# Why GMO labeling is a good idea **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2016, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508 "2016-03-10T02:34:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/101 "2016-03-12T19:53:51Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > No, I’ll just wait for your rebuttal to the _Journal of Toxicological Sciences_ article. > > The potential risks are non-zero, and vary greatly with the type of biotechnological manipulation being done. That is all. This paper does not find any special potential risk over conventional breeding, which can and has produced plants that kill people. Nor does it show any benefit to labeling. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/102 "2016-03-12T19:59:07Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I just summarized what the science says – do you disagree? I also provided a cite from a reputable source that supports exactly my position, and you just choose to ignore it. Instead, you apparently want me to “cough up” papers claiming GMO foods are dangerous as hell, when I just finished saying that they’re probably safe and no harms have yet been definitively documented. You have primarily cited public interest pieces, not science. You have not cited any science that shows an elevated risk (or even elevated _potential_ risk) from GMOs vs conventional, or a benefit from labeling them. Especially with respect to other, real hazards that do not require labeling. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Your own cite is unpersuasive. “Surveys of scientists” is the kind of gambit used by climate change deniers to show that some notable percentage of them don’t believe in AGW. In this case the “notable percentage” is 90%. Even more for biomedical scientists. There is on need to label safe food. > [@wolfpup](#): > > A review I did of such a poll once revealed that the climate “skeptics” were (a) mostly working in completely unrelated fields, (b) had vested interests of their own, like being career oil company geologists, and/or (c) were simply crackpots with PhD degrees, of which there are many. “A review [you] did of such a poll once” says fuck all about this one. If you have any substantive criticism of AAAS or Pew or their methodology, we’re all ears. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/103 "2016-03-12T21:21:50Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I’ll just wait for your rebuttal to the _Journal of Toxicological Sciences_ article. What’s to rebut? Its conclusion is that _“The level of safety of current (GM) foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods…A continuing evolution of toxicological methodologies and regulatory strategies will be necessary to ensure that this level of safety is maintained.”_ Sounds like an eminently rational appraisal to me. Who is going to argue against a continued emphasis on safety and good science in the evaluation of these foods? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/104 "2016-03-12T22:09:23Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > This paper does not find any special potential risk over conventional breeding … > [@Jackmannii](#): > > What’s to rebut? … Great. That exactly illustrates my point. The attitude that there is nothing to see here, nothing to worry about. Despite the fact that the paper makes these general points: [ul] [li]there is no guarantee that all future genetic modifications will necessarily be safe[/li][li]methods don’t even exist yet for properly evaluating substantial and complex changes in foodstuffs[/li][li]more progress is needed in identifying and categorizing protein allergens[/li][li]we need better methods of identifying unexpected changes in biotechnology derived organisms[/li][/ul] > [@Ruken](#): > > You have primarily cited public interest pieces, not science. You have not cited any science that shows an elevated risk (or even elevated _potential_ risk) from GMOs vs conventional, or a benefit from labeling them. We have a different interpretation of the above statements. Or maybe just of what constitutes risk. > [@Ruken](#): > > Especially with respect to other, real hazards that do not require labeling. It’s quite true that historically labeling requirements have been insufficiently rigorous and foods have contained unsafe ingredients, often due to industry pressure on legislators and the FDA. This does not inspire confidence. > [@Ruken](#): > > … If you have any substantive criticism of AAAS or Pew or their methodology, we’re all ears. Yes. My substantive criticism in this context is that the vast majority of AAAS members are not biotechnology specialists, and moreover, they are responding to a very generic question. And those who _ **are** _ working in biotech tend to have a vested interest in it. After all, who better to understand the potential dangers of tobacco than scientists working for tobacco companies – the ones who established for us, positively and truly, that not only was there no danger in smoking cigarettes, ads informed us that it was actually healthful! ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/105 "2016-03-12T22:20:41Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > [ul] > [li]there is no guarantee that all future genetic modifications will necessarily be safe[/li][li]methods don’t even exist yet for properly evaluating substantial and complex changes in foodstuffs[/li][li]more progress is needed in identifying and categorizing protein allergens[/li][li]we need better methods of identifying unexpected changes in biotechnology derived organisms[/li][/ul] [ul] [li]there is no guarantee that all future conventional modifications will necessarily be safe[/li][li]methods don’t even exist yet for properly evaluating substantial and complex changes in foodstuffs that can arise from conventional methods[/li][li]more progress is needed in identifying and categorizing protein allergens that are found in conventional foods[/li][li]we need better methods of identifying unexpected changes in conventional organisms[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/106 "2016-03-12T22:38:38Z")
Face it GMOs have been studied to death without any clear and convincing evidence pointing to them being unsafe. Heritage foods have on the other hand subject to almost no testing yet you’ll eat them. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/107 "2016-03-12T22:41:41Z")
The vast majority of IPCC members are not climate specialists, and moreover, they are responding to a very generic question. And those who _ **are** _ working in climatology tend to have a vested interest in it. After all, who better to understand the potential dangers of tobacco than scientists working for tobacco companies – the ones who established for us, positively and truly, that not only was there no danger in smoking cigarettes, ads informed us that it was actually healthful! It’s amazing how the \*exact \*same arguments are applied. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/108 "2016-03-12T22:50:22Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Yes. My substantive criticism in this context is that the vast majority of AAAS members are not biotechnology specialists, and moreover, they are responding to a very generic question. And those who _ **are** _ working in biotech tend to have a vested interest in it. After all, who better to understand the potential dangers of tobacco than scientists working for tobacco companies – the ones who established for us, positively and truly, that not only was there no danger in smoking cigarettes, ads informed us that it was actually healthful! Who better to understand the potential dangers of global warming than those fanatically anti-industrial environmentalist shills of Big Climate who stand to rack in millions in grant money while they build a power-hungry bureaucracy! And those pro-vaxer scientists are all in the pocket of Big Pharma! ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/109 "2016-03-12T23:00:56Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Great. That exactly illustrates my point. The attitude that there is nothing to see here, nothing to worry about. I agree with your source’s conclusions (including the need for optimal testing and careful regulation) and your take is that I’m dismissing any and all concerns about safety? If you want to be taken seriously on the subject of genetically modified foods, you need to 1) pay attention to the science, 2) stop employing the disreputable tactics of pseudoscience advocates, which include 3) consistently misrepresenting the statements of their opponents. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/110 "2016-03-13T02:33:39Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > This AGW and anti-vax analogy is getting tedious. Anti-science is tedious. > [@wolfpup](#): > > The potential risks are non-zero, and vary greatly with the type of biotechnological manipulation being done. That is all. No technology has non-zero risk. As I mentioned even vaccines have a non-zero risk. You’re trying to equate “non-zero risk” with “risk worth worrying about”. ---
**Author:** ![spamforbrains](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@spamforbrains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spamforbrains)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/111 "2016-03-13T03:00:49Z")
Simply labeling something as “GMO” is completely uninformative. It doesn’t tell you anything about what was altered. All it does is point out the technique used to alter it. Which tells the consumer nothing. Conventional breeding alters foods far more than GMO ever has and no one thinks anything of buying the completely untested, unlabeled new produce that comes out every year. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/112 "2016-03-13T03:38:28Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > The vast majority of IPCC members are not climate specialists, and moreover, they are responding to a very generic question. And those who _ **are** _ working in climatology tend to have a vested interest in it. After all, who better to understand the potential dangers of tobacco than scientists working for tobacco companies – the ones who established for us, positively and truly, that not only was there no danger in smoking cigarettes, ads informed us that it was actually healthful! > > It’s amazing how the \*exact \*same arguments are applied. Uh, you have that example backwards or incomplete, It was the tobacco scientists who later “upgraded” to support