Union of Concerned Scientists

They've been wonderful advocates on climate change for decades; they are media savvy, they train scientists to be media savvy, and they push the media and policy makers alike to understand the scientific consensus. When it comes to climate change, I trust them over just about any other source. Which is why it's so disappointing that they are so wrong on genetically modified organisms. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is an American environmental organization founded in 1969 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which claims 400,000 members. The organization claims to focus on seven primary causes:
 * Protecting scientists from political pressures to distort their findings.
 * Popularizing the scientific consensus on global warming.
 * Promoting clean vehicles (electric cars and biofuels).
 * Promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency.
 * Opposing nuclear power, while claiming to be neither pro- or anti-nuclear.
 * Advocating for nuclear disarmament and actions that reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism
 * Promoting "sustainable agriculture" (organic food) while strongly opposing genetically modified crops.

Promotion of agroecology
Most frustrating to me, is when agroecology is used in this context: “We don’t need [insert technology here], because we have agroecology!

In the agroecology program at the University of Wyoming, we teach that proper use of technology is an indispensable part of achieving sustainability. After all, if technology in crop production was shunned, we’d have succumbed to the Malthusian catastrophe many generations ago.

Gurian-Sherman and UCS are perhaps best known in the GMO debate for a controversial 2009 report titled “Failure to Yield”, which claimed that crop biotechnology had not lived up to its promise to increase yields. The report, and subsequent coverage by UCS, favored organics and agroecology as a superior production method. The piece was not peer reviewed and has been contradicted by dozens of studies. Per-acre yields of organic crops are significantly lower than those for conventional, with estimates ranging from 10-35%, and even higher among some grains and vegetables. These gaps have been established both by meta-analysis of published research and by USDA surveys. In the most comprehensive study to date on the GMO yield gap question, PLOS ONE published A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops in 2014, crunching data from 147 studies and finding that GM crops increased yields by an average of 22 percent. A 2017 research led by Jayson Lusk, professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Oklahoma State University, suggests that the UCS analysis showing no difference in yields between GE and non-GE corn was wrong because it did not control for weather. “Once temperature and precipitation controls are added, GE adoption has significant effects on corn yields,” the study found.

The study received many more criticisms for its limitations and flawed methodology.

Back-and-forth with Mark Lynas
UCS criticized Mark Lynas over his recent speech in support of genetically engineered crops. Doug Gurian-Sherman, a member of UCS, claimed on the organization's blog that Lynas is "attempting to discourage real scientific debate" and complained that Lynas' speech received "uncritical reception" by the media. In response, Lynas called UCS "one of the most ideological of all the green groups" and took particular issue with the organization's casual dismissal of the position of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on GMOs, saying that UCS "has no respect for scientific consensus in areas where real scientists conflict with its biases".

Genetic Literacy Project
Due to the obvious stance of the UCS on GMOs, The Genetic Literacy Project has compiled a number of scientific documentation refuting many of the claims made by the UCS.

Media Bias/Fact Check
UCS’s rating went from pro-science to being just high to mostly factual. Now, their rating conclusion states: