When Neil deGrasse Tyson speaks, people listen. “Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food,” he told a French interviewer. It was an impromptu, oversimplified response on a complex, hot-button subject, but Tyson’s stance was clear to all: GMOs are nothing to be afraid of.
At Vox, Ezra Klein seized on Tyson’s statements as further proof of a key difference between agenda-setting liberals and conservatives on science. Sure, the liberal base of the Democratic party is anti-GMO, Klein acknowledges. But this hasn’t mutated into the liberal equivalent of conservative climate denial, because the Democratic establishment–particularly its powerbrokers—-haven’t embraced the anti-GMO views of its base, he argued. Klein cited the recent work of Grist reporter Nathanael Johnson and his conclusion that GMOs are, as Tyson said, not only safe, but nothing to be afraid of.
Grist could have kept playing up GMO fears and misinforming its readers, which is what it did with its GMO coverage right up until it commissioned Johnson to undertake his deep dive into the complex research findings on crop biotechnology. But I’ll be more impressed with Grist when it treats influential purveyors of GMO myths and misinformation as disdainfully (or at least critically) as it treats those who promote climate change denial.
Related on the SLP
It’s not as if Grist (or Mother Jones, Alternet, Daily Kos et al) are lacking in material to poke fun at or debunk. They just have to look at what progressive thought leaders, food advocacy NGOs, and outspoken consumer interest and environmental groups say on the subject.
Read the full, original article: Why it matters what liberal validators say on GMOs
