Sorting grain from chaff in GMO food debate | Food and Environment Reporting Network

An article in The Guardian turns a skeptical eye to arguments against genetically engineered foods and the advocacy groups that present them. “The reason is that advocacy groups – no matter what the issue – are not immune to pressures like other social institutions…the arguments of NGOs should be subjected to the skepticism and fact-checking that is brought to bear on the claims made by business or government,” says the article.

Two of the main arguments against GMOs, that they are unsafe or lack independent study, are shaky, says the article adding, “None of this is to suggest that there aren’t legitimate reasons to oppose GMOs. There are.” As examples, it says GMOs encourage monculture rather than crop diversity, patenting of genes raises intellectual property issues and GMO benefits have been oversold. “That’s why we need a rational debate about GMOs, one that’s based on science and not scare-mongering,” it says.