We’re pretty sure there was a guy selling grocery store eggs for $5/dozen at our market. A customer showed us peaches he bought from another vendor; one had a sticker like you’d have at the grocery.
I do wonder how much fakery of this type there is. Nothing we sell is “certified” organic. People stop by sometimes, but it’s not like we would have drums of toxicdeathsauce strewn about if we were using them.
We did wonder once if we’d run into any customers when we picked up 15 lb of honey at Costco for an attempt at making mead. We had no idea what we were doing and didn’t want to use the honey we were selling for stupid money.
The NAS report is not a scientific assessment. And no science was used to draw the pretty figure.
I recommend participating in a NAS project to everyone the next time any of you have a chance. They’re fun, and you’ll learn something about the process.
If anyone is looking for examples of how conventional methods have produced dangerous products, the report is a good source.
A charmingly vague and completely insubstantial sentiment completely devoid of any actual information. The reality is that scientists working in areas that have become controversial, often by dint of commercial lobbying, often find themselves in a very difficult area at the intersection of science and public policy. Which is a difficult area to be in because politicians demand simple and definitive yes-or-no answers, like courtroom cross-examiners, which is anathema to science.
So the best that science can do when forced into that situation is to draw on carefully calibrated judgments of leading experts to try to guide policy, like that chart I cited. To then come back and criticize those mandated policy-oriented positions as unworthy of the way science should be practiced smacks of a misunderstanding of the fundamental purpose of science advisory institutions and why they were founded in the first place. Neither the NAS, the RSC, the IPCC, or any other national or international advisory bodies are scientific research institutions, but both are comprised of leading experts and their function is to assess the vast body of emerging scientific knowledge and distill it into recommendations that can serve as practical guidance in public policy.
Dear reality denier: this does not change the fact that the genetic engineering in question is in the higher-risk category according to the NAS criteria I just cited. It does not change the fact that your attempt to equate this with centuries-old corn breeding practices is misleading and fallacious. Furthermore, it marks possibly the first time that an entire genetically engineered animal will be generally available for human consumption. Again, the context here is simply labeling and the legitimate principle of an informed public rather than promoting commercial interests.
That’s fascinating, since
[ul]
[li]Somebody’s random Facebook page is not evidence for how I define science. My concerns about undue commercial influence politicizing science should be glaringly obvious to anyone with the slightest awareness of the world, and shouldn’t be the subject of derision unless by someone pushing an agenda. It’s rampant in the business of climate change denial, and it’s rampant in the promotion of GMO. Is the latter a simple matter of “true but irrelevant because this time the shills are right”? In many cases perhaps so, but it raises important questions about how the public perception is shaped on regulatory matters like thresholds for safety and requirements for labeling, and the Royal Society report by independent biotech experts that I previously cited expressed the same concerns about excessive commercial influence on public policy that I do.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]I am the one citing the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of Canada and you are the one whining that they don’t know what they’re talking about. Maybe the best part was your questioning the authenticity of the quote from Nature Biotechnology in the RSC report, the quote that cites the risks of biotech. And then when shown that it was indeed authentic, trying to claim that it had nothing to do with GM food. Even though the entire RSC report that used the quote in its introduction was all about GM food.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Since my educational and career background is in science, it’s understandably amusing for me to hear that I know nothing of its most basic principles. But perhaps this is just more evidence that your agenda-driven distortions of fact shouldn’t be taken seriously.[/li][/ul]
You offer more ad hominems and more appeals to authority, which have no place here. The question of risk is a scientific one, so let’s see the science.
Rather that relying on the opinions of others and trying to claim that one party has a bigger science dick than the other, you could easily just construct an argument based on well-established principles of biology. Oh I forgot:
Solution: get some technical knowledge of the subject so that you can talk to the scientists about the science.
An “entirely genetically engineered animal” would have DNA entirely or at least substantially created in the laboratory. The GM salmon differs from the wild-type by one gene and a DNA promoter sequence. Same species, different growth characteristics. Why is this so hard to understand?
No, the evidence is obvious from your repeated uses of the shill gambit.
What’s even more glaringly obvious is that you haven’t bothered to cite a single research article or even an opinion piece that you feel is erroneous because it was tainted by “politics” or “corporate influence”. It’s touching that you apparently believe there is no money, politics or dubious ethics behind anti-GMO lobbying (something I’ve touched on only minimally in this and the other GD thread. It is more relevant to examine published research beloved of anti-GMOers and explain why it involves bad science).
