Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Judi Lynn

(160,449 posts)
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:45 PM Mar 2016

The Crusade in Favor of GMO: Falsehoods and Vilification Will Not Fool the Public

March 22, 2016
The Crusade in Favor of GMO: Falsehoods and Vilification Will Not Fool the Public

by Colin Todhunter

Pro-GMO campaigners often attack critics of the technology by claiming their negative views of it emanate from well-funded environmentalist groups or commercial interests in the organic food sector. The assertion is that such bodies promote falsehoods and scaremongering about GM to protect their own interests and that the GMO agritech sector has fallen victim to this.

Another claim is that critics rely on quackery on the internet or on some form of discredited science that is only carried out by those whom the ‘scientific community’ has seen fit to marginalise due to ‘bad’ science and a perceived political agenda.

The gist of the argument is that pseudo-science and a powerful ideologically motivated group are holding the world to ransom by conspiring to mislead the public and prevent the spread of GM, which according to pro-GMO activists, is denying the poor and hungry of the world access to food.

In a recent piece on Huffington Post, Jon Entine followed a similar line of attack to denigrate Rachel Parent, her family’s business interests and the campaign which she heads, Kids Right To Know (KRTK). He calls Parent a well-polished ‘crusader’ against GM food. He also argues that on the KRTK website, there is a stream of studies cited that raise concerns about GM, but which, according to Entine, are predictably and conveniently labelled as being mostly a combination of fringe research and a collection of discredited, misconstrued and biased studies.

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/22/the-crusade-in-favour-of-gmo-falsehoods-and-vilification-will-not-fool-the-public/

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Crusade in Favor of GMO: Falsehoods and Vilification Will Not Fool the Public (Original Post) Judi Lynn Mar 2016 OP
We have a few of them here...watch them come in... angstlessk Mar 2016 #1
Horrible article. Eko Mar 2016 #2
#1 pro GMO advocate angstlessk Mar 2016 #3
If you cant figure out the difference Eko Mar 2016 #4
From what I can tell Eko Mar 2016 #5
Can't imagine anyone doing it from natural motivation. n/t Judi Lynn Mar 2016 #6
Agreed, way too generalized. Each specific GMO needs to be examined independently. nt anotherproletariat Mar 2016 #7
Thanks, Eko Mar 2016 #8
Science Over Fear! Gamecock Lefty Mar 2016 #9

angstlessk

(11,862 posts)
1. We have a few of them here...watch them come in...
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 09:37 PM
Mar 2016

,,defending GMO's exactly as the piece demonstrates!

Eko

(7,231 posts)
2. Horrible article.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 10:37 PM
Mar 2016

From the article "The GMO-consensus campaign points to the Royal Society of Medicine and the Royal Society of London as part of the scientific consensus, but neither organisation has an official policy on GMO safety. "


But there is this,,

The Royal Society of Medicine
7 Conclusions and recommendations
We recognise the valuable potential and current impact of plant biotechnology on the quality of food and its importance in the development of new crops. We support continuation of research on GM plants as valuable in itself and as the only way to assess the true potential of GM plants. However, the Royal Society recognises the concerns expressed with regard to the technology and believes that these should continue to be addressed through collaboration and dialogue between industrialists, public sector scientists, regulatory authorities and non-government organisations. It is important that the public debate about GM food takes account of wider issues than the science alone, but we wish to stress the importance of informing debate with sound science.

Page 10. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2002/9960.pdf


Eko

(7,231 posts)
4. If you cant figure out the difference
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 10:43 PM
Mar 2016

between pro science of which I am or pro-gm of which I am ambivalent then that is your problem.

Eko

(7,231 posts)
5. From what I can tell
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 10:46 PM
Mar 2016

you are pro-misrepresenting facts to support your beliefs, since you agree with the article and it clearly misrepresented what the royal society said.

Eko

(7,231 posts)
8. Thanks,
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 02:33 AM
Mar 2016

Science deals with specifics for the most part. I could say that natural foods kills more people every year than GMO foods and that would be true. Factually true. Does that mean GMO's are safer, no. Natural foods kill people because of how they are handled, GMO's once they hit the market will do the exact same more than likely. There is no evidence that one is safer than the other other than generalized idiotic bullshit. I have no problem with GMO's, I have no problem with natural foods, there is no one solution fixes everything food wise on our planet, to think so is to be dogmatic. Lets use all the tools available and not be so rigidly fixed on the one that fits our own narrative. Lets believe in science. The only objective tool we have for such subjective poor fools that we are.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»The Crusade in Favor of G...