This is a slightly unusual end-of-the-year list. Instead of a selection of the best or worst news over the year, this is simply a bullet-point summation of what I’ve learned about GMOs in 2013.
When I started this series, I proposed to cut through the debate by finding the facts that both sides agree upon. I also proposed to do this (back in July) “over the next few weeks.” Ha. Not only has this taken me much longer, I’ve also learned that this controversy has turned into something resembling trench warfare, where the two sides refuse to agree on anything, lest they give up an inch of their hard-won position. So I don’t expect everyone to agree with the list below, but I do expect that reasonable people on both sides will concede (if only under their breath) that the bulk of the evidence leads to these conclusions.
As I’ve dug into this over the past six months, I know I’ve provided more detail than all but the most fascinated readers really wanted. In this list, therefore, I’ve aimed for brevity. If you want more nuance I’ll include links to the longer stories, which, in turn, contain links to even more technical scholarly articles, not to mention a detailed dissection of my every sentence in the comments.
Regulation
I’ve heard that GMOs are totally unregulated, is that true?
Nope. In the United States, GM food is regulated by the USDA, the FDA, and the EPA. The FDA process is technically voluntary, but every creator of GM food has opted to jump through those hoops, so it’s voluntary in name only. Genetically engineered foods are regulated much more heavily than many other new technologies, including other modes of genetically modifying crops, like mutagenesis.
Caveats: The regulatory process is not transparent — you can’t just go on the web and look up the tests that have been performed. And non-food plants may escape regulation, as was the case in this instance.
More nuance here.
Academic freedom
Do the big seed companies prevent scientists from doing research on their patented plants?
They used to. Not anymore. I’ve been asking university scientists if they’ve run into restrictions, but the system seems to be working.
More nuance here.
Are there dangers for scientists working on genetically engineered plants?
Yes. Anyone who challenges an accepted paradigm — like the consensus that genetic engineering is basically safe – will come under attack (see Copernicus, Galileo, and Thomas Kuhn). On the other hand, there are huge rewards for anyone who is able to overturn a paradigm...
Continues @ 20 GMO questions: Animal, vegetable, controversy? | Grist:
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar