You mean scientists like Árpád Pusztai?

I'm not fearful; that's silly. I've been educating myself and based on my understanding of the current GM technology, including a familiarity with the methods by which GMO crops are evaluated for safety, I've decided they are not sufficiently rigorous to convince me of the crops' safety.

FWIW, I'm a civil engineer. I currently work in the field of air quality. Yes, I do science! (Everyday!)

I think it's fair to say [Citation needed]

yet

Except they produce proteins which provide resistance to glyphosate, right? That would imply they are distinguishable, right? If they weren't, how would Monsanto be able to sue farmers for planting GM crops without their permission (which they do).

Anyway I agree it's generally okay to assume 'traditionally' breeded plants are safe. Eons of natural selection seems to have worked well.

What I don't agree with is the implicit trust given to the methods of introducing GM genes. A gene gun literally shotgun blasts cell DNA with the new genes stuck to metal particles hoping some sticks in the right spots; progeny are selected which express the desired trait but it can't be known if other areas of the DNA were adversely affected. Another method hijacks a soil bacterium to produce a new gene which is transferred to the target host. Relatively controlled but in an absolute sense pretty messy.

In light of the second paragraph, it should be noted the third paragraph ignores how that deliberate mutation would never happen without human intervention.

The safety aspects of GMO crops are still up for debate (obviously!). I advocate caution is all. That and transparency. If they're so freakin' safe, why does Monsanto spend sooo much cash to prevent labeling?

A lot of (probably safe to say most) pharmaceuticals are derived from plants/animals/mold/etc or based on modified existing substances. The completely novel compound is the minority. I think the analogy stands.

But aside from the potential for physical harm, there's demonstrated economic harm in the form of unfair patent litigation against farmers whose crops were contaminated and ecological harm by the dilution of heritage strains and acceleration of pesticide resistance. Personally, I think these are more important concerns because they are more concrete but for some reason people get upset when you attempt to steer the debate that direction.

/eyeroll

It's true the GMOs aren't dousing themselves with pesticides. Irresponsible farmers do bear some responsibility.

The situation is analogous to antibiotics though: over-prescription by doctors leading to overuse by patients accelerates resistance. The doctors' willingness to prescribe enables the patients. You can provide patients with guidelines but it's far more effective to be more discerning in what is prescribed.

You're not listening. I'm not talking about eating nucleic acids. I'm talking about the proteins they encode.

I doubt a "simple chemical analysis" would be sufficiently rigorous to catch all changes in gene expression. I also wouldn't claim no surprises have been found so far Do you recall the Starlink corn recall?

Anyway, I haven't put forth any "what ifs". My contention is that it's inappropriate to accept manufacturer's claims of safety at face value. True for other industries, true for GMO. Studies done thus far have put forth opposing conclusions about the safety of GMO crops and I'm inclined to err on the side of caution.

For me, the safety issue is ancillary to the considerations of unfair patent litigation against farmers whose crops get contaminated, the rights of consumers to know just what they're consuming, and the accelerated resistance of pesticides caused by overuse. There's economic and ecological harm to consider in addition to physical.

So feel free to dismiss my valid concerns as "fear mongering". Make claims I have 'no facts to stand on'. I can't do anything about your biases and you can't do anything about mine.

Based on the number of insults you fling and your ability to "checkmate" you are clearly far more qualified than the people who competed for and earned grant money to pursue the very research you disparage. Obviously if you use enough rude adjectives, people must bow to your superior logic!

But while we're talking:
- mutations in chromosomes passed on to offspring are, in fact, related to the notion of 'evolution'
- characterizing foreign entities as merely "differently mutated" cells is a criminally gross understatement
- your naked mole rat article is interesting but the claim your support it with is a hasty generalization; odd you say "probably wouldn't find any..." but your assertion is absolute
- an 'improved' immune system which better detects cancerous cells wouldn't prevent those cells from developing in the first place, right? do you realize how circular that "cancer exists because..." argument is?

That said, you are so obviously right about "over-specialization". How on earth can we trust someone who knows that much about the topic of which they speak? Clearly, the less knowledge you have of a topic the less ignorant and more qualified you are! I, for one, am waiting for you to receive your well-deserved Nobel Prize in Everything.

Your humble doltish, dipshit nitwit,
EngnrFrmrlyKnownAsAC

P.S. What the hell does brain size and penguin eggs have to do with cancer?

Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond makes a compelling argument the 'domestication' of grains began in the Fertile Crescent, a region of Southwest Asia abutting the Mediterranean Sea.

When I heard 'westernization' of diets, I think "coca-cola".

Changing the emphasis doesn't amount to much: if the FDA is not conducting, or compelling companies to conduct, sufficiently rigorous safety assessments prior to the marketing of a GMO product and instead presumes such products to be safe until evidence to the contrary arises, they are failing their responsibility to protect consumers. Of course the FDA retains its enforcement powers; my complaint is their being reactive instead of proactive.

Sorry if my selections were unsatisfactory--I didn't think /. would appreciate the whole text. My concerns then, in general terms, are:

1) The FDA permits companies themselves to make the determination of whether the genes introduced by GM are "generally regarded as safe" (GRAS). When companies determine GM modifications are GRAS (and I'm unaware of an instance they haven't), those foods are exempt from the food additive regulations.
2) Regulatory authority is, as you point out, split across the FDA, USDA and EPA. Each of the agencies only considers a subset of a proposed product. In the case of Bt potatoes, for instance, the FDA doesn't care about the Bt protein since it's a pesticide and therefore the EPA's problem. The EPA figures the original potato was safe and the Bt protein is safe, therefore the new Bt potato is safe. Interestingly, when it comes to labeling, the potato is back to being considered food and the FDA regs prohibit labeling of pesticides so Bt potatoes are anonymous when sold.
3) When GMO crops are evaluted, they are not done so with sufficient rigor. Consider again the Bt potato: the EPA supposedly tested the effects of Bt on mice but they didn't feed the mice Bt potatoes, they fed them pure Bt. If complications arose in the production of the protein within the potato itself, they couldn't have known.

How's that for process? Does the USDA do better? That second link you provided describes how the USDA 'streamlined' its regulations in order to "reduce the length of the petition process by more than 50 percent". I don't consider that an improvement.

Ultimately, though, you bring up the trump card: regulatory authority. I have no doubts whatsoever this will result in litigation which ultimately sees the ban struck down.

Washington does.

I think jet skis are included too. Certainly the trailer needs a license.

Don't drop context: "genes from entirely separate species"

Jellyfish & potatoes: "A full-length cDNA corresponding to the RNA genome of Potato leafroll virus (PLRV) was modified by inserting cDNA that encoded the jellyfish green fluorescent protein (GFP) into the P5 gene near its 3 end." I'd say jellyfish and potato are separate species...

Or soil bacteria & potatoes: "Colorado potato beetle (CPB) resistance has been achieved through the incorporation of a gene for the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) protein into potatoes." Again, two separate species which wouldn't normally have any mechanism to transfer genes. Oh, and this example is in our food chain.

You were saying?

You didn't take me literally enough.

If any officials are reprimanded, it won't be the ones deserving it. (Note: that's a huge if)

That should be in air-quotes:

Glyphosate can be used responsibly. But GMO crops don't promote responsible use. They encourage "over prescription," if you will, which accelerates pests' resistance.

Not to mention GMO crops are patentable and able to cross-breed with non-GMO crops, which places that non-GMO farmer at risk of patent litigation.