General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMonsanto / Ketchum PR emails reveal coordinated attacks on GMO critics, payments, strategies
These emails came out yesterday 12/21 and reveal the way Monsanto, their PR form Ketchum and a University of Florida Professor planned a coordinated attack on a 14 year-old GMO critic in Canada. Basically they confirm that part of the strategy used by the GMO marketers is to labelled critics themselves "anti-science" but not to discuss any science which supports or questions the safety and efficacy of GMO crop systems which pair high does of pesticides like glyphosate with GMO crops designed to withstand them.
...
In August 2014, Monsanto also gave Folta an unrestricted $25,000 grant telling him in a letter it may be used at your discretion in support of your research and outreach projects.
...
Eleven months after the video was posted, Folta volunteered his own strategy to Ketchum: a website to counter Parent and her organizations website, Kids Right to Know, according to an email obtained by Global News.
...
Today, I purchased kidsrightotruth.com and want to populate this. I have no time, but I have an idea. I can provide content.(Folta wrote to GMO PR firm Ketchum)
http://globalnews.ca/news/2414720/documents-reveal-canadian-teenager-the-target-of-gmo-lobby/
So why attack this 14YO girl specifically? Well, because she is great at what she does...
GeeNeeUs
(40 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)I've sure seen a lot of them. I certainly wouldn't pick out any individual poster and accuse them of being a troll, but if you look at the GMO threads you'll easily find GMO critics being labelled "anti-science."
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)Perhaps they have focus-grouped it and decided that any discussion of the benefits versus risks doesn't win people over. How could it ? The customer wants healthy, fresh and great tasting but some of the higher profile examples of what GMO tech has been used for are creating plants that can be doused with pesticides, or potatoes and apples that can be pre-sliced and not brown in storage.
GMO marketers have their hands full with the broadly questioned science, environmental and ethics issues. They are in no position to take on a social media discussion about the lack of benefits to the end consumer of the product. The customer is demanding healthier, tastier, fresher food and GMOs are associated with pesticide use, longer shelf-life and dishonest coloring.
For example, Simplot has a GMO potato that is LESS cancer-causing when french fried than conventional hybrids. Any open debate about this product is a loser for those who sell french fries because such a debate would cite lots of statistics linking french fries to cancer. To the consumer this kind of debate underlines a link between certain foods and cancer.
The other benefits (for fast food corporations) are that it is more resistant to bruising during shipping and it can be pre-sliced and not brown as quickly. Those arent benefits for the end consumer who may be giving up taste and toxicity in the deal. A discussion like that is a no-win for the retailers. And that is a debate that McDonald's has chosen not to have:
http://modernfarmer.com/2014/11/mcdonalds-refuses-buy-genetically-modified-potatoes-fries/
bvar22
(39,909 posts)..independent long term Scientific Studies published in a Peer Reviewed Scientific Journal assuring me that GMO causes absolutely no harm to people, pets, crops, PEOPLE, and the environment,
I will avoid them.
We moved to The Woods far from any Agri-Business so we could grow our own NON-GMO food until the Science is in.
The reason there are no "independent" scientific studies is that MONSANTO forbids it.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Archae
(46,337 posts)"We're all gonna die!!!"
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)OMG!!!!
Archae
(46,337 posts)I know, facts make the anti-GMO hysterics dizzy...
GMO labeling: Nazi Germany didn't invent the "big lie" technique, "Tell a big enough lie often enough and soon everyone believes it."
But they exploited it. To it's ultimate end.
Likewise, "GMO labeling" is along those same lines.
Crank out as many lies as possible about GMO's.
"Poison!"
"Frankenfoods!"
Etc...
Then people see a "GMO" label, and they panic.
As to "adequate testing..."
"Adequate" meaning "Tests that agree with our view, no matter how badly the science is corrupted" like our old buddy Seralini and his discredited "study" that now can only get into "pay for play" publications.
Meanwhile all *CREDIBLE* testing with *gasp* actual science, says GMO's are safe.
But, feel free to buy a half-gallon of "organic" milk for $6.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)What issue do you have with labeling? I don't get it. No one its stopping you from consuming GMOs.
Why do you oppose labeling?
Archae
(46,337 posts)At best.
And it's just part of the anti-GMO propaganda.
And to date, that's *ALL* you have.
Propaganda.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)And labeling things is not propaganda, it just gives the consumer the ability to chose what products they want to consume.
So why oppose it?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)performed by independent testing firms, and published in Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals, focusing on the long term effects of GMOs on People, Pets, stock, and the Environment.
I"ll wait.
So far, NONE of the Pro-GMO folks have been able to produce anything near what is accepted as "Scientific"...only Monsanto Press Releases, and your post is no different.
I'll be waiting for the cites and references from the credible Scientific Journals.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)What a moron that guy! Sheesh!