To answer the author’s question, “who should we believe?” – people are right to be skeptical. The industry itself has been the main source of information on the efficacy of GMO products. First they claimed it would provide higher yields. That was proven to be untrue. Now they’re selling it as an answer to global warming. Their assurances of the product’s safety is also proving to be false. Impartial data is hard to come by as industry patents prohibit independent testing of their products. And, of course we should trust the science – as long as it is independent and unbiased.
The UK Government wants to change the rules on GM crops based on political and commercial interest as Australia beefs up the scientific checks and balances on GM production. By: The Leader
A recent study by Warwick University, working together with Glasgow University, examined why people who understand t he dangers of global warming do little or nothing to change their behaviour.We persist with our self destructive behaviours, apparently, because we don’t trust the science that offers evidence for global warming, we don’t trust the politicians who support measures to ameliorate global warming, we don’t trust the media who spin and trivialise their reports on global warming and we don’t trust the energy companies who are pushing alternative forms of energy production.
We are facing a similar conundrum over whether we allow humans to eat genetically modified (GM) foods. In the same week that ministers of the current UK government have embarked on a mission to allow GM foods for human consumption, the Australian government is not only tightening up controls on GM food production, but boasting that they lead the world in this area. Who and what should we believe? Continue reading