Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Slate: The Misleading War on GMOs [View all]
The war against genetically modified organisms is full of fearmongering, errors, and fraud. Labeling them will not make you safer.
By William Saletan
The central premise of these lawsand the main source of consumer anxiety, which has sparked corporate interest in GMO-free foodis concern about health. Last year, in a survey by the Pew Research Center, 57 percent of Americans said its generally unsafe to eat genetically modified foods. Vermont says the primary purpose of its labeling law is to help people avoid potential health risks of food produced from genetic engineering. Chipotle notes that 300 scientists have signed a statement rejecting the claim that there is a scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs for human consumption. Until more studies are conducted, Chipotle says, We believe it is prudent to take a cautious approach toward GMOs.
The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all declared that theres no good evidence GMOs are unsafe. Hundreds of studies back up that conclusion. But many of us dont trust these assurances. Were drawn to skeptics who say that theres more to the story, that some studies have found risks associated with GMOs, and that Monsanto is covering it up.
Ive spent much of the past year digging into the evidence. Heres what Ive learned. First, its true that the issue is complicated. But the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. Its full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. Theyre counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust.
Second, the central argument of the anti-GMO movementthat prudence and caution are reasons to avoid genetically engineered, or GE, foodis a sham. Activists who tell you to play it safe around GMOs take no such care in evaluating the alternatives. They denounce proteins in GE crops as toxic, even as they defend drugs, pesticides, and non-GMO crops that are loaded with the same proteins. They portray genetic engineering as chaotic and unpredictable, even when studies indicate that other crop improvement methods, including those favored by the same activists, are more disruptive to plant genomes.
Third, there are valid concerns about some aspects of GE agriculture, such as herbicides, monocultures, and patents. But none of these concerns is fundamentally about genetic engineering. Genetic engineering isnt a thing. Its a process that can be used in different ways to create different things. To think clearly about GMOs, you have to distinguish among the applications and focus on the substance of each case. If youre concerned about pesticides and transparency, you need to know about the toxins to which your food has been exposed. A GMO label wont tell you that. And it can lull you into buying a non-GMO product even when the GE alternative is safer.
The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all declared that theres no good evidence GMOs are unsafe. Hundreds of studies back up that conclusion. But many of us dont trust these assurances. Were drawn to skeptics who say that theres more to the story, that some studies have found risks associated with GMOs, and that Monsanto is covering it up.
Ive spent much of the past year digging into the evidence. Heres what Ive learned. First, its true that the issue is complicated. But the deeper you dig, the more fraud you find in the case against GMOs. Its full of errors, fallacies, misconceptions, misrepresentations, and lies. The people who tell you that Monsanto is hiding the truth are themselves hiding evidence that their own allegations about GMOs are false. Theyre counting on you to feel overwhelmed by the science and to accept, as a gut presumption, their message of distrust.
Second, the central argument of the anti-GMO movementthat prudence and caution are reasons to avoid genetically engineered, or GE, foodis a sham. Activists who tell you to play it safe around GMOs take no such care in evaluating the alternatives. They denounce proteins in GE crops as toxic, even as they defend drugs, pesticides, and non-GMO crops that are loaded with the same proteins. They portray genetic engineering as chaotic and unpredictable, even when studies indicate that other crop improvement methods, including those favored by the same activists, are more disruptive to plant genomes.
Third, there are valid concerns about some aspects of GE agriculture, such as herbicides, monocultures, and patents. But none of these concerns is fundamentally about genetic engineering. Genetic engineering isnt a thing. Its a process that can be used in different ways to create different things. To think clearly about GMOs, you have to distinguish among the applications and focus on the substance of each case. If youre concerned about pesticides and transparency, you need to know about the toxins to which your food has been exposed. A GMO label wont tell you that. And it can lull you into buying a non-GMO product even when the GE alternative is safer.
Full: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html
In other words, the anti-GMO crowd stoops to the same mental manipulation tactics as creationists, global warming deniers, Fox News, or right wing talk radio. No wonder America is so scientifically ignorant, with 80 percent of Americans in a survey supporting labelling foods containing DNA (presumably with lots of overlap of those demanding labels for GMO's and chemicals).
If GMO's were really harmful, there would've been a hell of a lot more studies in peer reviewed journals proving so, instead of the phony Seralini study. The anti-GMO mania wouldn't have been limited to crank sites like Natural News.
Face it. Pseudoscience is pseudoscience. Creationism = anti-vaccine hysteria = anti-GMO hysteria = alchemy = phrenology = global warming denialism. End of story.
119 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
He's one man. You can find handfuls of people to say anything. But the vast majority of Americans
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#41
93% of Americans vaccinate their children and 93% of Americans want GMOs labeled
GreatGazoo
Jul 2015
#3
The right to know what you are buying doesn't include knowing how it's produced
Major Nikon
Jul 2015
#45
Now tell us about why GMOs now need Enlist Duo and why Starlink corn was recalled.
GreatGazoo
Jul 2015
#6
You do remember using Saletan for an OP just a few months ago though, right? nt
msanthrope
Jul 2015
#21
If GMOs are all that beneficial and good, why the resistance to labeling?
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jul 2015
#10
Soooo...why can't GMO corporations sell their product as safe and beneficial?
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jul 2015
#19
They have every right to demand that their elected officials pass laws that require gmo labelling.
GitRDun
Jul 2015
#94
Yes, in fact. "I know you are, but what am I" was invalidated after third grade.
DisgustipatedinCA
Jul 2015
#108
It's obviously not involunary action. Please show me where they're forced to sell food.
DisgustipatedinCA
Jul 2015
#110
Will GMOs Hurt My Body? The Public’s Concerns and How Scientists Have Addressed Them
HuckleB
Sep 2015
#119
If Mutation Bred Organisms are all that beneficial good, why aren't they labeled?
HuckleB
Aug 2015
#116
I have allergies to certain foods and chemicals. That's why I want GMO produce identified.
haele
Jul 2015
#31
If one has data on one group and not on another then one cannot predict that either group is less
GreatGazoo
Jul 2015
#47
The maxim I stated is true BUT there IS data for non-GMO because it IS tested after all (?)
GreatGazoo
Jul 2015
#54
I don't believe anyone is petitioning for common allergens NOT to be labeled
Major Nikon
Jul 2015
#64
I don't know why they don't support labeling because that stance is inconsistent
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#79
We don't have mandatory pre-market testing with the FDA. So, in the absence of that,
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#84
There IS an absence of mandatory safety testing, and that's why the AMA is calling for it.
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#92
The testing of GMO's is voluntary, not mandatory. And the FDA has a conflict of interest
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#106
The reality is that other seed development technologies should scare you more.
HuckleB
Aug 2015
#115
I don't give a fuck about Monsanto's profits. If they want to keep losing the public trust then they
GoneFishin
Jul 2015
#58
One thing I never understood about the Anti-GMO argument, if its so obviously bad...
Humanist_Activist
Jul 2015
#69