Recapping 2016: 10 ways anti-GMO activists put ideology ahead of science

| Blog

When they said we would have to add an extra second to the clocks at the end of 2016, there seemed to have been a collective groan. The year that started with the death of David Bowie seemed to just keep getting worse. … There were more attacks on scientists and research institutions – environmental campaigners learnt they can throw out any gibberish on glyphosate, GMOs, endocrine disruption and neonicotinoids and get a microphone. … Reasonableness was nowhere to be found.

What happened in 2016 was that Stupid got out of control.

. . . .

Here are [some of] the Risk-Monger’s Top 10 Worst Moments of 2016: The Year of Stupid

Organic’s Rejection of NBTs

New Plant Breeding Techniques (NBTs) are a series of technologies (at least seven) for accelerated plant breeding, most not involving any genetic modification. … potentially enabling farmers to produce more with fewer pesticides. The NBT plants are often indistinguishable from conventional plants.

In 2016, IFOAM, the organic food industry lobby, declared that NBTs were to be considered the same as GMOs, condemning organic farmers to lower yields and higher applications of second rate organic pesticides. When an organic food researcher suggested that the lobby should reconsider this position, he was roundly attacked. …

. . . .

Argumentum ad hominem

Last July, when more than 100 Nobel laureates condemned Greenpeace’s position on GMOs as unscientific and potentially a crime against humanity, their response was textbook – these scientists are all a bunch of industry-paid shills.

In 2016, activists did not have to respond to facts, evidence or logical argument; they just had to do a Google search to find evidence of a link in the last 50 years to an industry project. (A note of clarification: when the organic industry or an NGO funds the research, that is OK.) …

Glyphosate and Activist Cunning

…[T]he anti-glyphosate alliance has been fairly successful in blocking the glyphosate regulatory renewal in the EU, having it on the agenda at the EPA (despite the scientists) and creating all sorts of completely ridiculous fears … In 2016, glyphosate was a living case study in Stupid.

The Fake Monsanto Tribunal

Imagine 300 of the leading pro-organic gurus, zealots and activists, with a budget of half a million USD from the organic industry lobby, coming to The Hague to conduct a show trial to declare Monsanto guilty of ecocide. …

. . . .

…The event was a colossal waste of half a million dollars, generated little publicity, had a jury which failed to deliver the predetermined verdict as planned in December … all to be able to indict a company that will no longer exist by the end of 2017.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: The Risk-Monger’s Top 10 Worst Moments of 2016: The Year of Stupid!

  • Gary

    While there are some really silly claims from both sides, you have to understand and weigh out the agendas from both sides. With so much nonsense in the industry, misleading, lying and no transparency at all, the best way to secure your personal health is to actively play it safe by avoiding all GMOs, synthetic pesticides and herbicides regardless of the favorable claims. We can argue back and forth on the science and the need for these Franken foods but our food system has been completely corrupted by industrialization and government policies.

    Have 80% of the American people stand in a minor, they are what they eat and it’s why we have serious issues and cost problems in the medical industry. Somehow when it comes to food, man thinks he has all the answers and needs “more food to feed the world” yet 80% of Americans are overweight or obese with nearly 1/3 obese and you don’t need a study to see the huge weight people are carrying. Add to the fact that over 40% of the food grown in America is thrown out, you don’t need to be well educated to answer the question of – do we really need more food? And then explain to me why our government still needs to give billions of dollars in farm subsidies to big food corporations for maize, rice, wheat and soy all for the purpose of unhealthy cheap industrialized foods.

    But regarding Glyphosate, when you dump it on the soil and everything dies except a GMO plant then something tells me that it shouldn’t be something I should consume or be exposed to. If you dump a bunch of Glyphosate in a toilet that is dirty with heavy mineral deposit around the water line and 24 hours later those deposits are gone, something tells me that it shouldn’t be something I should consume or be exposed to even at the lowest amounts. I’ll let wisdom be my guidance when it comes to food consumption rather than some expert or PhD scientist with an agenda or looking for more research funding or further expanding a chemical company’s profits. It’s great that we both have choices but one thing for sure, for those really tough mineral deposits, glyphosate makes a really good toilet bowl cleaner. And like all chemicals, a toilet bowl cleaner shouldn’t be consumed.

    • Guest

      Gary,

      I think you are not an anti-GMO zealot, rather someone trying to sort out what is truth. That said, I know it isn’t easy to do, but keep reading and educating yourself and be open to all sources of information, not just the ones you’ve reviewed to date. I mean this in the kindest way, there is a lot of misinformation evident and/or implicit in some of the things you’ve written. And believe it or not, an expert or PhD scientist may actually have a valid and more credible viewpoint different from yours without “having an agenda or looking for more research funding or further expanding a chemical company’s profits”.

      Keep researching and maybe actually talk to directly to more people who may have a viewpoint different from yours.