Michael Spector's The Scientific Denial

Charles Krauthammer writes an excellent article by attacking the debate over climate change in “The Myth of “Settled Science””. He opens up the article stating that he takes a neutral stance and that neither those who agree or disagree with climate change are right. His main go to target is President Obama. Charles believes that the global warming debate can never be settled. This is because, science is always changing. Based on support of Richard McNider and John Christy, science and technology cannot prove that climate change is a fact or doesn’t exist. With examples of unnecessary mammograms that cause harm rather than good, he questions how can science predict the future based on certain events. He proves that Hurricane Sandy wasn’t the

There is no doubt that Jeffrey Smith is advancing his career of activism. His background does not have anything to do with science. The shreds of evidence used to support the allegations are neither scientific nor peer-reviewed documents. Pragmatic science solutions offered? Jeffrey does not offer any alternative solution to net the effects of genetically modified food. It conclusively, follows that claims by Jeffrey are distorted, wrong, misrepresentative, and misleading. It could not be entirely misleading, but lack of scientific evidence and use of peer-reviewed document shatters all the 65

He talks about people spending billions of money on “fraud” products. Yet people don't care unless theres proof . People are concerned that GMOs are unhealthy. Scientific studies to date have uncovered no adverse health effects due to eating GMOs . people fear that they are substantial enough that new foods are being tested for their safety. Not seeing what these efforts, there is tremendous continuing suspicion of the health effects of GMOs.

In the essay “Genetically Modified Food: Watching What We Eat,” by Julie Cooper, she argues against the rampant use of genetically modified food (GMO) without any current form of regulation. Cooper discusses the possibility of health risks to those consuming foods with altered genes and the food’s capabilities to have far-reaching health risks. She continues with a discussion as to how and why the creation and use of the GMOs have become so unregulated. She then discusses the response, which is the public’s cry for their right to make informed choices. Other topics discusses are the political, environmental, and corporate ramifications of the rise of GMOs.

Every day, millions of Texans spend their money on the one thing they need to survive: food. Whether at a grocery store or a restaurant, food has never been more easily accessible in our history. With this increase in accessibility, the different options of foods to choose from have also increased. But although people now have the ability to choose between fat-free, low-carb, or gluten-free foods, they fail to make the most vital decision in deciding what will go in their bodies; the presence of Genetically Modified Organisms. Although Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs, haven’t been scientifically proven to be safe to consume, 70% of the food that Americans consume has had some form of altering by means of genetic engineering. The problem

In 2015, Tim Anderson, a PhD researcher, wrote “GMO Foods are Unsafe”, an article which perhaps sheds light on the mishandling of genetically modified foods, including the lack of testing of said food products, as well as the potential hazards posed to humans and the environment. In the same year, Genetic Literacy Project’s web editor, JoAnna Wendel, wrote a contrasting article “Genetically Modified Foods Have Been Studied and Found Safe to Eat”, and voices her disgust over the false information that constantly belittle GMOs. She believes the allegation that little evaluation has been accomplished to monitor and ensure the safety of these genetic modifications is based on frantic opinions and not accurate facts. Although their positions appear to utterly oppose one

Yet, despite these things, I’m going to focus on the health effects and the fact that the evidence suggests that health issues are not a concern for consumers. For example, in the article “Scientists Say GMO Food are Safe, Public Skepticism remains” from The Plate, they mentioned a group by the name of The National Academy of Sciences (a group funded by the U.S. Congress to provide expert scientifically-based advice on a wide variety of issues) and in particular used their findings in the article. What the committee came up with, after a two year long study, was that they “[didn’t] find evidence the consumption of the GE foods currently in our food supply increase food allergies, have significant effects on the GI tract, or pose a risk for horizontal gene transfer” (Tamar Haspel). To simplify what the committee was trying to get across, genetically

GMOs, (genetically modified organisms) have been a topic of interest in the social eyes for years. Since they’ve been created, many people have voiced and written about their opinions on GMOs, and whether they are dangerous or not. Created to expand the genetic diversity of crops and animals, many don’t know whether GMOs are good or bad, and neither do researchers. Though there hasn’t been any evidence claiming whether GMOs are good or bad, it has certainly not stopped the public from creating their own opinions. Since no one knows the truth behind GMO, it has opened a window of opportunities for companies including Monsanto to voice their support of GMO, while other companies like the Non-GMO Project voice their

Whether Americans realize it or not, most of them consume genetically modified organisms every time they eat a snack or a meal. According to Robin Mather’s article “The Threats from Genetically Modified Foods”, “you’re eating genetically modified foods almost daily unless you grow all of the food or always buy organic” (Mather). This can be a scary thought for those who know about the numerous effects of GMOs or those who didn’t know what was in the food they’ve been ingesting for years. When Nielsen selected 1,200 Americans for a survey on GMOs for The Wall Street Journal, “61% of consumers had heard of GMOs and nearly half of those people said they avoid eating them” (Gasparro). The only difficulty with avoiding genetically modified organisms is that they make up approximately eighty percent of the ingredients used in processed foods that put together most of the regular American diet (Gasparro). The reason that genetically modified organisms are in most processed foods is because most processed foods contain corn or high fructose corn syrup that comes from genetically modified corn plants. Of all the corn, soybeans, sugar beet, and canola crops grown in the United States, over ninety percent of those crops are grown from genetically altered seeds (Gasparro). Ever since 1996, when genetically modified plants were first commercially grown for the public, the use of genetically modified seeds has been on a sharp increase (Charman). Although the use of genetically modified

