Genetically Modified Organisms Risk Global Ruin, Says Black Swan Author

[villager]

<snip>

Today, Nassim Nicholas Taleb at New York University and a few pals say that this kind of thinking vastly underestimates the threat posed by genetically modified organisms. “Genetically modified organisms represent a public risk of global harm,” they say. Consequently, this risk should be treated differently from those that only have the potential for local harm. “The precautionary principle should be used to prescribe severe of limits on genetically modified organisms,” they conclude.

<snip>

By contrast, genetic engineering works in a very different way. This process introduces rapid changes on a global scale. But selection cannot operate on this scale, they argue.

“There is no comparison between tinkering with the selective breeding of genetic components of organisms that have previously undergone extensive histories of selection and the top-down engineering of taking a gene from a fish and putting it into a tomato,” they argue. “Saying that such a product is natural misses the process of natural selection by which things become “natural.””

The potential impact of genetically modified organisms on human health is even more worrying. Taleb and co say that the current mechanism for determining whether or not the genetic engineering of particular protein into a plant is safe is woefully inadequate.

The FDA currently does this by considering the existing knowledge of risks associated with that protein. “The number of ways such an evaluation can be an error is large,” they say.

That’s because proteins in living organisms are part of complex chemical networks. In general, the effect of a new protein on this network is difficult to predict even though the purpose of introducing it is to strongly impact the chemical functions of the plant, for example, by modifying its resistance to other chemicals such as herbicides or pesticides.

Even more serious is the introduction of monocultures— the use of single crops over large areas. This dramatically increases the likelihood that the entire crop might fail due to the action of some invasive species, disease or change in the environment.

<snip>

They go on to consider numerous other fallacies that confuse the issue over whether to use the precautionary principle or not. The central point in most of these is whether the risk involved is one of global ruin or local ruin.

That is an interesting contribution to the debate over genetically modified organisms, which has become becalmed in recent years. While the argument itself is interesting, the fact that the lead author, Nassim Nicholas Taleb is such a high profile commentator on risk is bound to raise the profile of the debate. The co-authors include a number of other well-known researchers such as Raphael Douady at the Institute of Mathematics and Theoretical Physics in Paris and Yaneer Bar-Yam at the New England Complex Systems Institute in Cambridge.

<snip>

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/genetically-modified-organisms-risk-global-ruin-says-black-swan-author-e8836fa7d78

[postulater]

1. GMO novel protein may be seen as an invasive.

It can disrupt the cell's (and therefore body's) function in unpredictable ways.

Asian carp is just another fish but destroys the intricate web when introduced where there is no natural predator.

Natural selection is our friend.

[villager]

2. Right -- and this does an end-run around that selection...

Interesting how many uncritically enthusiastic fans such corporate technology has here at the "underground""

[MisterP]

3. pssh, what does the leading expert in unpleasant surprises know about unpleasant surprises?

[villager]

5. Well, since it's non-Monsanto sanctioned "expertise," it must be the wrong kind of "expertise!"

Full steam ahead with what our corporate overlords tell us is for our own good...!

[MisterP]

6. and they're always right, especially when they do a 180° and pretend they didn't ev

like a bad boyfriend

[villager]

7. "faith-based" belief in corporate pronouncements and agendas

or do I mean they're buying in to corporate "woo?"

[MisterP]

8. I did laugh into my sleeve a little when Neil Tyson warned against corporate-funded

science, because if he said that back around 1990 he would've been raked over the coals by the selfsame crusading technocrats he represents today: they would've said he was a feminist or, worse, *French*

[villager]

9. Pass the Freedom Fries!

[MisterP]

10. and beware of "archaeological Yippies"!

[blkmusclmachine]

4. ,

,

[proverbialwisdom]

11. More.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15726-eu-chief-scientist-a-dangerous-imbecile-says-risk-expert
http://www.businessinsider.com/josh-barro-and-nassim-taleb-had-a-twitter-fight-over-gmos-2014-9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb

[bananas]

12. He's right. nt