Now that’s depressing.
You’d expect someone knowledgeable about and competent in a field of science to be able and willing to discuss it, as opposed to trading in FUD and employing the tactics of people who wouldn’t know science if it bit them in the butt.
Excellent. This gives me an opportunity to wrap up my position by refuting this glib nonsense. But before this get lost in further detail, a serious question for both you and Jackmannii. There is a new NAS report coming out later this year, and although it looks like it will only focus on GM crops, it will hopefully offer updated insights on the future and safety of GM in general. In that regard I state and I ask the following:
My position is already supportive of biotech and GM with the important caveat that we need unceasing vigilance over testing and safety. I am prepared to modify my position toward greater or lesser concern if and when a new scientific consensus emerges in this or future reports. ** ARE YOU? Or do you just know all the answers already?**
Because so far you’ve been very dismissive of the cautions in the reports I’ve been citing, going so far as to call the NAS risk chart I cited as “not scientific” and Jackmannii dismissing the quote in the RSC report about risks in food biotechnology as not actually about food. :rolleyes:
That said, let me address the above set of truisms and simplistic pontifications.
**#1: you say the question of risk is a scientific one. **
This is often not entirely true. Science gives us basic facts upon which to base our actions, but it doesn’t by itself determine the best course of action, either in setting public policy or on guiding the future directions of the science itself. For that we need wisdom, the kind that comes from the philosophy of science, from an understanding of its limitations, and from a considered approach to how much risk we are willing to tolerate for commensurate benefits and how we manage it.
#2: you say “let’s see the science”.
I have shown you the science from the important public policy perspective of #1. I’ve quoted several key reports in the other thread, but apparently none of the GMO cheerleaders here are interested in reading them. I could Google all over but I’m limiting myself to those national advisory bodies whose publications I’ve actually read, namely the following:
[ul]
[li]Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada, Royal Society of Canada[/li][/ul]
I’ll mention again that the opening chapter of the second publication begins with the following quote, a good illustration of what I mean by the philosophy of science and understanding its limitations:
“The risks in biotechnology are undeniable, and they stem from the unknowable in science and commerce. It is prudent to recognize and address those risks, not compound them by overly optimistic or foolhardy behaviour.”
– the editorial board of Nature Biotechnology (October, 2000) #3: you say I rely on ad hominems and “appeals to authority”.
Do you even know what “appeal to authority” means as an argumentative fallacy? The fallacy arises when citing as truth the opinion of some authority or respected figure who is acting outside of or beyond his area of expertise. An argument doesn’t become an “appeal to authority” just because you don’t like what the authority has to say. It’s not a fallacious “appeal to authority” when that authority exists for that very purpose – that’s why we have national science bodies, established and funded by government to provided trusted guidance on matters of science policy – organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, the various national Royal Societies, and the IPCC. They are the aggregators of thousands of scientific papers, the expert interpreters of their content, the trusted intermediaries between science and public policy. Your attempt to twist this into an argumentative fallacy of “appeal to authority” is beyond absurd – providing authoritative scientific guidance is why these institutions exist.
As for ad hominems, there are no ad hominems – my concern about commercial influence over policy is based on a long history of exactly that, most nefariously seen in the tobacco and fossil fuels industries, and reflected in one of the major cautions in the RSC reported I linked above with respect to genetic engineering.
#4: you say I should “get some technical knowledge on the subject.”
That reminds me of the guy who started this thread. You really should read through that thread, it’s quite amusing. Lots of folks like that around. No “appeal to authority” for him – what tens of thousands of scientists have been saying for decades is of no interest, he wants to see all the evidence and make up his own mind. He wants, in effect, to do his own science. And the end result of that personal science is often something like this: “I read up on all this global warming stuff and now I understand it, and it’s all a bunch of hooey”.
It’s a charming attitude but in the real world few of us are going to spend years acquiring a post-graduate level of understanding of a particular field in order to unilaterally establish an authoritative position on a complex subject. It’s always good to have in-depth knowledge of a subject, though a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, but it’s much more important to be able to distinguish good information from bad, to understand the purpose and credibility and any inherent biases of different sources of information, and ultimately who to trust.
That’s an awful lot of flailing from someone who has no science to present.
