I have always been really cued into the public discussions that include a lot of opinion versus fact, etc. I am a huge skeptic, and big “science can save us from ourselves” guy.  I am certainly not aggro pro-GM (and Monsanto is the worst, and they are absurd, but this isn’t about one business).  GM can help in many ways. I do think the anti-GM people are a bit tin foily, but no disrespect. I think the evidence bears that out, and will support my “opinion” on that matter. I think, when you take away opinion, unhelpful talk about big brother and singling out one horrid company as the flagship for the rally cry (which purposefully & completely muddies the reality, fanning the fires of fear through manipulation), you will end up simply realizing there’s nothing to panic about.

It’s wild too… because those who would wave climate change data at people willfully ignore the same type of data that puts all concerns to rest about GM. 

Of all the publications that follow the conversation, The Economist seems to be the most valid and respected source:

The outlook is unappetising. Food scares are easy to start but hard to stop. GM opponents, like climate-change deniers, are deaf to evidence.”

See…. Science isn’t good enough… people hate science.  As Leslie Knope said, “All I have are Science, facts, and data on my side. People hate science, facts, and data”. LOL  The issue with GMO is that the privilege of the 1st world’s opinions on GMO makes the rest of the world go hungry.  It’s so entitled, it worries me.  So we can have this war of personal opinions, people are dying in poorer countries. Sound ok? –> http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21601831-little-state-could-kneecap-biotech-industry-vermont-v-science

Genetic modification is one of the most promising tools for feeding a global population that will one day hit 9 or 10 billion. Yet its development depends partly on consumers in rich countries, since the 842m malnourished people don’t have much spare cash. As with other technologies, the techniques honed in rich countries tend eventually to spread to poor ones. But if greens scare Americans into rejecting GM food entirely, that benign process may be interrupted.”

This one is a dandy:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21591176-greens-say-climate-change-deniers-are-unscientific-and-dangerous-so-are-greens-who-oppose-gm

It juxtaposes how climate change deniers and anti-GM people are both being antiscientific in the same way… namely the single and main study used by anti-GM crop people was retracted by the journal that published: “But the methodology of the study, by Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen and colleagues, was widely criticised and, on November 28th, the journal retracted the paper (see article). There is now no serious scientific evidence that GM crops do any harm to the health of human beings.”  But Anti-GM people either don’t know this, or actively spread the misinformation, manipulating the believing masses.

Further reading! =)

New Study shows that they actaully have large, widespread benefits:

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21630961-biggest-study-so-far-finds-gm-crops-have-large-widespread-benefits-field

 

One last one about the labels…. which is like a witch hunt goose chase.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21588898-one-way-or-another-labelling-gm-food-may-be-coming-america-warning-labels-safe

 

Again… I don’t have an opinion. I just listen to the facts and data. If you have an opinion, I understand that you do.  Data could be wrong. Doubt it… and for now I will trust the science over people’s opinions.

 

Because THIS:

About Uncle Fishbits

I'm.. just this guy, you know?

No Comments

Be the first to start a conversation

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)