There's an interesting exchange on genetic engineering at the Food Politics blog, http://tinyurl.com/, featuring a review by industry critic Marion Nestle of an anti-GE paper, GMO Myths and Truths. I've skimmed the paper, which you can find at http://tinyurl.com/, and I confess to lacking the expertise to evaluate the claims. It would take more time than I have at the moment to dig into the claims, although I hope to do so in the future.
Nestle says the authors of the paper, who find nothing to like in genetic engineering, "have put a great deal of time and effort into reviewing the evidence for the claims. This is the best-researched and most comprehensive review I've seen of the criticisms of GM foods." She asks whether the pro camp can "produce something equally well researched, comprehensive, and compelling?" and concludes, "I doubt it but I'd like to see them try." She says there's enough evidence in the paper to justify labeling, at the very least.
It is, of course, the position you'd expect her to take, and several of the comments following her post challenge both her and the paper. One claims there are indeed well-researched, comprehensive and compelling pro papers. Others say the paper she cites cherry-picks evidence and relies on papers that have been debunked. An example cited in one of these critical comments asserts that it relies on a study of Bt found in human blood that used a test that couldn't detect blood at the levels the study's authors said they found.
My suspicion is most won't read these papers and will continue to think what they already think about the issue. An even worse fear is that reading the papers on both sides wouldn't convert anyone on either side. Still, I may give it a try at some point.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.Twitter.comurbanize
Copyright 2012 DTN/The Progressive Farmer, A Telvent Brand. All rights reserved.
More:
Paper, Blog Heats Up GE Discussion
Recommendation and review posted by G. Smith
