It seems like the outcry against a potential trial of genetically modified mosquitoes in the Florida Keys has become a national news topic nearly overnight. Though Oxitec has been considering the plan for years, a recent town hall received attention from the Associated Press, and BOOM — suddenly, it seems like everyone is talking about GM mozzies. As I explained in my last post, the bulk of the conversation is centered around fear of GM technology, though the fears of “mutant DNA” causing human health problems are completely baseless. But the science doesn’t seem to matter: people just don’t trust GMOs, no matter what anyone says about them.
Yesterday, the Pew Research Center released their annual Science and Society report (PDF), where they asked over 2,000 members of the general public and over 3,700 scientist members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for their opinions on a diversity of scientific issues. You might have thought that with how contentious debates about evolution or climate change can be, that scientists and the public would differ greatest on those issues. But the largest point gap by a good margin was whether GM foods are safe to eat: a whopping 88% of scientists unequivocally answered yes, while only 37% of the public agreed. And it’s no wonder: the same survey found that only 28% of adults think that scientists have a clear understanding of the health effects of genetically modified crops. The public simply doesn’t think that scientists have all the facts. In turn, the scientists feel that the public simply doesn’t understand: 84% say that limited public knowledge is a major problem for science in general.
In a way, the scientists are both right and wrong. The scientists are right when they say a lack of knowledge of science literacy is to blame. Part of the fear of genetic modification is rooted in the fact that the technology is complicated and hard to understand. We’re all afraid of things that we don’t know: when we were kids, most of us were afraid the dark. Fear of darkness is a completely normal fear because guess what? The unknown is scary. The gentle illumination provided by a night-light gives us control, allows us to see that there is nothing to fear in the void, and over time, we learn not to be afraid. But understanding the inner workings of genetic modification isn’t as simple as flipping a switch. Even scientists in other fields don’t always completely understand how genetic technologies work, just like I, as a biologist, am still somewhat baffled by quantum mechanics.
But what do the scientists do in response to such fears? They say “trust us.”
They say it over, and over, and over again. Hell, I’ve said it. I’ve stated how The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the US National Academy of Sciences, and every major scientific body in the world agree on the safety of GM crops. I’ve brought up that The Royal Society of Medicine stated unequivocally that there are no ill effects; that a combined statement from 14 Italian scientific societies and a joint document prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences concur as well. I’ve gone on and on about how there are more than 600 studies (>125 of which were independently funded) that show the extensive safety record of GM crops. Indeed, I’ve yelled it from the rooftops: there is a scientific consensus that GM foods are safe.
But it’s not just a matter of knowing, as many scientists would like to believe. They’re wrong to think that the facts alone will sway. If simple data were enough to change minds, there would be no climate skeptics, no antivaxxers, and no one fundamentally opposed to genetic modification. The public’s belief that scientists don’t know the consequences of genetic modification reveals what really underlies the overwhelming distrust of GMOs. It isn’t a lack of information: it’s a misunderstanding of risk.
Though we like to think highly of our rational minds, human beings are actually terrible at assessing risk. Think about it: we’re far more scared of sharks than cars, though the former kills a minute percentage of the people that the latter does every year. In terms of potential harms, the people of Florida have more to fear from mosquito-vectored tropical diseases than they do from GM mosquitoes. Instead, many are far more afraid of scientifically impossible side effects of genetic modification than the very real danger of dengue and chikungunya outbreaks. It’s not rational.
But human beings don’t determine risk rationally — we do it emotionally.
Emotionally speaking, we care more about loss than gain. A lot more. If we make a pro-con list of whether to do something or not, for example, rational thought would suggest that as soon as the pros outweigh the cons, we should go for it. But empirical estimates suggest that losses are weighted about twice as strongly as gains, which means that the benefits of technologies like genetic modification are often overlooked and devalued when compared to the potential downsides. This phenomenon, called loss aversion, also means that even the perception of a potential loss, no matter how factually unfounded, has strong emotional pull. Thus, the way humans assess risk, saying GM crops will improve yields doesn’t feel like a strong reason to support them, but even the slightest chance they could cause disease is more than enough reason to fear them.
