Do "unnatural" things exist?

[Aeson]

Banning DDT was a horrible atrocity that killed millions of people

This is the sort of hilarity that makes getting on ignore lists worthwhile. I can constantly correct HC about his ignorance without ever risking that he stops displaying his ignorance

DDT was almost completely ineffective against mosquitoes by the time it was banned. Banning it helped push people towards using actually effective methods of dealing with mosquitoes.

[Sava]

This is the sort of hilarity that makes getting on ignore lists worthwhile. I can constantly correct HC about his ignorance without ever risking that he stops displaying his ignorance

DDT was almost completely ineffective against mosquitoes by the time it was banned. Banning it helped push people towards using actually effective methods of dealing with mosquitoes.

i quoted you so he might see your post
i dun think he ignore me

[Skanky Burns]

Its only a matter of time, though.

[Dr Strangelove]

Some things are unnatural. Nobody can convince me it's natural for kids to have sexual relations with an adult for example. Or animals being fed their own kin as food by modern farmers.

Naturalists have observed adult male chimps, apes or monkeys "getting their ya-ya's off" with juveniles of their species.

[snoopy369]

Um, semantics? I'm understanding something akin to 'Getting shot has little to nothing to do with guns, it has mostly to do with the bullets that we are shooting with guns, the actual guns are unliekly to have any bad effects, but the bullets are where some risk comes in'.

I suppose it's semantics, but it's not irrelevant semantics. We might understand "guns" very well, for example, ie the concept of a projectile with stuff behind it that explodes and launches it through a thin tube; we've understood that well since the early 20th century. But depleted uranium bullets are really a different topic - related, yes, but not the same. That's not really a very good example, but the best one I can think of (mostly due to lack of understanding of guns ).

In the same sense, we actually do have a very good understanding of genetics in the sense of _how_ to introduce genetic material in order to cause a change in a cell. We even have a pretty good understanding of what DNA does what (although we don't have a complete genome for most organisms, I'd argue understanding != knowledge of the details). That's what Genetics is - understanding of DNA and its direct effects.

What we don't understand is the eventual _effect_ a particular change may have downstream. We change or splice in a gene here, hoping to get a new or different protein downstream; we get that new or different protein. That's Genetics. But what we don't necessarily find out until later is that protein has other effects that causes some negative effects. That's not genetics; it's probably Molecular Biology most of the time.

Most genetic diseases are the result of the wrong proteins being made due to differences in the DNA, so I don't really understand how you can separate both things.

The human concern with GMO aren't genetic diseases, they're due to the effects of said proteins (certainly there is also a concern that plants will be less resistant to disease, but that's not a reason not to eat GMO for most people). Sure, they're caused by DNA, but at that point you could call the entire study of biology and health "Genetics" - that wouldn't normally be done.

Hm? Selective breeding is selecting naturally occurring mutations, so I can't really see how the changes are 'bigger' than with GM crops?

Selective breeding most of the time is only for things we can clearly see, if only because it's too hard to do correctly with things we can't easily see, in particular in plants. (I'm using 'selective breeding' to mean something a farmer might do, not something in a lab where they are using PCRs and ELISAs to verify the presence of a DNA strand, or protein staining, or whatnot - the anti-GMO people wouldn't like that either.) So it tends to be "bigger" in that sense.

Also, what do you mean with potatoes? I was under the impression that toxicity is found in at least some wild varieties as well?

Yes, but specifically they used selective breeding to breed a better kind of potato, and got something fairly toxic unexpectedly. Pretty much all GMO work is done using things already in nature somewhere, somehow, either directly or only very slightly modified; I would guess Roundup Ready is inserting a protein found in some plants that are more tolerant of Roundup, although it could also be the protein that Roundup targets being shaped very slightly differently. We largely don't know how to make a protein from scratch - the folding and such are just too hard to model even today.

[Kidlicious]

Naturalists have observed adult male chimps, apes or monkeys "getting their ya-ya's off" with juveniles of their species.

Yep, not getting your ya-ya's off is unnatural. Spreading your seed everywhere is natural even to little kiddies.

[Docfeelgood]

I once saw a dog try to hump a cat. Is this "unnatural" ?

[Dauphin]

In the same sense, we actually do have a very good understanding of genetics in the sense of _how_ to introduce genetic material in order to cause a change in a cell. We even have a pretty good understanding of what DNA does what (although we don't have a complete genome for most organisms, I'd argue understanding != knowledge of the details). That's what Genetics is - understanding of DNA and its direct effects.

