So, Which Is It?

There are controversies, and there are polarizing stories in support of or denial of those controversies.  One person's inviolable truth is another person's subterfuge in playing fast and loose with facts to suit their agenda. 

As it is in public opinion, so it is also in scientific circles.  We mightn't think that scientists would wish to detract from the verisimilitude of studies and research and consequent experiments proving or disproving a theory, but statistics can be stacked and misused and misinterpreted and miscued to suit the theory.

Are we to assume that it is mostly conspiracy theorists who claim for example that bio genetically altered foods, plants and animals, are harmful?  That concerned environmentalists reading the data and the observed alterations in the planet's environment are leading us astray when they tell us that it is human-generated activity that has cause such monumental alterations toward global warming?  Or is the planet cooling down?

Climate change, whatever or whoever is responsible, appears to be a provable, irreversible reality. 

Whether human-generated activities have anything remotely to do with it is another thing altogether.  Those termed enviro 'sceptics' deny the human connection and ascribe the changes to the influence of the sun, to the intermittent, historical ping-pong warm-and-cool activities of the normal cycles evidence of which is seen in the fossil record.

It's an argument that is being bitterly fought and contested, with evidence raised here and there for one side or the other.  There are always disagreements about everything whatever.  And genetically engineered food, as a perfectly normal and useful procedure to get the most out of our basic nutritional sources - or, conversely, an ill-advised and harmful process that will come back to haunt us - is yet another of those controversial areas.

A recent French study that claims GMO foods and Monsanto's Roundup pesticide/herbicide are both causes for concern because of their wide application and still unknown future repercussions, plus the fact that some laboratory rats have developed tumours fed GMO foods, and some studies linking Roundup with increased cancer incidents, a case in point. 

The Government of France seems convinced and is seeking a EU-wide ban on GMO foods. The Government of Canada has issued words to the effect that it plans to delve a little deeper into the subject to determine through Health Canada, whether the issue is one that will deleteriously impact Canadians.

 But the controversial study appears to have been eviscerated by scores of scientists who claim the study to have been riddled with errors representing serious, obvious problems of process. The French researchers are said to have deliberately selected a type of rodents predisposed to tumours.  The sample size and statistical analysis are being questioned. 

The lead author, Gilles-Eric Seralini "has been campaigning against GM crops since 1997", according to National Public Radio in the U.S., and the New York Times speaks of his research methods being "questioned before".  Scrutiny has not been kind to these published research findings.

The funding for the research, furthermore was provided by an anti-biotechnology organization.  And !surprise! the very lead author of the study, Gilles-Eric Seralini, heads its scientific board.  Select members of the media were persuaded to publish the study results without seeking outside scrutiny to verify the study conclusions.

"There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat.  After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops", wrote Pamela Ronald, a UC-Davis plant geneticist in Scientific American.

And there appears also to be a concern relating to the "rapid growth of tenacious super weeds" that Monsanto's trademark Roundup herbicide has been unable to eradicate, inspiring farmers to spray ever larger amounts of the chemical.  Pests are evolving a resistance to GMO crops, reflecting the ages-old battle between human agriculture and the pests that prey on both.

According to Keith Kloor, writing in Slate.com, "On balance, the positives of GM crops seem to vastly outweigh the negatives.  A recent 20-year study published in Nature found that GM crops helped a beneficial insect eco-system to thrive and migrate into surrounding fields."  And Mr. Kloor is mad as hell over the negative, underhanded work of those like Gilles-Eric Seralini who seek to undermine confidence in the public for GMO foods.

So there.