Scientists and the American public disagree on some pretty key issues

[ffr]

I found that I disagree with the consensus of scientists on some of the key poll questions as well. And I find some of the questions laughable, like is evolution real? 98% of scientists say yes. It's like asking is water water? Some people think so and some people don't, so we're not really sure what to think. Who gives a damn what peoples' opinions are about facts!!!!!!!!!!!?

Americans, it seems, don’t agree with scientists on very much. According to a new Pew report, the US public’s opinions on topics as varied as the safety of genetically modified foods to climate change and evolution are completely different from how scientists belonging to the American Association for the Advancement of Science see things.

Major Gaps Between the Public, Scientists on Key Issues

Despite broadly similar views about the overall place of science in America, there are striking differences between the public and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) scientists’ views on a host of science-related issues, from whether genetically modified foods are safe to eat to whether the world’s growing population will be a major problem. See how their views differ by clicking on the topics below.QZ.com

The question about whether GMOs and foods sprayed with pesticides are safe to eat, has me in sharp disagreement with scientists. But I think the question leaves out one important factor, which is that GMOs taste like sawdust, whereas human bred and naturally occurring foods are wonderfully delicious. This is something I know to be true personally, because when I eat organic foods I have flashbacks to my childhood, to a time before GMOs, when our family ate foods grown from a garden or from the fruit trees we had. Which makes me question why scientists would push the safety of foods that have had their DNA spliced unnaturally with some other life form that couldn't occur and that hasn't occurred in nature since live evolved on our planet. Not to mention that biological pesticides are also unnatural. Is it because the world population has outstripped its sustainable capacity to live on organics?

Then there's the stupid "is climate change a problem?" Don't even need to ask such a dumb question. If the purpose of the poll was to determine whether or not Fox Entertainment can sway people's attitudes against their own best interests, we already know the answer to that.

[jeff47]

1. Perhaps the difference is the scientists like science?

Science would demand that you say "GMOs cause harm via X", and then prove that X occurs in GMOs, and why X does not occur in non-GMOs.

"GMOs cause harm because....um....nature....didn't happen on it's own.....it's new....food when I was a kid...." isn't going to cut it.

Find X, win a Nobel prize and save the world. But that also requires identifying X.

[AlbertCat]

7. food when I was a kid...."

When I was a kid, before GMOs, I remember food grown in the garden being better than food from the store. So you may have to come up with some other reason why GMO's taste like sawdust to you....like it's your own personal illusion. Because I don't think I could tell a GMO corn on the cob from one that wasn't a GMO. But I dunno.... there are many many factors to consider....

[jeff47]

8. That same difference is true of any store bought vs. garden

Tomatoes from a garden taste much better than tomatoes from a store. Even non-GMO tomatoes from a store.

The varieties available in stores were created to aid in selling them in a store. For example, the tomatoes were bred to survive shipping long before GMOs were possible. Surviving shipping and tasting good are mutually exclusive.

[AlbertCat]

9. That same difference is true of any store bought vs. garden

My point exactly.

There are many many factors to consider....

[ffr]

2. I have a better idea

I'll stick with what works in nature and you can argue about how that's unscientific.

And you can save the World. I have no desire to do anything of the sort.

[AlbertCat]

10. I'll stick with what works in nature

Consider the banana..... more than Ray Comfort ever has....


Anyway, we really cannot do anything that doesn't work in nature....

[immoderate]

3. They should have asked the scientists if GMOs should be labeled.

They may think they are "safe to eat" as there seem to be no short term effects. I don't think there is data to judge longer term effects. Also, they don't consider effects on the environment, or on the society (economy.)

--imm

[cheapdate]

4. “Food Safety” is far down the list of my objections to GMO crops.

I have a set of concerns that could be grouped under “land use planning” and I have another set of concerns that could be grouped under “unintended consequences”.

Most presentations of the issue in the media focus exclusively on the question of “food safety”. This is one question out of many that should be a part of the public discussion. If this was the ONLY question over GMOs, then GMO proponents would have a very strong argument in their favor. But it’s NOT the only legitimate concern. For instance, is increasing our reliance on chemical herbicides for food production really the best public policy?

The Union of Concerned Scientists has an excellent compilation of serious questions and concerns over GMOs. They raise questions that should be a part of the public discussion, but seldom are.

[jeff47]

5. On herbicides

Part of the problem with having such a discussion is the conflation of "GMO" with "Glyphosate resistant GMO". There's a lot more than just what Monsanto made to sell RoundUp. Yet a large number of people want to only talk about those, while claiming to talk about the entire subject.

After all, it's the only question you bring up as an example while discussing the need to broaden the discussion.

We're going to get better and better at manipulating DNA. Including our own. We better have a much larger discussion than "Monsanto Bad!"

[cheapdate]

6. I use GMO as an abbreviation for "genetically modified organism",

and I'm talking specifically about food crops. And by genetically modified, I'm not talking about traditional selective breeding through cross-pollination. I'm talking about contemporary genetic engineering techniques, including recombinant DNA techniques that use biological vectors like plasmids and viruses to carry foreign genes into cells, as well as other techniques like microinjection to introduce genetic material from donor chromatin directly into the nucleus of the recipient cell where it is incorporated among the host genes.

Monsanto's stated goal for undertaking their enormous investment in genetic modification is a noble one. They claim to undertake this work to increase the world's food supply for the benefit of all humankind. One of their major objectives is to develop crops that have been genetically modified for resistance to high levels of certain specific pesticides and herbicides, including Monsanto's widely used herbicide, Roundup. In this goal, they have been successful, having developed GM corn, cotton, and soybeans that can survive heavy applications of the herbicide Roundup that are lethal to all other plants.

The widespread use of GMOs in the environment raises many legal, ethical, environmental questions. The answers to these questions are, not surprisingly, quite complex. It was not my intention in the preceding post to present a fully developed dissertation on each of these questions.

Legal questions arise over the patenting of life forms. These technologies are developed with the assistance of taxpayer’s money in partnership with businesses like Monsanto. Monsanto has aggressively pursued patent infringement cases against farmers in many different countries whenever any crops have been found in farmer’s fields or products that they claim contain their patented genetic materials. Farmers have been forced to pay Monsanto even if the contamination was due to wind borne cross pollination.

There are serious concerns over unintended consequences, including the possible loss of genetic diversity. There are basic questions to ask about the need for plants with high tolerance for chemical herbicides. Do these products actually represent societal benefits? What are the alternatives for meeting the goal? Are there risks and tradeoffs? What are they?

Yes, we need a more enlightening debate than "Monsanto Bad".