Earlier this week, I was dismissive of the GMO labeling movement in a way that didn’t do justice to its core concerns. I wrote:
Like climate change, the crazy politics of the GMO debate trump the science. Along those lines, I view the “right to know” campaign (which is part of a larger effort to label genetically modified foods) as a variation of the creationist “teach the controversy” strategy. Both the “right to know” (and “just label it”) and “teach the science” movements have something in common: They deny and muddy established, consensus science.
Via email, I received a thoughtful rebuttal from Jonathan Gilligan, an associate professor in the Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Vanderbilt University. He is also the associate director of Vanderbilt’s Climate Change Research Network. (Several years ago, Gilligan contributed a fascinating guest essay to Collide-a-Scape titled, “Why U.S. Climate Policy is Radioactive.”) Below is his response to my post:
[View the original article for the Gilligan’s full response.]Dear Keith,
I think you’re wrong in your CaS [Collide-a-Scape] piece on “right to know.”
I think the “right to know” is a lot like the “show me your data and your code” wing of the climate skeptic community, and that people on the side of good science on both GMO’s and climate change should listen to it.
View the original article here: Why GMOs Are Great and Why They Should be Labeled