What we don't understand is the eventual _effect_ a particular change may have downstream. We change or splice in a gene here, hoping to get a new or different protein downstream; we get that new or different protein. That's Genetics. But what we don't necessarily find out until later is that protein has other effects that causes some negative effects. That's not genetics; it's probably Molecular Biology.

Law of unintended consequences.


Rabbits. Cane toads. African bees.

Ozone layer. Global climate change.

Pretty much any drug.

Etc...

[PLATO]

I once saw a dog try to hump a cat. Is this "unnatural" ?

probably from the cat's perspective.

[Aeson]

X happens to be a protein variant that is not vulnerable to an herbicide (Roundup Ready) or another protein that makes it inedible or poisonous to insects or fungi. The latter in particular is indeed a potential source of risk - something that kills fungi or insects may have an effect on human cells as well (DDT is a great example).

HC of course is phrasing it ignorantly, and making a sweeping generalization that obviously is too broad, but concerns over BT's safety to humans are rather ridiculous. (GM BT crops being the most common (only?) example of the "latter" on the market today.) BT is a compound that occurs in nature (not that that means anything) and has been used for about a century with no solid evidence of any harm to humans (that means a lot).

Statistically speaking ... if you're eating BT eggplant ... the eggplant itself is more likely to harm you than the BT. Any eggplant (or produce of any kind) will contain various compounds from the soil it was grown on. Some of those can be pretty nasty in the wrong amounts. Those things are known to happen. There is danger of allergic reaction (both in consumption and more mildly, in harvesting/handling). Compounds in the water the eggplant was washed with with before cooking it is a more likely cause of harm to humans than BT. As is the skillet it's cooked on. The plate and utensils it's served with. The fluorescent light it's eaten by. All of those things can harbor dangerous chemicals that can transfer to the food or directly to the consumer. The cook could also introduce just about anything to the equation knowingly, and a lot of things unknowingly. Other sprays that are known to have detrimental effects on humans could have been used and still present.

Then you have other physical dangers like the heat source. The cook could come after you with a cleaver. The waiter could drop your hot cocoa on your lap. Your companion could poke you in the eye with a pointy object. You could drown in your soup. There's the danger of the chair tipping and causing you to break your neck on the table. The mode of transport (including walking) used to go get the eggplant or go to the restaurant to eat it. The utensils again. The possibilities there are endless.

There's microbial dangers on all of those things and more!

Then you have all the dangers imposed on the harvester. Exposure to other chemicals. The sun. Pests like fire ants, bees, snakes, mosquitoes...

The kicker ... not eating the eggplant because it's GM BT is probably more harmful to you than eating it! Eggplant is a nutritious food, with anti-oxidants that can help cleanse your system of dangerous compounds ... and statistically, the food (or lack thereof) you replace it with is not going to be as beneficial.

To the best of our knowledge, each of those things pose as much or more of a risk to humans than the BT. The only potential harm I'm aware of from BT is that it can irritate the eyes, but so can an eggplant! And the amounts of BT on an eggplant you eat are probably not sufficient to irritate the eyes in any observable extent, as the eggplant (or various other implements used) to get the BT to your eye would do far more harm. So you probably shouldn't poke an eggplant (BT or not) or BT laced implement in your eye.

As such, it's not all that unreasonable to say that BT is safe. It is however unsupported to say BT is unsafe, even though it's possible it is not safe in a way we don't know about yet, or could somehow become unsafe in a manner we can't predict. To the best of our knowledge, there's just about nothing you can do in this world that is statistically less dangerous to you than consuming BT (in amounts found in BT crops or BT treated crops.)

Now, if BT was something rather new ... something that hadn't been known for a century ... then maybe the concern of the unknowns makes more sense.

(There are concerns with GM itself. That maybe there are unintended changes that happen with the intended ones. But BT, GM or not, hasn't shown itself to be a valid concern.)

[snoopy369]

Aeson, I agree with you wholeheartedly there, although I'd say that the argument 'there are all these other bad things' is not relevant (at all). There's nothing wrong with mitigating your risk by removing one small risk factor if you can't otherwise mitigate your risk (if all eggplants have the same ). BT seems to be very safe, and certainly is not something to be highly concerned about.

