Line 4Line 4 Copyic/close/grey600play_circle_outline - material
Answers

Question

When over 300 scientists from all over the world say GMOs are not proven safe, then how many scientists has Monsanto replied to and how many scientists have yo got on your rolls, anyway?

Submitted by: Steve


Answer

Expert response from Community Manager

Tuesday, 17/11/2015 10:42

Thank you for coming to us with this question. First, while I can’t speak for Monsanto, I will address how GMO Answers works with the independent experts who answer questions on our website, and second, I’ll discuss how scientific consensus and disagreement about the same issue can coexist.

 

Since GMO Answers is an industry-funded initiative, we certainly understand that people may be skeptical about the independence of our expert contributors and even the veracity of their answers. We also realize that recent news articles related to email correspondence between biotech companies and university professors likely exacerbates that skepticism. 

 

When we launched GMO Answers over two years ago, we did so in the spirit of transparency – to answer any question asked – and our commitment to transparency continues. In our Stand Up for Science series on our site, we openly address some of the questions and issues emerging from the FOIA requests to academic experts who contribute to GMO Answers. We invite you to read our full series available here, which includes information about public private partnerships between industry and academia, and this excerpt below related to how we work with independent experts:

 

“About the GMO Answers Q&A Process:

GMO Answers is committed to finding the best experts to answer consumer questions. Depending on the nature of the question, the answer may be provided by an independent expert, industry organization, the GMO Answers Community Manager or an expert from a member company (Bayer, BASF, Dow, DuPont, Monsanto, Syngenta).

 

“We ask experts to draft responses that are authentically theirs and in their own words.  This approach is core to our credibility and commitment to transparency.

 

“How We Work With Independent Experts To Answer Questions:

Many of the questions submitted to GMO Answers are answered by third-party experts – some who are employees of public universities and thus subject to FOIA requests. In these cases, a question received on our site is routed to one or more independent experts who volunteer to provide answers within their field of expertise. We do not pay experts to answer questions. And experts answer questions on their own time and at their own pace.

 

“Once the third-party expert provides an answer, it is fact checked and reviewed for basic grammar. No edits are made without the consent of the expert.

 

“In addition, we will occasionally make suggestions to experts when an answer may be confusing to a non-scientific audience. Our goal for GMO Answers is to make sure consumers can get their questions answered clearly. Given the complexity of some of the questions (see www.gmoanswers.com for examples), this can take time and careful thought. GMO Answers encourages experts to write responses using language and terms a non-scientific person can understand. The experts make changes or authorize edits. Each answer is uniquely the expert’s response.

 

“Once the expert provides the final answer to GMO Answers, it is proofed for punctuation and typos, but the content is not changed or edited. …

 

“While we do not pay for experts’ answers and contributions to the GMO Answers website, at times experts have traveled to speak at or participate in events on behalf of the initiative. In these cases, we have reimbursed experts for their travel expenses. Outside of this reimbursement, though, experts are voluntarily taking time from their busy schedules and jobs to participate in these events.”

 

To get back to the first part of your question, which I interpret as - how can we claim there is scientific consensus on an issue when there is also still disagreement? 

 

First, let’s take a look at what scientific consensus means.  In his post for Skepti-Forum (reposted to GMO Answers), Richard Green explores scientific consensus and GMOs. To start, he tackles the definition of scientific consensus.  

 

“A scientific consensus indicates that scientists have stopped arguing among themselves. It means ideas have been tested and retested, points have been raised and refuted, and faulty hypotheses have been abandoned. The data is now clear enough that experts (people who may not necessarily like or want to agree with each other) can look at it and interpret it the same way. It is not a popularity contest; it means the sheer weight of the compelling evidence has narrowed the avenues of research to areas that continue to make sense.

 

“If you would like more detail on what a scientific consensus means, please refer to the Skeptical Raptor Blog

 

In his post Richard lists a number of domestic and international scientific bodies and science societies, such as the American Medical Association, French Academy of Science, and the Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities, that all confirm the scientific consensus related to the safety and health of GMOs. You can find an even longer list of supporters and their statements, as well as links to thousands of related studies, here.

 

Does overwhelming evidence and consensus mean that all scientists will agree? As you’re well aware, that answer is no. Richard continues:

 

“A scientific consensus is not complete unanimity.  You will always find people who will deny the consensus for whatever reasons:

 

 

“As stated above, consensus is achieved through the sheer weight of compelling evidence. Gathering the signatures of scientists and others on statements, petitions or letters is not enough to counter consensus. What is needed is data. It is a bit trite, but when bucking a consensus, the extraordinary claim will require extraordinary evidence.”

 

So, disagreement by some scientists or other parties does not necessarily erode scientific consensus or the evidence it’s based upon. In one of his posts on his blog Illumination, Kevin Folta fact checks the letter from the 300 scientists you reference in your question.  Kevin cites the recent Pew/AAAS study in which 88 percent of scientists confirm the safety of GMOs and states that in spite of the letter of 300:

 

“Scientific consensus on the safety record and utility of transgenic organisms is sound, and support an overwhelming majority of scientists that accept the position that transgenic crops pose no more risk than those derived from conventional breeding.”    

 

To close, understanding you may be uncertain about GMOs, we encourage you to dig deeper and do your own research. We established a section on our website called Frequently Cited StudiesIn this section we have collated the studies most often referenced in the questions, answers and articles on our website. This section contains both “pro” and “con” studies for you to review to help you make up your own mind about GMOs.

