savoy011

Image courtesy of Organic Consumers Moderator’s Note: Since 1992, when I joined the Board of Directors of the Council for Responsible Genetics (CRG), [1] I have carefully monitored scientific developments related to the predictive ecology and public health and environmental health impacts of transgenic technologies.   Throughout this period, there have been very few moments when former or current EPA, USDA, or FDA scientists served as ‘whistleblowers’ on  the dismal and ultimately unscientific processes these federal agencies rely on to review and approve GMO crops. Yesterday was one of those profound moments when a former EPA biosafety scientist by the name of Ramon J. Seidler revealed that scientists – including government employees – have long had multiple problems with GMOs. Dr. Seidler is a professor of microbiology and a retired senior scientist and team leader for the Environmental Protection Agency’s biosafety program. This is dramatic news and comes in the midst of a...

Elias Schewel/Flickr Whose science?  AGROECOLOGY & BIOTECHNOLOGY in THE FUTURE OF AGRICULTURE Devon G. Peña | Seattle, WA | November 5, 2013 A lot of naïve science has been involved in pushing this technology. David Williams, cellular biologist, UCLA Quoted in Scientific American  September 2013, p. 80   Food is the cover story of the September 2013 issue of Scientific American . The issue features a fascinating “Truth About GMOs” brief that mostly reads like an apologia to Monsanto et al. (pp. 80-85), perhaps for the proliferation of problems both scientific and political economic. The briefing uses a sardonic and hyperbolic title, “Biotechnology: Are engineered foods evil?” This obviously derisive reference targets the anti-GMO m ovement’s tendency to use cutesy semiotic code words like “Frankenfood” and “Frankenfish”. More than anything this illustrates the danger of using humor while engaged in the act of conveying scientific evidence on the environmental and...