"If you are anti-GMOs you are anti-science."

[AxionExcel]

That mind-twisting meme is a steady, unrelenting drumbeat...

It's also a deliberate and ongoing corporate propaganda strategy.. Be wary of of the "tent pole" strategy.

"Recent disclosed documents have also exposed numerous scientific experts enlisted in Monsanto’s messaging (and other corporate messaging as well). But what is most pernicious is that a whole new rhetorical talking point has come to the forefront, which threatens anyone – particularly scientists – who speak out against their “tent pole” technology: If you are anti-GMOs you are anti-science...

The new talking point represents a brilliant strategy to promote genetic engineering. Most people do not want to be characterized as anti-science, not journalists, not public officials, not celebrities, and least of all, not trained and educated scientists. Furthermore, the propaganda plays to pro-science liberals who have accused conservatives of being anti-science due to their denial of climate change."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/05/gmo-propaganda-and-the-sociology-of-science/

[Dr Hobbitstein]

1. Anti-GMOers are akin to anti-vaxxers and global warming denialists.

Your article keeps mentioning glyphosate, which has very little to do with GMOs as a whole, and really is about Monsanto.

Monsanto =/= GMO. Monsanto sucks. GMOs do not.

[NV Whino]

3. GMOs that are used as Monsanto does, do suck.

As in "Roundup Ready." Altering DNA to be pesticide tolerant simply exaserbates the problem. You may call that a Monsanto problem. I call it a GMO problem. If Monsanto doesn't do it, someone else will.

[NRaleighLiberal]

5. and that is utter bullshit.

[AxionExcel]

6. 80% of GMO crops employ glyphosate

You might want to read up on some science. It can be very helpful in cutting through the corporate propaganda. Most people who have embraced the facts of the matter see the connection.

Here's the GMO glyphosate universe in a nutshell:

"Glyphosate-resistant crops represent more than 80% of the 120 million ha of transgenic crops grown annually worldwide..." http://www.agbioforum.org/v12n34/v12n34a10-duke.htm

[demwing]

2. If you are anti-nuclear energy you are anti-science

Or anti-fracking, or anti-anything created by a scientist that has corrosive effect on the quality of life.

[closeupready]

4. If you are anti-labeling, you are anti-democracy.

[MisterP]

7. ironically it's from the same whitecoats-for-hire that gave us global-warming

denialism: sort of a strange feedback there

[Humanist_Activist]

8. The problem is that pattern that is emerging is that the same people opposed...

to the propagation and/or research into genetic engineering, in most contexts, are also the same people who oppose mandatory vaccinations, and seem to be proponents of such frauds as the "organic" farming industry, the supplement industry, and alternative medicine industry.

Not to mention the minds of these people are made up, an entire industry is apparently out to make sure they are poisoned and die, somehow, no explanation, but hyperbole seems to rule the day. They even, without a hint of irony, will admit this straight out. They want certainty where none exists.

[AxionExcel]

10. I understand why you & others are afraid to discuss well-funded corporate GMO propaganda campaigns.

I absolutely understand why you'd want to change the subject.

If you wish to discuss the lack of evidence supporting GMO safety, or any of the other diversionary topics you have raised, please - by all means - start a thread that pertains to those topics.

[Humanist_Activist]

13. See, this is precisely the issue, you start off with a premise, then try to have the facts...

fit your preconceived notions, usually related to you ideological bent. This is, by definition, the complete opposite of critical thinking or supporting scientific scrutiny.

[nationalize the fed]

9. k&r

cheap rhetoric from cheap 2 bit corporate lackeys

GMO's are the biggest scientific fraud of our age
http://www.amazon.com/Altered-Genes-Twisted-Truth-Systematically/dp/0985616903/

The new talking point represents a brilliant strategy to promote genetic engineering. Most people do not want to be characterized as anti-science, not journalists, not public officials, not celebrities, and least of all, not trained and educated scientists. Furthermore, the propaganda plays to pro-science liberals who have accused conservatives of being anti-science due to their denial of climate change."

Margarine was once good
Cannabis was once bad
Thalidomide was once good

Some of us don't give a damn what others say. That has worked well for me.

"Blah Blah Blah"

[katsy]

12. Good point.

Last edited Mon Mar 7, 2016, 08:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Science is a process and self corrects over time with testing and analysis. Science isn't static. People need to weigh benefits/risks, real or suspected, for themselves. Especially when the common good is NOT involved (I am rabidly pro vaccine).

http://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005528

https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/17/scientific-studies-wrong

I'll repeat it: science is not static it's not a fucking religion and it self corrects as our knowledge grows.

Label gmos and let people make the choices. Corporations do not have the right to people's money without informing them what it is they are buying.

People have the right to not buy something even if it's just an "ewwwwww" factor.

People have the right to boycott Monsanto products just befuckingcause.

Labeling is required for people with peanut allergies even tho peanuts are scientifically non toxic.

