"...unlike regulatory bodies in 64 other countries, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require labeling of GM foods.
... determination by the IARC in 2015 that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen”1 and 2,4-D a “possible human carcinogen.”
...These developments suggest that GM foods and the herbicides applied to them may pose hazards to human health that were not examined in previous assessments. We believe that the time has therefore come to thoroughly reconsider all aspects of the safety of plant biotechnology. The National Academy of Sciences has convened a new committee to reassess the social, economic, environmental, and human health effects of GM crops.
...we believe the time has come to revisit the United States' reluctance to label GM foods."
This article is not really a scientific work. It's an opinion piece from some researchers who are closely aligned with an industry that stands to gain from anti-GMO scare tactics, and it has a LOT of problems.
Its primary problem -- a problem so fundamental (and sadly common) that it's usually safe to disregard the scientific opinions of people who do this -- is the authors' implicit assumption that herbicide resistance is the only application of genetic modification. This 'single-issue campaigning' isn't really productive because it sidelines all the other incredibly important applications of genetic modification.
Also, pretending that glyphosate is only used on GMO crops is ... disingenuous at best.
Please also note that "probable human carcinogen" classification is grouped the same as "being a hairdresser" and "heating your house with wood." It's still up in the air as to whether 2,4-D is even remotely a candidate to be listed as a carcinogen.
I find it profoundly troubling that the authors chose to name-drop Agent Orange as a scare tactic, since 2,4-D had nothing to do with the deleterious effects of Agent Orange on humans. That's bordering on irresponsible.
For those mocking Russia for this, note that they are joining Germany and France in enacting these laws[0]. While I believe in democracy and freedom, I also think that anti-Russian sentiment is being stirred up for the wrong reasons, by people who see Russia as an enemy of the US.
Boy, the Cold War vibes are getting stronger and stronger; will this be followed by a string of "bad harvests"?
(Actually, returning that level of Stalinist stupidity is unlikely, but given the low price of oil they need maximum productivity everywhere else possible.)
And how's this for the last sentence in the intro:
Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.
Comments
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1505660
New England Journal of Medicine, Aug 2015
GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health
"...unlike regulatory bodies in 64 other countries, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require labeling of GM foods.
... determination by the IARC in 2015 that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen”1 and 2,4-D a “possible human carcinogen.”
...These developments suggest that GM foods and the herbicides applied to them may pose hazards to human health that were not examined in previous assessments. We believe that the time has therefore come to thoroughly reconsider all aspects of the safety of plant biotechnology. The National Academy of Sciences has convened a new committee to reassess the social, economic, environmental, and human health effects of GM crops.
...we believe the time has come to revisit the United States' reluctance to label GM foods."
This article is not really a scientific work. It's an opinion piece from some researchers who are closely aligned with an industry that stands to gain from anti-GMO scare tactics, and it has a LOT of problems.
Its primary problem -- a problem so fundamental (and sadly common) that it's usually safe to disregard the scientific opinions of people who do this -- is the authors' implicit assumption that herbicide resistance is the only application of genetic modification. This 'single-issue campaigning' isn't really productive because it sidelines all the other incredibly important applications of genetic modification.
Also, pretending that glyphosate is only used on GMO crops is ... disingenuous at best.
Please also note that "probable human carcinogen" classification is grouped the same as "being a hairdresser" and "heating your house with wood." It's still up in the air as to whether 2,4-D is even remotely a candidate to be listed as a carcinogen.
I find it profoundly troubling that the authors chose to name-drop Agent Orange as a scare tactic, since 2,4-D had nothing to do with the deleterious effects of Agent Orange on humans. That's bordering on irresponsible.
For those mocking Russia for this, note that they are joining Germany and France in enacting these laws[0]. While I believe in democracy and freedom, I also think that anti-Russian sentiment is being stirred up for the wrong reasons, by people who see Russia as an enemy of the US.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modi...
Boy, the Cold War vibes are getting stronger and stronger; will this be followed by a string of "bad harvests"?
(Actually, returning that level of Stalinist stupidity is unlikely, but given the low price of oil they need maximum productivity everywhere else possible.)
Mmm, pseudoscience
You might say they were pioneers in this particular domain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
And how's this for the last sentence in the intro:
Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.