More Social Commentators Changing Their Views On GMO Crops
April 15, 2015 
Bill Nye “The Science Guy”
If you were a kid in the 1990s, you knew the bow-tie wearing Bill Nye, “The Science Guy.” His TV show, aimed at young adolescents, attempted to make science cool and approachable. And, even though his popular show has been off the air for nearly 20 years, he remains recognizable and carries a sense of credibility. After all, he is the science guy.
In 2014, Nye published a book in which he dedicated a chapter calling into question the safety of GMO crops. In the book, “Undeniable,” he argues the technology might carry risks and there’s something fundamentally problematic with GMO foods.
However, Nye has said he plans to write a revision of the chapter on GMOs, after visiting of all places — Monsanto. In a backstage interview after appearing on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Nye discussed the revision.
“I went to Monsanto and I spent a lot of time with the scientists there,” he said. “And, I have revised my outlook, and I’m very excited about telling the world.”
Commentary Shifting
Nye is not the only one giving GMO technology a second look. Mark Bittman, a prominent food columnist for The New York Times, penned an op-ed in May 2014 regarding GMO technology. While he did take a shot at industrial agriculture that has developed and marketed the technology, he said GMOs do not worry him from a safety standpoint.
In his piece, he wrote: “But, the technology itself has not been found to be harmful, and we should recognize the possibility that the underlying science could be useful — particularly with greater public investment and oversight.
“Let’s be clear. Biotech in agriculture has been overrated both in its benefits and in its dangers. And by overstating its dangers, the otherwise generally rational ‘food movement’ allows itself to be framed as ‘anti-science.’”
Later that year, Michael Specter laid out an extensive case in The New Yorker that GMOs should be on the table when discussing feeding the world. In the piece that printed out to 18 pages, Specter profiled anti-GMO crusader Vandana Shiva, who has become a spiritual leader of the movement and has been compared to Gandhi and Mother Teresa. With a civil, yet candid tone, he pointed to evidence of Shiva’s demagoguery and dismantled many of the go-to arguments against genetic engineering technology.
In March, The Washington Post weighed in with an opinion from its editorial board that GMO crops should not be required to be labeled. The column noted: “The GM-food debate is a classic example of activists overstating risks based on a fear of what might be unknown and on a distrust of corporations.”
It further noted: “Instead of demanding that food companies add an unnecessary label, people who distrust the assurances that GM food is safe can buy food voluntarily labeled as organic or non-GM.”
One of the most notable turnarounds came from author Mark Lynas, who was a staunch opponent of genetic engineering at one time. In fact, he could be counted among the founders of the anti-GMO movement, who even vandalized research plots of GM crops.
He apologized for his position in a 2013 speech at Oxford University. He opened the speech by saying: “I think the controversy over GMOs represent one of the greatest science communications failures of the past half-century. Millions, possibly billions of people have come to believe what is essentially a conspiracy theory, generating fear and misunderstanding about a whole class of technologies on an unprecedented scale.”
He went on to point out how the scare tactics have led to unnecessary deaths, noting the Zambian government’s refusal to allow its starving population to eat GMO corn during a severe famine in 2002.
“Thousands died because the president of Zambia believed lies of Western environmental groups that genetically modified corn provided by the World Food Program was somehow poisonous. I have yet to hear an apology from any of the responsible Western groups for their role in the humanitarian atrocity.”
Golden Rice has been engineered to increase vitamin A levels and could improve the diets of millions.
Mountains Of Research
In September 2014, Cosmos published an opinion that refuted the notion GMOs have not been studied enough to ensure safety. The story pointed to a database created by two public sector scientists known as GENERA (genetic engineering risk atlas; Genera.Biofortified.org). The database seeks to publish peer-reviewed studies on the safety of GMOs. So far, 402 studies have been published on the site out of 1,200 collected.
In the database, 197 studies focus on the safety of eating GMO foods. Of those, 172 report that GMO crops are no different than their conventional counterpart or are more healthy — 14 studies are inclusive and 11 report GMOs are less safe.
Adding ammunition to debunk the claims that studies suggesting the safety of GMOs are all funded by companies marketing the crops, the database shows more than half of the studies are conducted by government regulatory agencies.
Scientists Circle The Wagon
One of the latest attacks comes from an anti-GMO group U.S. Right To Know that has filled for a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) against 14 U.S. scientist, including Kevin Folta, professor in and chairman of the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida. The group has demanded the scientists’ eMails and correspondence in an effort to discredit them.
The scientific community was quick to respond to the FOIA’s request chilling effect on the free flow of research-driven communication. In March, The Guardian published a piece penned by three former presidents of the American Association For The Advancement Of Science who decried the effort to intimidate researchers. The Union Of Concerned Scientists joined the criticism of the anti-GMO group.
Subscribe Today For
