After thinking about the article, I realized how some of the disinformation
worked both ways. The anti GMO people pointed to a rat study where the rats
developed tumors from GMO food. The pro GMO people pointed out two things.
1. This breed of rats tended to develop tumors
2. The study was statistically insignificant.
So here we have both information that is relevant and information which is
not. The tumor prone rats are useful in studies because you do not need as
large a sample size to compare things. But once you have shown that these
rats develop more tumors from a treatment, then the study should be scaled
up, at greater expense, to more normal rats. Then human trials would
possibly be warranted. So the tumor prone rat part is designed to sow
doubt.
The statistical significance is certainly a piece of information that
invalidates a strong conclusion from the experiment. But I would want to go
a little deeper and make sure that this information is correct.
Reading some of the comments on the flap, one indicated a possible problem
with GMO food. One woman claimed to have allergies to some GMO grains.
This should certainly be investigated. Is it true? I don't know, but is
this type of thing well investigated? If less than 1% of the population has
such allergies, the only action might be mandatory labeling. But if it is
common, a ban on the particular modification might be needed.
The assurances by biologists are not necessarily correct. While
conventional breeding has been going on for a long time, this is a new way
of modifying food stuff by bringing in genes from completely different
species, so assurances that this is OK might be taken with a grain of salt.
Some large scale "medical" trials should be conducted. Remember how a Nobel
chemist claimed on the basis of his chemical knowledge that mega doses of
vitamin C would cure many things including the common cold, but when trials
were conducted the only possible effect was a slight lessening of symptoms.
We are at the beginning of deliberate genetic modification, and we don't
know the ultimate results of this experiment. Experiments are necessary to
confirm theoretical models.
I do not subscribe to the organic is best point of view. Indeed recent
research has shown no benefits from a pure organic diet, and indeed there is
other research that shows no benefits to multiple vitamins, unless you have
a definite vitamin deficiency. Some people think organic tasts better, but
I have not experienced that. There were also various confounding arguments.
Building the resistance to disease is a different goal from building
resistance to herbicides. The herbicides/pesticides are known to be
dangerous. Studies have shown a doubling of parkinsons disease among
Canadian agricultural workes exposed to these chemicals. So the no
pesticide part of organic farming may be beneficial to our health.
So the article is a good expose of how hysteria can have a large influence,
but it is not a completely clear cut science vs anti-science article. This
is an article which can be interpreted in more ways than one. The most
clear cut interpretation is one of politicians bowing to the public so that
they can get elected again.