I’ll go you one better. If there’s a well-conducted research study using good methodology and statistics which convincingly shows harm to human health from consuming GM foods (and which postulates a logical mechanism for its findings), it would be a strong motivator to question and quite possibly modify my position (having the study independently replicated would provide a further push).
That’s what it means to follow the science, as opposed to JAQing off.
Note that “a new scientific consensus” is not defined as “a single panel’s findings which I am hoping will fly in the face of 270+ international health and science organizations’ conclusions as to the safety of GMOs”.
Heck, if there was even one reputable study that showed possible harm I’d listen. But there aren’t any, which is why anti-GMO people have to rely on weak insinuations. For example, by bringing up that some scientists defended smoking. This completely ignores the fact that a great many scientists were against smoking once the science was understood. GMO has no such objections.
I think wolfpup that you are not taking into account that what you point at here has not been denied, on the contrary, they are issues that the scientists do agree should be looked at, and the problem for this discussion IMHO is that it seems that you are refusing to acknowledge that the scientists did use those those guidelines, thank you very much.
Politics are now interfering with the science and amazingly, if one takes into account how many on the left are the critics of this science, it is the Republicans who are spearheading the political effort to stop the use of the technology.
Well, this issue of the Salmon is now more curious to me as I made the point before that I do think that it is the the Republicans who are the ones drifting more into ignorance (vaccines is another one where until recently the ignorance was more bipartisan but I have seen that a lot of the ignorant republicans elected and running recently are more willing to act on that ignorance), there was a lot of Democratic support too, but the main sponsor of the amendments to stop the selling of the fish and new laws are Republican congress critters.
At no point did I argue that it was unsafe or that there was insufficient testing. I specifically said that it had gotten political and that Murkowski’s “frankenfish” moniker was over the top. I’m well aware that this has been in the approval cycle for 20 years. My argument in that context was just that it was sufficiently novel that a harmless labeling requirement was justified, much as we label what ocean or region salmon comes from and whether it’s fresh or farmed. That is, in fact, the subject of the thread and why I introduced it here.
No, that’s not what it means. That’s the opposite of what it means. Allow me to illustrate the difference.
Exhibit 1: These are just a few of the 53 recommendations from the previously cited RSC report on assuring the safety of GM foods (emphasis mine):
[ul]
[li]The Panel rejects the use of ‘substantial equivalence’ as a decision threshold to exempt new GM products from rigorous safety assessments on the basis of superficial similarities because such a regulatory procedure is not a precautionary assignment of the burden of proof.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]The Panel recommends that, where there are scientifically reasonable theoretical or empirical grounds establishing a prima facie case for the possibility of serious harms to human health, animal health or the environment, the fact that the best available test data are unable to establish with high confidence the existence or level of the risk should not be taken as a reason for withholding regulatory restraint on the product.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]The Panel recommends that the Canadian regulatory agencies implement a system of regular peer review of the risk assessments upon which the approvals of genetically engineered products are based. This peer review should be conducted by an external (non-governmental) and independent panel of experts.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]The Panel recommends that the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Commission (CBAC) undertake a review of the problems related to the increasing domination of the public research agenda by private, commercial interests, and make recommendations for public policies that promote and protect fully independent research on the health and environmental risks of agricultural biotechnology.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]The Panel recommends that approvals should not be given for GM products with human food counterparts that carry restrictions on their use for non-food purposes (e.g. crops approved for animal feed but not for human food). Unless there are reliable ways to guarantee the segregation and recall if necessary of these products, they should be approved only if acceptable for human consumption.[/li][/ul]
Exhibit 2: Your view of “science”, quoted above. In contrast to the precautionary principle fundamental to how science evaluates uncertainties in the context of public health and safety, your view of “science”, loosely paraphrased, basically says the following: “If a whole bunch of people die after consuming Product ‘X’, I would want to see a 100% correlation between said deaths and Product ‘X’, and I would also want to see a definitive theoretical explanation for the mechanism by which Product ‘X’ caused their deaths, in which case I might have some motivation to consider modifying my position. But I would want to see whether more people die from consuming Product ‘X’. And even then I might not change my mind.”
