's astroturfer

Oh, I know that. But the tropes in this argument for online discussions are so well-ingrained that it's the same every time.

If you want labeling in GMO foods, you are called,

1) Just like the anti-vaxxers
2) An anti-science conspiracy theorist
3) A racist
4) A Nazi

Sure we can create organisms that can be dangerous to some ecosystems

My main concern is in the economic and political ecosystems. And I believe GMOs are dangerous for both. I agree with all the rest of your points.

One question though: on the off chance that GMOs are the significant danger that Taleb thinks is possible, what will labeling help?

Ah, good question. Here's how:

In every study done, upwards of 90% of the population of countries in which GMOs are sold support labeling, and indicate that they would avoid products with GMOs. Why isn't it possible that consumer rejection at that level won't stop this effort by transnational corporations to take over the world's food supply through the use of intellectual property laws?

this extreme nanny-state abuse

I was hoping you'd go for another paragraph and start talking about SJWs and ethics in journalism.

are mostly worried about the fact that others are making different choices from them.

I don't worry about them one bit. If they want to make those choices, I have no problem. I see them all the time, buying package after packaged of processed foods (where most GMOs end up).

Sometimes, I even help them because they can't reach the top shelves, since they're so fat they have to ride a scooter to shop for groceries. Yes, GMOs are clearly good for you, judging by the people I see who consume them almost exclusively.

but we're around 5-6 decades past where its meaningful to bring up AO anymore

Tell that to the more than 50,000 veterans who are still suffering from Agent Orange exposure.

I wonder how many of those 400,000 children who were born with birth defects after their mothers were exposed to Agent Orange are still alive? I hope there are still a few.

AO was 70 years ago

Why are all these "pro-Science" people so horrible at basic arithmetic? Agent Orange was used (and manufactured) until at least1971. Is that really "70 years ago" according to your Science?

and made under contract (as in, has fuck all to do with their regular commercial operations in the first place.)

Everything a company does is "under contract". What do you think that even means? Remember this: When the US Government wanted the nastiest, most deadly chemical possible, who did they call? Monsanto exceeded the wildest hopes for deadliness, manufacturing 20,000,000 gallons of the stuff. And do you really think that was the last deadly poison Monsanto made?

If you cannot show harm

Oh, for chrissake:

http://omicsonline.org/open-ac...

http://www.theatlantic.com/hea... (this one is notable because the author received death threats immediately after publication)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05...

then you are in exactly the same position as anti-vaxxers.

Did I call it or what? My first post in this comments section predicted that I would be compared to anti-vaxxers. If I were to continue, I guarantee I would soon be compared to racists, Nazis and worse.

Look, I don't care if there are GMO plants. I just want it to be spelled out, right in the "nutritional data" that is already on the label, that this food is the product of a patented organism.

I find it interesting that all these "pro-Science" people are so vehemently opposed to this one bit of truthful information being given to consumers. For some reason, the believe there is a fact that consumers don't have the right to know. Further, there have been industry lawsuits attempting to stop companies who do NOT use GMOs from labeling their products as NOT containing GMOs. Go figure. I guess "Science" is fungible when it comes to people's right to know what they're eating. Since when has "Science" been in favor of people not knowing something.

The same company that made thalidomide also made penicillin.

Yes, and Stalin had a great sense of humor, I hear.