Home | About | Donate

Claiming to Represent 'Science', the Global GMO Industry is Built on Fear, Fraud and Corruption


Claiming to Represent 'Science', the Global GMO Industry is Built on Fear, Fraud and Corruption

Colin Todhunter

Critics of GM promote pseudo-science, make false claims based on ignorance and are driven by politically motivated ideology.

The actions of these affluent elitists effectively deny food to the hungry. They are therefore committing crimes against humanity. If you follow the GM issue, no doubt you've heard this kind of simplistic, tired and predictable diatribe before.

A good deal of the debate surrounding GMOs involves attacking critics of the technology who voice genuine concerns and put forward valid arguments to back up their case.


Good article. The pro-GM lobby operates in exactly the same way as the pro-meat lobby. Whenever an evil industry is highly profitable, it lashes out in all directions against anyone and everyone who dares to oppose it by pointing out the problems caused by the industry. The tobacco industry used the same tactics for many decades, but eventually lost the fight. The pro-GM and pro-meat lobbies will also lose, eventually. It takes a long time for the truth to come out when so much power and money is unleashed to twist the thinking of the general public. Look at all the people who still believe that eating slaughtered animals is an essential activity to maintain good health when in fact it promotes bad health. These same people are also in denial of the fact that the animal slaughter industry is the number one driver of climate change. The pro-meat lobby has been very successful in promoting its falsehoods. The pro-GM lobby has been just as successful, so far. Both lobbies will join the pro-smoking lobby in the hall of fame of failed lies.


While I generally agree with your statement, I have to dispute the portion where you say that "the animal slaughter industry is the number one driver of climate change". This is simply not true (the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] has estimated that livestock production is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gases), and I have encountered this belief on other internet fora as well as at community meetings about what can be done about climate change. Predictably, the "number one driver of climate change" is our cars and the fossil fuels they burn, followed by deforestation. While cutting down on meat can be beneficial, to have a climate-friendly diet involves looking at the distance all of your food travels from farm to table (animal-based or otherwise), how that food was grown (organic agriculture stores more carbon in the soil), and the energy necessary to produce the chemical inputs for conventionally-grown crops. We can all be more responsible with our individual choices, but vegetarianism isn't the magic bullet that's going to save us--there's far more work to do than that.


Well-argued piece from start to finish.

In the paragraph below one can follow the same arc of logic when looking at corporate trade, in general. Every decision is decided by elites and now encoded into law under dubious trade pacts. Using the magic word FREE (as in marketing so-called free trade), every civil liberty--or freedom--is being quickly eclipsed:

"So, what are we to conclude? That certain figures within the pro-GM lobby are objective and independent? That they really do believe in choice and democracy, even when the evidence is clear that such things are being denied consumers and farmers through, for example, unremitting regulatory fraud, rigged markets, secrecy, manipulation of aid and trade and strings-attached loans? That they know where the line is between science and lobbying, between science and propaganda?"

The tactic of terming the citizen-opponent of gen-tech "food" as an authoritarian is well practiced in these forum threads. Industry shills use that tactic, technique, and verbiage often.


The statistics have been pointed out to him by you and others, but like the clown who insists that our nation is divided between 50% of affluent persons and 50% of poor... regardless of HOW MANY times the accurate data is offered, the parrot will only repeat HIS talking points.


That 18% figure was quoted by me for years. Then the figure was re-calculated and placed at 51% by a paper published by the Worldwatch Institute. For example, 91% of the deforestation you mention is caused by the meat industry cutting down the rain forest so that cattle can graze where the forest used to be. Since it could eliminate half of all greenhouse gases, vegetarianism is the closest thing we have to a silver bullet so don't dismiss it flippantly.


91% of deforestation is caused by cattle production?

Can I see a source for that?




As an environmentalist and animal rights supporter, I'm becoming increasingly annoyed by your persistently and negligently misleading statements.

The links on that page specifically refer not to deforestation, but to deforestation of the Brazilian amazon.

Check your facts. People on these threads have advised you several times that you are misrepresenting the facts. That is a disservice to the cause.


As if deforestation of the Amazon does not represent deforestation everywhere? The world's largest and most important rainforest? And your hostile response does serve the cause? Your arrogant, condescending attitude is sickening. If you support the environment and animal rights, why do you assert that the meat industry's destruction of 91% of the Amazonian rainforest does not apply to other forests as well? I suspect the percentage is even higher in other, less famous forests that no one is protecting. As to those who accuse me of making misleading statements, I understand that they cannot support animal agriculture on its merits so they have to resort to character assassination by calling me a liar, one who mis-leads. It is their last defense and I see that you are using the same pathetic tactic. With environmentalists and animal welfare people like you, those of us who are sincere don't need any further opposition. If my comment had said that 91% of Amazonian forest was being destroyed for cattle grazing, and other forests are probably experiencing the same or even worse destruction, then my comment could not have been parsed unfairly as you were so eager to do. An intelligent environmentalist would have understood what I was saying without requiring me to make the obvious qualification because that 91% figure is well-known among true environmentalists. And I am increasingly annoyed by your repeated insistence that you are an environmentalist in view of the way you attack everything I say, especially your absurd claim that my remarks are intentionally misleading and hurtful to the environmental cause I promote. You are just another member of the CD herd that likes to vilify me. Go ahead and pour on the scorn; it might make you feel better. But if you think you are advancing the causes of environmentalism/animal rights by heaping criticism on me, you are indeed a fool.


Look: when you say that the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions is agriculture despite a ton of contraveneing evidence and when you misrepresent a statistic about the Brazilian rainforest as a statistic about all forest, people will read it and see a bunch of bullshit from some vegan. Then, when someone represents the actual significant and realistic facts, they too will be seen as another vegan bullshitter.

People keep telling you to check your facts and you keep ignoring them and it's annoying. I'm not villyfying you.


I have checked my facts and I have posted the verifying links. You people are annoyed by the truth.