One hardly needs to hold a Ph.D. in physics to become an effective environmental activist, as you have demonstrated. Yet, when a prominent figure, such as yourself, is described for decades—in interviews, on web sites, in award citations, and on many of your own book jackets, as having been “one of India’s leading physicists” it seems fair to ask whether or not you ever worked as one.
It is fine to express anti-GMO viewpoints, but when misleading statements, false science, and conspiracy theories are your evidence, expect them to be called out. Thanks to the Genetic Literacy Project for watching this and posting about it!
Monsanto is certainly rich, but it is simply not that powerful. Exxon Mobil is worth seven times as much as Monsanto, yet it has never been able to alter the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels is the principal cause of climate change. Tobacco companies spend more money lobbying in Washington each year than Monsanto does, but it’s hard to find scientists who endorse smoking. The gulf between the truth about G.M.O.s and what people say about them keeps growing wider. The Internet brims with videos that purport to expose the lies about genetically modified products. Mike Adams, who runs a popular Web site called Natural News, recently compared journalists who are critical of anti-G.M.O. activists such as Shiva to Nazi collaborators.
Fantastic Ted Talk video on science denial. It applies equally to all denial and anti-science movements: climate denial, food conspiracy, Big Alterna and Big Organic, creationism, anti-vaccine cranks and many others. Please watch the video because not only does he do yet another necessary takedown, he also shows the intimidating actions used by some anti-science groups.
http://www.ted.com Vaccine-autism claims, “Frankenfood” bans, the herbal cure craze: All point to the public’s growing fear (and, often, outright denial) of science and reason, says Michael Specter. He warns the trend spells disaster for human progress.
Furthermore, I never said GMOs were safer or more dangerous. I implied that if you think GMO-laboratory is **inherently** more dangerous to human life than GMO-agriculture you are simply wrong. They both can be bad for the environment. They both can be less healthy. They both can disrupt the local flora and fauna. But both methods wield an awesome power to improve food in every way that matters to humans: yields, appearance, vitamin content, sweetness, resistance to insects, resistance to weather extremes, and so forth.
Imagine if today, scientists showed you the Aurochs Wild Ox, and said — “Give us time. In just a few years, we will genetically modify this wild animal, turning it into a different sub species whose sole purpose is to provide vast quantities of milk for humans to drink. They will produce 10x as much milk as did the original animal. But they will require vast grasslands to sustain. And some of you will get sick because you won’t be able to digest the lactose. But no need to label this fact. People will just figure this out on their own. The rest of you will be fine. We’ll call the result a Holstein Milk Cow.”
Finally, I found it odd that people presumed I was taking sides. As an educator, my priority is to make sure people are informed — accurately and honestly. For the purposes of general enlightenment, but especially before drawing policy or legislation that could affect us all.
For let’s be clear: the science on GMOs is as solid and authoritative as it is on vaccines. So why are liberal outlets like the Huffington Post accepting of the scientific consensus on vaccines, but not GMOs?
Check out this awesome post on the Genetic Literacy Project site examining the studies that are most often cited for evidence of GMO toxicity. Katiraee looks at the validity of the studies, explains flaws, and/or what the studies actually show. She answers: Are these concerns credible? What do the studies cited actually claim? My favorite takedowns of the 10 addressed in the article are below, Check out the article!
1) Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood.
2) DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them
3) New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans
7) Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s
8) Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans
10) GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety.
This brings me to the title of this post. Apparently, some anti-GMO activists (namely Mike Adams of Natural News, see his crazy post here) have claimed that pro-GMO scientists and journalists are Nazi’s, or something along those lines (it’s sometimes hard to interpret crazy babble). The article then goes on to claim that these scientists, publishers, and journalists are committing crimes against humanity, and closes with this memorable quote from Nazi’s:
it is the moral right — and even the obligation — of human beings everywhere to actively plan and carry out the killing of those engaged in heinous crimes against humanity.
C-R-A-Z-Y! While not exactly a threat, it certainly seems to be suggesting violence based on non-existent and false accusations. And is compounded by the fact that an update to the post includes a link to a website that lists names and info of journalists, publishers, and scientists that are labelled as ‘Monsanto Collaborators.’ Scary stuff.
Are Americans too stupid to properly interpret GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) labeling? Yes, according to a congressional panel of representatives and experts, and in many cases, I would have to agree. See CauseScience’s past posts about GMO’s, including how the politics of GMO alarmists prove that not only Republicans are anti-science (more here). Michael McAuliff summarizes the findings of the congressional panel and gives background on GMO labeling laws for Huffington Post. Check it out!
People who oppose GMOs or want them labeled so that consumers can know what they’re eating are alarmists who thrive on fear and ignorance, the panel agreed. Labeling GMO foods would only stoke those fears, and harm a beneficial thing, so it should not be allowed, the lawmakers and witnesses agreed.