Have anti-GMO activists gone off the rails? By Mark Morford

[madokie]

Plentiful are the takeaways from Will Saletan’s expertly researched, if a bit viciously anti-activist, barn-burner of piece over at Slate on the various absurdities, lies and distortions in the war over GMOs – lies which, according to Saletan, fall far more in the laps of the obsessive anti-GMO activists themselves than they do the government or the usual Big Ag corporate villains. What a thing.

I’ve long been a casual GMO skeptic, far more wary of any megacorporation trumpeting their own patents as the savior of humanity and the “only” way to feed nine billion, than of those fighting for labeling transparency and food safety.

Put another way: There is simply no way I will ever trust a company like Monsanto, the current high priest of the Church of GMOs and the erstwhile manufacturer of such humane joy as DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange, RoundUp and bovine growth hormones, over an organization like Greenpeace, a flawed and frequently politicized, but still largely vital organ of truth-telling and genuine concern.

But if Saletan is to be believed, something is seriously amiss on the activist side of things, Greenpeace very much included. And it’s ugly indeed.

The rest: http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2015/07/21/are-gmo-activists-off-the-rails/

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Meh.

All I see are a lot of opinions, and no actual facts about these 'going off the rails' folks. I thought maybe I'd read the article and see some actual instances of anti-GMO activists 'going off the rails'. At least a few anecdotes, if not any actual serious data. Lots of links, though, if you're the kind of person who actually like 'journalists' who simply throw tons of links around and expect readers to spend hours wading through other sites. Took the first one to see if I'd get some anecdotes there, but nope, just another linked piece of boilerplate 'GMO-activists are wrong'. Didn't bother with the rest.

Maybe the next time he writes about the 'ugly' he can be bothered to actually tell us about it.

[Igel]

2. Yeah, well ...

There are those who distrust Big Pharma and their "studies" as well, and rely on those who point out all the risks of drugs and vaccines but have no obvious financial interest. The anti-vaxxers have their own Science (tm), just as the anti-GMO people do.

While I think a religious exemption for vaccinations is merited, I think non-vaccination because you think that Big Pharma is out to shove poison into our kids or vaccines will make our "wimmen" sterile and servile are both stupid, ridiculous ideas. (One is the uneducated fundie Pakistani view preventing polio and other vaccination programs from working, the other is an upper-middle class more liberal view. It's amusing that they reach the same kind of conclusion out of blind, uncomprehending fear and suspicion.) But the educated middle-class anti-vaxxers play the same game for the same reasons that the anti-GMOers do.

In the case of GMO, what's at play isn't the science but the distrust of Monsanto. Much of the Science (tm) is rooted in the halo effect, fed by confirmation bias: Monsanto is bad because of Agent Orange and napalm, therefore everything Monsanto does must be bad. Moreover, it's capitalist, and that's also evil, so Monsanto must be really evil. That means we have to backtrack evil to DDT (when that wasn't clear, and, in fact, it still isn't clear, Carson notwithstanding). RoundUp threats are part of the halo effect, as are views on GMO. After all, the research showing that they're bad confirms that Monsanto is bad, and that means we're right and justified; but we already know that. Research showing that GMOs aren't bad would mitigate Monsanto's evilness, and that runs contrary to what we know about them and might mean we have to reconsider our biases.

Since we view things as yes/no, it means the other side must be good and pure, even as they indulge in their confirmation bias. And Greenpeace has done some good things, so it's sort of a double-whammy halo effect.

[Humanist_Activist]

7. I have a slight correction, many on the anti-side had a financial reason....

Wakefield was trying to discredit the MMR vaccine to market his own. Others are affiliated or sponsored by the "alternative medicine" and supplement market.

[zappaman]

25. Big pharma!!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

3. Yes...

Yes they have. A simple look around this board is telling enough. For every one sensible person posting on a GMO thread are 15 rabid anti-GMO, pseudo-science shilling, Dr. Oz watching troglodytes.

[roody]

4. Thanks, Monsanto.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

6. Thank you for proving my point. n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

8. It is interesting, they go straight to the conspiracy theories.

I'm also a Monsanto shill.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

9. I made $300 on this thread alone...

Shilling for Monsanto is the best decision I made in my life.

[Humanist_Activist]

11. I get paid by the word, its best to stretch things out as much as possible...

hell, this post is 125 bucks. lol

[PasadenaTrudy]

16. I must be too

[roody]

15. Thanks, can't you see I'm on your side?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

18. Did you forget the sarcasm tag?

Because Poe.

[BurfBrainiac]

10. Ad hominem spewage sucks - shows a poverty of thought

The minute you see a GMO advocate tossing out the "opponents are not scientific" baloney you can completely discount all the rest of what they have to say.

