The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
The larger problem in making public policy decisions about GMOs, antibiotic residues, and a host of other agriculturally related issues becomes clear when one listens to the arguments that each side is making as they make their case. One can be on one side of an argument with regard to science on one topic and seemingly the other side when it comes to a different issue.
So it can appear that anti-GMO activists can use the preponderance of evidence that scientific studies provide to make their case for human-induced global climate change while at the same time ignoring the preponderance of evidence about the safety of GMOs while surveys show that a large number of farmers accept the arguments about the safety of GMOs and at the same time deny the evidence of human-induced climate change, believing instead that it is a hoax.
While those who support the idea of GMOs can point to over 1,000 studies that support the safety of GMOs in the food system over the last decade and a half, there are still studies that have not been released. The initial studies that supported decisions by government agencies to allow GMOs were conducted by companies that have a strong interest in getting these seeds to market.
Many of these studies have not been released to the public. If companies are going to ask for broad acceptance of their products, then they are going to have to release all of the studies they have done on their genetically modified seeds; they cannot pick and choose which ones they allow the public to see.
Read full, original post: Selective use of science won’t sell GMOs