BRATTLEBORO — I'll say first that it's frustrating to be reduced to “our young friends,” which insinuates that we are naïve and inexperienced, and devalues the extensive time, effort, and research we put into our Viewpoint [“Peace of mind?,” April 30]. (My co-author Joëlle Montagnino and I are 26 and 28, respectively.)
So what does dismissing the examples we give by saying “Bad science? I don't think so,” really mean? This statement fails to address the scientific concerns we presented in a meaningful way. Do the studies we claim were marred with bad science actually have merit? If they do, how so? If they don't, where are better-conducted studies that show similar anti-GMO results?
Our argument concerning the classist implications of the movement has been misconstrued. We did not say that labeling would drive up the price of GMO-free food; we said that poorer people are pressured - or frightened - into buying more expensive varieties of food out of a concern for their health.
(The argument that companies re-label products all the time is a straw man, as these companies are not compelled to label their products with something that falsely impugns their safety.)
We did not write about pesticides so as to focus on the issue of demonstrable effects on human health (or lack thereof). We did say that there are other concerns connected to GMO use, the abundance of pesticide use among them.
I would prefer not to speak to these issues. I haven't done the appropriate amount of research, and at the moment don't have the time to do so, except to say that the labeling movement's focus on pesticide use only as it pertains to GMOs is telling.
If the concern of the movement is based in what pesticides are used, then why not argue that food products should be labeled with the pesticides used in their production? I would surmise that the organic food companies backing the movement would have something to do with that decision, as their industry enjoys widespread use of pesticides as well.
Yes, we are arguing that people who want to avoid GMOs should search for this information on their own. This seems simple enough, given how many products now readily proclaim that they are GMO-free. We argue this because the movement has done so much to destroy the image of GMOs and only seeks to take this destruction further. We argue this also for the class-based reasons we describe. And we argue this because there needs to be a significant scientific basis for such a move.
Imagine if I told you that oranges had a potential link to cancer and all ought to be labeled as such. Surely you'd demand a rather extensive demonstration of proof, a physiological explanation of the danger, whether this was true for all oranges or only some varieties, before we started labeling every orange as potentially toxic.
But the precautionary principle suggests that, once someone declares a potential danger, we ought to label oranges as toxic just to be safe, even if no credible science suggests they aren't.
Why would that be a sensible policy?