The science is settled, unless we don’t like the science

That'll learn ya

That’ll learn ya

EU abolishes post of Chief Scientific Advisor after that advisor confirms that genetically modified foods pose no danger.

Ms. Glover, who holds a doctorate in microbiology from the University of Cambridge and previously served as Scotland’s Chief Scientific Adviser, was hired by the Commission in 2011 to “provide independent expert advice on any aspect of science, technology and innovation.” Her term, which is due to end in December, could have been renewed or a different scientist could have been appointed. But last month new Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced that he would allow her mandate to expire, effectively abolishing the Chief Scientific Adviser role.

Ms. Glover had dared to draw on her expertise to conclude that there isn’t “a single piece of scientific evidence” to validate anti-GMO hysteria, as she told a scientific conference in Aberdeen, U.K., last year. “I am 99.99% certain from the scientific evidence that there are no health issues with food produced from GM crops.” Opposition to GMOs, she said, is “a form of madness.”

These views are in line with the EU’s own expert body, the European Food Safety Authority. Over the years, the authority has determined that numerous GMO products—soybean, maize and cotton among them—are as safe for human and animal consumption as their conventional counterparts. Ditto Britain’s Royal Society of Medicine, the U.S. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, and the World Health Organization.

But for the greens some scientific consensuses are more sacred than others, and Ms. Glover’s comments sent their lobbyists scrambling. “The current [Chief Scientific Adviser] presented one-sided, partial opinions in the debate on the use of genetically modified organisms,” wrote an activist coalition led by Greenpeace to Mr. Juncker in July. “We hope that you as the incoming Commission President will decide not to nominate a chief scientific adviser.”

Homeopathic medicines, IQ tests, nuclear energy, etc., all survive scientific “certainty” when the desired outcome isn’t delivered. Question global warming, however, and  the same folks demand your imprisonment or even execution.



Filed under Uncategorized

4 responses to “The science is settled, unless we don’t like the science

  1. rivman

    We’ve been eating GMOs for years, Tomatoes anyone? Much worse is the antibiotics in the food.

  2. AJ

    “Remember a researcher named Gilles-Eric Seralini, his 2012 GMO study, and the controversy that swirled around it?

    He fed rats GMOs, in the form of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn, and they developed tumors. Some died. The study was published in the journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology (wikipedia). Pictures of the rats were published.

    A wave of biotech-industry criticism ensued. Pressure built. “Experts” said the study was grossly unscientific, its methods were unprofessional, and Seralini was biased against GMOs from the get-go. Monsanto didn’t like Seralini at all.

    The journal which published the Seralini study caved in and retracted it.

    Why? Not because Seralini did anything unethical, not because he plagiarized material, not because he was dishonest in any way, but because:

    He used rats which (supposedly) had an inherent tendency to develop tumors (the Sprague-Dawley strain), and because he used too few rats (10). That’s it. Those were Seralini’s errors.

    Well, guess what? Eight years prior to Seralini, Monsanto also did a rat-tumor-GMO study and published it in the very same journal. Monsanto’s study showed there were no tumor problems in the rats. But here’s the explosive kicker. Monsanto used the same strain of rats that Seralini did and same number of rats (10). And nobody complained about it.
    . . .
    basically what Dr. Séralini did was he did the same feeding study that Monsanto did and published in the same journal eight years prior, and in that study, they [Monsanto] used the same number of rats, and the same strain of rats, and came to a conclusion there was no [tumor] problem. So all of a sudden, eight years later, when somebody [Seralini] does that same experiment, only runs it for two years rather than just 90 days, and their data suggests there are problems, [then] all of a sudden the number of rats is too small? Well, if it’s too small to show that there’s a [tumor] problem, wouldn’t it be too small to show there’s no problem? . . .”

  3. Watch out for the following phrase: “He used rats which (supposedly) had an inherent tendency to develop tumors (the Sprague-Dawley strain), and because he used too few rats (10). That’s it. Those were Seralini’s errors.”

    • AJ

      Perhaps you should reread the article because those were the exact same rats that Monsanto used to prove their product safe. Monsanto’s testing was of short enough duration to not allow tumors time to grow and also used 10 rats. Seralini did nothing more than repeat Monsanto’s testing but over a longer period of time. The retraction of the science journal article happened after a ex-Monsanto employee became an editor of that journal as described below.

      “. . . You have probably heard that an Elsevier journal has retracted the Seralini study which showed evidence of harm to rats fed a GMO diet, despite admitting they found no fraud or errors in the study.

      This journal had also just recently appointed an ex-Monsanto employee as an editor – one could only guess the value of this strategy for the pesticide industry. Expect Seralini to sue as this story develops, as it appears he has a very strong case. . . .”