General Discussion

...one by one:

1) Claim: Genetic engineering is a radical technology.

So the author is claiming that the ability to inject fish genes into a tomato is not radical? We must have different definitions of "radical".

It is disingenuous to claim that plant breeding is the same thing as modifying plants via genetic engineering. Let's just go by the description given in the article:

Plant breeding does not introduce genes from different species; rather, it works with traits that are already present in the plants. Yes over a period of time these traits are modified but the process is different from genetic engineering. Genetic engineering does indeed allow radical changes to organisms.

2) Claim: GMOs are too new for us to know if they are dangerous.



So GMOs have been in our food supply for a grand total of 20 years. And this is sufficient, apparently, to know they are safe. Anyway, no matter how you slice it, the fact remains that WE have been the subjects of a giant food safety study over the last 20 years. I don't remember agreeing to be in such a study, do you?

3) Claim: Farmers can't replant genetically modified seeds.

The article "debunks" this claim by pointing out that terminator genes are not employed. It then goes on to say:



In other words, farmers who use genetically modified seeds cannot LEGALLY replant them, as per the claim. This policy is, of course, DIRECTLY attributable to genetic engineering and its related patent laws. Also, it is very dismissive to say that "large-scale commercial growers" don't use last year's seeds anyway -- and it tells us more about the author's bias than they probably intended.

4) Claim: We don't need GMOs—there are other ways to feed the world.



Not a very strong statement that GMOs "could" boost crop output. It then goes on to say that GMOs are "one good thing in our arsenal". IOW, no debunking here.

5) Claim: GMOs cause allergies, cancer, and other health problems.

(non-strawman version: GMOs may cause allergies, cancer, and other health problems)



"Those tests are voluntary" and "the FDA can block the products" -- so the tests are NOT required, and the FDA CAN block the products -- but do they actually DO so? Can't tell from this article, that's for sure.

6) Claim: All research on GMOs has been funded by Big Ag.

(non-strawman version: Most research on GMOs has been funded by Big Ag.



The author says it isn't true. I'm sure it isn't, not in the form stated: ALL research on GMOs being funded by Big Ag. What the author fails to address, is whether the preponderance of the research is funded by Big Ag. Furthermore, stating that a dozen scientific groups worldwide have stated that current GMOs are safe, does not address the claim that is supposedly being debunked.

7) Claim: Genetically modified crops cause farmers to overuse pesticides and herbicides.



Indeed.



So (a) the article acknowledges that certain GMOs produce an insecticide IN THE PLANT ITSELF -- i.e., you can't wash off the Bt before you eat the fruit or vegetable. But that's okay because hey, organic farmers use the same insecticide (although it can be washed off their plants). And, wonder of wonders, Bt crops have reduced insecticide use. In some areas. Not that this article is going to give you any clue as to which areas, or how prevalent. IOW, pretty weak debunking already.



So they admit that glyphosate use has skyrocketed, but that's okay because hey, it's a mild herbicide.

They have not actually debunked the claim -- especially the herbicide claim.

8) Claim: GMOs create super-insects and super-weeds.



So this time they simply acknowledge that the claim is correct but then say it's no big deal and anyway, rotating crops will help. IOW, not debunked.

9) Claim: GMOs harm beneficial insect species.



Do tell.

First they acknowledge that monarchs have been shown to be sensitive to Bt pollen and harm has been demonstrated in the laboratory. Then they say no worries, because monarchs are not exposed to lethal levels in the wild...

Meanwhile, the glyphosate-resistant GMOs allow farmers to spray so much glyphosate that the monarch's habitat has been decimated, resulting in a catastrophic drop in the monarch population that ties in DIRECTLY with GMOs.

This claim is not debunked at all; it is reinforced.

10) Claim: Modified genes spread to other crops and wild plants, upending the ecosystem.



So, a non-GMO farmer has only to adjust his planting schedule to dovetail with the Big Ag concern right next door. Or maybe he can work out a mutual schedule -- I'm sure they'd be only too willing to accommodate his concerns. And the "don't worry, you can still keep your organic label" thing is just insulting. As if organic farmers are only concerned with meeting the letter of the law in their methods. Many of them actually want to avoid GMOs.

Finally we have this gem:



Basically: yes GMOs can get into the wild. Some of the genes will help plants survive and some won't.

Gee, ya think? So they ACKNOWLEDGE the claim and then handwave to make it sound innocuous.

This article is a puff piece for Big Ag and GMOs. There is information there, certainly, but not enough to support the stated conclusions. It does not debunk what it says it will debunk, and some of the statements to be debunked are strawmen to begin with.

It amazes me how many self-described "pro-science" people see an article like this one and check their critical faculties at the door.