= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Rationality when Insulated from Evidence - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (60)
Just like the turkey had a lot of evidence for humans being nice to him until the day before thanksgiving.
By the standard that 20 years with a new technology should be enough to see problems with it various techonologies from lead pipes, to cigaretts to asbest, were also proven to be safe.
Without labeling of products it's also difficult to actually gather the information. I think it's a bad general argument to say that people shouldn't know whether they are ingesting X because X isn't proven to do anything yet.
That's true, 20 years wouldn't necessarily bring to light a delayed effect.
However the GMO case is interesting because we have in effect a massive scale natural experiment, where hundreds of millions of people on one continent have eaten lots of GMO food while hundreds of millions on another continent have eaten very little, over a period of 10-15 years. There is also a highly motivated group of people who bring to the public attention even the smallest evidence of harm from GMOs.
While I don't rule out a harmful long-term effect, GMOs are a long way down on my list of things to worry about, and dropping further over time.
Not really, because the two groups differs in many attributes. You can't draw any reliable conclusions from that if you don't know individual consumption. If you could draw that conclusion we could conclude from US bee deaths that GMO's are bad.
But there also no reason to assume that risk from GMO would be equally distributed among different GMO foods. Letting plants produce poisons so that they won't get eaten by insects is likely more risky than doing something to improve drought resistance.
Our ability to manipulate organism increases as time goes on. Organisms where multiple genes are added might be more risky than organisms where only a single gene was added.
Valid arguments against early GMO that they spread antibiotic resistance genes also don't hold against newer GMO's.
Bioengineered pandemics frequently top the LW census as an X-risk concern. Commerical usage of GMO's pays for technology development to produce more capabilities on that front.
yes.
One difficulty about GMO specifically is that as you said,
Golden rice - probably fine. Pesticide resistant stuff, probably not as fine for various reasons already published in the public domain.
The problem is when talking about GMO you cover the existing proven bad (and since no longer used) as well as the unproven bad. As well as the good and the unproven good and the neutral. you just talk about GMO. It might help to be more specific. Can you be more specific about what you are calling GMO? And what you are saying is the problem? There is no inherent problem with the concept of GMO (modifying genes). It depends on how you use it (which genes and how you modify).
In a world of labeling I have no problem with having more specific labels for different types of it.
Goodhard's law is generally a problem when you have strong optimisation tools.
With unlabeled GMO's the commercial pressure is to create food that is as cheap as possible without regard for whether it's healthy. If you require labeling than the companies producing the food have incentives to produce healthy food.
GMO's reduce diversity of agriculture. That produces a systems that generally less robust, for reasons that Nassim Taleb talks about frequently.
Do you believe that people shouldn't know whether or not their rice has added Vitamin A? I think it's very worthwhile for people to know about it.
You are jumping topic. GMO risk is different from GMO labeling. However, it is true that labeling nutrition information is good, regardless of GMO status, and that GMO may have more variation in nutritional content (positive and negative) than non-GMO.
No, there are practical healths risks that come from food containing substances that I don't expect. I might get too much of a certain vitamin if I don't know that it's added to my food.
Yes... but this is not an issue of GMO. This is an issue of additives. You should require information that is clearly relevant to health regardless of GMO status. GMOing is a way of adding nutrients, but we would want additives labeled regardless of how they are added.
Or, to put it another way, this is a case where the GMO change is something that should be labeled, because there is a possible effect on health. But the factor under consideration isn't that it is GMO, it is that it there is an possible effect on health.
No, we don't want to require everybody who sells an orange to pay for lab tests that determine for every vitamin how much is contained. Making such a requirement would be a death sentence for farmers markets.
A customers has certain expecations about what an natural orange happens to be. It's a class of objects that shares basic traits. GMO allows giving the orange traits that oranges generally aren't expected to have.
Any GMO interventions adds new molecules. If you follow that framework, if you add genes that produce 3 new proteins, put those three proteins on the label.
As another example of probably fine GMO, I've just come across a review highlighting the urgency of engineering microbes able to assimilate lactose (to use whey and other wastes of dairy industry as substrates for exopolysaccharide synthesis). They also argue for creating (more) efficient EPS-producers culturable on cellulose-containing wastes, although that does seem to me rather more dangerous, on technical glycerole after biodiesel production, etc.
I think I disagree on these examples. I don't know that these were all proven safe. And not for very long. Even when they were proven "safe" temporarily, there were some science or medical events that caused concern.
Your idea of "proven-safe" is that they were used for two decades without proof of problems. Those examples fit that standard.
Were they used for two decades without strong evidence of problems while people were looking for such evidence?
They look to me like things that no one had any idea were problematic -- until at some point evidence of trouble started to appear, and fairly quickly it became consensus that they were bad. (Possible counterexample -- I'm not sure of the dates -- is cigarettes, only because there was a very well-funded systematic disinformation campaign conducted by the tobacco companies.)
In the case of GMO, some people have worried (publicly, vocally) about safety from the very beginning. That's quite different from lead pipes or asbestos or even cigarettes.
