By Pamela Ronald and Karl Haro von Mogel

Just as many on the political right discount the broad scientific consensus that human activities contribute to global warning, many progressive advocacy groups disregard, reject, or ignore the decades of scientific studies demonstrating the safety and wide-reaching benefits of GE crops. Is political identity more important than science and the environment?

Review your knowledge of food, farming and plant genetics by reviewing this list. It represents specific points of broad scientific consensus: that is, the conclusions of the scientific community based on analysis of thousands of experimental results over the past 10-20 years. For each point, we have provided links to appropriate references. Please let us know which ones we missed.

In the last few weeks, on various blogs and forums, representatives of the Union of Concerned Scientists have variously supported, rejected or ignored many of these 20 points of scientific consensus. Most often they simply avoid stating their position.

Consider point #1. “GE crops currently on the market are safe to eat.”

Margaret Mellon of UCS recently stated that they “agree that GE products currently on the market–overwhelmingly herbicide tolerant (HT) and BT crops–are unlikely to be allergenic or toxic and on that basis are likely safe to consume. “

That sounds pretty clear right? Mellon, a scientist herself, agrees with the scientific consensus. But a statement on the UCS Web site appears to reject this scientific consensus and instead does some fear mongering: “GE crops do have the potential to cause a variety of health problems and environmental impacts. For instance, they may produce new allergens and toxins, spread harmful traits to weeds and non-GE crops, or harm animals that consume them.” While it is technically true that any new crop, whether it was developed by genetic engineering or conventional plant breeding, poses risks, by excluding conventional methods in their statement (which are the only crops that have so far caused allergies), and by not mentioning the scientific consensus about the safety of GE crops, the UCS is misleading their followers.

This is just one of the many striking examples of why it is difficult to discern whether UCS rejects or accepts the scientific consensus on GE crops. It is not possible to know the reason for their inadequate communication on key points, but what we do know is that the result contributes to the spread of misinformation about plant genetics, which can impair policy-making.

We extend an open invitation to UCS and other advocacy groups to state clearly whether they accept or reject the scientific consensus on these 20 points. We would like to see these groups become a more credible source of scientific information about GE crops to the public. For science-based policy to be effective, policy makers need accurate information.

In a subsequent post we will address policy implications of the scientific consensus.