I'm actually ok with cloned meat unless they decide to make it round-up ready 😂😂😂 for no other reason than I don't want my money going to Monsanto if I can help it. Just because it's my choice to make. I never ever set foot in a Walmart. Perfectly SAFE place to visit I heard but I don't give a shit. When given a choice I make one! I don't like monsantos corp policies of suing farmers, buying up all the seed companies... IMO they are dangerous and I reject their stuff whenever possible. Am I still a free person living in a democracy with the ability to do so?

Can democracy can endure without transparency and choice? Really? It's ok to boycott companies just because it's your choice to do so.

LABEL IT!

[Humanist_Activist]

17. That's fine, as far as it goes, the problem is the FUD thrown around to try to justify...

what are, at best, subjective choices.

This isn't about people who will go into anaphylaxis if they eat a GMO produced corn chip. That isn't a risk factor, but rather people who, for whatever reason, will create risks where there are none for the sole purpose of fearmongering and trying to justify their choices.

[katsy]

18. Understood.

In my mind even those people have the right to their opinion and their own choices if it doesn't involve public health.

Subjective choices are part of a messy democracy and information is currency. It's that simple.

[Humanist_Activist]

21. True, but you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts...

so the claims to facts not in evidence, for example, that GMOs cause cancer, or autism, etc., should be countered as much as possible.

[katsy]

22. There is nothing based on facts that links autism to gmos

The WHO cautions on cancer.

People have a right to act subjectively in democracies. There is no ifs ands or buts.

IMO monsanto should stop funding studies. They are worthless to people who are suspicious and rightly point out that just by funding the research casts doubt on on its independence. Sure they should run their own studies for product development but leave safety testing to independent researchers. And stop fighting labeling. That is a shit stance to even neutral observers and fuels CTs. It has no place in democracies. More info, better democracy.

[Humanist_Activist]

23. I'm less optimistic about this "labeling" issue...

I think its too similar to licensing of chiropractors and the recent certifications related to the "organic" label.

Both were pushed by their respective industries so that now they use them to legitimize their stances, even though chiropractic is a 19th century fraud and the organic industry is pretty much completely unregulated even with certification. Not to mention there's no evidence that organically grown food is any less safe than non-organically grown food. Creates a false dichotomy and misleads the public.

More information is largely a good, but that information also has to be both helpful and accurate to be truly in the public good.

ON EDIT: I feel that this labeling issue is being pushed by industries who have a vested interest in trying to cast a bad light on GMO food production. This also serves to mislead the public.

[Ratty]

11. Because sooo much anti-GMO rhetoric is anti-science

Makes it incredibly hard to sort the science wheat from all the woo chaff.

There are some legitimate concerns about GMOs. What they do to honeybee populations and other pollinators. How splicing the genes from one species into another can trigger allergies and food sensitivities in humans. And once you've let a pollinating GMO out into the environment there's no way of ever putting it back. GMOs should be approached with caution. But I suppose like any issue there'll be zealots on both sides of the issue.

[NRaleighLiberal]

14. That is exactly the right way to look at it - there is grey area - neither all bad, or all good.

Those who aren't beholden to one side or the other can use reason and try to find independently funded studies (not easy, of course).

[Rex]

15. Oh I don't need to be told to be wary of mega-conglomerates, learned that the hard way early on.

People that have faith in mega-conglomerates already drank the kool-aid, so there is really no debating them. Same goes with CTers that KNOW, just KNOW it is a grand conspiracy or something! Both groups are so myopic that it is obvious to the normal reader.

People that have faith in The Science and can never prove what they claim are easy to dismiss. They can be as obtuse as they want to be which is kinda an indicator they don't have any idea what they are talking about. Then when the sub-thread evolves into name calling, I know they don't know what they are talking about and are done with the subject as far as I am concerned.

I also know there is a big push between Organic and GMO mega-conglomerates to get people to pick sides. No thanks, I let other people be tools for the billionaires. Not interested.

All it boils down to for me is my health and getting the most accurate information available. MOST of the time that is not on DU, what goes on at DU is more Fight Club then anything else.

[Shandris]

16. Well, welcome to the status of those who dare to ask what the hell good a...

...'scientific consensus' is anyway (read: Persona non Grata). What, did you think it was only going to be used for those evil, mean, totally stoopid 'global warming """"""""""""""""""""""deniers"""""""""""""""""""""""'?

As I often say...anyone surprised isn't paying attention.

[Jim Beard]

19. Is it bad for science that I don't like nuclear weapons?

[Jim Beard]

20. My biggest complaint is crossing higher life with plants, like

splicing the bT gene into the corn plant to make it worm resistant.

Organic farmers have been using the plain ole bt soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis, for years to control worms but that can be washed off.

Throughout history there have been new products have been sold with out any testing.

Have you noticed methiliate or "monkey blood" is not around anymore. Yeah, we used it on children for years and it has Mercury in it.

[HuckleB]

24. Eight Lies About GMOs Debunked

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/8-lies-about-gmos/