climate change denial, doubt was (and is) their product. > [@wolfpup](#): > > You’re making it sound like I want to ban GMOs. I’m advocating nothing more radical than what the EU is already doing. Well, the thing is that a EU has also banned GMOs, Still the EU has approved the use of several GMO’s > [@wolfpup](#): > > This AGW and anti-vax analogy is getting tedious. The toxicology journal article I cited says essentially the same thing about potential risks that I’m saying, only with greater scientific precision. And while I have no doubt a lot of the pro-GMO advocates are well informed and well-intentioned, there’s also no doubt that some of it is associated with a pro-industry anti-regulation lobby and is thus aligned with the climate denialists. I see nothing either wrong or inconsistent with a position that is both scientifically informed and supportive of prudent caution, including innocuous measures like labeling. Me either, but please do understand that IMHO you need to dial your opposition to GMOs a few notches back. After all there are scientists that have looked also at AGW that agree with the science and also do point that a lot of the fears regarding GMOs are not well founded. [http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/67/1/77](http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/67/1/77) > [@](#): > > What can be learnt from the climate science and global warming controversy about giving scientific advice to society? First, it reinforces the points already made about the importance of relying on the consensus view of expert scientists and the need to avoid the cherry-picking of data and argument. But it also emphasizes the need to keep the science as far as is possible from political, ideological and religious influence. I know that can be difficult because scientists are, after all, only human, but that is what good scientific analysis needs. > > A second controversial area has been the discussions around genetically modified (GM) foods; that is, the introduction of genes by genetic engineering into crop plants. The consensus view of the majority of expert plant and other scientists is that in principle this is a safe approach and can lead to considerable benefits, not only commercial ones such as reducing food spoilage during transport but also in helping to tackle global problems such as world hunger by increasing crop yields and the use of marginal habitats for crop growing. These scientists would also usually argue that precautionary checks need to be in place, but in general these should be similar to those used for conventionally produced crop plants, case by case for specific plants, to determine safety and effectiveness. This consensus scientific view has been accepted by the public in some countries but in others it has not. Again, why is this the case? > > In my view the key features of this controversy that need to be considered are people’s sensitivities about what they eat, concerns about scientists playing at God, and worries about the influence of overbearing commercial interests. These have converged to generate deep suspicion among some of the public about GM foods. > > Human beings have a tendency to be conservative, even fearful, about what their food contains. One anxiety that I noticed was frequently expressed during public consultation exercises over GM crops was a concern at ‘eating food containing genes’. This was an issue that a scientist was unlikely to have considered but was a perfectly reasonable one for a member of the public to express. This concern was exacerbated by newspaper headlines calling GM crops ‘Frankenstein foods’, conjuring up images of white-coated scientists playing God and tampering with the purity of food. Another feature is that those who object to GM often have political or ideological opinions that dislike the power yielded by powerful commercial corporations behind the manufacture of certain GM crops. One has to notice also that people that ask about what actually most scientists think about an issue have noticed that scientific groups and organizations have as much support for GMOs as with the science of climate change. > **[Scientific consensus on GMO safety and climate change](https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety-climate-change/)** > > Statements from seven prestigious scientific organizations across the world support the scientific consensus on GMO safety and on climate change. > [@](#): > > The consensus for anthropogenic climate change AND the safety of GMOs can best be defined as “overwhelming.” I find it ironic that many who think (without evidence) that GMOs are dangerous also think that climate change is real. And to be fair, there are others who do the opposite. There are groups on Facebook who ridicule every anti-GMO claim, yet, in the very next sentence deny the fact of climate change. > > Some of the deniers do so out of political expediency. There is a general belief, though not supported by data, that the left wing accepts climate change but denies the safety of GMOs. And generally, there is a feeling that the right wing accepts GMO safety but denies climate change. > > The fact is the scientific evidence, produced in massive quantities, support the positions that humans have caused climate change and that GMOs are safe to humans and to the environment. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/113 "2016-03-13T03:50:12Z")
