Spin Alert on GMO Report
Holy spin cycle! We're astounded at the level of misreporting on last week's National Academy of Sciences report on genetically engineered foods. The comprehensive NAS review of GMO science is full of caveats, contradictions, and recommendations for greater transparency and oversight – important details missed by many media outlets.
May 24, 2016 | Source: U.S. Right To Know | by
Holy spin cycle! We’re astounded at the level of misreporting on last week’s National Academy of Sciences report on genetically engineered foods. The comprehensive NAS review of GMO science is full of caveats, contradictions, and recommendations for greater transparency and oversight – important details missed by many media outlets.
These stories help shed light on what the 400-page NAS report actually says:
• While the NAS report found both risks and rewards with GMO crops, it was clear in calling for more transparency and regulatory oversight. Read more at U.S. Right to Know and Civil Eats.
• Chuck Benbrook writes in Medium that the NAS did a good job describing problems that have arisen over the past 20 years with genetically engineered crops, but failed to inform readers that these problems will get worse under current market and policy dynamics.
• The report’s “sandwich structure” – with chapters describing risks, problems and study limitations sandwiched in between more favorable descriptions – contributes to misreporting, explains a biotechnologist in GM Watch.
• Several outlets did report a key finding by the NAS that contradicts biotech’s biggest selling point: GMOs do not produce greater yields.
• As always, it’s important to follow the money. Food & Water Watch reports on the National Research Council’s financial ties to the agrichemical industry and other corporations that raise concerns about conflicts of interest.
Speaking of Conflicts of Interest
A UN panel made headlines last week for its finding that Monsanto’s $5-billion-a-year herbicide glyphosate is unlikely to pose a cancer risk through diet. But key members of the panel are involved with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a corporate front group funded by the agrichemical industry, according to internal documents.
First reported by Carey Gillam for U.S. Right to Know, the story has been picked up by The Guardian, Die Zeit, RT and Horticulture Week.
In Science Follow the Money, If You Can
Paul Thacker writes in the Los Angeles Times about the lack of transparency for corporate funding in academia, and argues for universities to put the public interest first with strong disclosure policies and limits on corporate partnerships.