# GMO Foods - Safe? Effective? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 12, 2014, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522 "2014-03-12T09:14:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/81 "2014-03-15T14:16:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > About the golden rice… > I would say that if there is ever a need to start offering subsidies to the likes of Monsanto a case like this one is. Monsanto has plans to offer the rice for free but only for very poor farmers, there is a cutoff level where Monsanto then asks for money. Where are you getting this stuff about Monsanto? _“From the beginning Golden Rice was conceived as a public-good project under the guidance of the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board. The initial prototype (Science 2000) was further improved in terms of provitamin A (β-carotene) content by a research team at Syngenta (Nature Biotechnology 2005). From 2005 to 2010 the project dealt mainly with breeding the novel trait into locally adapted rice varieties. Along its way the project has been funded by a number of donors, including the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Grand Challenges in Global Health Initiative), USAID, the Philippine Department of Agriculture, HarvestPlus, the European Commission, Swiss Federal Funding, and the Syngenta Foundation. Several companies have provided free access to their patented technologies necessary to generate Golden Rice . Current breeding and field trialling work is being carried out by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines together with PhilRice, the Philippine Rice Research Institute.”_ > **[The Golden Rice Project](http://www.goldenrice.org)** > > The Golden Rice Project According to the golden rice project site, seed distribution in the Philippines (planned for this year) is to be carried out by existing small scale operations, with seed going for the same price as conventional varieties. There is only one real reason that Greenpeace and other anti-GMO groups are fighting golden rice distribution. That’s because they fear its success will lead to further acceptance of GMOs by the general public, and that must not be allowed to happen, even at the cost of millions more cases of blind children due to vitamin A deficiency. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/82 "2014-03-15T14:46:17Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Where are you getting this stuff about Monsanto? > > _“From the beginning Golden Rice was conceived as a public-good project under the guidance of the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board. The initial prototype (Science 2000) was further improved in terms of provitamin A (β-carotene) content by a research team at Syngenta (Nature Biotechnology 2005). From 2005 to 2010 the project dealt mainly with breeding the novel trait into locally adapted rice varieties. Along its way the project has been funded by a number of donors, including the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Grand Challenges in Global Health Initiative), USAID, the Philippine Department of Agriculture, HarvestPlus, the European Commission, Swiss Federal Funding, and the Syngenta Foundation. Several companies have provided free access to their patented technologies necessary to generate Golden Rice . Current breeding and field trialling work is being carried out by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines together with PhilRice, the Philippine Rice Research Institute.”_ > > [http://www.goldenrice.org](http://www.goldenrice.org) > > According to the golden rice project site, seed distribution in the Philippines (planned for this year) is to be carried out by existing small scale operations, with seed going for the same price as conventional varieties. > > There is only one real reason that Greenpeace and other anti-GMO groups are fighting golden rice distribution. That’s because they fear its success will lead to further acceptance of GMOs by the general public, and that must not be allowed to happen, even at the cost of millions more cases of blind children due to vitamin A deficiency. And nowhere I said that I approve of what Greenpeace is doing, but I have to grant you that Monsanto is not too bad here. > **[Golden rice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice)** > > Golden rice is a variety of rice (Oryza sativa) produced through genetic engineering to biosynthesize beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, in the edible parts of the rice. It is intended to produce a fortified food to be grown and consumed in areas with a shortage of dietary vitamin A. Genetically modified golden rice can produce up to 23 times as much beta-carotene as the original golden rice. > Golden rice is generally considered to be safe: with the FDA, Health Canada, International Rice ... > [@](#): > > Potrykus has enabled golden rice to be distributed free to subsistence farmers.[45] Free licenses for developing countries were granted quickly due to the positive publicity that golden rice received, particularly in Time magazine in July 2000. Golden rice was said to be the first recombinant DNA tech crop that was unarguably beneficial. Monsanto Company was one of the first companies to grant free licences.[46] > > The cutoff between humanitarian and commercial use was set at US$10,000. Therefore, as long as a farmer or subsequent user of golden rice genetics does not make more than $10,000 per year, no royalties need to be paid. In addition, farmers are permitted to keep and replant seed.