News Trust in science at an all time low

[SixNein]

2. When Greenpeace convinces an African country to reject GM food, resulting in thousands of people dying of starvation, that's...what? A pseudo-scientific anti-science stance? Ignoring science in favor of anti-corporatism? Naturalistic science over man-made science? A little of each?

Europe isn't exactly accepting it either. And I'm not sure how successful GM will be for the poor since it is being heavily protected by patents.

I personally have two main concerns with GM crops:
1. Seed contamination (And the simple lack of information on how widespread it is occurring)
2. Resistant weeds. See: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/attack-of-the-superweed-09082011.html

#2 This is the problem that Greenpeace has been bitching about.

 

[Galteeth]

That would show up in a poll as a Greenpeace activist saying "yes" they trust science even while manipulating it or fighting against it while the religious conservative just answers "no".

Science doesn't tell us what crops people should use. Nor does it tell people anything about whether to use condoms. This is the crux of the problem. Science is a method of investigation of natural phenomenon. Using science, technology like condoms and GM crops, can be developed. But science can't tell people what to do. THIS is where people get confused. They think that trusting the method of science to produce reliable conclusions about nature is equivalent to accepting any policy wherein the conclusions of science were used in some way. Which is an absurd equivalence, but it's one you're accidentally making! (Nothing personal, this is a super common fallacy.)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Science doesn't tell us what crops people should use. Nor does it tell people anything about whether to use condoms. This is the crux of the problem. Science is a method of investigation of natural phenomenon. Using science, technology like condoms and GM crops, can be developed. But science can't tell people what to do. THIS is where people get confused. They think that trusting the method of science to produce reliable conclusions about nature is equivalent to accepting any policy wherein the conclusions of science were used in some way. Which is an absurd equivalence, but it's one you're accidentally making! (Nothing personal, this is a super common fallacy.)

I would argue that you're making a fallacy yourself by simplifying the issue. Science can tell us the ramifications of what we are discussing here i.e. what are the physical and social implications of plentiful food and condom use? At some point you have to inject some value judgements to decide whether or not health is something you desire but so what

 

[chiro]

While I think science is one of the best ideas we have got in our current development, it is important that people don't twist it or use it in a deceptive manner to achieve things that are either outright deceptive or not sound.

Human beings have a tendency to choose what information suits their needs and to use that in a way that suits their needs. Religious people are extremely guilty of this, but they are not the only group.

The greatest thing about science IMO is the transparency: in a good piece of science you make absolutely everything available to the rest of the community and then they can take that recipe and 'bake the cake themselves' to see if it comes out as a cheesecake or instead as a ice-cream cake.

The next thing on top of this is (and this is going to sound rather heartless but I think it needs to be said) is that we need to lose the 'human' element.

I don't mean that we need to lose compassion or similar values but rather lose the distortion and the urges that we use to distort the data in any form we wish to achieve the results we 'want' and 'expect' to achieve.

You can't make good decisions when you either bury your head in the sand to either a) avoid the data by pretending it's not there or b) just avoid the problem intentionally to achieve some pre-determined conclusion for a pre-determined action.

Many people would think that this kind of thinking would reduce us to robots, or computers, or something similar but for me I actually welcome this kind of change. Really important decisions require someone without biases, but still enough empathy, compassion, and real understanding (not some narcisist, sociopath or psychopath or other similar kind of personality) to make decisions.

To do this as a society we need to be honest not only about the faults of others but also of ourselves. It means that we have to admit that we are wrong when we are wrong and be willing to tell potentially the world that we screwed up. It means indirectly that we have to tell the world that 'yes, I am human, I made a bad call, I screwed up and this is what I did wrong' and unfortunately this is something that in some societies (if not all) is not practiced. Everyone wants to win, and nobody wants to lose.

It reminds me of a scene in the movie 'Margin Call' (which is one I recommend others to watch as well) which says two things (and I paraphrase here): 'If everything works out, then nothing will change. If it all works out then we get called a bunch of pussies. If it doesn't work out, then people are going to crucify us'

This is a great scene and it emphasizes what I mean about winners and losers, and the truth is so startling that personally it should be what they should teach in school rather than the absolute rubbish they do currently.

