Do "unnatural" things exist?

[snoopy369]

If your argument is 'risk from BT is low' then make that argument (and you do, just mixed in with all sorts of irrelevant stuff). Throwing a laundry list of other minor risks out there is not an ethical argumentative tactic.

You're also arguing with me about BT specifically, when I've never once made that argument. One of the significant things you need to take into consideration here is that most people aren't as well educated in this field as you; and while you could argue they ought to educate themselves better, there will always be areas that people simply can't be fully educated in (due to lack of time, lack of understanding of science, etc.) Unless they're going to label corn at the grocery store "BT Corn", how do people know that the specific modification is BT and not something else (something new, or something they're unaware of)? There's not nearly enough information out there to be fully informed without regularly reading journals and patents, which is way, way beyond what a normal person can do.

I don't disagree with the premise 'GMO is generally safe' as currently practiced. But I think you really cannot paint with a broad brush and say that everyone who is concerned about GMOs is wrong to do so. There's enough we don't know about what we're doing that it's not entirely wrong to be concerned about something you don't understand. The people that bother me are the people who ARE well educated and oppose them for a reason not related to science; the individuals who make personal choices are being entirely reasonable IMO (not making the choice I would make, but reasonable within their understanding of the facts).

[MRT144]

The only reason for being suspicious of genetically modified food is ignorance. Or stupidity. It's not like Monsanto is lacing it with Chemical X.

I'm more suspicious of monsato's lawyers than their products.

[Aeson]

If your argument is 'risk from BT is low' then make that argument (and you do, just mixed in with all sorts of irrelevant stuff). Throwing a laundry list of other minor risks out there is not an ethical argumentative tactic.

It is a perfectly acceptable argument to equate a poorly-understood (to the listener) risk to well-understood and commonly accepted risks as a way to help people understand the actual level of risks involved.

You're also arguing with me about BT specifically, when I've never once made that argument.

"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)."

That is what I initially responded to. I responded to it in context, showing how in current examples of GM crops, the latter is not particularly a source of risk. Nowhere have I addressed your view of BT (or GM) in any other context, even when you've brought it up in other contexts.

One of the significant things you need to take into consideration here is that most people aren't as well educated in this field as you; and while you could argue they ought to educate themselves better, there will always be areas that people simply can't be fully educated in (due to lack of time, lack of understanding of science, etc.) Unless they're going to label corn at the grocery store "BT Corn", how do people know that the specific modification is BT and not something else (something new, or something they're unaware of)? There's not nearly enough information out there to be fully informed without regularly reading journals and patents, which is way, way beyond what a normal person can do.

This is why I wouldn't even begin to try to talk to people about the actual science behind BT. They have no chance (either due to will, or ability ... usually will) to really understand it in any reasonable amount of effort on my part.

But just about anyone can understand and easily digest it if an authority (from their perspective) says, "it's not as harmful to you as the fork you eat it with". Then they can go about their day not worrying about BT. Or worrying more about their fork. Either way, I'd be satisfied.