Sometimes you hear that industry funding is behind the consensus on GMOs – here’s a great article on that.
Monsanto is a medium sized company ($57.43B). Is it really possible that they’ve manipulated tens of thousands of scientists performing thousands of studies for three decades with no whistleblowers? Could Monsanto’s power have resulted in a scientific consensus that has been bent completely to their will? In comparison, fossil fuel behemoths Exxon Mobil ($394.83B), Chevron ($215.45B) and BP ($150.07B) (total: $760.35B) have been completely stymied in their efforts to buy a scientific consensus on climate change. Let’s put aside the fact that this line of thinking just doesn’t make sense. Instead, let’s take a look at the evidence and unravel some of the pretzeled logic often employed to dismiss the weight of that evidence in support of the scientific consensus on GMOs.
The majority of studies are industry funded, but…
Looking at the scientific literature about GMO safety, we find little difference between the results of independent and industry funded studies.
What was the evidence for industry funding corrupting the results in the first place? Just saying so.
