Scientists Slam Greenpeace for ‘Misrepresenting’ GMOs

July 1st, 2016 9:18 AM

Although the liberal media often turn to critics of genetically modified foods, a group of award-winning scientists not only affirmed the safety of GMO foods, they criticized Greenpeace for “obstruction.”

More than 100 Nobel Prize winners signed a letter criticizing environment group Greenpeace’s campaign against genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The letter accused Greenpeace of opposing “biotechnological innovations in agriculture” and misrepresenting the “risks, benefits, and impacts” of GMOs.

The scientists said Greenpeace should re-evaluate its stance because “scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production.”

They also argued there is no proof GMOs harm the environment.

Forbes contributor Steven Savage wrote about the scientists’ criticism of Greenpeace on June 29. He wrote that they “challenged” the liberal environmentalist group to discontinue its fight against “the introduction of potentially life saving options for the world’s poor, including Golden Rice.”

According to those scientists, Golden Rice has the “potential to reduce or eliminate” the health issues caused by Vitamin A deficiency, which is prevalent among poverty stricken areas in Africa and Asia. They cited a World Health Organization study showing an estimated 250 million people suffer from that deficiency, 40 percent of them under age 5. Too little Vitamin A can cause blindness and even contribute to premature death.

The argument that many people, including the world’s poorest, would benefit from GMOs is not new. However, it is underrepresented by the liberal news media, which have a history of portraying GMOs as a “potential health risk” and ignoring scientists who disagree.

Between July 2014 to July 2015, the broadcast networks aired 32 stories about GMOs. Seventy-eight percent of them ignored potential benefits, and often the networks turned to critics for stories. The networks presented GMOs as risky “DNA tinkering,” even using television personality Dr. Mehmet Oz’s anti-GMO stance as a reference.

In April 2015, 10 doctors petitioned that Columbia University’s Dean of Medicine remove Dr. Oz from his position as Vice Chair for the Department of Surgery. The doctors accused Oz of having “conflicts of interest or flawed judgements about what constitutes appropriate medical treatments” and showing “disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine.”