[marcos123]

My questioning the long term safety of GMO's is logical though. Peer reviewed studies on the topic just plain don't address the very real possibility that GMO's can have very harmful effects 20, 30, or 50+ years down the road. Both to our environment and our bodies. Believing that a short term study that concludes they're "safe" also means they're safe in the long term is quite a leap of faith, and illogical.

Edit: To put it another way, I'll bet short term studies concluded that asbestos was "safe" to use as a building material. In the long run though, that didn't really turn out to be the case.

[adrusi]

Maybe I'm making a good case for eliminating comments by contributing to this tangent. On the other hand, maybe I'm making a good case for my claim that HN's comments are not nearly as plagued by groupthink as people claim.

The problem is treating GMOs as a category. Maybe there's good reason to be concerned that genetic modificiations that make crops less attractive to pests are hazardous to long-term health (I have no idea if there are), but what does that concern have to do with the risk of introducing genes to grow larger fruits?

I'm sure you can find reasons to be worried about any possible application of genetic engineering, but if you're willing to get that creative, you can find reason to be worried about any agricultural innovations. Maybe you claim that the introduction of a lentil gene to soy will indirectly create come carcinogen through protein interactions, but why don't you worry about the same issue when a new fertilizer is introduced? It seems to me that it's only because transgenic plants are new and scary and people are uneasy about "playing god".

Asbestos was ALWAYS known to be dangerous [1] so not a great example. I can't think of a case off the top of my head where long-term safety was incorrectly assumed from short-term studies. Perhaps some medicines? Anyway, in principle you're right that short term studies say little about long term impacts on health.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#Discovery_of_toxicity

[bbradley406]

>but what does that concern have to do with the risk of introducing genes to grow larger fruits?

Off the top of my head, there are several consequences that fall into the realm of possibility. Larger fruits will require more resources from the host plant, which could alter its development in unpredictable ways. More nutrients could be taken from the soil in order to make larger fruits, leading to earlier depletion and requiring more crop rotation (a process many farmers put off due to profits). Larger fruits will attract larger animals to graze (just look at what happens when hikers throw apple cores / other compost into the woods, it alters the movement patterns of multiple species).

I understand these examples sound hyperbolic, and I think GMO's are definitely beneficial in some situations. However, introducing changes to the very genetics of our ecosystem faster than they would naturally occur has definite effects. To think that we can adequately anticipate, react, and solve issues caused by these effects seems a bit hopeful, at least until we have a very advanced computational model simulation of our ecosystem.

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should." - Ian, Jurassic Park