The standard should be comparing outcomes in users and non-users after 20 years. The idea is that 20 years is enough to show any effect that exists, and we shouldn't refrain from adopting the new thing waiting for even more evidence to come in.
Cigarettes, asbestos and leaded water would all show strong effects after 20 years, not as strong as after 50 years, but certainly enough to identify a problem.
Certainly some things have a very delayed effect, but they are very very few compared to things that have a quick effect; most foods that are bad for you show an effect within hours to months. We shouldn't treat every possible new food as having a significant risk of an effect 30 years later unless there's a specific reason (plausible mechanism).
Why? Especially when the discussion is not about banning the food but about people's right to know that they are eating a new food.
But even if that's true it's besides the point because GMOs aren't "a food" but a group of a large amount of different foods.
Letting plants produce poisons to not get eaten by insects suggest to me a plausible mechanism that involves the poison also harming humans.
Because if we're too suspicious, we pay the opportunity cost of whatever makes it an attractive new food in the first place.
The problem is that this bakes in certain assumptions about what makes a food new in a potentially dangerous way and so requires mandatory labeling.
Agricultural technology is always changing. We don't require labeling for most of the changes, even though our prior for their potential danger might be much higher than for GMOs. Examples of things that don't require labeling: which pesticides and antibiotics were used, and in what amounts; what diseases and parasites may have been present; what the storage and transportation conditions were.
For all of these things there are regulatory frameworks. But I can't think offhand of any examples, other than GMOs, where the legal status is "you may do X, but you have to label it appropriately". E.g., there's no "you may use the new pesticide X, but you have to label each piece of fruit sold as being X-positive". When people want to signal they're not using something, it's up to them to label produce as "organic" or "X-free"; everyone else doesn't have to label theirs as "non-organic". This difference sends a strong signal to the public that GMOs are presumed to be more dangerous (or risky/unproven) than every other legal agriculture technology.
And, as you point out, generalizing and regulating all GMOs as a group makes no more sense than regulating all pesticides as a group.
I wouldn't have a problem if we distinguish GMOs into different classes and put the resulting class on the label.
That's not really true. Ingredient lists require the disclose of many substances that are added to new foods. People have a right to know whether their food contains aspartame.
I would also support requiring big producers to provide that information. Products could have a barcode that can be scanned and the information could be provided via the internet.
Certainly, I agree: there is no reason that we shouldn't be able to know every detail about the materials and processes that go into our food, but surely you acknowledge the connotative difference between:
"Scan this to see all relevant information"
and
"Governmental authority mandates that we declare this food to contain GMO"
There are issues with compliance costs that make it hard to force disclosure of all information. The compliance costs fo writing GMO wheat instead of wheat on a ingridient box are little.
I would be happy if the companies would have a choice to put up a scan code that provides all relevant information in exchange for not having to write things on the label.
The compliance costs include the costs of tracking the wheat through the processing chain just in case it's using GMO wheat Monday and non-GMO wheat Tuesday.
Also, mandating the label would make people think that GMO is dangerous, because they would assume that labels are only for things the consumer is supposed to care about .
Would you favor the idea of putting labels on food stating whether it has any ingredients that were picked by illegal immigrants?
This is a good point. But it still stands in contrast to non-disclosure of everything that's not an ingridient: processes, pesticides, etc. Produce like fruit or raw meat doesn't have any "ingridiends".
Why the difference? I lean towards thinking it's in large part historical, political, and accidental, rather than reflecting any real difference in what's appropriate or required.
GMO's are ingridients.
Golden Rice looks different than normal rice, so people who want to buy it can see the difference and make informed decisions about what they want to buy. With a lot of other GMO products that isn't the case.
That's technically true, but it misses my point.
Suppose I buy some bread. The label will list "wheat" as an ingredient. There are many varieties of wheat with various genetic differences between them, produced in part by directed breeding. The label won't say which variety was used, unless the genetic engineering was done by a particular set of modern technologies, in which case it must say it's GMO.
Clearly, to benefit the customer, the label should list (classes of) genotypical and phenotypical variations, perhaps only those that have been deemed legal-but-potentially-dangerous. Listing the technology used to originally breed that variety is irrelevant, and feeds on a naturalistic fallacy (just like the term "organic food").
As an aside, all varieties of rice look different. My store stocks long, short, round, brown, red, etc. rice. I have no idea what, if any, the difference is. I wouldn't pay special attention to a new golden variety if it wasn't specially labelled.
It's true that if people want to know something - for whatever reason - then it's plausible for the government to mandate providing that information. This allows people to buy or boycott food to support various non-health/nutrition-related, but still important, causes.
On the other hand, I'd like government to support many endeavors that are beneficial for everyone as long as they remain secret, but would make people angry if they were widely known. For example, I might support nuclear power, which public opinion is generally against; so I don't want products to be labelled as 'made using electricity from nuclear power'.
I feel that in these subjects, like nuclear power, GMOs and organic food, the mainstream public opinion is for or against them not just because it's misinformed on a factual level, but because people have real preferences for e.g. 'not eating unnatural food' even if they believe it's good for your health.