We also have a hard time with things that are different, foreign, and ‘un-natural’. It’s termed an “appeal to nature“, and it’s one of the core rhetorical arguments against genetic modification. I’ve never seen a very convincing explanation for why we are so averse to our own creations, why as a species, we seem to instinctually trust that which is natural versus that which is man-made. We automatically equate “natural” with “good” and “safe”, though there is no logical reason to do so. Our homes, clothes, even shoes are unnatural, yet we do not seem to mind. Meanwhile the most deadly substances known to man (tetrodotoxin, botulinum toxin) are made by other species, yet we tend to think of ‘organic’ and ‘all-natural’ to mean healthy and harmless. And when it comes to technological advances, our appeal to nature factors into how we assess risk: we tend to assign greater risk to our synthetic achievements than they actually deserve.
That we appeal to nature seems particularly bizarre given that we also tend to prefer that which we can control and fear that which we cannot. We are scared of GMOs, in part, because we cannot see them. GM crops and animals look exactly like their counterparts, and the idea that we cannot tell the difference to make our own choices is terrifying. It should be a comfort that there are no differences — it’s a testament to the success of the technology — but it means that we must loosen our grip. Actually, one of the best arguments I’ve ever seen for labeling GMOs is that it will reduce this facet of people’s fears; that giving back that littlest bit of control may be enough to change the way we evaluate the risk of genetic technologies. Some think that if labels were mandatory, consumers would soon forget they were there, like most do with nutrition labels on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps ironically, it’s the potentially-irrational fears of companies that they’ll lose business (which as I mentioned, is a very emotionally charged fear) that have led to such heated legal battles over labeling.
The fear caused by lack of control goes beyond labels, too: indeed, the general public has no control over basically any aspect of GMOs. They do not control the companies that produce them. They don’t control which types of GMOs are made, or where they are tested. Everything is in the hands of companies and governments, both of whom are thought to be easily corrupted by money. There is limited trust of both the producers of GMOs and those that oversee them, and that lack of trust breeds fear.
Trust is vital when it comes to assessing risk. The truth is, while we think we make our own decisions, by and large, we base our beliefs on those we know and trust. Human beings are prone to in-group bias, where we tend to view those we consider like us more favorably (a natural us-versus-them attitude), and we often adapt our morals and beliefs to those around us, our ‘tribe’. We not only absorb beliefs from those around us, we ingrain our beliefs into our very self-images. We adjectivize. We don’t hold beliefs, we are our beliefs. We don’t approve or disapprove of abortion — we are Pro-Choice or Pro-Life. Evolutionarily speaking, our tribal nature makes sense. We depend on others from birth for survival; thus there’s a reason going against the grain is often called “social suicide”. To disagree with those close to you is to risk banishment or abandonment. Which is why when someone you trust — your mother, your best friend, or even a celebrity you relate to — suggests that Oxitec’s mosquitoes could inject GM DNA into you, you’re more likely to ignore the facts and empathetically feel their fear.
And once we’ve made up our minds, we stop evaluating the arguments against our opinions. We stop lining up the facts for each side, and fall victim to what is called “confirmation bias“: the tendency to view information that agrees with our preconceptions regardless of whether it’s true. We do it in little ways, like believing a smile means your crush is into you, or googling to show that headaches and nausea really could mean you have cancer before going to the doctor to find out what’s wrong. Then there are those who use a snowstorm as proof against global climate change. To this day, there are those that staunchly defend the infamous Seralini rat study, even though countless scientists have shown how deeply flawed it is (the study was retracted by the original journal, and then republished by another without peer-review — a huge no-no in science circles).
Combine a lack of knowledge, loss aversion, appeals to nature, desire for control, tribalism, and confirmation bias, and it suddenly is quite obvious why so many are scared of GMOs. It also explains why scientists aren’t: many not only understand the genetics involved, they work with GMOs. Modified bacteria are used to teach lab courses, and altered mice, bacteria, and other model organisms are used to study disease. They’re familiar, not foreign, thus there’s no fear of the unknown and less of a feeling of lost control. But perhaps most importantly, the culture of academia is one which is supposed to stand in support of technology, to be innovative and forward-thinking. Appeals to nature don’t as easily sway, as scientists are taught to trust the facts, divorce emotions from our decisions, and be ‘unbiased’. And, of course, we are not immune to tribal associations, but in our case, our colleagues and leaders are the ones designing GMOs or analyzing the data to evaluate them, not warning against them.
