3 ms·
Let me be more specific: the question was "how will the GM industry will react" ‘substantially equivalent’ is a proxy for food safety and it's also a tricky st
by mgamache 10y ago
Let me be more specific: the question was "how will the GM industry will react"
‘substantially equivalent’ is a proxy for food safety and it's also a tricky standard. When interpreting this study's results the public and policy makers will look to academics:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-...
Just by selectively funding academics that agree with them they can distort the debate.
- cmdrfred 10y agoSo do you have evidence it is unsafe or just are you simply against any organization that uses lobbyists? (Teachers unions, ACLU, Climate and Gay rights organizations, etc)
- mgamache 10y agoI didn't say anything about lobbyists. I do have an issue with supposedly unbiased experts being on a private payroll without full disclosure all-around. Would you be okay with a NY Times reporter getting funding for a story from Monsanto (without disclosure)?
- grzm 10y agoIf I'm understanding you correctly, I think you might be blurring the lines here. A NYT reporter is a journalist, not an expert. They may use experts as sources for their stories. I agree that it would be a serious breach of ethics for a journalist to take money from Monsanto. It's not the same as an expert receiving funding from industry. That has it's own ethics issues, which I think are the ones you're getting at.