Is that what “follow the science” means to you? Seriously? No credible scientific organization in the world would tolerate grossly irresponsible gibberish like that for a nanosecond. It’s the very antithesis of the role of science in public policy. It’s literally a self-parody. Not even the sordid tobacco companies ever had the gall to sink to that level of contempt for public safety. As I suspected, your pontifications seem to be more concerned with promoting GMOs and ridiculing easy targets like anti-vaxers than with anything even remotely resembling a balanced scientific view of the issue.
And on that note, unless something further of substance comes up, I think I’m done here.
That does not seem to be the context, what I see is that Jackmannii was referring to you showing the science, as in ‘where is the science to show that they are harmful?’ Repeating the warnings that the scientists reported, after the scientists already heeded those warnings regarding the Salmon case, is very underwhelming.
First of all, those “warnings” – the safety and testing regulations – aren’t on a stone tablet handed down by Moses, it’s an ongoing work in progress in which new learnings are always being added. If the FDA has deemed it safe according to current criteria, that’s the best we can do and I’m fine with that. But I also support the current initiative to determine what labeling requirements are appropriate for it.
And that is ok, but it still avoids the point that the request was to show the science that tell us that the fish was harmful, if what the FDA has done so far by reviewing and checking the fish by looking at all the objections made already and using the safeguards already agreed with, then I have to point out that there is really no reason to argue that bit by repeating the science part that has been acknowledged already (the one about the possible risks that everyone should keep an eye for).
The science that has been shown after decades of looking at this then points in this case to the fish to be safe to consume.
There may be a reason why some GMO opponents apparently think the National Research Council of the NAS will support them in its spring report.
Some scientists and other pro-genetic modification advocates have reportedly gotten the sense that the NRC is bending over backwards too far to “tell both sides”.
For instance, Jon Entine of the Genetic Literacy Project noted that of the first 17 speakers before the NRC last fall, 12 represented advocacy organizations such as Greenpeace and Consumers Union, which are hostile to GMOs.
“In recent months, many Academy members have expressed concern, even fury, about the low level of expertise of some of those invited. Many of their concerns are reflected in the document left for your review by Nina Federoff, an Academy member and former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Biological Sciences. Their statement echoes the words of Donald Kennedy, president emeritus of Stanford, former head of the FDA and distinguished member of the NAS. He has chided those “who give up the difficult task of finding out where the weight of scientific opinion lies, and instead attach equal value to each side in an effort to approximate fairness.” This results, he said, in “extraordinary opinions…promoted to a form of respectability that approaches equal status.””
Entine’s remarks at the conference are presented here.
I can’t predict what the panel is going to include in its report. What’s most important is that they have the same focus as respected scientific and medical organizations weighing in on any scientific “controversy” - whether it’s vaccination, climate change, water fluoridation etc. - sound science and verified clinical/field experience.
This is such a moronic strawman as to defy belief. What field of science do you work in? Astrology?
I do not base my positions about questions of science on consenses, nor should any scientist. You like the IPCC? I do, and you’ve mentioned them a few times recently. They publish clear methodologies for how they arrive at their recommendations. NAS? Not on any of the reports I’ve helped with. Does IPCC get everything right? I doubt they’d even make that claim, given the constant revisions. But their methodology and results can be criticized, modified, and improved. And there are legitimate criticisms of their work. Legitimate criticisms do not include accusations that they are shills in the pocket of Big Climate Change (I recommend not plumbing the depths of the internet to read those blogs.) Likewise, they are not right just because they have the shiniest science dicks. The models and methods can stand up or fall on their own, independent of their authors.
We know that conventional agricultural techniques can harm people and have done so; the NAS report provides multiple examples. I can envisions a few scenarios for deliberately engineering a harmful crop, so let’s say it can happen inadvertently. But to assess that risk with respect to the inherent risk in any new food, we need a methodology like that used by IPCC. NAS does not provide one; they wrote an opinion piece and invented figures. Maybe they’ll do better this year. Then we can examine and judge the science and leave aside irrelevant appeals to authority, which, like ad hominem accusations of conflicts of interest, do not answer scientific questions.
I take heed of scientific consensus, including what it is based on.
Relying on consensus for issues one believes in while scoffing at it when you disagree is a hallmark of the woo-prone.
For instance - the Wall St. Journal to its credit is pro-immunization and both editorially and in op-eds notes the huge body of scientific work that supports vaccine safety and efficacy. On the other hand the WSJ consistently supports climate change denialists and minimalists while sneering at consensus on the issue and playing the “science wuz wrong before” card.*
One anti-climate change science op-ed in the Journal last week started out by referencing Galileo (likening him to the climate change denialists under attack by Meanies). When you’re reduced to using the Galileo gambit, you’ve sunk pretty far.