That said, I don't think what HC said is in any way analogous to what you said. He was simply exposing his lack of understanding of the science behind what he was defending.

[Kidlicious]

I once saw a dog try to hump a cat. Is this "unnatural" ?

If the devil made him do it.

[Aeson]

Aeson, I agree with you wholeheartedly there, although I'd say that the argument 'there are all these other bad things' is not relevant (at all).

Yes, it is relevant. It's illustrating just how minuscule the risk actually is. People hear "GM BT" and freak out because it's unnatural. They don't understand the risk involved. By showing how it compares to other "risks" that people don't give a **** about (rightly so), it helps them to understand just how much worry is warranted.

There's nothing wrong with mitigating your risk by removing one small risk factor if you can't otherwise mitigate your risk (if all eggplants have the same ).

There is something wrong with worrying about things which are not worth worrying about. The worry about the risk of BT eggplant (or really, most of the other things I mentioned that are even more risky) would probably be more harmful to your health than just eating it!

Further, someone who worries so much about BT eggplant that they eat other eggplant is probably actually increasing their risk (not including the worry). Either they will have less money to deal with other important risks (organic) or will go with a product that is more likely to directly harm their health (due to more harmful pest control).

By understanding the levels of risks, they can be properly weighed against each other. You can't simply eliminate a risk by changing your behavior without consequence. There are always trade-offs.

That said, I don't think what HC said is in any way analogous to what you said. He was simply exposing his lack of understanding of the science behind what he was defending.

Of course it wasn't analogous. Wasn't meant to be. But his conclusion is on the right side of the spectrum in this case. (Even if way too far to the extreme of that side of the spectrum.)

[snoopy369]

You aren't demonstrating how small the risk is - you are demonstrating other sources of risk. You're also showing a lot of unavoidable risk - ie, risk you cannot mitigate without a really strange diet for most of humanity. Drowning out potential risks with other potential risks is a really, really bad argumentative strategy, because that's how actual bad things can get permitted - "Who cares if there's a cancer risk from this pesticide, there are all sorts of other risks. We shouldn't have to label our stuff" - even when the risk is not zero.

Demonstrate instead that the actual risk is actually minimal, rather than showing all of the other risks. Or show the tradeoff, how the 0.5% risk versus the huge number of dead people from starvation. Relative risk is a perfectly acceptable argument - but without showing both the factors, and the avoidableness of the various risks, you're just trying to drown out the argument.

In general, Aeson, your arguments are "I don't think this is a problem so I don't think people should worry about it." Look, I'm a wholehearted supporter of GMO. My wife is an immunologist PhD, I'm pro-science all the way. But I also don't believe I should tell other people what to worry about. I should rather tell other people what the potential risks are and let them make up their mind. All of the arguments you make could be made about lots of pesticides a few decades ago that are no longer considered perfectly safe. Look at the BPA debate five years ago, same thing - "no risk" became "minimal risk, less than all these other factors" became "Oops..." We avoid using plastics in our house when we reasonably can because of this - even if BPA and Pthalate-free, who knows what will be the next BPA? But we're not idiots, either, and we know that it's a tradeoff, and make that tradeoff when we need to.

HC's conclusion is _not_ correct, in large part because he's generically arguing that GMO cannot be risky. That's explicitly not true, since he's making a broad claim over a large area with many different class elements. GMO foods do have some inherent risk factors, and in some cases may have had undesired effects. I don't think that much that hits the market today has any significant risk - but I don't belittle people who choose to avoid it based on the potential for having unknown risks.

I totally understand how hard it is to argue on behalf of something when the other side is making broad generalizations unsupported by actual science; but that doesn't excuse making arguments that are broad generalizations unsupported by actual science.

[Aeson]

You aren't demonstrating how small the risk is - you are demonstrating other sources of risk.

Demonstrating something by drawing an analog or relating it to something else is demonstrating. For instance, I can demonstrate how small the earth is compared to the sun using balls of the proper relation. It doesn't matter that they are balls rather than the earth and the sun, they convey the information (and in a better way than just using the earth and the sun could).

You're also showing a lot of unavoidable risk - ie, risk you cannot mitigate without a really strange diet for most of humanity.

That is irrelevant to the argument I am making.

The point of the relative risk assessment is to help people who aren't (and likely will never be) familiar with the specific risk (and why's and how's) of BT eggplant to nonetheless be able to weigh the risk in a relatively accurate manner.

