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 ag-related issues becomes clear when one listens to the arguments that each side is making. . . . . .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.
Such apparent inconsistencies tell us little about the nature of the underlying science surrounding the two issues. Instead it tells us the debate involves more than science. . . .
A recent study by researchers who reproduced 100 studies published in three leading psychology journals found “more than half of the findings did not hold up when retested.” . . .
What lessons can we draw from this as we consider the role of science in providing a set of data points that can be used to discuss issues, such as the safety of GMOs, antibiotic residues on meat, global warming, water pollution and pesticide use and residuals?
Given the recent happenings in psychology . . . no simple appeal to “science”— even by dozens of renowned scientists — will reduce the controversy over the host of issues surrounding the question of the safety of GMOs. Full transparency and release of the studies — including all of the data sets that were created during these studies — that have been conducted by and on behalf of the companies that have produced and are marketing these products is a good start. Until then, the current cacophony will undoubtedly continue and many of the appeals to science will fall on deaf ears.
Read full, original post: Opinion: In GMO debate, science used by both sides