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).
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.
unless there's a specific reason (plausible mechanism).
Letting plants produce poisons to not get eaten by insects suggest to me a plausible mechanism that involves the poison also harming humans.
Basically: How does one pursue the truth when direct engagement with evidence is infeasible?
I came to this question while discussing GMO labeling. In this case I am obviously not in a position to experiment for myself, but furthermore: I do not have the time to build up the bank of background understanding to engage vigorously with the study results themselves. I can look at them with a decent secondary education's understanding of experimental method, genetics, and biology, but that is the extent of it.
In this situation I usually find myself reduced to weighing the proclamations of authorities: