These characterizations were made in the context of educating the public about questionable or potentially fraudulent or dangerous claims and practices, efforts to define the nature of science, or humorous parodies of poor scientific reasoning.
Criticism of pseudoscience, generally by the scientific community or skeptical organizations, involves critiques of the logical, methodological, or rhetorical bases of the topic in question.
[584][failed verification] The following concepts have only a very small number of proponents, yet have become notable: But see also:Domingo, José L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Giné (2011).
In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited.
However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed.
Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.Krimsky, Sheldon (2015).
I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs.
Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data.
Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.