[47] What I saw here is that, yes, there are free licenses but this is not like Borlaug did, IMHO even that profit limit will be a deal breaker for many farmers that in the developing countries where a good number of those farmers are not so helpless or trying to stop being so, I do think that the end result will be less of the rice available for all that need it. The main point here is that in the past humanitarians did not behave like that. People and farmers in other countries did not see the restrictions that are appearing now compared to what was offered in the past with the wheat from Borlaug. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/83 "2014-03-15T14:49:28Z")
I don’t like the comparison of genetic modification to standard selective breeding or to evolution. I believe that a more appropriate comparison is to [horizontal gene transfer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer), which is less common, but it happens. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/84 "2014-03-15T18:09:23Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > It changes nothing, except perhaps the straw in that argument. Nobody ever argued that side effects can’t happen. The argument is that GM foods are safe. Nothing more. No, the argument is about **Shalmanese’s** sweeping generalization that any GM food available to consumers is safe. As I said previously, I have no evidence that the current group of GM foods is unsafe and I don’t even have the opinion that they are unsafe. Just because a GM food is available to the consumers does not imply it is safe. We don’t know what kinds of changes will be made in the future and we don’t know that the current testing methods are adequate. Given that each new change is a different event then the discussion hinges on testing methods and whether those testing methods are exhaustive enough to make that statement. So, again, you think that the current testing methods are adequate to catch any side-effects of anything some company dreams up? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/85 "2014-03-15T18:33:04Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > I just want to point out that you completely ignored all of the points I made in my post addressing your concerns, instead choosing to shift the goalpost from how much testing is required to “prove” something is safe to a new concern about how each GMO is different. It’s not a new concern, that is exactly the concern all along. Not only have I never said differently, I explicitly stated that I have no evidence current GM foods are unsafe and I don’t even have that opinion. If every change had the exact same side-effects, then a certain amount of testing should cover all new changes (barring possible long term issues, e.g. increased susceptibility to cancer, etc.). When each change is a new event then the question changes to “how do we determine what testing is required for each new event?” ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/86 "2014-03-15T19:22:19Z")
But nobody ever has claimed or is claiming that only one set of testing is needed. That’s a complete strawman. No one has EVER said “all possible GMOs will always be safe, so we don’t need to test them.” That’s completely in your head. What I, and everyone else, has been saying is that genetic modification is a tool that can be used to make a huge range and variety of final products, and each product needs to be evaluated on its own merits and risks. What people are disagreeing with you about is what seems to be your perception that GMOs are so radically different from other foods that current testing schemes are somehow inadequate to ensure their safety. They’re just not. We know how to do the tests, we know what to look for, and we’re smart enough to figure out when we’re outside the comfort zone. Yes, there’s always a very remote possibility that some bizarre, totally unlooked-for side effect will pop up and kill us all, but that possibility already exists, with each and every food product - and every other consumer good - that has ever been invented. There just is not enough increased risk with GMOs to justify the level of fear and skepticism that is out there. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/87 "2014-03-15T19:49:31Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > But nobody ever has claimed or is claiming that only one set of testing is needed. That’s a complete strawman. No one has EVER said “all possible GMOs will always be safe, so we don’t need to test them.” Are you even reading the posts? I never said or implied anything even remotely close to what you have in quotes. If you think I said or implied that, then please slow down, read and comprehend my position: What I objected to was the claim that “anything available to consumers is safe.” The implication is that any GM concerns are gone because there is a framework for testing that is completely adequate for any future changes, if a GM food passes testing, it can be considered safe. Leading to the important question which I keep re-posting and you keep NOT READING: “how do we determine what testing is required for each new event?” **Shalmanese’s** position ignores the variety of changes that can and will be made in the future and our ability to predict what the tests should look like. In addition, it ignores possible long term issues that can’t be detected in 90 days. > [@](#): > > What I, and everyone else, has been saying is that genetic modification is a tool that can be used to make a huge range and variety of final products, and each product needs to be evaluated on its own merits and risks. No disagreement