So with this said, are people of all backgrounds and classifications willing to take the leap? To realize that a) humans make mistakes b) it's good to make mistakes and c) the winner/loser paradigm/mindset needs a change? is a huge task.

I personally don't see science being used to it's absolute full potential that it can offer us as human beings unless the above is addressed (not only for religious people, but for everyone).

 

[Galteeth]

I would argue that you're making a fallacy yourself by simplifying the issue. Science can tell us the ramifications of what we are discussing here i.e. what are the physical and social implications of plentiful food and condom use? At some point you have to inject some value judgements to decide whether or not health is something you desire but so what

But it is relevant. Since the "trust" here is getting confused by scientists, it's not hard to see why it would confuse lay people.

Ok, clearly science can tell us that condom use will prevent or significantly reduce the risk of HIV transmission.
Distributing condoms in Africa would almost certainly reduce the spread of HIV.
Now you are saying, ok, well given that, surely the policy of distributing condoms is a good idea. And I'm not disagreeing with you. But you skipped a step there. You went from the facts to a policy based on those facts.
Those value judgements that are used seem trivial to you. But they're not for say, people who have a religious objection to condom use. By making an equivalence of facts with value judgements, you are getting to the core of why "mistrust" in science is on the rise.
Now, religious objections to condom are seriously misguided and irresponsible granted, but that's not what I'm arguing.

Let's do a different example. Ok, we can agree that chimpanzess and humans have a common ancestor right? Scientific fact. Also, the same areas of the brain are activated in both species after a close family member dies, so it's logical to conclude that chimps feel something akin to grief. Therefore, science says we shouldn't do experiments on chimps.

See what i did there. That's the problem. I am muddling the issue. I take scientific evidence, make a value judgement based on that evidence, then say that my value judgement is backed by science. But it's a linguistic trick and a disingenous one. While I can use facts to form my values or argue my case, i can't fairly equate "trust in science that humans and chimps have a common ancestor" with "trust in science that we shouldn't experiment on chimps." One injects a value, and I think lay people have a hard time distinguishing between statements of fact or theory and statements of principal and policy based on facts or theory.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

But it is relevant. Since the "trust" here is getting confused by scientists, it's not hard to see why it would confuse lay people.

Ok, clearly science can tell us that condom use will prevent or significantly reduce the risk of HIV transmission.
Distributing condoms in Africa would almost certainly reduce the spread of HIV.
Now you are saying, ok, well given that, surely the policy of distributing condoms is a good idea. And I'm not disagreeing with you. But you skipped a step there. You went from the facts to a policy based on those facts.
Those value judgements that are used seem trivial to you. But they're not for say, people who have a religious objection to condom use. By making an equivalence of facts with value judgements, you are getting to the core of why "mistrust" in science is on the rise.
Now, religious objections to condom are seriously misguided and irresponsible granted, but that's not what I'm arguing.

Let's do a different example. Ok, we can agree that chimpanzess and humans have a common ancestor right? Scientific fact. Also, the same areas of the brain are activated in both species after a close family member dies, so it's logical to conclude that chimps feel something akin to grief. Therefore, science says we shouldn't do experiments on chimps.

See what i did there. That's the problem. I am muddling the issue. I take scientific evidence, make a value judgement based on that evidence, then say that my value judgement is backed by science. But it's a linguistic trick and a disingenous one. While I can use facts to form my values or argue my case, i can't fairly equate "trust in science that humans and chimps have a common ancestor" with "trust in science that we shouldn't experiment on chimps." One injects a value, and I think lay people have a hard time distinguishing between statements of fact or theory and statements of principal and policy based on facts or theory.

