A rejoinder from my reader concerning GMOs:
Feeding corn to ruminants (cattle) is dumb. They’re meant to eat grasses and the things growing in a meadow. We end up with unhealthy cattle, and unhealthy meat and dairy products as a result. And we grow way too much corn. It’s a horribly inefficient crop, especially from a water usage stand point. Worse, there’s some evidence that we get more humid days in areas of large corn tillage, so it’s altering the local climate in what I’d call an adverse way.
Which is reminiscent of the mad cow disease that afflicted the UK 20-30 years ago, blamed on quite unnatural feeding processes involving the remains of cows entering the food stream. Not that I mean to suggest the same may occur with corn, but it’s an interesting – if flawed – parallel.
I don’t confuse scientist with their employers, but if billions are spent on developing GMOs and only a couple million are spent on neutral third party testing (if there is any at all), what do you think most of the results are going to say? Scientists are human, too. They have to make a living, they’re subject to all the usual human perception problems, like confirmation bias. So yeah, I pretty much don’t trust Monsanto scientists telling me that their employer’s products are safe. Why should I?
But they’re also scientists, which means they are interested, even fascinated, by the truth. For a counter-example, consider the ozone hole incident, in which the problem was detected by the industry, and who didn’t conceal it, but instead began the investigation that eventually led to the banning of CFCs. But I shan’t make the mistake of generalizing a single incident to a general rule; the tobacco industry symbolizes the worst of the private sector.
So, as you say, third party testing is necessary, agencies with no vested interest – much like Consumer Reports. (I’d also like to point out that taking amounts invested vs amounts spent to test the products are not particularly relevant, although certainly something must be spent on testing!) That may be the best approach, with the Ag firms paying for the testing.
