| |
|
Good question, Thjatsi. While I think you are right, in terms of epistemology, I think that the precautionary principle is more along the lines of risk analysis. The point being that, while epistemelogically speaking, it makes sense to favour scepticism, this is really only appropriate in furthering knowledge. When it comes to action, there can well be cost associated with different decisions, and one strives to minimise harm within reasonable bounds.
Of course, reasonable is up for grabs, but the point remains. Now, in trying to minimise harm, one tries to make guesses as to the likelihood of certain dangers and the cost of those in terms of harm (and often money, but lets leave that too).
This means that you will sometimes act in ways that look as if you are assuming some unwarranted conclusion. Actually, what you are doing is avoiding the harm of certain actions without really committing to the conclusion that a certain course of action will cause harm. So if a random person hands you a pill and tells you to swallow, you don't do it even though you may have no evidence to believe it will be harmful. No evidence of harm is distinct from evidence of no harm. As people who support the precautionary principle would say.
When it comes to GM foods there are several concerns. One is about the impact on biodiversity, which could well have knock on effects in the long term that are hard to predict. The problem with this kind of concern is that small scale and short term trials are unlikely to uncover a problem even if there is one.
Another problem, and you'll know more about this than me, is the impact on wildlife of introducing GMO into the environment. This concern is not about biodiversity, which is more to do with herbicide and pesticide use. How will organisms adapt, if at all, to genetically distinct crops? Will there be some kind of gene transfer (I know that sounds ridiculous, see here)?
Now you add in the problem that GM crops seem to be dominant, in some sense. That is, you cannot have non-GM crops anywhere near GM crops as the former quickly seem to become the latter. (I believe that there is a case where a farmer was sued for using GM crops without license and it transpired that the cause was that his field was next to a GM field.)
The problem with all of these is that the risks are potentially huge and likely irreversible. By the time we see whether any of my concerns are justified it will probably be too late. Or, in the words of Kryten, "And we are going to.....LIVE!".
Add to this, the corporate concerns - the US is fighting pretty hard against EU moves to label GM foods as such, for instance. The issues in terms of poverty, the terminator gene gives corporate control of food. All in all you have an extremely suspect package, IMO. |
|
|
