GMO Advocate Trashes Philpott, Bittman and Nestle for Endorsing Pseudo-Science
Jeff Gangemi Sep 27, 2012 News 0 comments
Several weeks ago, we noticed an important development in the GMO labeling debate that continues to rage around the country, particularly in California. Wal Mart had decided to sell Monsanto GMO corn without labels.
A recent study from France has concluded that GMO corn caused lab rats to develop tumors. Since the study’s release, there has been a firestorm of debate on the study’s scientific validity. An interesting and contentious article in Slate by Keith Kloor argues that the study was not only rigged and biased, but that the whole anti-GMO movement occupies a similar psychic space to the most fanatical of climate change skeptics.
No one is suggesting that “pseudo-science” should be treated as the real thing, only that significant changes to the food system be subjected to long and intensive scientific study from all sides.
Though the concerns Kloor raises in his article are valid and necessary for a nuanced discussion of GMOs, his rancor toward Mother Jones food columnist Tom Philpott for suggesting further study is needed, reeks of a similar one-sided agenda he derides in the piece.
It’s a fascinating story that offers perspectives from both sides while serving as a bellwether for the emotional ferment in the food safety debate in general, and the GMO question in particular.
Read on for more…
“I used to think that nothing rivaled the misinformation spewed by climate change skeptics and spinmeisters.
Then I started paying attention to how anti-GMO campaigners have distorted the science on genetically modified foods. You might be surprised at how successful they've been and who has helped them pull it off.
I’ve found that fears are stoked by prominent environmental groups, supposed food-safety watchdogs, and influential food columnists; that dodgy science is laundered by well-respected scholars and propaganda is treated credulously by legendary journalists; and that progressive media outlets, which often decry the scurrilous rhetoric that warps the climate debate, serve up a comparable agitprop when it comes to GMOs…”
Image courtesy of Non-GMO Project