Perhaps I didn't explain my point well enough, I understand all this and agree with it but my point is that this is not a criticsm of science. Furthermore when you say "science can't tell us what crops to use" that is an oversimplified linguistic trick. We can use science to accumulate facts about our situation such as societal health, food availability, economic concerns etc and judge that if we grew crops X instead of Y we could increase these metrics in a positive way. Now obviously there is going to be some ethical decision as to whether or not these things are desirable and yes there may be major conflicts but it's not right to say that science can't tell us what we should do because it ignores the fact that science tells us how to get to where we want. Either way this discussion is going a bit off topic and I get the impression we're arguing pedantic points.

 

[chiro]

It would probably a good idea for people who engage in some social contract to specifically outline what they know and what they speculate. You can make this feasible without making it too bearucratic by making the information publically available (like at say a public library or through a government website of sorts).

Doing this would mean that they would have to inform the people as an obligation to their social contract of what they have actually found vs what they are extrapolating or speculating either from what they have found or even as a combination of what others have reported to be found.

The judgement call of course is always left to the end user and if the end user disregards things or other similar things, then that is their business.

It used to be that the aristocracy and ruling class made sure that the peasants were illiterate, didn't know mathematics, science, logic or anything that could otherwise help them make sense of the world to know that they were getting screwed over big-time and also for the use that they could not construct a good argument.

Nowadays things have changed with the access people have to information of all kinds, but in some ways things haven't changed that dramatically.

It is also important to remember that a lot of people on this forum are highly educated people and that we are not necessarily in a majority. I am also not talking about formal education in isolation, but education in a general sense that is made of observation, personal learning and experiences and everything inbetween: not just formal learning you do that is part of some assessment-based scenario.

 

[chiro]

Perhaps I didn't explain my point well enough, I understand all this and agree with it but my point is that this is not a criticsm of science. Furthermore when you say "science can't tell us what crops to use" that is an oversimplified linguistic trick. We can use science to accumulate facts about our situation such as societal health, food availability, economic concerns etc and judge that if we grew crops X instead of Y we could increase these metrics in a positive way. Now obviously there is going to be some ethical decision as to whether or not these things are desirable and yes there may be major conflicts but it's not right to say that science can't tell us what we should do because it ignores the fact that science tells us how to get to where we want. Either way this discussion is going a bit off topic and I get the impression we're arguing pedantic points.

Science, like the financial system thrives in a situation where trust is present and there is a level of confidence in the system both in terms of it's integrity and also in it's ability to benefit the people who use it.

twofish-quant said in a previous response of his to my own response in another old thread that (and I paraphrase here) that 'In finance, when things go badly, they get really bad.'

I think that a relationship between science and the financial system is a good one because both are based on a high level of intrinsic integrity (and thus confidence) and both are far reaching with regard to the impact that they have on society.

When people lose faith in the system underlying exchange of goods and services (trade), then countries stop trading with each other and this causes chaos. When people lose faith in their own country with regard to the currency, things get chaotic and people end up going from a very orderly existence to a situation not unlike the Mad Max kind of movies. If you think that this can't happen, take a look at what is happening in Greece right now with the riots. Think about what happened when Hurricane Katrina hit and what happened with the social order over there at that time.

If science ends up in the same kind of situation we will have even more chaos and like the financial one, it too will have a huge effect across all sectors of society.

In this vein, it is important that we not only place confidence in the scientific method like you are advocating, but that we also work to maintaining the highest standards of integrity, transparency and clarity with regards to intrinsic functioning and all of this has a direct correspondence with confidence and trust of not just science, but any system that uses or encompasses it.

Unfortunately because there are misuses of scientific knowledge and processes, I do see that we could get the same kind of thing happening that we do get in some areas of the financial system which will open up all kinds of problems.

At the same time, it is good to have situations that expose corruption, misuse, intentional deception, and other similar activities that help create the scene for a system that has even stronger characteristics of integrity and clarity simply due to the fact of how important this mechanism is for maintaining social cohesion and a well functioning society.

I am not sure personally that everyone realizes how important the enforcement of these principles are in the greater scope of social cohesion, although I imagine a great majority of scientists take their oath, jobs, and responsibility seriously. The thing is it takes only a few bad apples and a disaster or two to not only upset the apple-cart but to derail it completely.

