reply to post by dipsezbaby
Long story short, x-scientists say GMOs are safe; y-scientists say they are not safe.
Both have reports, studies, research.
Its a standoff, and at the same time a standstill.
Both try to debunk the other scientists, like for example: y-scientists say that the the findings of x-scientists (consider these the proponents for
GMOs, if you will) are usually only short-term studies, and the while some findings state the GMOs are safe, sometimes those x-scientists use certain
words that hide contradictory information. y-scientists (which by now, you might consider opponents of GMOs) also claim that x-scientists have a
bias towards the [GMO] industry; for example, Monsanto, a company that produces genetically modified seeds, sets up its own research for GMOs,
Monsanto sometimes funds
Universities to research into GMO technology, and scientists may also be funded or employed by "corrupt" agencies
(claimed to have partial ties with Monsanto and/or other biotechnology companies).
This position basically implies that GM-proponent-scientists cannot be trusted, and GMOs are definitively
In the opposite end of this perspective, sometimes the GMO protesters are viewed to be surrounded by myths and health-nuts that easily persuade
anybody that fears for their health and does not question the authenticity of the "facts" provided to them. There's as much grounds to follow this
perspective, as you may note with the growing marketability of foods labeled "All Natural" and things like that.
**How would GM opponents come to the conclusion that GMOS are unsafe?
They think that way because some scientists have observed adverse health
effects in animals[***], as well as found traces of GMO components in humans[***], and those components have not been thoroughly studied because the
GM seed companies
claim it is useless to study effects on humans; the premise for that claim is that the GM seed Company's scientists say
everything is alright with the genes they are inserting into their products, and that the genes themselves are not any different when they are placed
into the new DNA of the specimens(plant seeds).
studies are criticized and/or claimed to flawed by the GM proponents. Some Scientists are also fired and GM opponents use that
to support their ideas that there is indeed something not right with GMO foods and "the industry is trying to cover this up". As you may have
guessed it, this back&forth argument becomes a case of oppressors versus underdogs where the industry is the "bad guy" and scientists that are
opposed to GM foods are the underrated heroes. Or at least that is how some see it around here.
What it boils down to is this:
If the GM opponents are making claims, the only a neutral observer can prove they are flawed/false or true is if they look into the research their
self or hear from a credentialed GM opponent
that the claims are untrue; if they hear this from a GM proponent, it only leaves one to
question if they are "debunking" because of a bias.
The same thing above goes the opposite way (finding out if a GM proponent's claims are false/true).
One must then find a neutral observer to establish the facts (which could end up being us, while we observe an open GMO experiment), or wait for a
GMO proponent/opponent to come out and say that they are lying to promote some sort of agenda. There are many agendas one could speculate that
motivate either side, since the nonGMO and GMO approaches are profitable; it has to do with food & market, so there's going to be money involved,
don't you think?
(Section 3.1.2 & 3.1.4)