What’s less clear is how to close the gap — how to get scientists and the general public on the same page when it comes to genetic modification or any technology for which denialism runs deep. There’s clearly a disconnect, and it will take more than simply stating the facts to bridge the divide. What we have learned from social science is that our fears are complex and driven by a myriad of factors. Perhaps if we can acknowledge within ourselves just how far our emotions have pulled us from rationality, we will finally be able to have a real and meaningful conversation about GMOs.
Tomorrow, I’ll be on CBS This Morning explaining exactly why “Frankenmosquitoes” are not going to mutate human DNA, lead to catastrophic environmental impacts, or otherwise cause any harm whatsoever, and instead, have the potential to prevent major disease epidemics. Those are the facts. And while I know that they aren’t enough, I hope that they’re a start.
Quote from the article: “We are scared of GMOs, in part, because we cannot see them. GM crops and
animals look exactly like their counterparts, and the idea that we
cannot tell the difference to make our own choices is terrifying.”
This fear of GMOs is of course heightened by the dishonest behavior of the GMO promoters who spend millions of dollars to prevent simple labeling and lie through their teeth in trying to prevent people from knowing what is in the products they buy. This is not the way to build trust.
Similarly, to dismiss the Seralini rat study with a smug assertion that it was retracted and that many scientists have called it flawed only shows how biased those “scientists” are when you examine how this study was retracted, against all the procedures that normally have to justify a retraction, and without mentioning that this retraction followed the hiring by the publisher of a Monsanto “scientist” with a vested interest in discrediting it.
The photos of the ugly tumors in Seralini’s rats are facts. To try and sweep them under the rug is dishonest. A proper approach would be to launch larger studies of the same kind to see whether or not there is such a danger, but the industry forbids to use its products for independent investigations and threatens to sue anybody who does. This raises of course the question what that secretive industry is so scared of us knowing about.
As long as those real facts are glossed over and dismissed there can be no trust in anything the “scientists” associated with this disinformation campaign are trying to make us swallow.
How easy it is to make a few edits of your second paragraph:
This fear of GMOs is of course heightened by the dishonest behavior of
the anti-GMO campaigners who spend millions of dollars to instill irrational fears and lie through their teeth in trying to convince people that their food is unsafe. This is not the way to build
trust.
When is the last time you saw an image of a tomato, and ear or corn, or an apple with a syringe inserted to represent GM technology? It just is not done that way. Is that honest?
Who stands to make millions if mandatory labeling is implemented? Some of the same folks pushing so hard for GMO labeling. Is that honest?
“The photos of the ugly tumors in Seralini’s rats are facts. To try and
sweep them under the rug is dishonest. A proper approach would be to
launch larger studies of the same kind to see whether or not there is
such a danger, but the industry forbids to use its products for
independent investigations and threatens to sue anybody who does.”
Anyone who has owned rats knows that they get tumors if they live long enough. The images of the tumorous rats that Seralini showed prove nothing, and were only used to instill fear. If he were honest, he would have shown photos of the control rats, which also developed tumors. That would not have had the dramatic effect he was going for, though, would it?
His study, despite contradicting what numerous other studies have shown IS being repeated, with larger studies. There are at least two that I know of. His research has been examined by Europe’s leading scientific agency and found to be inconclusive. In the meantime, there is no legitimate evidence of any harm to humans or livestock from GM crops.
Thank you, Dr. Wilcox! That was indeed a thorough and complete answer to the question of “What’s in it for anti-GMO/vaxxers psychologically?”
As soon as Monsanto is mentioned in a GMO conversation, any chance of reasonable discussion is diminished.
Excellent article. I especially appreciated this paragraph:
“The fear caused by lack of control goes beyond labels, too: indeed, the general public has no control over basically any aspect of GMOs. They do not control the companies that produce them. They don’t control which types of GMOs are made, or where they are tested. Everything is in the hands of companies and governments, both of whom are thought to be easily corrupted by money. There is limited trust of both the producers of GMOs and those that oversee them, and that lack of trust breeds fear.”
Here in Florida, I can’t imagine there will be much pro-mosquito support, but I wouldn’t have expected the antivax movement to have been so successful either.