“Should We Care About Genetically Modified Foods?” by John N. Shaw appeared in Food Safety News issue of February 1, 2010, as a feature under the health section on the controversy between the pros and cons of genetically modified foods (Also known as GMO, genetically modified organisms). The main idea of this article is to inform people of the benefits of GMOs . The author, John Shaw received his Bachelor of Science degree in Finance with a minor in Marketing from the University of Arkansas in 2007, where he was a “leadership scholar.” In addition to his studies, he has worked as a research assistant with Food Law LL.M. Director Susan Schneider, interned with Wal-Mart Government and Corporate Affairs division, the Arkansas Attorney General Public Protection Division, and with United States Senator Blanche Lincoln. John has a passion for Food Law, sports, and outdoors. In the article, he states, “ I submit that I am no scientist; merely an interested student.” According to the article, he is passionate and has done sufficient research about the topic to support his argument.

In the TED Talk “What’s wrong with our food system,” Birke Baehr tells his audience that “genetically engineered food…have been proven to cause cancer,” and that eating genetically engineered food causes “signs of liver and kidney toxicity” and “kidney inflammation and lesions” (Baehr). According to The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, a genetically modified organism (GMO) is an “organism whose genome has been altered by the techniques of genetic engineering so that its DNA contains one or more genes not normally found there” (gmo). The essence of Baehr’s argument is that GMOs are harmful to human health and people need to support local, organic farmers who don’t use GMOs. However, this is something the government or scientific community is trying to ignore. Due to conflict of interest of government officials, government supported scientific agencies have been claiming GMOs are harmless and purposefully disregarding scientific studies that prove harmful effects of GMOs. This is a problem because the government is taking action to support GMOs while consumers are being misinformed. Evidence shows that GMOs “have harmful effects on laboratory animals,” “increased the use of pesticides,” and affect the nutritional value of food (Antoniou). Thus, the government should stop overlooking studies suggesting harmful effects of GMOs, require proper testing on GM crops, and stop supporting biotech companies in order to end the use of genetically modified

It is important to appreciate the current nature and status of the world because there are individuals who laid the appropriate foundation for it. As Michael Specter’s TED Talk on The Danger of Science Denial, he outlined the challenges that might emanate from science denial. There are reason that ought to be checked critically since they affect the current and future generation and these include health, wealth, mobility, opportunity and declining rates of diseases. It is critically clear that Specter performs a very relevant and excellent job to the desired audience by discussing emphatically on important issues that affect the current world. He poses a challenge to the audience to basically look at the world at its normality despite looking at it from skepticism side of it. The skepticism tend to affect the smart decision technique in the modern society as it relates to The Danger of Science Denial. He logically asks the Americans and international TED talk fans to analyze effectively the desired big picture besides both logical and ethical picture. He asked the audience to emphatically compare the pictures broadly and identify the worst picture. This could assist the audience to come up with the right decision regarding their perception of current world to the future generation.

Michael Specter presents relevant, controversial, topics in Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Harms the Planet and Threatens Our Lives. According to Specter, denailists fear science and its complexity even when there exist a lot of powerful data supporting it .Specter uses examples, evidence and members of society to defend and support the issues he presents. Denialism is a book that deserves to be recognized based on its relevancy to the world nowdays. A main idea brought up throughout the chapters of Denialism is how people pay more attention to the failures that result from sciences including vaccinations, medicines, genetically modified

The public has grown intimidated by GMO’s and have come up with a myth of how harmful these modifications are to humans. It’s been seen in documentaries, and heard through advertisements but where did it all come from? The fear of eating something naturally made then transformed to fit societies need created the myth: GMOs are bad for people. With this mindset, people will willingly reject foods after they find out it has been “modified”.

When GMOs first became “a thing” in 1996, the United States immediately began planting them in many rapidly increasing areas. (Lucht, 2015, p.4257) These plants were mostly insect and herbicide-resistant. The US was not alone in its support for GMOs seeing as Argentina, India, China and Canada all began planting GMOs as well. (Lucht, 2015, p.4257) No one seemed to see anything wrong with this movement until the first US shipments of GM soy arrived in Europe and protests breached. In contrast to many other countries, the European Union is against GM foods. Some EU countries (Spain, Portugal, Czech Republic, Romania and Slovakia) grow GM maize and have actually publicized that it has benefitted them and their economies. (Lucht, 2015, p.4256) When consumers were asked in Europe if GM food should be supported, more than half disagreed. If anything in Europe is genetically modified it must state that it is on the label. (Twardowski, 2015) This runs true even if the product is physically and chemically the same as the untouched product. Because of this skepticism shown in Europe about whether or not GMOs could be trusted, suspicions in the US arose as well. Consumers began to make the argument that if we weren’t told what we are eating was being genetically modified, are we really aware of what we are eating? (Bunge, 2016) Many consumers believed that their values and beliefs were being mocked.