Part of the skepticism about GMOs comes from the recognition of massive potential conflicts of interest. Your own website proudly announces that only half of all GMO research has industry ties which is not as reassuring as they seem to think.
Another issue is simple risk aversion. With a few exceptions, scientists don’t claim that GMO products are healthier than the non-GMO versions. They just claim that they are not unhealthier. And they might be wrong. That risk might be small, but when weighed against cost savings the balance could easily favor non-GMO products.
Do you understand how research works? Outside of a miniscule amount of money from the U.S. government, and a larger investment in the EU, the only people willing to pay for research are the companies that will use the research to create products. There isn’t some magical money tree paying salaries for scientists so that they can stay “independent”.
That is an issue with our entire culture’s lack of interest in funding research, but that is another argument entirely.
You are completely sidestepping the MASSIVE amount of research done on this subject showing that there are no differences in health effects between GMO and non GMO foods.
20 years, 6,000 studies. No evidence.
Here is a non-industry source
But what do those eggheads at Harvard know anyway?
There is such a thing as un-healthy skepticism.
That risk might be small, but when weighed against cost savings the balance could easily favor non-GMO products.
You say you know, yet you continue with your ridiculous pictures. People who understand science, that skepticism is basically built into the process which is why there is confirmation and repeat tests can easily say they don’t trust something simply because a person with a scientist label stands up and tells you something… and still believe in science and the proof behind it.
If you don’t want to have a reasonable discussion about this, then fine, don’t, but don’t misrepresent like this.
for consumeable GMO’s - long term effects can’t be tested. I’ve seen some research that indicates that GMO Wheat may not digest in the human body as well as non-GMO wheat, which could be a reason for the Gluten-free movement.
GMO i insecticide resistant strains have tended to proliferate beyond their anticipated borders, in the case of the insecticides,it has led to the massive overuse of Glycosophate, leading it to end up in a ton of foods.
Look, I’m not going to argue against the GMO side. I happen to agree even.
But let’s not pretend that there haven’t been those who use ‘scientific’ studies to obfuscate or hide things. Citation: tobacco and oil industries. We know that scientists on their payrolls distorted, or even outright faked, research to hide the dangers. That these industries intentionally pushed a false narrative shielded by the scientific aegis.
Like this isn’t a value judgement or controversial statement. It is merely presenting a known fact.
So there is good reason to be particularly sceptical of industry research. The financial incentives for them are certainly tilted towards favorably distorting the facts. So extra skepticism of the results of industry funded research into GMO production isn’t anti science, it is an entirely reasonable and rational course of action.
Like the fact that the only scientific research out there that says anthropogenic climate change is false comes from fossil fuel industry sources is, rightly, used as evidence. ‘The only scientists who deny this are on the payroll of fossil fuel companies who have major financial incentives to lie’ is the correct take there. Likewise here.
That doesn’t mean the research or results are wrong, merely that they deserve extra scepticism and scrutiny.
If the relative yield gains estimated here are any indication of the potential for other crops and/or regions, then the adoption of new technologies such as GE varieties may constitute a potentially fruitful adaptation strategy for counterbalancing the effects of climate change
That doesn’t that sound like a “Period” to me. It sounds like a “possibly maybe”. It sounds like typical scientific reluctance to make sweeping claims. Kudos to them. On the other hand, the fact that you read it as definitive confirmation of your own intuition suggests that you might be more like 45 than you want to admit.
The case for GMO for most people will come down to safety vs cost, and honestly the pro-GMO argument is often not that compelling.
But are orcs truly evil? (The answer is yes, in middle earth environmental destruction is considered evil. If you missed that bit of fun… we’ll don’t look for it ;) )
It’s a pretty huge leap from not immediately trusting everything a single scientist says to not trusting science as a method. I mean it’s has been known to happen that researchers are mistaken or even willingly falsify their results in order to prove what they believe is right.
I would go so far as to say that if you trust the statements of a single scientist without checking for peer review and reproduced results, you’re not really trusting science, but some blind faith. Science teaches us to be sceptical, to question experiments and results. It most assuredly does not teach us to believe what we hear to be absolute truth.
Neither of your points are peer-tested. Glyphosate is not a hazard in foods and there is a mountain of evidence from studies trying to find harm. The genetic literacy project is great, excellent reading to be found there.
Unless, of course, you are living somewhere facing famine due to drought or pests. Or maybe living somewhere where you can’t get enough vitamin A in your diet and your kids are going blind. Then the pro-GMO case is pretty goddamn compelling. Opposition to GMO crops at this point is just like climate change denial; a first world luxury.