there. The issue, as previously stated over and over is as follows: “how do we determine what testing is required for each new event?” > [@](#): > > What people are disagreeing with you about is what seems to be your perception that GMOs are so radically different from other foods that current testing schemes are somehow inadequate to ensure their safety. They’re just not. We know how to do the tests, we know what to look for, and we’re smart enough to figure out when we’re outside the comfort zone. Non-GM foods have about a zillion year history, so we have quite a bit of data about what is harmful. Each new GM food starts that process over to some degree (not entirely, but to some degree). You think we’re smart enough to know what to look for, I think the world is an extremely complex place and it is highly likely there will be a problem at some point in the future. > [@](#): > > Yes, there’s always a very remote possibility that some bizarre, totally unlooked-for side effect will pop up and kill us all, but that possibility already exists, with each and every food product - and every other consumer good - that has ever been invented. There just is not enough increased risk with GMOs to justify the level of fear and skepticism that is out there. I can’t speak to whether the level of fear and skepticism “out there” is justified or not, I can only speak to my own logical analysis. And my logical analysis says you simply can’t make a sweeping generalization that any GM food available to consumers is safe (by virtue of the process it went through). You just can’t make that claim, that’s all. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/88 "2014-03-15T20:19:08Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I think the world is an extremely complex place and it is highly likely there will be a problem at some point in the future. And? Does that mean that golden rice should not be planted, because there exists a possibility that some GM crop at some point in the future might be linked to a health problem? There are currently significant threats to both the citrus and coffee-growing industries due to pathogens that could seriously limit future supplies. Should we say, the hell with people’s morning coffee and orange juice (and the jobs related to those crops), who cares about developing pest-resistant genetically modified varieties, because we don’t know with 100% certainty that there won’t be a future problem? That’s what a lot of anti-GMOers want - a total shutdown of development and marketing of genetically modified plants. Is that what you think should occur? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/89 "2014-03-15T20:37:12Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > And? > > Does that mean that golden rice should not be planted, because there exists a possibility that some GM crop at some point in the future might be linked to a health problem? > > There are currently significant threats to both the citrus and coffee-growing industries due to pathogens that could seriously limit future supplies. Should we say, the hell with people’s morning coffee and orange juice (and the jobs related to those crops), who cares about developing pest-resistant genetically modified varieties, because we don’t know with 100% certainty that there won’t be a future problem? > > That’s what a lot of anti-GMOers want - a total shutdown of development and marketing of genetically modified plants. Is that what you think should occur? Did I ever say anything close to that? So I know I’m not wasting my time here, why don’t you recap in a sentence or two what you think my position is. It should be pretty clear because I keep stating it over and over. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/90 "2014-03-15T20:41:02Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > That’s what a lot of anti-GMOers want - a total shutdown of development and marketing of genetically modified plants. Is that what you think should occur? Since we’re painting with broad brushes, big agri-business assures us our beef is safe and adequately tested. Then we get Mad Cow Disease. Is that what you want??? ---
**Author:** ![buddy431](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@buddy431](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddy431)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/91 "2014-03-15T21:16:11Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Since we’re painting with broad brushes, big agri-business assures us our beef is safe and adequately tested. Then we get Mad Cow Disease. Is that what you want??? How many people has mad cow disease killed worldwide? In the U.S.? The risks compared to more mundane stuff; e-coli, listeria, etc. are small. And in the U.S., even those risks are pretty small. Food in the U.S. _is_, on the grand scale of things, pretty safe, at least in terms of acute illness. You want to argue about long term effects? Fine, but do it equally. Require that every new apple variety put out by the University of Minnesota, every new type of Broccoli be subjected to the same standards as you want to apply to GMO foods. In fact it’s certainly true that certain foods (red meat, simple carbohydrates) pose greater long-term risk than a GMO Papaya does. