8 Comments

  1. blank UnbridledLogic says:

    All this tells me is that two thirds of Americans don’t understand molecular biology.

    The public’s opinion of any particular field of science is irrelevant with respect to the reliability of the science within that field. What a poll like this does tell us is the relative success or failure of scientists within said field to communicate with the public.

    1. blank Undecider says:

      The good thing is the average Joe can communicate what it means to consume pesticide.

      1. blank UnbridledLogic says:

        Pesticides and GMOs are not the same thing. What’s your point?

  2. blank Douglas Jay says:

    The authors of the Business Insider article claim that the National Academy of Sciences states that GMO foods are safe to eat. When you click on the link that they provide, the study that they use as support is not a study that declares safety but of “Approaches to Testing Unintended Health Effects” of GMOs. The Academy’s Executive Summary for this study asserts that: “the products of this technology have the potential to be hazardous if inserted genes result in the production of hazardous substances” and, “as with all other technologies for genetic modification, they also carry the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes that may have adverse effects on human health.” One wonders if BI’s journalists here are completely out of their league, when they can’t even paraphrase their sources correctly.

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/americans-doubt-scientists-on-gmos-2015-7#ixzz3fJebzLoC

  3. blank Douglas Jay says:

    The authors of this article claim that the National Academy of Sciences states that GMO foods are
    safe to eat. When you click on the link that they provide, the study that they
    use as support is not a study that declares safety but of “Approaches to
    Testing Unintended Health Effects” of GMOs. The Academy’s Executive
    Summary for this study asserts that: “the products of this technology have
    the potential to be hazardous if inserted genes result in the production of
    hazardous substances” and, “as with all other technologies for
    genetic modification, they also carry the potential for introducing unintended
    compositional changes that may have adverse effects on human health.” One
    wonders if BI’s journalists here are completely out of their league, when they
    can’t even paraphrase their sources correctly.

  4. blank Douglas Jay says:

    I’m referring below the the Business Insider article–it reads like pro-GMO propaganda…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *