Home | About | Donate

Sorry, Monsanto. The Science Is on Our Side, Not Yours


#1

Sorry, Monsanto. The Science Is on Our Side, Not Yours

Katherine Paul

A few weeks ago, I spoke by phone with Cathleen Enright, executive vice president of the Biotech Industry Organization. (Long story).

During the course of our conversation, when we touched on the subject of the science behind the debate over whether or not GMOs are “safe” (me arguing that there’s no scientific consensus) Enright said, “Then you must not believe in climate change, either.”


#3

Recall Hillary Clinton in June 2014 addressing a GMO cartel convention in San Diego and admonishing them to put a new spin on GMOs to get young voters to warm up to her stance against regulating or labeling GMOs.


#4

Good point. To paraphrase Sinclair, we cannot expect our politicians to understand scientific truths when their careers depend on their not understanding.

mcp


#5

Monsanto is a criminal organization. For over a century they have developed products that poison people, and the environment. All of these years they have been well aware of the problems that their new protects were going to cause. They used their advanced knowledge that their product caused cancer, or damaged the environment.to develop a strategy that would slow down the products removal from the market. They have been doing this for over 100 years. The only thing new is that today they have the government to help them.


#6

The subject of the authors conversation with Ms. Enright was regarding the scientific consensus that GMO foods have no health effects. The difference between eating a GMO salmon and a non GMO salmon is far smaller that eating, a salmon and, say, a trout. But all her cited references regard pesticides, not GMO's. These herbicides and pesticides are going to be used, GMO's or not, but in some cases (BT Corn) the GMO's reduce the need for pesticides. And the use of roundup is associated with no-till agriculture, which has soil conservation benefits, not the GMO crops.

The comparison of those that think that GMO food is poisoning them with AGW denialists is very apt.

GMO's in the context of capitalism are economically dangerous - because they monopolize seeds. But this case cannot be made over the clamor of the unscientific stuff from the bourgeois foodies.


#7

It will be more difficult than usual for Monsanto to discredit the above mentioned IARC report, given how historically conservative the IARC is with their ratings. Let's hope the EPA grows a set when it comes time later this year to re-evaluate the safety of this chemical that's sloshed on crops at a volume of more than 283 million tons a year.

Hey Cheney! We've found those chemical weapons of mass destruction you were looking for.


#9

I take exception to the statement that GMO's 'reduce the need for pesticides'.

As season after season of GMO crops are sown, more chemicals are needed - because nature adapts to the chemicals. That means people are eating more chemicals. The lack of labeling keeps humans from being able to effectively regulate their own diets - unless they go organic, and that too is slipping thanks to pollen drift.
.
Peace!


#10

One question:
How?


#11

Erisx is right and who in the world wants insecticide in ever kernel of corn they eat when they eat products of Bt corn.


#12

Do you feel up to trying to crowd source fund a hostile stock takeover of Monsanto to put them out of business? I certainly do not feel up to trying anything like that. And I do not see how anything short of that can do the job.


#13

I was trying to reply to your response to Inshort rather than your response to Yunzer, but I guess it doesn't matter.


#16

Thank you, Ms. Paul.

The data leaves out the witness of the dying birds, butterflies, and bees.

Also missing, that the agents paid by Monsanto and friends love to use the false canard that bio-engineering is the same thing as in-house pollination, a craft that's gone on for decades. Of course these goons leave out the FACT that rhinoceros genes don't naturally end up in plants.

I am yet to read the comments. History shows that these disgusting corporations probably use outfits that hire boiler room kids to counter anything that puts Monsanto (and friends) under the light of scrutiny... good bet they're here today. Most articles, of late, attract 3-6 comments. The fact that this Monsanto expose has 15 is of statistical relevance. How many message shapers have shown up to defend the entity that writes their checks? Inquiring minds want to know!


#17

Understanding and public endorsement are not the same thing.


#18

From the engineer who's never at work, but who works hard to demonize people here who challenge official government narratives. I figured that YOU would be pushing a pro-Monsanto view.


#19

The U.S. military industrial complex has access to funds that criminal enterprises can only dream of. And naturally, these brothers in spilt blood defend their comrades.

No one mentions the back-story, and it's that Monsanto was the key player in providing weapons--Agent Orange, in particular--for war. Since guerilla warfare is, and has always been a problem to classically trained armies, the bastards figure that the best way to defeat the enemy du jour is to kill all the trees and foliage that grants them cover.

I've said this for 8 years here: that given the burgeoning Cancer rates that hit Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and anywhere else Agent Orange was sprayed... the bastards have WAR CRIME acts to answer for.

Leave it to the MIC to instead grant them cover... and employ them further. This company has immunity due to its service to the make-war state's elites.


#20

Just so full of shit.


#21

Talk about hubris! I doubt if any honest poster has not confronted annoying problems with just about any and every manmade technology. This shows human flaws in design pattern. That's why people (usually male) in lab coats with a few years of college training have no right to dismantle what the Great Mother put together.

You set up an argument that it depends who is doing the dismantling and suggesting that if it's primarily in service to the profit motive, then it's dangerous. But you use this either-or argument to essentially give genetic engineering not just a pass, but a glowing endorsement.

Sounds like Company Talking Point strategy to me.


#22

Nature is not a tool, Mr. Gates.