Upon seeing this graphic, my friend Jon Isham asks “The AAAS, the NAS, and the AMA offer their opinions on biotechnology and climate change. Is it consistent to trumpet the scientific consensus on climate change while downplaying the scientific consensus on biotechnology?”
I agree that there are no known adverse direct human impacts from GMO crops shown to-date. However – testing before product entry on such a broad scale is surely prudent, and has been blocked. But more importantly, it is the effects of the GMO species on the natural environment that is immediately concerning. How does Bt corn affect the rest of the ecosystem? (And it does.) How do GMO salmon, who escape (and they do) affect the natural salmon?
I also think that much of the anger over GMO is actually well-placed anger over the attempts to control the food supply by a fairly small number of large companies, who are only working for their profit, not our survival. Is it prudent that Monsanto and DuPont, say, own all the viable corn seeds, after they mess up the natural environment enough that the natural varieties cannot survive well anymore?
There is also a different take on this. IF we deny climate science, and are wrong, we destroy the planet. If we deny “GMO science” and are wrong we do not destroy the planet (there are options, such as “old fashioned” plant hybridization that are doing a lot.). So I think it is very much a false equivalency to compare these two issues in this way.
But thank you for the question professor! 🙂