 

[mheslep]

Europe isn't exactly accepting it either. And I'm not sure how successful GM will be for the poor since it is being heavily protected by patents.

I personally have two main concerns with GM crops:
1. Seed contamination (And the simple lack of information on how widespread it is occurring)
2. Resistant weeds. See: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/attack-of-the-superweed-09082011.html

#2 This is the problem that Greenpeace has been bitching about.

Science doesn't tell us what crops people should use. Nor does it tell people anything about whether to use condoms. This is the crux of the problem. Science is a method of investigation of natural phenomenon. Using science, technology like condoms and GM crops, can be developed. But science can't tell people what to do. THIS is where people get confused. They think that trusting the method of science to produce reliable conclusions about nature is equivalent to accepting any policy wherein the conclusions of science were used in some way. Which is an absurd equivalence, but it's one you're accidentally making! (Nothing personal, this is a super common fallacy.)

These responses are very similar in form to intelligent design arguments. Cast dispersion on motivations (they're in it for the money); cite off topic problems (weeds are about over use of herbicides); strawman (proponents want to use science to tell us what to do).

Now, these may indeed be valid objections to an agenda of some group or business, but they are all non responsive to the scientific point, in this case whether or not GM provides superior food yields and thus health over time. Russ has chosen an excellent counter example.

 

[SixNein]

These responses are very similar in form to intelligent design arguments. Cast dispersion on motivations (they're in it for the money); cite off topic problems (weeds are about over use of herbicides); strawman (proponents want to use science to tell us what to do).

Now, these may indeed be valid objections to an agenda of some group or business, but they are all non responsive to the scientific point, in this case whether or not GM provides superior food yields and thus health over time. Russ has chosen an excellent counter example.

I didn't say GM plants didn't provide higher food yields. I simply stated concerns.

This report explores the impact of the adoption of genetically engineered (GE) corn, soybean, and cotton on pesticide use in the United States, drawing principally on data from the United States Department of Agriculture. The most striking finding is that GE crops have been responsible for an increase of 383 million pounds of herbicide use in the U.S. over the first 13 years of commercial use of GE crops (1996-2008).

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/GE-crops-and-pesticide-use.pdf

This little problem is simply left out of the GM crop cost vs benefit equation.

But as far as the claim on all of those hungry people, I remain a skeptic until its demonstrated. I'm curious how seed contamination will play out in patent courts.

 

[russ_watters]

That paper is just a restatement of your previous error. Herbicide use increase is an intentional BENEFIT of GM crops.

The side effect of increasing resistance is unfortunate but doesn't negate the benefit. Your objection could identically be applied to antibiotics: you may as well suggest we stop using antibiotics because they cause bacteria to become resistant.

 

[SixNein]

That paper is just a restatement of your previous error. Herbicide use increase is an intentional BENEFIT of GM crops.

The side effect of increasing resistance is unfortunate but doesn't negate the benefit. Your objection could identically be applied to antibiotics: you may as well suggest we stop using antibiotics because they cause bacteria to become resistant.

An analogy here is that my objection is to the inappropriate use of antibiotics. The increase use of herbicide(s) has mostly been of one particular thing.

Farmers need to adopt better management practices to ensure that beneficial environmental effects of GE crops continue, the report says. In particular, farmers who grow GE herbicide-resistant crops should not rely exclusively on glyphosate and need to incorporate a range of weed management practices, including using other herbicide mixes. To date, at least nine species of weeds in the United States have evolved resistance to glyphosate since GE crops were introduced, largely because of repeated exposure. Federal and state government agencies, technology developers, universities, and other stakeholders should collaborate to document weed resistance problems and develop cost-effective ways to control weeds in current GE crops and new types of GE herbicide-resistant plants now under development.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12804

Global number of weed populations resistant to two or more types of herbicides
Mortensen et al./BioScience

 

[russ_watters]

So then we should stop giving antibiotics to Africans too?