Great explanations of confirmation bias and the reasons that many people are apprehensive of gmo technology. However, the article is based on the presumption that the only reason people are cautious about gmos is because of safety for human consumption. This is not my primary concern, yet it is presented as the ONLY concern. My concerns have to do more with unintended consequences such as the corn plants that lost their ability to produce a pheromone that protects the roots from pests (causing the need for more pesticides to be used), as well as pesticide resistance that has developed, resulting in the need for more gmos that resist different pesticides. I thought the point of gmos was to reduce herbicide and pesticide use, but I have read that it has actually INCREASED the use of those products. If those products were, indeed, 100% safe, we would not need to reduce the amount we use, correct? Maybe you can address these in your next post. All of the information I can find seems to confirm one bias or the other, without really addressing the issues in a way that appeals to my skepticism. I require more complete information before I can make an informed opinion of gmo crops. I admit that much of my apprehension regarding gmos has to do with the fact that those who produce them are so determined to keep labels off them. However, I don’t think labeling will do anything to keep the genome from being contaminated in plants that reproduce via pollination, so I think labeling is really largely irrelevant, honestly. I am still not sure how I feel about the mosquito thing, I need to educate myself more on that issue. I’m also concerned about the legal ramifications of large corporations suing farmers whose crops were contaminated with genetic material from gmo crops without the farmer’s knowledge or intention, but that is not something I expect a scientific publication to address. Thank you in advance for your consideration of my concerns.
Good points. GM proponents seem not to know about confounding variables. I see the GM movement as just the age old battle between humans and our competitors taken over by humans. As complicated as genomes are, we think we can outdo evolution. Yep, we do modify the genes of critters, and have for a long time. I don’t know why I am more comfortable with that method than the modern methods of the GMers, but I am. How do we know what modifications will happen to the new manipulations performed by good old evolution? A hand gun lying next to a pile of bullets is inert until some agent manipulates the combination in a sequence of specific actions. Then it can be quite deadly. Genetic modification could be a hand gun waiting for the wrong (or right?) ammunition.
Well, for one thing, selectively bred species are not the same as transgenic species. Inserting genes from one species to another may not have any unintended consequences, or it may have dire consequences, and we won’t know until it’s been done. We are playing god. But we love to do that, don’t we? Sometimes there are good outcomes, such as with medical treatments that save lots of lives. I understand that some who create gmos are doing it with their hearts in the right places-trying to create crops that will survive the ecological destruction our selfishness is about to unleash on us. I think most are just trying to make a buck. There are a whole slew of ethical/legal issues involved that I barely touched on as well, but those are better saved for a different forum. You raised the question of further evolution of species we have modified-that is another thing I’m concerned about, thanks for bringing it up.
I recently watched several documentaries about the ways that plants communicate. This made me even more afraid that we have opened pandora’s box, rung the bell and let the genie out of the bottle. We don’t know the long term effects, and our species is not the only one that we are accountable to.
Scientists can also fall prey to their own confirmation bias. I just want people to think about these things rationally. I want to know the true ramifications of this. I dislike the fear-mongering panic that I see from too many anti-gmo sources. I’ve found lots of erroneous information in those, and it makes those of us who are skeptical look like morons. That movie, Genetic Roulette, really disappointed me. Jeffrey Smith actually said something about pregnant chickens in it. Chickens are oviparous, something anyone making a documentary about biology should know. Something everyone should know. Facepalm. Sigh.
“I’m also concerned about the legal ramifications of large corporations suing farmers whose crops were contaminated with genetic material from gmo crops without the farmer’s knowledge or intention”
That has never happened. Not even once.
“I admit that much of my apprehension regarding gmos has to do with the fact that those who produce them are so determined to keep labels off them.”
Why should they be labels on them. We don’t label plant propagation processes. We don’t label crops that were derived through radiation or chemical mutagenesis. People are not calling for these methods to be labeled. They are calling for one, and only one method to be labeled to invoke fear among an ignorant public. Labeling GMOs should be opposed. It is not based on science, evidence or health reasons, and it is completely inconsistent.
“I thought the point of gmos was to reduce herbicide and pesticide use, but I have read that it has actually INCREASED the use of those products.”
They have dramatically reduced insecticide use, and slightly reduced herbicide use. While roundup use is up dramatically, it has replaced older herbicides that were far more toxic.
“My concerns have to do more with unintended consequences such as the corn plants that lost their ability to produce a pheromone that protects the roots from pests (causing the need for more pesticides to be used), as well as pesticide resistance that has developed,”
There is resistance developing. That happens no matter what type of farming occurs. Before GE corn, rootworm devastated crops. With GE corn that devastation was reduced to basically nothing. Now there are some pockets where resistance is occurring. This is not surprising. There are ways that resistance could have been delayed. One way is larger refuges, another way would have been for sensible regulations – instead of over-regulation – which would have allowed far more varieties of GE crops onto the market, and then farmers – who see the massive benefits of GE – could have planted a larger variety of crops instead of just a couple crops becoming dominant. (The bit about pheromone is simply nonsense).
thanks for taking the time to address a few of my concerns. You have given me a few things to consider and raised more questions in my mind.