Such spewage immediately signals that a poster has nothing to contribute to the discussion, and is content to unwrap and serve up (knowingly or not) canned corporate boilerplate Talking Points.

READ AND WEEP
"...The spin offensive is paying off, at least in the media, with top reporters basing stories on Monsanto’s “consensus of safety” talking points. A recent front-page New York Times piece by Amy Harmon even pushed biotech’s favorite PR meme: That people concerned about GMOs are the “climate deniers of the left.”

http://civileats.com/2014/01/23/whats-missing-in-the-debate-about-gmos/

[Dr Hobbitstein]

12. Cool story, bro!

Call me when you have peer-reviewed, independent science on your side, not an anti-gmo activist site. Until then, you are promoting pseudo-science and fear-mongering.

Another $100 in my account! Cha-ching! Thanks, Monsanto!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

21. Junk science?

You mean like the link you posted that pushes "alternative medicine" and Ayurveda?

If you want to have a serious conversation about science, it's best to actually link to peer-reviewed science, not new age pseudoscientific bullshit.

[Major Nikon]

33. #405 on the list of predatory publishers

"Agricultural Sciences" is published by Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP), which despite it's highly sciency sounding name is nothing more than a purveyor of bullshit.

http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/02/list-of-predatory-publishers-2014/

It's a pay-for-play publication. The author of the "study" pays the publisher to publish. In return the publisher offers a dubious "peer review" process. It's the racket that junk science purveyors use to promote their nonsense.

Once the "study" is published, nobody who actually knows shit from beans about the subject references it, but it is red meat for the "alternative medicine" websites which more often than not also promote anti-vax, homeopathy, AIDS denialism, and other various forms of dipshittery. Idiots who surf such sites manage to get the google search promoted, and other people parrot out the garbage, gleefully oblivious that they are pegging the bullshit meter.

[SidDithers]

13. Welcome to DU...

Sid

[zappaman]

26. What's wrong with "good liberal" Dr. Oz.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

30. He tried to bomb the moon.

[NuclearDem]

39. WHY DO YOU HATE MICHELLE OBAMA

[BurfBrainiac]

5. Here you go: Veer off these peer-reviewed rails...

MIT Researcher's peer-reviewed study trashes GMO alleged "safety" & alleged "scientific method"

“... are we following the scientific method to ensure the safety of our food supply? Right now, the answer is ‘no.’

We need to, and we can if we engage in open, transparent and collaborative scientific discourse, based on a systems approach.”

CONGRESS, INC. & GMO, INC. & BIG CHEM, INC. are the antithesis of transparent. Now with the DARK act, they are about to make sure the whole principle of transparency is flushed down the Corporate Crapper.

http://www.integrativesystems.org/systems-biology-of-gmos/

[Humanist_Activist]

14. If you go to the source, they are testing a simulation, a software modeling platform...

not the actual crop.

In fact, they even admit it:

http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=57871

This is the original source, warning its a PDF file. At least its under open access.

Look on page 651:

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Twelfth, one important question that emerges from this effort is whether in vitro and in vivo testing should
have been performed to verify the predictions. However, such testing is beyond the scope of this project for two
reasons.

The issue is this, without testing such things, to compare their modeling with real world results, there's no way to verify its accuracy.

ON EDIT: Even they admit that, if the modeling is accurate, GMO soybean plants shouldn't be able to survive, so they are assuming that they are unhealthy, or barely hanging in there.

[Deadshot]

17. Anti-GMOers, IMO, are just as bad as anti-vaxxers.

Their views are based on nothing but fear mongering.

[shenmue]

27. Yep

[GreatGazoo]

31. so Round Up = vaccine ??

[Adrahil]

34. Don't confound glyphosate and GMOs in general.

If your problem is with crops that are engineered to tolerate glyphosate, and your REAL problem is with the safety of overuse of glyphosate, then talk about that.

[GreatGazoo]

40. The majority of GMO crops in use are Round Up Ready. THAT is what their big GMO benefit allegedly is

Roundup not only improved efficacy and reduced the cost of the weed control effort for farmers, but it also helped kick-start a revolution in the field of genetic modification of crops. Since Roundup attacked all plants, Monsanto introduced Roundup Ready crops such as soybeans and canola in the United States in 1996. These crops were genetically engineered to withstand exposure to Roundup and this ensured that the weeds were killed without any harm to the crops.

http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/market-insight-print.pag?docid=JEVS-5N2CZG

The one thing GMO has done very well is sell glyphosate:



http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/

It is one system. Increased glyphosate (and the proprietary adjuvants that increase the toxicity, penetration and life of the glyphosate) use is the overwhelming majority of GMO use. That's what the GMO labelling debate is about -- giving consumer the CHOICE not to eat crops that are dosed with mega glyphosate by design.