Btw, the analogy isn't quite right, but only because your logic is wrong: GM herbicide resistant crops don't cause "superweeds", herbicide use causes "superweeds". What GM herbicide resistant crops do is allow the farmers to use more herbicides. So it is the herbicides, not the GM herbicide resistant crops that equate to antibiotics.

You're arguing against the wrong thing.

 

[SixNein]

GM herbicide resistant crops don't cause "superweeds", herbicide use causes "superweeds". What GM herbicide resistant crops do is allow the farmers to use more herbicides. So it is the herbicides, not the GM herbicide resistant crops that equate to antibiotics.

As far as the GM crops themselves, their genetic information can and likely does get into the wild. For example, see

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3099898?uid=3739912&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56160559593
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19688918

But there is virtually no monitoring of it.

Anyway, GM crops create a market for the improper use of herbicides. Farmers make less profit by using integrated methods. And never-mind that industry scientists have been telling them to http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3988252?uid=3739712&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698941075767.

 

[Galteeth]

As far as the GM crops themselves, their genetic information can and likely does get into the wild. For example, see

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3099898?uid=3739912&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56160559593
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19688918

But there is virtually no monitoring of it.

Anyway, GM crops create a market for the improper use of herbicides. Farmers make less profit by using integrated methods. And never-mind that industry scientists have been telling them to http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3988252?uid=3739712&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698941075767.

This discussion relates to the major point in my opinion. Policy recommendations can too often take on an air of infallibility when "science backs them". More often, any policy will have benefits and drawbacks, with necessary cost/benefit analysis being factored in, which will also be dependent on value judgements. Alot of people then, learn to "distrust science" when what they're really doing is distrusting people who believe their recommendations on social or political matters are infallible because they are backed by science.

My argument is not that science can't be trusted, but that the base of science is skepticism, especially when it relates to extrapolating broad conclusions from data. The results you see in terms of public perception are a reflection that there is a problem here. I am very much of the Feynman mindset; to be sure of something is a very difficult thing indeed.

 

[SixNein]

This discussion relates to the major point in my opinion. Policy recommendations can too often take on an air of infallibility when "science backs them". More often, any policy will have benefits and drawbacks, with necessary cost/benefit analysis being factored in, which will also be dependent on value judgements. Alot of people then, learn to "distrust science" when what they're really doing is distrusting people who believe their recommendations on social or political matters are infallible because they are backed by science.

My argument is not that science can't be trusted, but that the base of science is skepticism, especially when it relates to extrapolating broad conclusions from data. The results you see in terms of public perception are a reflection that there is a problem here. I am very much of the Feynman mindset; to be sure of something is a very difficult thing indeed.

From my experience, policy makers distort science. Generally, they talk about the risks of the other persons view but never their own.

Some benefits of gm crops:
Ability to create plants more able to survive extreme weather events.
Crops have a higher yield.
GM food can have a greater shelf life.
Crops can have higher nutrition.
Increased profits by some farmers.

Some risks:
New allergies could be created.
Cross-breeding of gm plants with the wild.
Creates a market to abuse herbicides.
Pesticide resistant insects.
Cross contamination with non-food crops like gm crops for medicine.
Health effects - minimal research has been performed on acute or chronic health effects.

 

[russ_watters]

You present that as if there is a level-ground debate, but the reality is that the benefits are well established facts while the drawbacks you listed are a mixture of irrelevant, wrong and idly speculative: science vs scientific sounding crackpottery.

 

[Dotini]

You present that as if there is a level-ground debate, but the reality is that the benefits are well established facts while the drawbacks you listed are a mixture of irrelevant, wrong and idly speculative: science vs scientific sounding crackpottery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Edit: Inapplicable question withdrawn

 

[russ_watters]

Certainly not. If you think it applies here, please explain why.

 

[Jasongreat]

I liked feynmans description of science, science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. And when he said that to have scientific integrity you have to go out of your way to prove yourself wrong. Aslong as science says they have the complete truth, and aslong as that science can't ever be proven wrong, since if it warms it proves it, if it cools it proves it, if the weather is extreme it proves it, if it is mellow it proves it, this layman will have no faith in it! I apologize for bringing weather into the discussion, since I know that is a banned topic, but that is one more reason I don't trust science, the phrase the discussion is over.

