The whole reason that the opposition to GM foods is couched in terms of unquantifiable risks is that there are no identifiable risks, potential or otherwise. The 'precautionary principle' that puts the onus on science to eliminate all risks identifiable or otherwise sets a wilfully unachievable goal. Real risks we can discuss, but the merely philosophical point that we cannot know everything ahead of time is not worth discussing.
Scientists working in the GM field, by contrast, have undertaken extensive research into actual effects, as opposed to Nostradamus-like predictions. And, surprise surprise, it is these very trials that are being targeted by anti-GM protesters. So far two test fields have been attacked by Greenpeace in Britain in the last three weeks.
Of course, if you do know what the big potential risks to GM food are, I'm sure that a lot of people working in the field would be very pleased to hear from you.
>The same thing is true with climate change, where the scientific
>consensus is a lot more against you.
There is a consensus, but not amongst scientists working in the field. Rather it was imposed by politicians and officials. Notably all the predictions of the summit on climate change have fallen apart since. That's what happens when you substitute political expediency for real investigation.
> your position seems
>unscientifically rigid.
I'm rigid in the view that scientific facts should be decided by scientific method, not political huckstering or metaphysical speculation.
-- Jim heartfield