Pushback against anti-GMO

From Slate, questions about the integrity of the anti-GMO food movement:

That’s the fundamental flaw in the anti-GMO movement. It only pretends to inform you. When you push past its dogmas and examine the evidence, you realize that the movement’s fixation on genetic engineering has been an enormous mistake. The principles it claims to stand for—environmental protection, public health, community agriculture—are better served by considering the facts of each case than by treating GMOs, categorically, as a proxy for all that’s wrong with the world. That’s the truth, in all its messy complexity. Too bad it won’t fit on a label.

Share

Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on civil rights (including First Amendment), consumer law litigation and appellate practice. At this website often writes about censorship, corporate news media corruption and cognitive science. He is also a working musician, artist and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in St. Louis, Missouri with his two daughters.

This Post Has 2 Comments

  1. Avatar of Mark W. Tiedemann
    Mark W. Tiedemann

    As more scientists begin to comment on the merits of GMOs—scientists who were once the “darlings” of many in the anti-GMNO camp—you see a reaction very much like any other dogmatic group of suddenly turning on them, like they’re some kind of traitor. Both Neil Degrass Tyson and Bill Nye have had a change of opinion about GMOs and both have come under fire from former fans who think they’ve been bought out.

    Some very beneficial strains of grains have had extremely difficult roads to travel because of the hysteria of people who frankly don’t know the first damn thing about what they’re condemning. All they see is a big label—SCIENCE!!!—and assume it’s evil.

Leave a Reply