 

[Jasongreat]

Russ, how bout the down side that if your neighbor plants pantented gm crops and they mix with your crop you can be sued since you didn't pay for the right to grow said crop?

 

[russ_watters]

That's certainly an issue, but it is a business/legal one, not a science issue and certainly not relevant to the example I gave (no one is suing Africans over it).

 

[SixNein]

You present that as if there is a level-ground debate, but the reality is that the benefits are well established facts while the drawbacks you listed are a mixture of irrelevant, wrong and idly speculative: science vs scientific sounding crackpottery.

Please link some of these scientific facts.

What do you disagree with when considering these risks? I'll give you that some are probably minor, but a lot of it depends on a crop by crop basis. But most of these have been demonstrated at one time or another.
For example:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/14/u...f-crops-can-spread-allergies-study-shows.html

Or seed contamination:
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/rice-contamination-a-mystery.html

Seed contamination also has a great deal of potential legal problems, and we have no clue how those will be resolved. And these arguments apply for your appeal to emotion with gm crops=food for the hungry.

 

[Bobbywhy]

You present that as if there is a level-ground debate, but the reality is that the benefits are well established facts while the drawbacks you listed are a mixture of irrelevant, wrong and idly speculative: science vs scientific sounding crackpottery.

There is a ground-level debate over GM food crops to be seen if one expands one's view to span the Atlantic ocean to observe our cousins in the European Union. In my opinion the potential drawbacks to GM food crops are not "irrevelant, wrong, and idly speculative". Of course there are benefits from the new GM food crops. But this a new science, and as with all new areas of science, there are often unforseen consequences that only appear after the introduction of the new techniques. A balanced and unbiased consideration of all the evidence seems reasonable and prudent considering the potential harm to humans and our biosphere that may result.

"There are many other potential benefits and risks to GM foods, which you will likely learn about as you investigate the topic further and decide whether or not you want to support or avoid GM foods and related technology.

Reading a brief fact sheet is a good way to familiarise yourself with the purported benefits and issues related to GM foods. In this way, you can equip yourself with an overview of the knowledge needed to make an informed decision about GM foods and how they will affect your life."
http://www.geneticallymodifiedfoods.co.uk/fact-sheet-pros-vs-cons.html

"GM Products: Benefits and Controversies
Benefits
• Crops
o Enhanced taste and quality
o Reduced maturation time
o Increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance
o Improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides
o New products and growing techniques
• Animals
o Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency
o Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk
o Improved animal health and diagnostic methods
• Environment
o "Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides
o Conservation of soil, water, and energy
o Bioprocessing for forestry products
o Better natural waste management
o More efficient processing
• Society
o Increased food security for growing populations

Controversies
• Safety
o Potential human health impacts, including allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects
o Potential environmental impacts, including: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
• Access and Intellectual Property
o Domination of world food production by a few companies
o Increasing dependence on industrialized nations by developing countries
o Biopiracy, or foreign exploitation of natural resources
• Ethics
o Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
o Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
o Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
o Stress for animal
• Labeling
o Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
o Mixing GM crops with non-GM products confounds labeling attempts
• Society
o New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries"
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml

also see, http://www.buzzle.com/articles/genetically-modified-foods-pros-and-cons.html

 

[Andre]

***"There are many other potential benefits and risks to GM foods, ***

You may want to add Colony collapse disorder, decimating the populations of honeybees to that list, which may or may not be caused by gm crops. However the problem is that anybody researching this may be biased due to vested interest. So you will find scientific papers proving and disproving this causation, which obviously will not help trust in science.

 

[russ_watters]

Please link some of these scientific facts.

It's your list, SixNein! I'll not do your research for you.