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/92 "2014-03-15T21:27:36Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Non-GM foods have about a zillion year history, so we have quite a bit of data about what is harmful. > > Each new GM food starts that process over to some degree (not entirely, but to some degree). I don’t have a clue what this means. GM foods include various genes, which are transcribed into RNA, and eventually translated to make proteins which carry out different functions. Non-GM foods also contain genes, which are eventually translated to make proteins to perform other functions. I don’t see how whether the origin of a particular gene- whether it arrose through mutation, mutation accelerated by radiation or chemicals, or through horizontal transfer (either natural or artificial) is relevant to whether the product of that gene poses increased health dangers. If you define ‘each new GM food’ as a genuinely new product which must be exhaustively tested, then _every new genotype_ of any plant species that contains a novel mutation must also be tested to an equal, exhaustive degree. There is no logical classification by which you can put ‘non GM plants’ one one side, say they have been tested through time, and put GM foods on the other. If a plant with a novel gene is a new product, then it shouldn’t matter if the gene arises through mutation, hybridization, or genetic engineering. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > And my logical analysis says you simply can’t make a sweeping generalization that any GM food available to consumers is safe (by virtue of the process it went through). > > You just can’t make that claim, that’s all. We can, and we do. My favourite apple variety, the Lady Alice, is (I believe) fairly new as a commercial cultivar (though it was discovered in 1978), and arose as a ‘sport’ on some farm in Washington- it wasn’t created through deliberate hybridization. Should we pull the Lady Alice apples out of stores and subject them to 25 years of exhaustive testing before we allow people to eat them? > **[Lady Alice Apples are One of The Newest Apple Varietals Consumers Eagerly...](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lady-alice-apples-are-one-of-the-newest-apple-varietals-consumers-eagerly-anticipate-each-winter-245582151.html)** > > /PRNewswire/ -- One of the hottest new apples in the marketplace is arriving in grocery stores in the next few weeks. Lady Alice® brand apples are quickly... ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/93 "2014-03-15T21:29:26Z")
> [@buddy431](#): > > In fact it’s certainly true that certain foods (red meat, simple carbohydrates) pose greater long-term risk than a GMO Papaya does. This. The biggest health risk in a GMO papaya is almost certainly from the sugar. (and if it’s unripe, I suppose the papain could sting your mouth). ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/94 "2014-03-15T22:31:56Z")
> [@](#): > > GM foods include various genes, which are transcribed into RNA, and eventually translated to make proteins which carry out different functions. Non-GM foods also contain genes, which are eventually translated to make proteins to perform other functions. I don’t see how whether the origin of a particular gene- whether it arrose through mutation, mutation accelerated by radiation or chemicals, or through horizontal transfer (either natural or artificial) is relevant to whether the product of that gene poses increased health dangers. Rate of change. Evolution moves relatively slowly compared to our lives. GM can move much quicker, introducing, possibly, more variability than nature or human guided hybrid. > [@](#): > > If you define ‘each new GM food’ as a genuinely new product which must be exhaustively tested, then _every new genotype_ of any plant species that contains a novel mutation must also be tested to an equal, exhaustive degree. If you want to make the claim it is safe in advance of any history of the proteins interaction with humans, then yes, you would have to exhaustively test. That is a simple fact that no amount of arguing will counter. If you can accept some risk then you don’t need to. But claiming knowledge that nobody can reasonably claim (it passed some testing therefore guaranteed to be safe) is just absolutely not correct. I can’t even believe this is such a controversial position that so many are arguing about it. > [@](#): > > There is no logical classification by which you can put ‘non GM plants’ one one side, say they have been tested through time, and put GM foods on the other. If a plant with a novel gene is a new product, then it shouldn’t matter if the gene arises through mutation, hybridization, or genetic engineering. The changes that can be made through genetic engineering are much broader than the types of changes that would normally be produced due to evolution. If a non-GM apple was safe yesterday and for the last 10,000 years, it’s probably a reasonable assumption (not guaranteed) that it will be safe today, even if it’s not identical to the apple of 10,000 years ago. We still have an uninterrupted history with that type of apple and rate of change, and any changes that have happened haven’t caused problems yet, so most likely (not guaranteed) it is safe today. Our experience tells us that non GM foods don’t generally rapidly switch to toxicity due to evolution. On the other hand, genetic engineering is making changes that are not guided by natural selection and this formula for safety based on past history and rate of change is no longer as applicable. > [@](#): > > We can, and we do. Not accurately. Just because you claim something doesn’t mean it’s correct. > [@](#): > > My favourite apple variety, the Lady Alice, is (I believe) fairly new as a commercial cultivar (though it was discovered in 1978), and arose as a ‘sport’ on some farm in Washington- it wasn’t created through deliberate hybridization. Should we pull the Lady Alice apples out of stores and subject them to 25 years of exhaustive testing before we allow people to eat them? Again, for the 98th time, did I ever say anything even close to what you just wrote here? Did you read any of my previous posts. It’s a simple point: making a sweeping generalization that a product is safe just because it passed some testing is flawed. Again, I guarantee there will be some problem in the future that got past testing and then was discovered later. I never stated GM foods are evil. I never stated we should halt the process. I do believe that if the sole motivation is for a company to make more money, then the threshold for safety testing should be high. If the motivation is to save lives by making foods able to grow in areas it wouldn’t normally etc. etc., then the threshold is much lower. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/95 "2014-03-15T23:08:45Z")
**RaftPeople** , is there any chance at all that you will answer the questions put to you so we can divine what your position actually is? Or are you just witnessing? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/96 "2014-03-15T23:38:28Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > **RaftPeople** , is there any chance at all that you will answer the questions put to you so we can divine what your position actually is? > > Or are you just witnessing? I thought I was pretty clear, maybe not. Here it is again: **Shalmanese** claimed that “anything available to consumers is safe” implying that the current testing framework will catch all problems due to GM foods (existing and new). My position is that you can’t make that blanket statement, that there is risk with new GM foods and I’ve even gone out on a limb and made a prediction: there will be a problem due to GM foods that gets through the testing. Having said that, I’ve also stated I have no evidence there are any current problems with GM and I don’t even have an opinion that there are current problems, but I have a strong opinion that due to economic constraints (limited testing) nobody can rightfully claim that anything that makes it onto the shelves is safe. Does that help? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/97 "2014-03-16T00:42:47Z")
It’s clear that you have no intention of answering questions and will duck them any way you can. Have fun with your witnessing. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/98 "2014-03-16T01:20:29Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Here it is again: > **Shalmanese** claimed that “anything available to consumers is safe” implying that the current testing framework will catch all problems due to GM foods (existing and new). OK, then you misunderstood me. That’s not what I said at all. What I meant by my statement is that the seven GMO crops available on the market _now_ are safe. I’m not making any claims towards future safety. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/99 "2014-03-16T01:28:08Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I thought I was pretty clear, maybe not. > > Here it is again: > **Shalmanese** claimed that “anything available to consumers is safe” implying that the current testing framework will catch all problems due to GM foods (existing and new). > My position is that you can’t make that blanket statement, that there is risk with new GM foods and I’ve even gone out on a limb and made a prediction: there will be a problem due to GM foods that gets through the testing. > > Having said that, I’ve also stated I have no evidence there are any current problems with GM and I don’t even have an opinion that there are current problems, but I have a strong opinion that due to economic constraints (limited testing) nobody can rightfully claim that anything that makes it onto the shelves is safe. > > Does that help? You’re browbeating the concept of “safe” into uselessness. It’s like teachers that never give out 100% on any assignment because “nobody is perfect”. You’re essentially clamping boolean logic onto fuzzy logic, and setting your threshold for “true” at 100% and “false” at anything below 100%. All anybody is saying that there is reasonable statistical confidence that, for products currently on the market, the value of “safe” is acceptably high. To use some random numbers to illustrate the point, “there’s an 80% chance that the product is more than .60 safe”. Your disagreement is basically framing it as “there is a 0% chance that it’s 1.0 safe”. Which is probably a fair and correct assessment, but also an unsurprising and useless notion of safety. If you, personally, want to threshold things so that only complete confidence that it could never hurt anybody ever is “safe” you’re free to, but don’t pretend everybody else is wrong for not using the same standards of statistical confidence and the same threshold for what’s considered “safe”. ---
**Author:** ![nevadaexile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb8c5e/32.png) [@nevadaexile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nevadaexile)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522/100 "2014-03-16T01:42:50Z")
To me, the arguments against GMOs forget one stark fact: Regardless of what kinds of food that you eat, **you are going to die**. While certain foods _ **may** _ hasten that death, nothing is going to retard it. The length of your survival depends almost exclusively upon luck and genetics. If you are “weak” in either area , then your already short life will unfortunately just be that much shorter. GMOs or not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gmo-foods-safe-effective/683522.md?page=6)