There are a lot of issues this article glosses over because they are beyond its scope. I am absolutely against corporate ownership and experiments involving ecosystem changing genome research, in general, because humans have, really, no idea what they are doing. And I think we should destroy Monsanto, immediately, for crimes against nature, humanity and the environment.
Nevertheless, anyone who is interested in the GMO issue should understand two things: there is essentially -no- science backing the idea that GMO organisms represent something likely to harm to humans who ingest them. None. Not even one reliable report. And this is not because the science was funded by industries friendly to the idea or the project. This article is a meta-analysis of 1,780 papers. There is no evidence whatsoever of harm.
I find this confusing, but if you understand what is written here, -the argument- it actually makes sense. We might be attacking the wrong aspect of the idea: that being that modifying genes in food in the ways we ordinarily do for commerce is likely to create dangerous foods. It’s not impossible, but it is, at least according to the science, extremely unlikely. And if you understand the argument, you will see why this is so. If you do not, you probably do not wish to.
Science is not the lone arbiter of truth. Like a trusted servant whose perspectives are necessarily narrow, it is relatively easy for us to misread or even misrepresent research. Other ways of knowing matter; but -ignoring science due to a folk belief that conflicts with it- is, most often, extremely dangerous. I still oppose this, madly. But we need to oppose it from the most powerful vectors… not those ‘practically proven false’.
0 Comments