What do you disagree with when considering these risks? I'll give you that some are probably minor, but a lot of it depends on a crop by crop basis. But most of these have been demonstrated at one time or another.
For example:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/14/u...f-crops-can-spread-allergies-study-shows.html

While legitimate, this issue of spreading allergies is nonetheless a red herring. Why? Because it isn't a new risk, inherent to GM. Any time you use material derived from peanuts, there is a risk carried of spreading allergies, whether you are using actual peanut extracts or the DNA that creates those extracts. Certainly people need to be made aware of use of potentially allergenic substances in their food, whether they got there via GM processes or baking processes. And a warning label is necessary -- but it could be worded pretty much the same as existing warning labels.

But blaming GM for this risk is like blaming desalinization for drowning risk or saying raincoats create a risk of getting wet. It is highly misleading to say that that is a new allergen risk, as you did, or imply it is inherent to GM. It is not: it is a transferred risk.

Others:

Cross-breeding of gm plants with the wild.

This "risk" is an issue of taste. If shown an artistic-looking photo of the Eiffel tower and a picture of the Grand Canyon, no doubt an environmentalist would consider the Grand Canyon to be the more beautiful. Not everyone agrees.

Creates a market to abuse herbicides.

That's oddly worded, but again the problem is a secondary effect that actually proves that the GM is doing its job. Using more herbicides is a benefit of the GM. You use more herbicides on purpose because the GM crops allow you to.

Pesticide resistant insects.

Similar to above, in order for insects to become resistant, a lot of them have to die. That's the pesticides doing their job.

Cross contamination with non-food crops like gm crops for medicine.

This is more or less legitimate. But again, this is a constant battle everywhere drugs are made, regardless of if they are made with GM crops or not.

Health effects - minimal research has been performed on acute or chronic health effects.

This one is simply a lie of extreme exaggeration/goalpost shifting. To an "environmentalist", no amount of evidence is sufficient evidence, so they can always just say its not enough. There is a lot more evidence than they are willing to admit and GM has been around for longer than they are willing to admit. And that's even if we leave out general hybridization, which has been around for thousands of years and serves exactly the same purpose. We're just getting better at it.

Even if you improve that by wording it the way Bob, did ("unknown effects") it becomes so broad as to be completely useless.

 

[russ_watters]

• Labeling
o Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
o Mixing GM crops with non-GM products confounds labeling attempts

This one is another red-herring fallacy thrown-in by "environmentalists" in an attempt to create doubt/controversy. Why label? Because when you label something, you create in the readers the assumption of risk or inferiority.

This is a common one in marketing with ingredients -- Bryers has used in commercials when they say their iced cream contains nothing more than vanilla beans, milk and sugar. No added preservatives...nevermind that those preservatives are added to make the food safer. Marketters twist a good thing into a bad thing by appealing to the naturalistic fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Many of the objections to GM in one way or another point back to this fallacy.

 

[Bobbywhy]

This one is another red-herring fallacy thrown-in by "environmentalists" in an attempt to create doubt/controversy. Why label? Because when you label something, you create in the readers the assumption of risk or inferiority.

This is a common one in marketing with ingredients -- Bryers has used in commercials when they say their iced cream contains nothing more than vanilla beans, milk and sugar. No added preservatives...nevermind that those preservatives are added to make the food safer. Marketters twist a good thing into a bad thing by appealing to the naturalistic fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Many of the objections to GM in one way or another point back to this fallacy.

I will not attempt to judge whether GM food crops are OK for humans and our environment or not. I am not so qualified. But I am qualified enough to reject the above trashing of reasonable objections to their use. The unknown and unforseen consequences are not red herrings and IMO deserve our consideration. The naturalistic fallacy does not apply here because this is simply a matter of thoughtful and reasonable risk assesment. Below are some other examples of "concerns". I am not claiming they are truly worrisome, but only that they (among others) deserve to be considered when deciding this issue.

Edit: quoted article unacceptable and removed - no sources or evidence for claims

 

[ThomasT]

Imho, people who don't trust science are people who are, more or less, ignorant wrt it. Science is the best method of inquiry into the truth of the world devised by humans. It's an evolving discipline. There is no comparable method. So what if a bunch of religious fanatics don't trust science?

 

[Evo]

This thread is spinning it's wheels.