Justin King | The Anti-Media
This month, activists from around the world will be participating in a campaign to end GMO crops. The March Against Monsanto has been organized mainly through social media and the establishment has responded by flooding the internet with pro-GMO articles. This preemptive strike by the media against the campaign clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of recent social media campaigns leading to real-world protests and the threat these campaigns pose to the control systems of the United States. Image credit: John Novotny
The Biotech lobby is worried, so over the next couple of weeks expect to hear arguments comparing those who are anti-GMO to those who don’t believe in climate change or those who don’t believe in evolution. The current plan appears to cast the anti-GMO crowd as being ignorant of science in an attempt to marginalize the movement.
The Week ran an article yesterday titled “Are GMOs the climategate of the left?” The tagline reads: The scientific community provides overwhelming evidence. A political group isn’t convinced. Sound familiar?
The article makes no mention of the apparent fact the biotech industries are funding research with the goal of creating pro-GMO studies. It also ignores the likelihood that biotech industries are funding certain nonprofits to make sure research into the environmental effects of GMOs is not conducted. That accusation has been leveled against Monsanto in relation to its cooperation with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Fund.
Forbes, the bi-weekly talking-point handbook for big business and big government, pulled no punches in an article titled “Science Free News Coverage Of Vermont GMO Labeling.” The article blasted what it referred to as a “gaggle of activists” for not agreeing with the science put out in papers that are, for the most part, funded by people who have a vested interest in the success of GMOs. The author argues that Americans should be concerned about “the sovereignty of science and the scientific method.” Obviously, labeling a product to identify its GMO content is the same thing as subverting the scientific method. It’s easy to imagine that if labeling were required, that citizens would gather their pitchforks and torches to march on their local grocery store and burn GMO products at the stake for practicing witchcraft.
The argument that providing consumers with information about how their food-like products are created is somehow the destruction of science is laughably idiotic. Only in the United States would a major outlet run such a piece. If anything, the current system of keeping people in the dark by denying them the information needed to make an informed decision is the spiritual kin of the Dark Ages. Corporations are the new clergy and they will determine what knowledge is too dangerous for people to know.
More importantly, the pharmaceutical industry has shown the world that the scientific method, when applied by people seeking a desired outcome, is as reliable Barack Obama’s campaign promises. Government agencies boldly proclaim that GMOs are safe. The Food and Drug Administration maintains lists of recalled and withdrawn drugs on its website. Every single drug withdrawn from circulation by the FDA in order to protect the public was first proclaimed safe by the FDA using the same system of scientific comparison that has led to the government position that GMOs are completely benign.
The author begs the reader to yield to the authority of the experts he recommends, and makes no mention that the World Health Organization lists three causes of concern with GMO foods and rather than stating that GMOs are safe, says that the foods should be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Even the smaller propaganda outlets are getting into the act, an article titled “The Facts About GMOs: The Science Behind the Controversy” plays the same tune as the major networks. This article relies on the scientific opinion of one woman who openly supports GMOs. She even tells an anecdote about using her position as a professor to sway people to the pro-GMO side.
“I started the class with a poll: who’s for GMOs, who’s against GMOs? The ‘against’ far outweighed the ‘for’. Then we spent the class talking about what it was,” Neher explained. “Here’s the gene, you’re maybe changing a gene, or some genetic component of that. By the end of the class I took the poll again, and it had flipped the opposite.”
Without a doubt, a single class discussion led by a proponent of GMOs being able to sway the opinions of the students that would sign up to take a course called “Plants and Society” is hard concrete proof that anti-GMO activists are just uninformed, and if they would only buy into corporate America’s talking points all would be right in the world. This is the modern scientific method in action.
The American people should remember that when the GMO debate first started, they were told that people were worried about nothing and that soon drought resistant GMO corn would solve world hunger. These magical seeds have never gone into mass production, and twenty years later GMOs have failed to solve a single problem. Instead, the corporate world has devoted its energy to producing crops that are resistant to pesticides so farmers can spray more chemicals manufactured by the companies on to the food.
The science behind GMOs is driven by money rather than a pursuit for truth and media complicity in attempting to sway the people toward simply accepting whatever food-like product they are served is yet another nail in the coffin of journalism in this country.
The March Against Monsanto is a global event with events taking place throughout the month and hopes to bring the success felt by activists in other countries that have already instituted at least partial bans on GMOs to the United States. Find a march near you here.
Since you’re here…
…We have a small favor to ask. Fewer and fewer people are seeing Anti-Media articles as social media sites crack down on us, and advertising revenues across the board are quickly declining. However, unlike many news organizations, we haven’t put up a paywall because we value open and accessible journalism over profit — but at this point, we’re barely even breaking even. Hopefully, you can see why we need to ask for your help. Anti-Media’s independent journalism and analysis takes substantial time, resources, and effort to produce, but we do it because we believe in our message and hope you do, too.
If everyone who reads our reporting and finds value in it helps fund it, our future can be much more secure. For as little as $1 and a minute of your time, you can support Anti-Media. Thank you. Click here to support us