[gambiter]

> The most compelling anti-GMO argument is that they could produce an interaction we wouldn't have been able to predict due to complexity, and the interaction could have negative effects that would never have been produced by random selection in nature.

The problem is, there is no proof in that statement. It's just suspicion, fear, uncertainty, doubt. Instead of proving an actual harm, anti-GMO people are asking the industry to prove a negative.

It would be like asking for a cup of water, and I hand you a cup that I filled from my Brita filter. You complain saying the mechanism contains a carbon filter, and that you believe a carbon filter can contaminate the water. Suddenly you're forcing the burden of proof on me, essentially asking me to prove your fear incorrect. Your fear that is based on... nothing. That's not how science should work. If you have uncertainty about something after the initial studies have been completed to verify safety, the burden is on you to prove it's a danger.

In the case of GMOs, the industry has thrown the public a bone, so-to-speak, and done extensive testing to show that the crops are safe, even when there is no indication that they SHOULD be unsafe. Now, don't get me wrong, there is evidence that PESTICIDES are unsafe, but there's no real evidence that just adding something like a carrot gene to rice is dangerous. NO. EVIDENCE. Yet that doesn't stop people from complaining. When the evidence doesn't support their view, they immediately say that the research was funded by the evil GMO corporations, and rarely even bother to actually look up the real study.

It's like Aspartame... It's one of the most tested food ingredients in history, there is ample documentation to show that it is perfectly safe, yet some people still believe it causes everything from diabetes to cancer. How much solid, peer-reviewed proof do they have to back up their belief? None.

[graeme]

Your claims about aspartame's safety are not correct, and do not lend confidence to your argument about GMOs.

A quick search on google scholar found dozens of articles like this that suggest problems linked to aspartame use:

http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/6/1249.full

The jury is still out, but it's not correct to say that aspartame has been proven conclusively safe.

[gambiter]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. A quick google search does you no good because of all of the misinformation about it. Read the real information... Wikipedia has a great summary with plenty of references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#Safety_and_health_eff...

I would also like to point out the conclusion in the article you linked:

> These 3 studies add to a growing body of evidence on the adverse health effects of soft drinks; however, given the limited and conflicting data available, these findings can at the present time be considered only suggestive, not conclusive, but they warrant further investigation in other prospective studies with data on long-term intake of soft drinks, diet soft drinks, and aspartame

Take that along with the extensive references in the Wikipedia article and you can see why I say the public is asking the food industry to prove a negative. The closest they can come is, "something that contains aspartame seems to be a bit unhealthy, but not always, but sometimes," yet those same people (like you) will say that aspartame itself is the issue. It's just silly.

[graeme]

Have you read the studies linking aspartame to changes in gut biome? For instance this one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25313461/

You may be right about aspartame. I'm not an expert. Perhaps that study was also disproven.

But my larger point is that it's really, really hard to prove a negative to an acceptable standard. Particularly across all categories we care about, not just cancer and heart disease.

Have the biome effects been disproven too?