Politically liberal science is bad science.

However there is no scientific backing to the idea that current GM crops are a threat to human safety.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/

Generating three centimeters of top soil takes 1,000 years, and if current rates of degradation continue all of the world's top soil could be gone within 60 years, a senior UN official said on Friday.

I only (now) buy certifid non GMO seed of a Saranac variety of alfalfa. Yeh, Ive got leafhoppers and other insects that make my property a mecca for barn swallow invasions, However I dont have giant infestations of Roundup redy pigweed or wild indigo "Spikeweeds" (thats a local name)

The natural environment is an interlaced WEB of ependency (plants-animals- fungi-bacteria).

Just because one type of "ecological damage" done by modern practices is true doesn't mean that another is true.

You are arguing a narrative.

Their use promotes monoculture on an industrial scale and has been shown to effect the populations of beneficial insects and soil bacteria.
Quote:

This is a thread about political ideology versus science.

But aren't these disputes between "liberal" science and "conservative" science eventually self-correcting?

So you don't like to see a scientist engaged in political discussions? That's nuts — we need to hear from people with expertise.

We are still fighting over evolution.

We have a set of scientific facts accepted by political liberals, and a different set of scientific facts accepted by political conservatives. This is not a sign of good science.

OVERALL FINDING ON PURPORTED ADVERSE EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH OF FOODS DERIVED FROM GE CROPS: On the basis of detailed examination of comparisons of currently commercialized GE and non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal-toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods, and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts.

... Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years). Historical records indicate that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun’s radiative output, changes in Earth’s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century. Warming is observed in land-surface temperatures, sea-surface temperatures, and for the last 30 years, lower-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite. The second sentence is a definition that should explicitly include water vapor. The third sentence notes various examples of human contributions to greenhouses gases. There are, of course, natural sources as well.

The evidence for global temperature rise over the last century is compelling. However, the word "incontrovertible" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2007 APS statement is rarely used in science because by its very nature science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century. (Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html)

...the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts.

However, the word "incontrovertible" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2007 APS statement is rarely used in science because by its very nature science questions prevailing ideas.

I think the scientific community has a duty to alert the public to disturbing trends — and to make it clear when individuals are speaking speculatively as opposed to presenting settled science.

Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity.

Greenpeace has spearheaded opposition to Golden Rice, which has the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which has the greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia.

The World Health Organization estimates that 250 million people, suffer from VAD, including 40 percent of the children under five in the developing world. Based on UNICEF statistics, a total of one to two million preventable deaths occur annually as a result of VAD, because it compromises the immune system, putting babies and children at great risk. VAD itself is the leading cause of childhood blindness globally affecting 250,000 - 500,000 children each year. Half die within 12 months of losing their eyesight.

If you find out that the scientific research doesn't back up your assumptions, would you change your assumptions?