Only conspiracy theories left to challenge science consensus that GMOs are safe

|

I have been writing about the GMO scientific consensus for quite some time, because this scientific consensus for the safety of GMO crops is so overwhelming that it’s almost impossible to ignore.

If you accept the science of climate change, but deny the science of GMOs, then you are a science denier. It’s pretty simple. In fact, many of us think that GMO deniers are the left’s version of climate change deniers.

The scientific consensus is based only on evidence. Not politics. Not your snowflake opinion. And certainly not on your cherry picked junk science.  The scientific consensus is the collective opinion and judgement of scientists in a particular field of study.

In the past, I generally relied on a couple of august scientific bodies for this consensus, but I always get the comment, “yeah but they’re bought off by Monsanto, it only represents a couple of countries,” or any number of other logical fallacies. Thanks to an exhaustive list produced by the Credible Hulk, it’s time to review all of the world’s science organizations’ statements on the GMO scientific consensus.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: The GMO scientific consensus – it’s unequivocal and overwhelming

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    There are some denialist idiots in the comments section of the original article. Which, is as thorough as it is correct.

  • To say “GMO’s are safe” is lunacy that beggars description. “GMO’s” is a mixed bag–some are safe to eat, and some are not. Some are safe to cultivate, and some are not. When cultivating a GMO means spreading tons of poorly understood toxic chemicals around, which is the usual story, it is not safe. But blind as bat conventional farmers never met an agriculture chemical they don’t like.

    • Eric Bjerregaard

      Instead of making your moronic comments here. Try telling these folks that you know better than they do. http://www.siquierotransgenicos.cl/2015/06/13/more-than-240-organizations-and-scientific-institutions-support-the-safety-of-gm-crops/

      • You are the idiot here. “GMO’s are safe”. Dell, many plants aren’t safe to eat. In your rabid Go Go GMO stance, you abandon all good sense, and foist foolishness on people.

        • Eric Bjerregaard

          Why do you refuse to learn? Why do you mention plants that are not safe to eat? Those are not GE crops, thus not tested or relevant. All those scientists from those groups I cited would wonder if you are even rational.

          • Pardon me, my point is that your saying (all) GMO’s are safe is idiotic. GMO’s are a mixed bag–like natural plants. Many natural plants are poisonous, some deadly. If you don’t realize that just because a plant is GMO, it may be poisonous and not safe, you obviously lack sense. Actually, methinks you’ll are vigorously trying to make GMO’s seem like wholly wonderful creations, because that is your stance. It’s a bankrupt stance, born of deep selfishness, but it’s the stance of you go-go-GMOers.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            Nope, no pardon for you. All currently approved are as low risk as those derived by other means of modification. That is why they were approved. That is why no one has found any verified problems.

          • When one says “GMO’s” unqualified, one includes every GMO created, approved or not.

            I make a small point. But on the other hand, it illustrates how you’ll bend and distort the truth, in trying to raise support for your ill-thought out manipulation of the genosphere. I wish you were sincerely trying to have a good effect on the Earth, not just yourself. Because when you contribute to many tons of highly toxic material being spread throughout the biosphere, you are hurting everyone.

          • Eric Bjerregaard

            I am simply following the logical trail of evidence. You have no clue how I farm. Thus are simply lying when you make up that crap about me generating tons of toxic material. Quite frankly , you remind me of a verminous ant-vaxxer.

          • SageThinker

            You are right to call out Eric Bjerregaard’s lack of integrity on small things as that is a good indicator of his lack of integrity on the big questions. I have had extremely bad experiences with him, to the point where i’ve blocked him for a period in the past — both on Facebook and here on Disqus. This is the sort of toxic person who defends a toxic industry. I do not understand it. I think it’s a pathology, a sociopathy, that leads people like this to fall into this role. I think it’s an attraction to evil.

      • Yeah, you can call my comment moronic. “GMO’s are safe!” So are atomic bombs–as long as you treat them right.

        • Eric Bjerregaard

          Stupid attempt at an analogy. Millions of livestock ,billions of meals, 275 scientific bodies, all say you are a nut case. I agree.

    • Damo

      “But blind as bat conventional farmers never met an agriculture chemical they don’t like.”

      Except for all the ones they abandoned, for cheaper, more effective, and safer chemicals. Don’t worry, the organic farmers have picked up the mantle of over applying unsafe, ineffective chemicals. The only difference? They deceptively tell you that they don’t.

      • Bulluney. Conventional farmers have been forced, time and again, to stop using poisonous chemicals they were using. Organic farmers use much less noxious chemicals. You can deny that–in your gross disconnect from good and truth.

        • Damo

          Nope, the same chemicals currently used by organic used to be used by conventional (and still can be if they desire) they abandoned them for the much safer chemicals and GMOs.