The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
We have an important battle going in our society: the conflict between science and emotion, and nuance vs. simplicity. I used to think science was sacrosanct. Today, science is more based on convenience. What data can I find to fit my personal viewpoint?
Climate change is a telling example. The vast majority of studies show GMOs are safe for public health and the environment, yet many climate champions are against them.
Sustainability advocates can’t have it both ways. If we want science to rule, we cannot bend when the science does not conform to our entrenched belief.
I am not pro-GMO. But neither am I anti-GMO. I am on the side of the World Health Organization that says we should look at GMOs on a case-by-case basis.
For instance, splicing the DNA from spinach may prevent the “citrus greening” disease that is destroying oranges in the U.S. Otherwise, we may end up eating Brazilian oranges, because they are allowed to spray more pesticides on their oranges.
The opponents to GMOs point out the fear of the unknown. They say there’s not enough testing, that we should be precautionary. When is the quantity of scientific consensus enough? There’s rarely a unanimous consensus on anything, especially in science.
We need the science-based NGOs to step up and speak out. Most privately agree that some GMOs may help with better outcomes for people and our planet. Yet they are afraid to clash with the campaign-based NGO groups that pitch the emotional fight against GMOs. Emotional and convenient “science” is clearly winning this debate to the detriment of our society and our future.
Read full, original post: If science is good for climate change, why not for GMOs?