 

If you have more questions, don’t hesitate to ask.

 

Answer

Expert response from Community Manager

Tuesday, 17/11/2015 10:42

Thank you for coming to us with this question. First, while I can’t speak for Monsanto, I will address how GMO Answers works with the independent experts who answer questions on our website, and second, I’ll discuss how scientific consensus and disagreement about the same issue can coexist.

 

Since GMO Answers is an industry-funded initiative, we certainly understand that people may be skeptical about the independence of our expert contributors and even the veracity of their answers. We also realize that recent news articles related to email correspondence between biotech companies and university professors likely exacerbates that skepticism. 

 

When we launched GMO Answers over two years ago, we did so in the spirit of transparency – to answer any question asked – and our commitment to transparency continues. In our Stand Up for Science series on our site, we openly address some of the questions and issues emerging from the FOIA requests to academic experts who contribute to GMO Answers. We invite you to read our full series available here, which includes information about public private partnerships between industry and academia, and this excerpt below related to how we work with independent experts:

 

“About the GMO Answers Q&A Process:

GMO Answers is committed to finding the best experts to answer consumer questions. Depending on the nature of the question, the answer may be provided by an independent expert, industry organization, the GMO Answers Community Manager or an expert from a member company (Bayer, BASF, Dow, DuPont, Monsanto, Syngenta).

 

“We ask experts to draft responses that are authentically theirs and in their own words.  This approach is core to our credibility and commitment to transparency.

 

“How We Work With Independent Experts To Answer Questions:

Many of the questions submitted to GMO Answers are answered by third-party experts – some who are employees of public universities and thus subject to FOIA requests. In these cases, a question received on our site is routed to one or more independent experts who volunteer to provide answers within their field of expertise. We do not pay experts to answer questions. And experts answer questions on their own time and at their own pace.

 

“Once the third-party expert provides an answer, it is fact checked and reviewed for basic grammar. No edits are made without the consent of the expert.

 

“In addition, we will occasionally make suggestions to experts when an answer may be confusing to a non-scientific audience. Our goal for GMO Answers is to make sure consumers can get their questions answered clearly. Given the complexity of some of the questions (see www.gmoanswers.com for examples), this can take time and careful thought. GMO Answers encourages experts to write responses using language and terms a non-scientific person can understand. The experts make changes or authorize edits. Each answer is uniquely the expert’s response.

 

“Once the expert provides the final answer to GMO Answers, it is proofed for punctuation and typos, but the content is not changed or edited. …

 

“While we do not pay for experts’ answers and contributions to the GMO Answers website, at times experts have traveled to speak at or participate in events on behalf of the initiative. In these cases, we have reimbursed experts for their travel expenses. Outside of this reimbursement, though, experts are voluntarily taking time from their busy schedules and jobs to participate in these events.”

 

To get back to the first part of your question, which I interpret as - how can we claim there is scientific consensus on an issue when there is also still disagreement? 

 

First, let’s take a look at what scientific consensus means.  In his post for Skepti-Forum (reposted to GMO Answers), Richard Green explores scientific consensus and GMOs. To start, he tackles the definition of scientific consensus.  

 

“A scientific consensus indicates that scientists have stopped arguing among themselves. It means ideas have been tested and retested, points have been raised and refuted, and faulty hypotheses have been abandoned. The data is now clear enough that experts (people who may not necessarily like or want to agree with each other) can look at it and interpret it the same way. It is not a popularity contest; it means the sheer weight of the compelling evidence has narrowed the avenues of research to areas that continue to make sense.

 

“If you would like more detail on what a scientific consensus means, please refer to the Skeptical Raptor Blog

 

In his post Richard lists a number of domestic and international scientific bodies and science societies, such as the American Medical Association, French Academy of Science, and the Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities, that all confirm the scientific consensus related to the safety and health of GMOs. You can find an even longer list of supporters and their statements, as well as links to thousands of related studies, here.

 

Does overwhelming evidence and consensus mean that all scientists will agree? As you’re well aware, that answer is no. Richard continues:

 

“A scientific consensus is not complete unanimity.  You will always find people who will deny the consensus for whatever reasons:

 

 

“As stated above, consensus is achieved through the sheer weight of compelling evidence. Gathering the signatures of scientists and others on statements, petitions or letters is not enough to counter consensus. What is needed is data. It is a bit trite, but when bucking a consensus, the extraordinary claim will require extraordinary evidence.”

 

So, disagreement by some scientists or other parties does not necessarily erode scientific consensus or the evidence it’s based upon. In one of his posts on his blog Illumination, Kevin Folta fact checks the letter from the 300 scientists you reference in your question.  Kevin cites the recent Pew/AAAS study in which 88 percent of scientists confirm the safety of GMOs and states that in spite of the letter of 300:

 

“Scientific consensus on the safety record and utility of transgenic organisms is sound, and support an overwhelming majority of scientists that accept the position that transgenic crops pose no more risk than those derived from conventional breeding.”    

 

To close, understanding you may be uncertain about GMOs, we encourage you to dig deeper and do your own research. We established a section on our website called Frequently Cited StudiesIn this section we have collated the studies most often referenced in the questions, answers and articles on our website. This section contains both “pro” and “con” studies for you to review to help you make up your own mind about GMOs.

 

If you have more questions, don’t hesitate to ask.