Are you really not getting this?

>my claim is that using your argument we can't use anything because in some distant future we can find that it is not safe.

Nice try. You're waffling and trying to make this discussion about me. You initially demanded scientific evidence of harm caused by GMOs. The clear implication is that without scientific proof of harm, concerns are not credible. The natural corollary is that they should be considered safe.

The point I made is simple: we cannot assume safety simply because we have yet to find evidence otherwise. This is what you (and others) are doing when, as a tactic for dismissing concerns, you repeatedly demand scientific proof of harm.

I'm not sure why that statement is controversial, but yours is the same approach that pharmaceutical, tobacco, chemical (etc.) companies have employed over decades. Under this model, they merely need to demand evidence, then point to some doubt in findings of harm in order to continue touting their wares as safe. The burden of proof is on the claimant and, worse, even reams of empirical evidence are frequently insufficient for this purpose. Look how long tobacco companies were able to fight in spite of mountains of evidence against their product.

If you want to ignore decades of history and pretend to actually believe that companies with a vested interest in denying harm do not do so, then feel free. But, at a minimum, you should not express bewilderment that right-thinking people respect the scale of what's at stake, have the temerity to express doubt, possess the common sense to consider their observations, and ask questions.

This whole conversation has been immensely helpful to me, certainly the comment:

"respect the scale of what's at stake, have the temerity to express doubt, possess the common sense to consider their observations, and ask questions."

.. pretty much sums it up, though some will try to dismiss it (I can't imagine a valid counter-argument to that). As far as the 'philosophical' aspect behind this debate goes, that may be as clear as I've yet seen it written.

It would be helpful if others passionate about this subject would read this. Perhaps learning to avoid the 'anti-science' mines planted all around this topic that childishly squash any intelligent discourse or debate.

> The point I made is simple: we cannot assume safety simply because we have yet to find evidence otherwise

The point you make is moot when you won't believe the evidence even if it kicks you in the butt.

GMO has been investigated not by your evil companies but by universities and scientists by decades.

You don't like GMO, fine. But don't hide your dislike with that bullshit. Even if they ares studied for centuries, people like you will say that we don't have sufficient evidence.

When you can find a single scientific argument against them, call me, until then, it is just ignorance.

There have been many scientific arguments made against GMOs, but I won't repeat them here because it's not the point. The fact that you are still asking me to repeat them, however, is the point.

By now, I don't expect you to see that irony.