Popular publications and blogs appear unfazed by professional science’s unanimous support for the safety of GM foods and their accompanying technologies.
Since the early 2000s, groups opposed to genetically modified food have attempted, with some success, to construct a popular narrative maligning glyphosate by connecting it with health ailments … So when a 2012 French study published in Food and Chemical Toxicology showed tumor growth in rats exposed to a glyphosate-containing weed killer, activist groups issued press releases, reporters breathlessly pushed out stories, and the public’s heart skipped a collective beat.
Had journalists reported on the French study responsibly by soliciting the opinion of other toxicologists, they might have stumbled upon one of the 22 scientists who immediately contacted the journal in question to criticize the quality of the experiment. Even a simple Google search would have uncovered a history of anti-GM activism on the part of the lead author.
The New York Times’ Andrew Revkin blames pervasive misinformation in part on “single-study syndrome,” in which agenda-driven fringe groups promote studies supporting a predetermined position — no matter how questionable the research behind them may be.
The pervasiveness of inaccurate science reporting has taken its toll on policy and the public.
The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: Post-Truth Science