permaculture

[Lawrence London <lfljvenaura@gmail.com>]

Corruption of science by biotech/pesticide/chemical agriculture
professional industry prostitutes.
Attn: John d'Hondt, Steve and others.

The necessary "GMO" denialism and scientific consensus | JCOM
http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/15/04/JCOM_1504_2016_Y01

The necessary "GMO" denialism and scientific consensus
07/06/2016
Abstract:

"Genetically Modified Organisms" are not a consistent category: it is
impossible to discuss such a miscellaneous bunch of products, deriving from
various biotech methods, as if they had a common denominator. Critics are
too often pre-emptively suspicious of peculiar risks for health or the
environment linked to this ill-assorted ensemble of microorganisms, plants
or animals: yet, even before being unscientific, the expression "GMO(s)"
has very poor semantic value. Similarly, claims that recombinant DNA
technology is always safe are a misjudgement: many unsatisfactory "GMOs"
have been discarded, as has happened also for innumerable agri-food
outcomes, obtained via more or less traditional field and lab methods. The
scientific consensus, i.e. the widespread accord among geneticists,
biologists and agriculturalists, maintains that every biotech invention has
to be examined case by case, evaluating the unique profile of each new
organism ("GMO" or otherwise): to assess its safety, the technique(s) used
to produce it are irrelevant. Therefore, in considering "green"
biotechnologies, a triple mantra should be kept in mind: 1. product, not
process; 2. singular, not plural; 3. *a posteriori*, not *a priori*. Both
people's and law-makers' attitude to agricultural biotechnologies should be
reoriented, and this is an interesting task for science communicators: they
should explain how meaningless and misleading the "GMO" frame is, debunking
a historical, ongoing socio-political blunder, clarifying to the public
what most life scientists have been recommending for several decades.