Drowning out potential risks with other potential risks is a really, really bad argumentative strategy, because that's how actual bad things can get permitted - "Who cares if there's a cancer risk from this pesticide, there are all sorts of other risks. We shouldn't have to label our stuff" - even when the risk is not zero.

You are misrepresenting my argument. Ironically, as you are doing so in the exact manner you are trying to paint me as behaving.

I am not saying that BT is not worth worrying about because there are other risks. I am saying BT is not worth worrying about because the risk is SO LOW that no one sane would worry about it when they knew what the risk actually is to the best of our knowledge. I demonstrate this by giving many examples of things which are actually MORE RISKY to the best of our knowledge that no one sane worries about because at that level of risk it's just not worth worrying about.

The comparison is: X is not worth worrying about because the risk is so low. Y is less risky than X. Thus Y is not worth worrying about because the risk is so low. This is helpful when X is a common and/or easily understood example, and Y is less common and/or more difficult to understand.

Demonstrate instead that the actual risk is actually minimal, rather than showing all of the other risks. Or show the tradeoff, how the 0.5% risk versus the huge number of dead people from starvation. Relative risk is a perfectly acceptable argument - but without showing both the factors, and the avoidableness of the various risks, you're just trying to drown out the argument.

You're asking for way too much.

If you're interested enough to research it, go ahead. I have spent many hours on my own research into it, and talking with people who have spent years of their life in related studies.

Most people either don't want to do that research, or aren't in a position where they could do it. Most people can easily digest something like, "If you aren't worried about X, which is more dangerous than Y, then why worry about Y?"

In general, Aeson, your arguments are "I don't think this is a problem so I don't think people should worry about it."

Nope. More like, "I have not met anyone who has been able to make a valid argument that BT is harmful to humans. I have not seen any reliable study which has shown harm from it. I have spent a lot of time researching the matter and talking to some experts as well. As such, it's likely less harmful than a great many other things like X, Y, and Z, which while their methods of causing harm are actually well documented ... aren't things sane people worry about because the likelihood of harm from them is less than the likelihood of harm from worrying about them."

Now, if you want to argue that X, Y, and Z are actually not more harmful, go ahead. Or if you want to argue that BT is actually more harmful than I am giving it credit for, go ahead. But just saying that my statements are wrong because I'm using tactics which I am not using is absurd, and doubly so because you are utilizing similar tactics to the ones you try to ascribe to me in doing so!

I should rather tell other people what the potential risks are and let them make up their mind.

Why don't you just tell me the risks involved in telling people what potential risks are then .. instead of talking about what you "should rather" ...

All of the arguments you make could be made about lots of pesticides a few decades ago that are no longer considered perfectly safe.

You are using a relative assessment to try to illustrate a concept. However, in this case you are wrong about how you have drawn the analogy.

Of the pesticides a few decades ago that are no longer considered safe, none of them had been around nearly as long as BT has (a century) back then. Most were very, very new.

Also, our technological capability to understand the mode of action of pesticides and how they interact with the ecosystem and humans is much greater now than it was. As such, the conclusions we draw now are almost surely better than the conclusions we drew back then.

Not to mention that most (if not all) of the pesticides used even back in the 60's and 70's were known to have negative effects, often before they were even used commercially. If they were touted as "perfectly safe" it was by HC-like arguments, rather than any evidence.

That is not to say there are no potential risks that we have missed. However, with BT the foundation on which to judge those risks is today orders of magnitude stronger than the foundation on which a claim of "perfectly safe" would have been for pesticides (including BT) a few decades ago.

Look at the BPA debate five years ago, same thing - "no risk" became "minimal risk, less than all these other factors" became "Oops..." We avoid using plastics in our house when we reasonably can because of this - even if BPA and Pthalate-free, who knows what will be the next BPA? But we're not idiots, either, and we know that it's a tradeoff, and make that tradeoff when we need to.

You are making a relative assessment without giving me hard numbers. You are stating your own opinion and drawing your own conclusions about these issues. I don't see a single sourced study that I'm not going to read! OMG! Let's have a cow!

HC's conclusion is _not_ correct, in large part because he's generically arguing that GMO cannot be risky.

No, his argument is not correct. I never claimed it was. I actually implied it was not on two occasions. He is kneejerkedly supporting GM. He is however closer to correct than people on the other side of the spectrum who kneejerkedly oppose GM.