Well, damn, I really did want to get out, but looks like I’ve been sucked in for another round.
The funniest thing about this is Jon Entine complaining about “low levels of expertise” of those presenting to the NAS. Entine isn’t even a scientist, he’s a freaking journalist and fanatical GMO crusader! What the hell is he even doing there? But to hear him complain that “unqualified” anti-GMO types are there is truly priceless!
But frankly none of this concerns me. I don’t think the presence of Greenpeace is going to cause NAS to suddenly issue a GMO-hostile report any more than the presence of Entine is going to cause them to whitewash GMOs. I think both sides sending in uninformed nitwits are mostly wasting the Academy’s time. I’d kick them all out and focus on reviewing the literature and discussing the science.
But I notice with some amusement that you’re already laying the groundwork for excuses in case the NAS report isn’t as pro-GMO as you’d like. Why do you think the panel of experts gives a flying fig about either Greenpeace or Entine?
Is it? It mirrors your response perfectly. Read your response again. And then read my question. I asked “I am prepared to modify my position toward greater or lesser concern if and when a new scientific consensus emerges in this or future reports. ARE YOU? Or do you just know all the answers already?”
You responded that in order to modify your position to, say, one of greater concern, you would need to see “a well-conducted research study using good methodology and statistics which convincingly shows harm to human health from consuming GM foods (and which postulates a logical mechanism for its findings), it would be a strong motivator to question and quite possibly modify my position (having the study independently replicated would provide a further push).”
Perhaps you were answering a different question and giving us a quick refresher on how the scientific method works. We all know how it works, thanks. But the only rational policy position in the light of any new information indicating reasonable theoretical or empirical evidence that there might be greater risk to human health than previously thought by any particular biotechnology is to set a much higher bar for safety assessments and regulatory approvals in that area. Anything else is madness. Perhaps you misunderstood the question, but my paraphrase was no strawman.
Conversely, if the NAS is more supportive of GM than they were in 2004, I’m willing to reconsider my position. Apparently you’re going to remain intransigent no matter what they say, because you already know all the answers.
You’ve said a mouthful there. Thing is, I don’t really have any disagreement with any of it. But to respond to the various points raised …
Consensus: It depends on what the question is. No, science doesn’t operate by consensus, but public policy decisions on scientifically controversial issues generally have to. And generally the way to get it is to solicit guidance from a reputable and trusted national body of experts. When it’s mentioned in the quote upthread that “Donald Kennedy, president emeritus of Stanford, former head of the FDA and distinguished member of the NAS … has chided those ‘who give up the difficult task of finding out where the weight of scientific opinion lies …’”, he’s talking about the job of establishing that consensus.
IPCC: The IPCC publishes clear methodologies in part because they’ve become so embattled as a result of being the focus of persistent attacks by hostile denialist lunatics. They have to be as transparent and bulletproof as possible. They have also reacted to relatively minor procedural criticisms and recommendations of the InterAcademy Council. The NAS has faced no such attacks, but they can be perfectly well judged on the quality of their work, and AFAIK all their actual science reports are supported by extensive citations just as well as those of the IPCC.
No, the IPCC has never claimed to get everything right, nor would any such organization make such a claim, but the reality is that the assessments of Working Group I on the actual hard science have been surprisingly robust in the face of endless attacks. Virtually all the differences in the successive WG1 assessments have been the result of scientific advances in the intervening years. Such very few minor errors as have occurred have been mostly in the somewhat less rigorous (or less hard-sciencey) WG2 or WG3 reports.
They really do a fantastic job and I personally would place the NAS on the same level of trust and expertise, although as you note, there are differences. I get the sense that the NAS is even more scientifically conservative than the IPCC, although it may be subject-specific.
No credible scientific organization in the world would tolerate grossly irresponsible gibberish like that for a nanosecond. It’s the very antithesis of the role of science in public policy. It’s literally a self-parody. Not even the sordid tobacco companies ever had the gall to sink to that level of contempt for public safety. As I suspected, your pontifications seem to be more concerned with promoting GMOs and ridiculing easy targets like anti-vaxers than with anything even remotely resembling a balanced scientific view of the issue.