Let’s talk about those GMO funded studies. You know the ones. The ones you always hear about from Anti-GMO folks when you read the comment section for any story about GMOs. According to those folks, the whole scientific consensus on GMOs is based on those studies. But there are also a ton of independently funded studies that show the same thing.
Instead, what the complaints about industry funded studies show is an ignorance of the literature and a lazy desire to dismiss inconvenient evidence in order to preserve predetermined ideological commitments.
Let’s put aside the fact that this line of thinking would mean that while fossil fuel behemoths Exxon Mobil (market cap:$394.83B), Chevron (market cap:$215.45B) and BP (market cap:$150.07B) (total: $760.35B) have been completely stymied in their efforts to buy the scientific consensus they desire on climate change, but a medium large company like Monsanto (market cap: $57.43B) has been able to manipulate tens of thousands of scientists performing thousands of studies for three decades.
Instead, let’s first take a look at the evidence, before moving to unravel some of pretzeled logic often employed to dismiss the weight of that evidence in support of the scientific consensus on GMOs.
Related on the SLP
Read the full, original article: About Those Industry Funded GMO Studies . . .
Additional Resources:
- Misplaced fears of identical diseases links anti-GMOers to anti-technology fringe groups, Genetic Literacy Project
- Studies with independent funding, Biofortified.org
