A provocative NYT Op-Ed “How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food” by Cornell Alliance for Science researcher Mark Lynas, asserts that GMO opponents are intellectually equivalent to climate deniers:
After writing two books on the science of climate change, I decided I could no longer continue taking a pro-science position on global warming and an anti-science position on G.M.O.s.
There is an equivalent level of scientific consensus on both issues, I realized, that climate change is real and genetically modified foods are safe. I could not defend the expert consensus on one issue while opposing it on the other. …
The environmental movement’s war against genetic engineering has led to a deepening rift with the scientific community. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science showed a greater gap between scientists and the public on G.M.O.s than on any other scientific controversy: While 88 percent of association scientists agreed it was safe to eat genetically modified foods, only 37 percent of the public did — a gap in perceptions of 51 points. (The gap on climate change was 37 points; on childhood vaccinations, 18 points.)
afertig says
Is understanding what GMOs actually are. Humbly leaving this here. It’s an explanation of how plants with modified genomes are made –– not an argument for or against GMOs.
thebaker says
My “friend” doesn’t understand what GMOs are, so I will forward this on.
Thanks afertig
Jasiu says
Daily Show’s version of this by Aasiv Mandvi (can an editor embed??).
Bob Neer says
The Daily Show
Daily Show Full Episodes, More Daily Show Videos, Comedy Central Full Episodes
Jasiu says
I don’t see a “text” entry tab in this little comment box.
My options are bold, italics, insert a link, blockquote, Preview.
And Submit, which I will press right…
Bob Neer says
Into the comment box.
SomervilleTom says
I don’t know whether my permissions are different from others.
For my comments and posts, iframe tags are suppressed and therefore don’t work at all. I’m facile with HTML, and other tags (anchor, image, even old-fashioned embed) work as expected.
This is a long-standing permissions issue with BMG, and with good justification — allowing the iframe tag enables a myriad of vulnerabilities for spam, obscenity, and even cross-site scripting attacks.
progressivemax says
The process of engineering food is harmless. It’s what genes you put in it that matter. Increasing pesticide use might be a problem, but decreasing toxins in potatoes can be healthy. Cross contamination and patent law is an issue, but it’s not the “EVERYBODY IS GOING TO DIE, LETS PANIC” issue that some make it out to be
progressivemax says
The Union of Concerned Scientists has a very nuanced view on the issue on yheir website that I appreciate. Yes to food labeling, consumer choice, and careful regulatory approval, but still an acknowledgement that there are some benefits to gmos.
Trickle up says
As appalled as I am at some of the unscientific anti-GMO memes on the internets, I cannot accept equivalence let alone equality with climate-change deniers.
The GMO skeptics have a bundle of different arguments, some economic rather than scientific.
Even those that are wrong are not funded by a large industrial sector hypnotized by short-term gains and who are cynically derailing an important scientific discussion by paying senators to proclaim that they are “not scientists” and besides is snowed last winter or whatever the latest blather is.
If the point is that being reality based means honoring facts all the time, sure, but say that. Then say exactly what facts are at stake.
This brush is way too broad.
seamusromney says
GMOs are safe to eat, sure. But are they a good idea? The issues go well beyond safety. One concern in particular is the ability to drive out non-GMO plants and create far-reaching impacts on local ecology.