> [@spamforbrains](#): > > Simply labeling something as “GMO” is completely uninformative. It doesn’t tell you anything about what was altered. All it does is point out the technique used to alter it. Which tells the consumer nothing. Conventional breeding alters foods far more than GMO ever has and no one thinks anything of buying the completely untested, unlabeled new produce that comes out every year. I do think that **if** we are compelled by popular new laws to label food that the labels should be made in such a way that they must also point out how much the food products have been altered by conventional breeding plus a factor about how much and how has been tested already, The point IMHO should then be to show to all how silly the fears really are. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/114 "2016-03-13T15:34:20Z")
> [@Skeptical Raptor](#): > > The consensus for anthropogenic climate change AND the safety of GMOs can best be defined as “overwhelming.” Now we’ll probably be treated to a list of scientists who are opposed to GM foods. As with the lists of scientists who doubt climate change, doctors who oppose vaccination, anti-water fluoridation activists and so on, a common thread will be that 1) these people represent a tiny minority, and 2) they overwhelmingly lack specific training and expertise in the fields in which they claim knowledge - the climate change deniers are not climatologists, the antivaxers are not infectious disease experts/immunologists etc. etc. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2016, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/115 "2016-03-14T02:33:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Me either, but please do understand that IMHO you need to dial your opposition to GMOs a few notches back. After all there are scientists that have looked also at AGW that agree with the science and also do point that a lot of the fears regarding GMOs are not well founded. OK. I came into this saying I had no technical knowledge of the subject and that it’s my understanding that GMO foods are, at least today, quite likely safe. My position was, and still is, one of prudent caution – especially with respect to future developments – but I’m persuaded by some of the arguments here to dial the concerns back a notch. But I do want to stress what I regard as a very important principle to keep in mind on this subject. It remains a crucially important and indisputable fact that in America, corporations have an extraordinary influence on government policy and a dangerous ability to mold such policy in their interests to an extent not found in any other modern country. Thus one must be extremely cautious about claims that support corporate interests because those will invariably be well funded and will, if necessary, be promulgated by the same kinds of Congressional lobbying and PR campaigns that once were typical of the tobacco industry and today remain hallmarks of industries like fossil fuels, health insurance, and, yes, the chemical and food industries. There may be a lot of good science supporting the safety of GMO foods, but from a corporate interest perspective, pro-GMO advocacy and climate change denial are soulmates that sleep in the same bed. So it’s no surprise that, compared to the EU, the US has weaker environmental regulations and at least in some respects weaker food regulation and labeling requirements. One may try to scoff at the “stupidity” of EU laws but Americans don’t need to go far from home to find stupid laws, where once it was illegal to buy a bottle of wine, a prohibition enshrined not just in law but in the national Constitution; where something called the “Clean Air Act” was a license for power plants to pollute; where a dozen food additives with known health impacts that are banned in most other countries can turn up in commonly available foods; where even today cigarette package warning labels are weaker than in other countries; where even today marijuana is listed as a federal Schedule I narcotic. The fact is simply that US law is strongly influenced by special interests to an extraordinary extent, and differences between US and EU laws are frequently due to that simple fact. I don’t know who’s right in the battle between _Consumer Reports_ and the Genetic Literacy Project on the GMO labeling issue, or if it’s even reasonably possible to determine a right or wrong on the question. I do know that _Consumer Reports_ makes it a foundational principle to be free of commercial influence and the GLP does not. It looks like an odd mix of credible academics and associations with commercial interests, the most notorious of which is Jon Entine’s relationship with the American Enterprise institute. The speaks to my comment above about GMO advocacy and climate change denial being soulmates because they stem from the same mercenary motivations. As a strong advocate of climate change mitigation, I’m familiar with the Heartland Institute as one of the most strident and mendacious of the “think tanks” that trumpet anti-science bullshit denying and downplaying climate change on behalf of the