"Unlike Mark Lynas... I can unequivocally state that there is no scientific consensus about GMO safety and that most of his statements are false"
In the letter to the editor below, Prof David Schubert critiques an ill-informed article by columnist Michael Gerson. Gerson's article is here.
It parrots the professional GMO promoter Mark Lynas and is predictably titled, "Are you anti-GMO? Then you’re anti-science, too".
Neither Gerson nor Lynas are scientists. Prof David Schubert is.
Needless to add, GM crops and foods are not "science", any more than nuclear bombs are "science". They are products of technologies that we can choose to use, or not.
The science is still out on GMO food safety
Prof David Schubert
The San Diego Union-Tribune, 13 May 2018
Re “The seeds of science” (May 7): Michael Gerson, in his commentary, is making a bad decision for both himself and his dog by not believing that GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are health hazards.
Unlike Mark Lynas, who is not a scientist and whose words Gerson is parroting, I can unequivocally state that there is no scientific consensus about GMO safety and that most of his statements are false. The statement that GMO foods are safe to eat because there is no evidence for harm is not valid because there are no studies on human safety.
In contrast, there is evidence for the toxicity of both GMO plants and the chemicals required for their production in animals. Each of the GMO crops is unique. How can it be claimed that all will be safe?
Finally, GMO crops have produced no benefits for society as a whole, but have resulted in an enormous increase in human exposure to agricultural chemicals.
The Salk Institute for Biological Studies