As far as labeling is concerned, I don’t believe that it will do what consumers hope it will, and as such, is essentially irrelevant. However, the attitude that people shouldn’t be allowed to make that choice for themselves, whatever their reason, adds to the resistance to the technology itself. When people are basically told they’re too stupid to choose for themselves, well, it does cause the typical person to be suspicious. If you act as if you have something to hide, most people will think that you actually, indeed, do have something to hide. If you already are looking for confirmation of the bias against gmos, that’s a big red flag, isn’t it?
Other manipulations of the food supply are not relevant to this particular conversation, however, they are things I will be looking at more closely now.
I’ll be clear here that I’m not opposed to use of genetic modification technology on the whole. I think it could be used for some very good things. I also think it could be used very carelessly and also very unethically in pursuit of the dollar. Again, those are legal/ethical issues that really don’t belong on this forum.
As far as the corn pheromone comment goes, dismissing something as nonsense without really addressing it is not helpful. I got that information from either The Mind of Plants or What Plants Talk About, but I don’t have the time right now to search for the particular clip for you. I’m sure you can find it if you’re really that interested, but I promise you that I did not make it up and didn’t get it from the institute for responsible technology or natural news. I felt that the source was more reliable than that. If you’re so inclined, please feel free to get back to me after you’ve examined them and let me know how inaccurate those documentaries are. I often challenge my own confirmation bias in order to not walk around believing everything that sounds plausible. If they did get a bunch of actors to pretend to be scientists and make up a bunch of nonsense, I’d definitely like to know.
Finally, when you say “no matter what type of farming occurs” in your last paragraph, I presume you mean monoculture. I’m not sure you can make that presumption about other types of agricultural models. Possibly, but if someone is not using pesticides I don’t see how the pests could develop a resistance.
Cheers, and thanks again for your thoughtful reply.
Thanks for your reply.
First let me say, when it comes to labeling I agree that opposition to labeling helps breed distrust. However, I feel that the solution is to give people real, unbiased information, and the people I have talked to who are spearheading labeling initiatives don’t seem to have any desire to actually give people real, unbiased information, but instead seem to only be interested in trying to scare people away from one type of agricultural towards their desired type of agriculture.
I would support labeling of all plant propagation techniques, and all pesticide use. When I ask ordinary people why they would like GMO labeling one of the most common reasons is that they are afraid of plants which are herbicide resistant. But not all GMOs are herbicide resistant, and several non-GMOs are herbicide resistant (for instance the clear-field line). In that case, GMO labeling does not provide them the information that they want, but instead misinforms them. The same goes for most of the other reasons they give.
“As far as the corn pheromone comment goes, dismissing something as nonsense without really addressing it is not helpful.”
You are right, I was not helpful. E-beta-caryophyllene is a chemical defense mechanism released when maize in under attack (eg by corn rootworm). It attracts beneficial nematodes that eat the rootworms. However, the loss of it occurred a long time ago with high-yield varieties of corn and the only connection that it has to GE is that scientists are attempting to use GE to re-engineer it back into maize. I assume that they are using GE instead of other breeding techniques because the gene(s) for E-beta-caryophyllene is closely linked to an undesirable trait (both are near each other on the same chromosome). I don’t know if that is the case, but it stands to reason if the trait was lost when developing high-yielding varieties then that is likely the case. I apologize that I sometimes get a little frustrated when I feel that people are blaming every problem in agriculture on GE/GMO.
“Possibly, but if someone is not using pesticides I don’t see how the pests could develop a resistance.”
In the case of insecticides, all plants produce their own. If we don’t apply pesticides, we will select the plants that seem to be the most resistant to insect predation. In doing so, we will be selecting the plants with most potent natural insecticides and breeding them together. This sets off an arms race that is very similar to the arms race with applied insecticide. One major difference is that we know the toxicity of applied insecticides, we don’t know the toxicity of almost any of the insecticides that plants produce. You can end up with incidences like the New Zealand killer zucchini. Organic and heirloom varieties that were extremely toxic in the year 2002 (or 2003. I can’t remember).
