On GMOs, Union of Concerned Scientists skips the science

Several weeks ago, the Union of Concerned Scientists posted a hard-hitting rebuttal to a famous environmentalist, someone who is normally an ally.

The critique did not mince words:

As RFK Jr. should well know from his work on climate change, generating doubt by misrepresenting the science has negative consequences for the public. Because of his stature and good work on so many other issues, he has a special responsibility to get the science right.

Might the same be said for public interest organizations with prominent stature? Should they too be expected not to misrepresent science? Do they have a special responsibility to get the science right?

Related on the SLP

Does the Union of Concerned Scientists’s Doug Gurian-Sherman misrepresent GMOs? Viewpoint — Lysenkoism 2.0: RFK, Jr. is more dangerous than the 1930s Soviet scientist Trofim Lysenko, whose crackpot views killed millions of people and set back Russian science for decades

Viewpoint: Died “with measles” vs. died “from measles”: RFK, Jr.’s dangerously subversive word games

Vaccine hesitancy, like malaria, surges globally, topping 35% in some countries

Blood tests for Alzheimer’s? The latest grifter, social media scam.

If so, then the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) might want to take a look in the mirror. For the same criticism they make of Kennedy has been leveled against them–on the issue of GMOs. … It would be nice if a leading, highly trusted scientific group held itself to the same evidence-based standards it holds others. Alas, when it comes to GMOs that is not the case.

Read full original article: On double standards and the Union of Concerned Scientists