SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
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.
May 13, 2014
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, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2021 Food & Water Watch
Tim Schwab
Tim Schwab is a food researcher at Food and Water Watch. With a background in journalism, Tim worked as a reporter and as a researcher on a variety of projects before joining Food and Water Watch. He has a master's degree in journalism from the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. He can be reached at tschwab(at)fwwatch(dot)org.
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.
Tim Schwab
Tim Schwab is a food researcher at Food and Water Watch. With a background in journalism, Tim worked as a reporter and as a researcher on a variety of projects before joining Food and Water Watch. He has a master's degree in journalism from the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. He can be reached at tschwab(at)fwwatch(dot)org.
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.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.