Spinning a Consensus on GMOs
Journalist Keith Kloor, always a busy beaver advancing the biotech industry's agenda, linked to Food & Water Watch in a recent blog, portraying us as part of the "GMO Fear Train" that's going off the tracks.
Journalist Keith Kloor, always a busy beaver advancing the biotech industry's agenda, linked to Food & Water Watch in a recent blog, portraying us as part of the "GMO Fear Train" that's going off the tracks. His post centered on New York Times' writer Mark Bittman's recent statement that GMOs are "probably harmless," a stance Food & Water Watch criticized last week as hollow and shortsighted.
But to Kloor, Bittman's article was evidence that even mainstream foodies are accepting the "scientific consensus" regarding the safety and so-called merits of GMOs. Unfortunately, Kloor appears confused about the meaning of the word "consensus."
Parroting industry talking points, Kloor asserts that a consensus on GMOs exists by linking to the website of "futurist" Ramez Naam, which points to a variety of scientific groups that say a lot of different things about GMOs--that they are safe, or not unsafe, or haven't been shown to be unsafe, or shouldn't be labeled.
Out of all of this noise, it would appear that the "consensus," at its very best, is that that GMO advocates believe that GMOs are safe. This is very different, than, say, the scientific consensus on climate change in which the vast majority of expert scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by human activity. (Check Tom Philpott's brilliant send-up of Keith Kloor on a related subject).
With GMOs, this level of agreement among scientists does not exist. In fact, many in the scientific community have become so upset with the bogus "consensus" talking point that they began circulating a sign-on statement that explicitly states there is no consensus on the safety of GMOs. Already, there are almost three-hundred signatories, almost all of them PhDs with relevant expertise.
That statement reads, "...we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a 'scientific consensus' on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is 'over.'" The statement explicitly cites Kloor as one of the cheerleaders in question. Ouch.
Clearly, there is widespread disagreement within the scientific community on the safety of GMOs, but what's interesting is the way in which the opinion is split. In contrast to the "no consensus" document, which is signed by independent scientists, the sign-on letter that supports Kloor's version of "consensus" is largely supported by representatives from Monsanto, Pioneer, BASF and Syngenta, companies that stand to gain from public acceptance of GMOs.
Want to cut through the spin? Check out Food & Water Watch's comprehensive report on the problems with GMOs.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. The final deadline for our crucial Summer Campaign fundraising drive is just days away, and we’re falling short of our must-hit goal. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Journalist Keith Kloor, always a busy beaver advancing the biotech industry's agenda, linked to Food & Water Watch in a recent blog, portraying us as part of the "GMO Fear Train" that's going off the tracks. His post centered on New York Times' writer Mark Bittman's recent statement that GMOs are "probably harmless," a stance Food & Water Watch criticized last week as hollow and shortsighted.
But to Kloor, Bittman's article was evidence that even mainstream foodies are accepting the "scientific consensus" regarding the safety and so-called merits of GMOs. Unfortunately, Kloor appears confused about the meaning of the word "consensus."
Parroting industry talking points, Kloor asserts that a consensus on GMOs exists by linking to the website of "futurist" Ramez Naam, which points to a variety of scientific groups that say a lot of different things about GMOs--that they are safe, or not unsafe, or haven't been shown to be unsafe, or shouldn't be labeled.
Out of all of this noise, it would appear that the "consensus," at its very best, is that that GMO advocates believe that GMOs are safe. This is very different, than, say, the scientific consensus on climate change in which the vast majority of expert scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by human activity. (Check Tom Philpott's brilliant send-up of Keith Kloor on a related subject).
With GMOs, this level of agreement among scientists does not exist. In fact, many in the scientific community have become so upset with the bogus "consensus" talking point that they began circulating a sign-on statement that explicitly states there is no consensus on the safety of GMOs. Already, there are almost three-hundred signatories, almost all of them PhDs with relevant expertise.
That statement reads, "...we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a 'scientific consensus' on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is 'over.'" The statement explicitly cites Kloor as one of the cheerleaders in question. Ouch.
Clearly, there is widespread disagreement within the scientific community on the safety of GMOs, but what's interesting is the way in which the opinion is split. In contrast to the "no consensus" document, which is signed by independent scientists, the sign-on letter that supports Kloor's version of "consensus" is largely supported by representatives from Monsanto, Pioneer, BASF and Syngenta, companies that stand to gain from public acceptance of GMOs.
Want to cut through the spin? Check out Food & Water Watch's comprehensive report on the problems with GMOs.
Journalist Keith Kloor, always a busy beaver advancing the biotech industry's agenda, linked to Food & Water Watch in a recent blog, portraying us as part of the "GMO Fear Train" that's going off the tracks. His post centered on New York Times' writer Mark Bittman's recent statement that GMOs are "probably harmless," a stance Food & Water Watch criticized last week as hollow and shortsighted.
But to Kloor, Bittman's article was evidence that even mainstream foodies are accepting the "scientific consensus" regarding the safety and so-called merits of GMOs. Unfortunately, Kloor appears confused about the meaning of the word "consensus."
Parroting industry talking points, Kloor asserts that a consensus on GMOs exists by linking to the website of "futurist" Ramez Naam, which points to a variety of scientific groups that say a lot of different things about GMOs--that they are safe, or not unsafe, or haven't been shown to be unsafe, or shouldn't be labeled.
Out of all of this noise, it would appear that the "consensus," at its very best, is that that GMO advocates believe that GMOs are safe. This is very different, than, say, the scientific consensus on climate change in which the vast majority of expert scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by human activity. (Check Tom Philpott's brilliant send-up of Keith Kloor on a related subject).
With GMOs, this level of agreement among scientists does not exist. In fact, many in the scientific community have become so upset with the bogus "consensus" talking point that they began circulating a sign-on statement that explicitly states there is no consensus on the safety of GMOs. Already, there are almost three-hundred signatories, almost all of them PhDs with relevant expertise.
That statement reads, "...we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a 'scientific consensus' on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is 'over.'" The statement explicitly cites Kloor as one of the cheerleaders in question. Ouch.
Clearly, there is widespread disagreement within the scientific community on the safety of GMOs, but what's interesting is the way in which the opinion is split. In contrast to the "no consensus" document, which is signed by independent scientists, the sign-on letter that supports Kloor's version of "consensus" is largely supported by representatives from Monsanto, Pioneer, BASF and Syngenta, companies that stand to gain from public acceptance of GMOs.
Want to cut through the spin? Check out Food & Water Watch's comprehensive report on the problems with GMOs.