I chose to do my critic on the blog GMO Foods & The Anti-science written by DR. Merrill Mathews with the institute for policy innovation. This article was about the Democrats who were afraid that GMO's (genetically modified organisms) were destroying our bodies and the environment. When in reality the GMO's have been approved by the FDA but are still limited or are not commercially available. These GMO's include certain varieties of squash, cantaloupe, flax, papaya, tomatoes, sugar beets and other foods.
However even with these foods being accepted by the FDA the left critics have argued to the point where it is now required for GMO labels to be on all genetically modified organisms. even though these foods have been tested by FDA teams of scientists knowledgeable in genetic engineering, toxicology, chemistry, nutrition, and other scientific areas have carefully evaluated the safety assessments taking into account the relevant data and information, that the left critics are scaring the public into thinking that it is true.
The writer thinks that because of this new Vermont law that the companies instead of following this new rule which penalizes each product with a fine of $1,000 per day per product, that they would pull out of Vermont entirely, however because of this the state and the companies would face consequences, but the decision will not have been backed by scientific claims that are untrue.
The writer of this blog had a more sarcastic view on how the left handled this situation, meaning that he thought that their claims were contradictory in the fact that the left accused the conservatives of being anti-science when in fact they went against policies that were backed by available science, basically saying that they were the ones being anti-science not the conservatives. In this blog I agree with the writers claim because even though they had good intentions about trying to protect the public from possible health harm, they still ignored the available science that had proof that the GMO products were ok for people to eat. They had good intentions but could not back up their claims, making their argument less compelling to the public view.
