The world’s esteemed scientific organizations have made bold statements regarding the scientific consensus on transgenic crops. The National Academies of Science, the American Medical Association, and dozens of others worldwide have all indicated that these products pose no more risk than conventional breeding.
But what do they know?
A paper was published recently in Environmental Sciences Europe, a Springer journal that has published some real gems, including the un-refereed republication of the 2012 lumpy rat torture study.
It boldly proclaims in the title “No scientific consensus on GMO safety”. The authors represent a series of academics, activists, and NGO associates, all that hold public views against transgenic, synthetic or nano biology.
To me, consensus is something that just happens. We don’t usually measure it with tools, because we don’t have to. There is consensus among scientists on climate change, gravity, evolution, and jillions of other topics, transgenic crops being one of them.
The Hilbeck et al. paper offers no original data, no measurement of scientist sentiment, and represents strictly an opinion shared by 15 authors. The support for their position is built on the usual conspiratorial thinking, cherry picking, arguments ad populum and special pleading that underlies any contemporary argument against transgenic technology.
But the most fundamental flaw is that they keep repeating “no safety”. They criticize scientific reports as not demonstrating safety, when there is no scientific way to demonstrate safety. You cannot prove that anything is safe. You can only demonstrate, under your conditions, in one test, that there is evidence of harm.
Read full original blog: We Declare No Consensus!
