The National Academy of Sciences has some conclusions to share about genetically-engineered foods — 420 pages worth. And no matter which side of the fence you stand on when it comes to this divisive topic, you probably aren’t going to like what the nonprofit has to say.
The report, Genetically Engineered Organisms: Experiences and Prospects, was released last week online amid a flurry of news articles that attempted to breathlessly summarize the findings in a few short sentences. Some expressed disappointment in the authors’ inconclusive findings; many others attempted to pin a final yea-or-nay viewpoint on the Academy’s nine-chapter investigation.
The National Academy of Sciences has some conclusions to share about genetically-engineered foods — 420 pages worth. And no matter which side of the fence you stand on when it comes to this divisive topic, you probably aren’t going to like what the nonprofit has to say.
The report, Genetically Engineered Organisms: Experiences and Prospects, was released last week online amid a flurry of news articles that attempted to breathlessly summarize the findings in a few short sentences. Some expressed disappointment in the authors’ inconclusive findings; many others attempted to pin a final yea-or-nay viewpoint on the Academy’s nine-chapter investigation.
But it seems reasonable to assume, with a title that takes neither side captive, that wasn’t the intent of the Academy’s report.
Too often, scientific analysis gets boiled down to a for-or-against summary. And no subject more exemplifies that fallacy, says the Academy, than the GMO debate. Determining whether herbicide resistant (HR) crops have a place in the production of the world’s major food sources — and whether science can actually increase yields by modifying the way that insects respond to the crop and reducing the growth of weeds — deserves a balanced answer that is based on clinical results, the authors said.
Image credit, DCO
Read more at ENN Affiliate, TriplePundit.
