There is widespread agreement among scientists that genetically modified plants are not only safe, but also better for the environment than using conventional farming methods, Los Angeles Times reports.  

According to The National Academies’  in-depth analysis of hundreds of peer-reviewed articles, “About 90% of the corn, soy and cotton now grown in the U.S. is genetically modified, and that has led to less use of pesticides, more targeted insect control, a shift to fewer toxic chemicals and less soil erosion compared with conventional farms,” Los Angeles Times said.

Considering the abundant scientific evidence supporting the benefits of biotech crops and their safety, scientists interviewed by Los Angeles Times said the Proposition 37 initiative to label foods with genetically modified ingredients wouldn’t be helpful to consumers.

In the article, Dr. Pamela Ronald, a UC Davis plant geneticist and the wife of an organic farmer, said of the labels, “It has no meaning, whether it’s [genetically modified] or not.” Read more.

After scientists internationally widely disclaimed a study on rats claiming ill effects from exposure to genetically modified foods-it appears that one pragmatic group of scientists from the University of Cambridge have found a use for it.

“I am grateful for the authors for publishing this paper, as it provides a fine case study for teaching a statistics class about poor design, analysis and reporting. I shall start using it immediately,” said the Statistical Laboratory at Cambridge University, according to Examiner.com.

Other scientists and reporters continued to condemn the French study, pointing to its reliance on emotional claims rather than sound, scientific evidence. Here are some of their comments from this week:

“There were problems with the sample sizes, issues about the types of rats used and questions about why, if the genetically engineered corn was the culprit, rats that ate a lot of the corn did not get as sick as those that ate more moderate amounts. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the study, though, is the effort made by the researchers to ensure that the first wave of coverage of their study would include no criticism of it.” - Los Angeles Times

“The study came as quite a surprise to scientists. Reputable regulatory and health agencies in the U.S. and EU that have looked closely at GMOs found them safe, as have the National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Academy.” - Forbes

“Within 24 hours, the study’s credibility was shredded by scores of scientists. The consensus judgment was swift and damning: The study was riddled with errors-serious, blatantly obvious flaws that should have been caught by peer reviewers.” - Slate

“What we need in the GMO controversy is reasoned argument, not scandalous headlines…The study shows nothing like that. What it does show is the readiness of some GMO opponents to jump on a questionable study to promote their fearmongering agenda.” - Montreal Gazette

Remember Mark Twain’s famous quote about “lies, damned lies and statistics”? Add to that list the widely-disclaimed junk science of the Seralini study.

Russ Parsons published an interesting piece in the Los Angeles Times on January 6 about the realities of food and farming. He calls for “a more constructive give-and-take, the start of a true conversation” about our food production system.

Parsons lays out a few ground rules that will help us move towards a constructive conversation, which begins with the understanding that food production is a complicated issue. He reminds us that there is a shared motive on all sides of the conversation, and he is pleased to see a growing interest and awareness about the way food is grown and produced.

You can read the full article here