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. 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.
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.