= 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)
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.