We abolitionists have taken the trouble to learn the whole range of evidence concerning GMOs, from the proven fact that they’re a crappy product which doesn’t work (they reduce yield, require greater use of poisons, generate poison-resistant superweeds and superbugs against themselves, are nutritionally inferior, and in general cost farmers and society more in order to get much less), to their malign socioeconomic and political effects, to the proven inevitable environmental contamination they cause (they’re proven to contaminate organic and non-GM conventional crops and the wild relatives of cultivated crops, and there’s evidence that GM material pollutes the soil, water, and air), to the growing evidence of their danger to human and livestock health.
All this sums up to prove that GMO abolition is the objectively common-sense, moderate, prudent position, and is the position dictated by science and reason. Of course, amid an insane, irrational, anti-scientific system dominated by the corporate imperative and constantly drenched in its propaganda poison, this objectively sane position may seem “extreme”.
In that connection, we can take note that some of the scientists who object to the lie that there’s a “consensus” on GMO safety are nevertheless anxious to insist they’re seeking a “middle ground” between “black and white”. We’ve seen this kind of thing before, including the fact that they never specify who the presumable “extremist” types are from whom they’re seeking to distance themselves. Probably from we who emphasize the proven socioeconomic malevolence of GMOs first and foremost? It’s true that most of the scientists who provide evidence against GMOs insist that they’re merely trying to reform some abuses within the corporatist system, no matter how ungratefully the system slanders and attacks them in return for their solicitude. We can infer that, like with most liberals, the Western scientists don’t object so much to corporatist domination as such, and certainly not to its depredations across the Global South, but only to ways in which it may be harming the decent Western middle class.
Meanwhile, for a view of how the establishment “science” views its would-be reformers, the second piece at the link reads like a synthetic compendium of the flimsy lies and totalitarian impetus of the GMO fundamentalists. ENSSER (compiler of the “consensus”-refuting statement) is an “anti-GM campaign group”; an extended compilation of quotes from a trade group’s paid hack which includes direct lies (that safety testing was ever done) and implicit ones (that epidemiological studies were ever done; thus the lie that GM foods have been “proven safe” in action, including the ever-inflating piece of gasbagging about how many GM meals allegedly have been safely eaten); bogus testimonials from corporatized “authorities”; and, amusingly, a repetition of the lie that there’s a “consensus” in favor of GMO safety, which has just been self-evidently disproven by the ENSSER statement.
Of course, we see how much the mercenaries are willing to reciprocate the tender collegiality of the scientists who are at such pains to stress that they’re merely skeptical about the health risks of GMOs, but certainly are not anti-GMO on account of such hippie trivia as, say, the indenture-driven cotton farmer genocide in India. (Being willing to use a word like genocide no doubt is an example of what qualifies me as one of those extremists. I wonder if they see the likes of me as “black” or “white”.)
The GM fundamentalists, themselves not scientists but mercenaries and technocratic ideologues, never miss an opportunity to insist that from their corporate-dictated perspective anyone who’s at all skeptical is not a scientist, but an “anti-GM campaigner” or an “activist”. So I’m sorry my friends who signed the statement, but it looks like you’re doomed to the role of filthy disgusting extremists whether you like it or not. I’d recommend that you not only get used to it but learn to embrace and like it. Take a note from our history here in America. To paraphrase Patrick Henry: “If this be extremism, let’s make the most of it.”
Of course, as the ENSSER statement itself documents, true scientists are unsure about the health dangers of GMOs (there’s no doubt at all about glyphosate), while science and reason condemn GM fundamentalism. These are the objectively moderate positions, as is the policy prescription that follows from it, that there must be a moratorium on all open-air planting of GM crops until long-term safety testing has been done on each GM variety. In the meantime there can be no further field testing or commercialization of new types.