Are there persuasive health reasons not to eat genetically modified foods?

More evidence, this time for "Yes":

Jeffrey Smith, author of "Seeds of Deception":

The explosive exposé Seeds of Deception reveals how industry manipulation and political collusion-not sound science-allow dangerous genetically engineered food into your daily diet. Company research is rigged, alarming evidence of health dangers is covered up, and intense political pressure applied.

Chapters read like adventure stories:

• Scientists were offered bribes or threatened. Evidence was stolen. Data was omitted or distorted.
• Government employees who complained were harassed, stripped of responsibilities, or fired.
• Laboratory rats fed a GM crop developed stomach lesions and seven of the 40 died within two weeks. The crop was approved without further tests.
• When a top scientist tried to alert the public about his alarming discoveries, he lost his job and was silenced with threats of a lawsuit.

Read the actual internal memos by FDA scientists, warning of toxins, allergies, and new diseases-all ignored by their superiors, including a former attorney for Monsanto. Discover how industry studies are designed to avoid finding problems. Learn why the FDA withheld information from Congress after a genetically modified supplement killed nearly a hundred people and disabled thousands.

Eating such experimental food is gambling with your health. Find out how you can protect yourself and your family.

This evidence from the British Medical Association demonstrates the distinction between environmental and health reasons for supporting or opposing GM crops:

As an organisation of doctors, we are not experts in agricultural techniques and crop science, but we are concerned with all issues of public health.

The environment in which we live, the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat, all have an impact on our health as individuals. It is this context that the statement has been prepared.

The BMA shares the view of the Royal Society that that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe. However, we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.

Because this is in Health, I think we should make the distinction. Spreading the Terminator gene or killing bee populations are bad things that GM crops may do, but they are not health problems, and we should make sure they are not used as evidence for opinions about Health issues by being more specific about what this issue is about. It brings us back around to "Are they safe to eat?"

I agree with Jacki and would be fine with the issue minus "health" unless there is evidence out there that suggests we should really rework it.

i think introducing the term "health" here implies that genetically-modified foods are not healthy.  i know, i know the issue is in the health topic, but actually including the word in this issue goes too far.  the topic is "food & nutrition" if people wish to discuss environmental factors against eating gmf then so be it. 

next, i think "persuasive reasons" might be a bit loaded.  there is something about the term "persuasive" that gets me. 

i think the best way to resolve this issue is to post sample evidence of what people are actually saying about gmf.  can someone post evidence in the comments to that effect?

One could argue that by focusing on reasons NOT to eat GMOs, we are introducing a bias. I wouldn't agree with that. The previous version of this issue was worded so neutrally as to cease being relevant to the actual debate. I agree that we can't use the scare-word "safe" in this issue, but we need to approach the same question in as fair and neutral a way as possible. Hopefully we are doing that now.

I added the word "health' to dissuade people from talking about other reasons not to eat them - environmental concerns, etc. There are other topics for these discussions.

issue prior to revisions:

I think the "persuasive reasons" wording works best here.

One step ahead of you, the issue has already been proposed in Environment for exactly the reasons Jenna cites.

Re: viz's comment, we formerly used that wording but it was nixed because we thought "safe" was too loaded a word. I agree with your general point, though, that this wording doesn't really cut it.

We could go the "persuasive reasons" route that you suggested for the issue on eating meat. I think that is often a good fix for the "Should people do XYZ" problem. Are there persuasive reasons not to eat genetically modified foods?

I'm with esperanto again, with slight modification to take account of Jenna's point. Here's my proposed wording

Are genetically modified foods safe?

This way, it subsumes the safety to the environment as well as to the individual consumer. And it also leaves open a discussion about whether we can set up safety standards that might make it safer.

I think it'd be great to have a genetically modified food topic here.  I'd like to see it more open to other reasons for opposing it, though.  A lot of the opposition isn't about health per se but that it could cause environmental problems, etc.

Maybe a pair of issues, one about health and in Health and one about the environment and in Environment?

See what happens when Jacki and I are the only people commenting on an issue? Nerd central! Let this be a lesson to you.

Thanks to Brian for bringing us back to reality. We are in the "health" topic, therefore we should restrict this issue, quite obviously, to the health question.

I still don't like the current wording that much. I think the most relevant question to Joe America is this:

Are genetically modified foods safe to eat?

That's a question that experts and lay people can answer based on the evidence they've seen, the superstitions they hold, their frankenfood nightmares, etc.

You two have managed to freeze my brain on this one.  I was digging the current wording.

let's get a definition of genetically modified food so we can be clear on this issue.

Well, it's not really possible. How can you rationally argue that people should grow crops that no one should eat? Or that people should eat crops that no one should grow? The issues go hand in hand, IMO. That said, I'd probably actually prefer to go with "grow" or "cultivate," because if you don't grow it, you can't eat it.

PS, is it understood that this issue doesn't refer to hybridized crops? I'm talking about corn that's grown in a test tube, not corn that's developed through breeding. That's a different story, plus it's been going on since the invention of agriculture, more or less. Just making sure.

i hear you esperanto.  you cannot include grow and consume in the same issue.  i  might believe someone should grow it but not eat it.  it's stupid; but possible.

i'd go with consume.

I have a couple of problems here. I don't really think we need more than one issue here on GM foods, so I think this issue needs to be broader. That's why I preferred jacki's suggestion,

Should people [grow and] consume genetically modified foods?

to the current version.

It's not just a health issue, though that's part of it. There are also ethical and environmental components to the issue of GMOs, and I think we'd do better with an issue that can encompass that, rather than debating what is ultimately a scientific question about the food's healthfulness.

That said, if people prefer the current version, the phrase "increases health risk" has got to go. I'd prefer something like "Jeopardizes health" or "Decreases health." But I'd really prefer a different question.

lost prior version when editing.

PRIOR VERSION OF THIS ISSUE BEFORE EDITING WAS:

Is genetically modified food safe?

Yes
No

issue revision:

---

per comments

---

That's good. I like jacki's suggestion. I think that will do it.

adam's right but "safe" is still too loaded.    what about:

Should people (or "we") consume genetically modified food?

I lean towards Esperanto's side. Its far easier and straight forward.

the term "safe" is loaded.  i still prefer my revision. it's clunky but it's more neutral, i think.  maybe it's better to start there, unless someone can come up with an alternative to "safe." 

original was here. let the discussion continue.