Melchett’s Seven Sins Against Science

Any guesses what the over-emotional, dogmatic, and unscientific proponents of GMOs say about anyone who doesn’t agree with them? They accuse them of being emotional, dogmatic, and anti-science.

While scientists, typically affiliated with corporations that stand to benefit most, claim objectivity as they extoll the supposed “superior” qualities of GMOs, journalist, Peter Melchett, explains that there are plenty of scientists who are concerned about the safety of GMOs.

Scientific studies funded and influenced by those who have a vested interest in favorable results are obviously not unbiased. And, favorable interpretations of studies that show significant risk are sheer public relations stunts that confuse the public.  Unfortunately, these scientists, who question the logic of permeating the food supply with GMOs prior to significant, long term studies to ensure the safety of crops, consumers and the future of food production, are at best ignored and at worst maligned and slandered.

Melchett blows the cover off these pro-gmo-at-any-cost-zealots’ bizarre logic, and exposes their attack strategies and efforts to distort, deny, and dismiss any evidence that shows harm from GMOs.

Consider this: After the only long-term comprehensive animal feeding study shows deadly impacts from GMOs, the GMO “Yes Men” declare that no more long-term studies should be conducted. Excuse me?

The truly pro-science approach is to demand the biotech industry prove their products are safe via third party testing and insist on multi-generational long-term studies. As of now, the overwhelming trend is to publicly discredit the studies that have produced evidence that GMOs are not safe and inhibit further studies. That stance, the disclaiming of any and all scientific claims that disagree with biotech’s assertions, is decidedly not pro-science!

[Source of article]


Post a comment