special interests that fund them (including Exxon Mobil). I was curious to see if this nefarious bunch of liars had staked out a position on GMO labeling. [And it was no surprise at all to find out that they have.](https://www.heartland.org/press-releases/2016/03/11/heartland-institute-experts-react-gmo-measures-vermont-us-senate) This appears to be almost a big a hot button issue with them as climate change denial. Apparently mandatory GMO labeling is a nefarious scare tactic “cleverly financed by the organic food industry” that threatens to undermine civilization itself! The associations between GMO advocacy and the mercenary interests promoted by the right are really quite remarkable. > [@Blake](#): > > The vast majority of IPCC members are not climate specialists, and moreover, they are responding to a very generic question. And those who _ **are** _ working in climatology tend to have a vested interest in it. After all, who better to understand the potential dangers of tobacco than scientists working for tobacco companies – the ones who established for us, positively and truly, that not only was there no danger in smoking cigarettes, ads informed us that it was actually healthful! > > It’s amazing how the \*exact \*same arguments are applied. It’s amazing how this is exactly backwards. Your attempt to transpose my words into a climate argument is a complete fail because every one of those statements then becomes wrong. Reviewing them in order: _The vast majority of IPCC members are not climate specialists_ No, every one of the IPCC authors is either a climate scientist or an expert in a related field whose contribution is directly in his field of expertise. In the Working Group I assessments on the physical science of climate change, the vast majority of authors are climate scientists, and indeed they tend to be climate scientists of exceptional academic calibre from a diversity of nations. Other working groups deal with issues like the economics of mitigation policies and so bring in other relevant experts like economists. _they are responding to a very generic question_ No, they are responding to very specific questions and deal with very specific issues at substantial technical depth, and statements about uncertainties are precisely and consistently calibrated. \*And those who _ **are** _ working in climatology tend to have a vested interest in it. \* Not in any sense that systematically biases their conclusions. A vested interest in _ **what** _? Scientists working for a commercial enterprise will naturally have a bias in favor of their employer and its products. Climate scientists typically work for governments or for universities on projects supported by government grants, where they are typically tenured faculty enjoying both job security and complete academic freedom. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2016, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/116 "2016-03-14T12:19:35Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > There may be a lot of good science supporting the safety of GMO foods, but from a corporate interest perspective, pro-GMO advocacy and climate change denial are soulmates that sleep in the same bed. You know, repeating this nonsense doesn’t make it any more credible. You’ve had multiple posters here remind you of the strong scientific consensus supporting GMO safety (including independent organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the European scientific groups who have criticized Seralini’s bad research), which is comparable to the strong scientific consensus supporting climate change. It’s been pointed out to you that there are over 2000 published studies validating GM food safety, many of them authored by independent scientists. You seem unaware there is a strong corporate incentive to scare consumers away from GM foods and in favor of non-GMO/organic products (Whole Foods alone nearly matches Monsanto in annual sales). > [@](#): > > I don’t know who’s right in the battle between _Consumer Reports_ and the Genetic Literacy Project on the GMO labeling issue Fallacy of false equivalence. “One side says one thing, one side says another, who’s to say?” You could, um, look at the science instead of just casting aspersions on Jon Entine. The whole Corporate Shill argument has been done to death by pseudoscience advocates, whether it’s vaccines “Big Pharma Bad!”, water fluoridation, or aspartame under fire (the latter is supposed to be part of a giant corporate plot to sicken us, because, ya know, Donald Rumsfeld). ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2016, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/117 "2016-03-14T17:47:19Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > It remains a crucially important and indisputable fact that in America, corporations have an extraordinary influence on government policy and a dangerous ability to mold such policy in their interests to an extent not found in any other modern country. Thus one must be extremely cautious about claims that support corporate interests because those will invariably be well funded… You raise a good point, that it’s always a good idea to look at who has financial interest in an issue and use extra scrutiny if you find yourself siding with some well-funded group. I think what you’re missing here is that many of us here have done that, and found that in this case, the science is on the side of those corporations. I haven’t seen anything that makes me think that GMO technology is inherently any more dangerous than traditional techniques; in fact, the opposite seems to be true. The one article you cited to support the idea that it could be dangerous is just asking for better tools to evaluate new varieties, and isn’t saying anything that doesn’t apply equally to other ways of coming up with new crops. Another big factor you seem to be missing is that people on the anti-GMO side could have their own motivations, and it’s been clearly pointed out, here in this thread, the deception and just bad science they’re using to support their ideas. Their motivation isn’t corporate profit, but is their own ideology of anti-technology. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2016, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/118 "2016-03-14T18:24:50Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I don’t know who’s right in the battle between _Consumer Reports_ and the Genetic Literacy Project on the GMO labeling issue, or if it’s even reasonably possible to determine a right or wrong on the question. I do know that _Consumer Reports_ makes it a foundational principle to be free of commercial influence and the GLP does not. It looks like an odd mix of credible academics and associations with commercial interests, the most notorious of which is Jon Entine’s relationship with the American Enterprise institute. The speaks to my comment above about GMO advocacy and climate change denial being soulmates because they stem from the same mercenary motivations. This is a teachable moment then, in my experience of looking for good sources one tool I use is to see if an organization or trade publication has had cases that point to crank magnetism in the past. And Consumer Reports pinged my radar before when in the past I participated in discussions about alternative medicine (short story: it is almost all bunk). How the mighty have fallen! > **[Consumer Reports and Alternative Therapies](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/consumer-reports-and-alternative-therapies/)** > > Consumer Reports (CR) and its Health Newsletter provide sound advice about nutrition and medicine, with one exception: their recommendations concerning alternative therapies, especially dietary supple > [@](#): > > The selection of alternative medicine advocates as consultants, rather than independent scientists and physicians, is a decision made by the editorial boards of CR and CR Reports on Health. That is a departure from CRs’ policy of avoiding bias and conflicts of interest, and from its mission to “empower consumers to protect themselves”. Empowering consumers to make informed decicisions about health care requires providing them with the soundest information available. The need for better consumer education was noted in a recent report from the United States Government Accountability Office that documented the prevalence of deceptive marketing practices and illegal health claims made for dietary supplements (14). As a respected source of information for consumers, CR should use the same high standard of evidence for evaluating alternative therapies that it employs for other medical treatments. I should not be too surprised, while they have done a great job in the past I think Consumer Reports has fallen into decay, in part too for the general fall of the trade press and magazines. Their runs into alternative medicine pointed to editors falling for unfounded populism and woo. After some past suspicious moves from a source I then check how people that are even more independent look at a controversial issue, like skeptical groups or organizations. People who are aware of the biases that ask people that are experts in the field and often look for opinions of experts that are not involved with the corporations. Support for the positions of Consumer Reports about GMOs was lacking. > **[No Health Risks from GMOs | Skeptical Inquirer](https://skepticalinquirer.org/2014/07/no-health-risks-from-gmos/)** > > Like many public controversies, the debate can be better informed by scientific evidence; however, there is no legitimate scientific controversy over the sa ... [http://skepdic.com/gmo.html](http://skepdic.com/gmo.html) [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Seeds\_of\_Death](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Seeds_of_Death) (this last one is a long point by point debunking of an anti GMO video. But do not feel bad for being taken, even the guys at SciShow were misled by now discredited research made by anti-gmo researchers like Gilles-Éric Séralini, they corrected that mistake. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/sH4bi60alZU/maxresdefault.jpg "Are GMOs Actually Bad For You?") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH4bi60alZU) Of course even before that realization I had noted how misleading were a lot of the points made by Consumer Reports. It then leads me and many other skeptics to accept criticism from groups that AFAIK have contributors that are not involved with corporations but are mostly in academia. They are not amused with what Consumer Reports is doing. > **[5 reasons how Consumer Reports rejects science on GMOs](https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/03/10/5-reasons-how-consumer-reports-rejects-science-on-gmos/)** > > Consumer Reports is escalating its opposition to GMO foods. Now, even responses to subscriber/customer inquiries are met with the a litany of scare claims hinting at possible health problems with GMOs. > [@](#): > > \*\*Consumers Union has also posted a video on YouTube promoting the discredited research by French Science Gilles-Éric Séralini, who had published a study that purported to show rats who got cancer for consuming GMOs. The study was eviscerated by mainstream scientists, reviewed and rejected by independent food safety authorities around the world, and subsequently retracted–yet it remains one of the talking points for Consumer Reports. \*\* > [@](#): > > 1. “The contention that GMOs pose no risks to human health can’t be supported by studies that have measured a time frame that is too short to determine the effects of exposure over a lifetime,” said PSR’s Gould. > > This claim appears to have more in common with “moving the goalposts back” than with presenting any scientific evidence. “After hundreds of studies, including multigenerational studies, the proper studies have failed to show any risk,” said retired food chemist Bruce Chassy. > > However, in an interview with the Huffington Post, Consumer’s Union Michael Hansen insisted that the Seralini study still had merit, because it continued a Monsanto study for another two years to find those tumors (the actual results, as we know, did not actually show evidence of anything that was significant, except that some rats may have emerged healthier). > > Meanwhile, GMOs have been consumed, tested and subjected to regulatory review for about 30 years now, without evidence so far of harm to consumers. > [@](#): > > Where is the independence? > > Consumer Reports’ stance, responses to consumers and public statements appear strongly at odds with scientific consensus about genetically modified foods. While there may be ethical or ideological issues revolving around genetic modifications, none of these concerns arise from Consumer Reports’ blog posts, letters or testimony. In fact, the organization’s stance has been taken without even explaining why its “experts” think GMOs are harmful. For example, in a recent review of soy milks, Consumer Reports simply lists genetically modified soy as a “con,” with no rationale. Which makes one wonder about Consumer Reports’ request for a donation to support its “plan to invest $27 million in our product testing program” would actual help achieve. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2016, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/119 "2016-03-14T20:15:47Z")
I don’t recall having a beef with how Consumer Reports has reported alt med-related issues. They have had some good articles on “dietary supplement” pros and cons, with attention to lack of regulation. > [@Genetic Literacy Project](#): > > In fact, (CR’s) stance has been taken without even explaining why its “experts” think GMOs are harmful. This is what gets me. Repeatedly in recent years, CR has alluded to unnamed animal studies in suggesting consumers should avoid GM foods. When you look into the matter further, you find out they’ve gotten behind Seralini and his widely discredited rat research. I would not automatically dismiss CR’s future pronouncements on this issue, any more than I’d toss out similar claims made by far less reputable sources (NaturalNews, Mercola and so on). They’ve amply earned our skepticism, but “oh, you can’t trust _them_” is a tactic I’d prefer to leave to the woo crowd.\* \*One organization that commonly gets dissed in this manner is Quackwatch, whose founder is the target of a great deal of vitriol for supposedly being a Pharma tool or just being “biased”. What I virtually never see is a critic taking the trouble to analyze a single Quackwatch article to explain why he/she thinks it’s wrong. With the Genetic Literacy Project, I’d welcome critiques based on why opponents think any of their articles (or those referenced by GLP with links to the primary source) are wrong or unfair - rather than vague unsupported allusions to corporate ties. ---
**Author:** ![dzeiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/46a35a/32.png) [@dzeiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dzeiger)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2016, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508/120 "2016-03-14T20:57:01Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Another big factor you seem to be missing is that people on the anti-GMO side could have their own motivations, and it’s been clearly pointed out, here in this thread, the deception and just bad science they’re using to support their ideas. Their motivation isn’t corporate profit, but is their own ideology of anti-technology. Why do we think the anti-GMO people are automatically anti-corporate-profit? I’m pretty sure “Organic” “Natural” “no-GMO” stuff is itself a multi-billion dollar industry. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-gmo-labeling-is-a-good-idea/748508.md?page=7)