You don't get to de-link GMO crops from increased pesticide use because as it says above, selling more RoundUp is what they were designed for.

[Deadshot]

38. No. My point is that anti-vaxxers don't accept the science, just like anti-GMOers.

Jenny McCarthy and anti-GMOers are one in the same, as far as I'm concerned.

[SidDithers]

37. This thread is a pefect example...

Sid

[HuckleB]

45. Exactly. -eom-

[ananda]

19. A lotta Monsanto-heads here, I see.

Good luck with all those pesticides and altered foods.

I wonder if the pro-GMO people eat gmo foods every day.

Me: I avoid them like the plague.

[Humanist_Activist]

22. Yes we do, why wouldn't we? Are they shown to be unsafe?

Also, bear in mind that organic farming uses more pesticides and herbicides than other techniques.

[ananda]

24. Case closed.

..

[GreatGazoo]

32. "organic farming uses more pesticides and herbicides than other techniques"

What "other techniques" !? Foraging ?

Btw, herbicides fall under the umbrella term "pesticide". Pesticides include fungicides, insecticides and herbicides.

Your corn may be Round Up Ready but humans:

Ingestion of >85 mL of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults. Gastrointestinal corrosive effects, with mouth, throat and epigastric pain and dysphagia are common. Renal and hepatic impairment are also frequent and usually reflect reduced organ perfusion. Respiratory distress, impaired consciousness, pulmonary oedema, infiltration on chest x-ray, shock, arrythmias, renal failure requiring haemodialysis, metabolic acidosis and hyperkalaemia may supervene in severe cases. Bradycardia and ventricular arrhythmias are often present pre-terminally. Dermal exposure to ready-to-use glyphosate formulations can cause irritation and photo-contact dermatitis has been reported occasionally; these effects are probably due to the preservative Proxel (benzisothiazolin-3-one). Severe skin burns are very rare. Inhalation is a minor route of exposure but spray mist may cause oral or nasal discomfort, an unpleasant taste in the mouth, tingling and throat irritation. Eye exposure may lead to mild conjunctivitis, and superficial corneal injury is possible if irrigation is delayed or inadequate. Management is symptomatic and supportive, and skin decontamination with soap and water after removal of contaminated clothing should be undertaken in cases of dermal exposure.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083

[Major Nikon]

36. That's some funny shit

The link you posted is talking about people who ingest relatively large amounts of the highly concentrated form of Round-up.

It's kinda like comparing drinking bleach out of a bottle vs drinking municipal tap water with EPA required levels of chloride residue. Table salt is also quite toxic (actually far more toxic than glyphosate, btw), yet billions of people routinely sprinkle it on their food with no ill effects.

Those who compare concentrated formulations and pretend it's exactly the same as tested and acceptable levels found in normal use of a product are completely clueless about what toxicity really means.
https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/203188108697677824

[GreatGazoo]

41. Indeed "The dose makes the poison" and that's why people want the option to set their own limits.

[Major Nikon]

42. They already have that option

[goldent]

29. I imagine most of the people in North America

eat gmo foods everyday, and have been for a few decades. Same goes for other areas throughout the world.

[Adrahil]

35. All foods are genetically modified in one fashion or another....

It'ls called evolution.

[Zorra]

47. 5 more years, and DU will be more ""Corporation Uber Alles" than freeperville.

[CrawlingChaos]

23. Keep in mind, this is a guy who regularly makes a fool of himself

Lest we forget, Morford is the genius who wrote the infamous column speculating whether Obama might be an ancient magical being know as a "light worker". Seriously. The column was used as fodder to mock Democrats far and wide.

I have complete confidence he has no real understanding of this topic.

[closeupready]

28. Monsanto's shills would have us think he's Pauling or Hawking.

LOL I don't think I've EVER heard of this guy outside DU's pro-Monsanto threads.

[SidDithers]

43. You've never heard of Mark Morford?...

Really?



Sid

[HuckleB]

46. Can you debunk the content with a consensus of peer reviewed science?

If not, what's your point?

[CrawlingChaos]

48. My point is that the author has no credibility

He has a history of writing asinine things. That is something any reader of the piece should consider. It is relevant.

I believe I made that quite clear in my initial post.

[HuckleB]

49. So you can't debunk the content, most of which comes from another author...

... and is fully supported by the consensus of science.

Thanks.

[HuckleB]

44. It's a good piece. Saletan's is even better.

It's time to fight the corrupt fear mongering of the anti-GMO movement. It's astounding to see how ugly and unethical it really is in action.