In the case of herbicides, hand picking weeds leads to Vavilovian mimicry. Weeds that evolve to appear the same as the desired crops. There are many examples – early barnyard grass has evolved to look very similar to rice. There are similar examples that have occurred with most staple crops.
Excellent reply Miles
I have a question, if we develop the technology to print genes would they be GMO or in a whole new class??
Anyway thanks in advance and keep up the good work!
That is a good question. Most regulatory agencies have slightly different definitions, and there is a lot of gray areas. I have sat in a couple meetings at my university where we were discussing new crops being developed all over the world and trying to determine which ones would likely be considered GMO and which ones would likely not be. We often can not come to a consensus, so I would not doubt that regulatory agencies are in the same boat.
It is really why the regulatory structure should deal with new varieties based on traits, not processes.
If a plant is developed with herbicide resistance through chemical mutagenesis it should be treated the same as a herbicide resistant plant developed through genetic engineering.
If a plant has delayed browning developed through turning off a specific gene using chemical mutagenesis, it should be treated the same as a plants for which the same gene was turned off using the RNAi.
I would say the same should go for traits developed through gene editing, synthetic biology etc. As it stands right now, I think that we over-regulate GE/GMO in most cases, and under-regulate changes from every other method.
Unfortunately there are only two regulatory agencies that are trait based instead of process based – The Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the FDA. But in both cases those countries have other agencies – Health Canada, EPA, USDA – that essentially override the (far from perfect, but at least) science-based policies of the CFIA and FDA.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
It is my opinion that we may be slowing down the greatest improvement to humankind, because a bunch of luddites don’t understand genetics, t is just crazy.
I agree – except that it not a case that we may be slowing it down, we absolutely are, and significantly so. We have great products sitting on university shelves that are not being commercialized because the costs and time of getting through the regulatory nightmare means that only the largest companies are likely to be successful, and they are only likely going to try with our couple most prevalent crops. We have essentially lost 20 years – and as innovation builds on each other that means that going forward, no matter what our crops will not be as good as they should have been.
We need to feed a lot more people over the next 50 years – preferentially feed them well, with as little environmental damage as possible, and without turning the current natural spaces into farm land.
Why would we want to attempt such a challenge with one hand tied behind our back? (and most activists would prefer that both hands and feet be tied behind our back. It is no secret that I campaigned against GMOs until a decade ago…but even with my past experience I still can’t for the life of me understand the current activist mindset on this issue)
Is GE perfect? No, of course not. But, it an amazing technology that can do things that no other plant propagation technique can do. Even for things that other techniques can do, GE often can do them way faster – like 6 months instead of two decades.
thank you for your reply and for the food for thought. I will stick to my thoughts on confirmation bias for this comment.
you are correct that most ant-gmo activists tend to sensationalize and spread misinformation. I have corrected several with information that was easy for me, as a layperson, to disprove. Obviously, it’s hard for me to take it seriously when I see such things. The fact does seem to be that most people cannot get past their own confirmation bias to think about these things critically, as the article explains.
At the same time, though, the people who promote transgenic technology tend to do just as much, if not more, to push people away from the technology as the anti-gmo activists. If you want people to listen to what you are saying, you cannot call them luddites, or crazy, and imply that you think they are stupid, or you are simply confirming their bias even more. People do not take in new information when they are defensive.
This is obviously a complex issue and I have lots more questions now than I did before, but I don’t have time to go into it all right now. Anyway, thanks again for your time.
88% of industry professionals (scientists) believe GMOs are safe= academic job security
Kind of like climate change & scientists?
Sadly, many elementary students don’t get as much science anymore, as reading and math are predominate….I was shocked and saddened to hear that. Its also horrifying to see mothers with an agenda–like those in Minnesota and Missouri, trying to create a rift by spreading their outrageous pseudoscience…demanding ‘organic’ lunches/genetics taken OUT of text books….and what I feel is bullying other parents with their elitism…”If you don’t join our anti-science crusade, we’ll look down our noses at you. Your poor child…”
Hmmm., You modify a soybean plant so you can dump three times as much herbicide on it without killing it. Sure, the plant is safe to eat. Up until the point it was bathed in roundup repeatedly.
There is great promise with GMOs but Monsantos’ goal is not to make a better plant, it is to sell more herbicides.
If a plant was genetically engineered to be resistant to radiation so it could be grown just outside of Chernobyl would you be the first one to line up to eat it?