Why Anyone Who Questions the Safety of GMOs is Labeled Anti-Science

And why everyone should question GMOs

By Christina Sarich

Global Research, November 16, 2015

Natural Society 13 November 2015

Theme: Biotechnology and GMO

How do you continue to push GM crops on a population that has overwhelmingly voted against them in poll after poll? You start a campaign similar to the one the tobacco industry began in the 1920’s with the help of Edward Bernays to discredit any naysayers and even put doctors in commercials smoking cigarettes. You also do whatever it takes to buy out ‘real’ scientists and call those into question who inquire about the true safety of GM foods. You label them anti-science and discredit their credentials.
As GMWatch.org states:

“First, there has been a tendency to label anyone who dislikes GMOs as anti-science — and put them in the anti-antibiotics, anti-vaccine, even Luddite category. There is, of course, nothing scientific about the comparison. Nor is the scholastic invocation of a “consensus” a valid scientific argument.
Interestingly, there are similarities between arguments that are pro-GMO and snake oil, the latter having relied on a cosmetic definition of science. The charge of “therapeutic nihilism” was leveled at people who contested snake oil medicine at the turn of the 20th century. (At that time, anything with the appearance of sophistication was considered “progress”.)”

Just like with tobacco, the government agencies which are meant to police our food and water supply have been infiltrated with biotech interests. Bernays, and propaganda theorist Walter Lippman were members of the U.S. Government’s Committee on Public Information (CPI) that helped to promote cigarettes, especially to women, through a war-like propaganda campaign. This is so similar to what Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, Cargill, etc. do now. It seems biotech has looked at the Marlboro Man playbook for tips. [1]
So who does the PR?

• Hugh Grant, the CEO
• Janet M Holloway, Sr. VP, Chief of Staff of Community Relations
• Kerry J Preete, Sr. VP of Global Strategy
• And others

Grant recently said the following to CNBC:

“Twenty years since the first crops were planted in ’96, the intensity and use of chemistry has actually declined during that time so growers now are applying less. The next turn in this, the next breakthrough is how you apply less than an acre, how you apply it much more precisely. And I think the Monsanto Syngenta combination completely redefines the industry one more time in how we use chemistry and link it much more intimately to seed.”

Too bad that merger failed, and farmers are having to resort to more toxic versions of herbicides to try to get their jobs done. Monsanto is spending another $1 billion on a new dicamba herbicide after the WHO declared the best-selling product, Roundup, was probably carcinogenic.
Alas, are we to be lemmings, led off the edge of the cliff, and forced to jump off while Monsanto, just like in old cigarette ads, assures us all these chemicals and GMOs are safe?
Forgive me, but it doesn’t take a scientist to figure out this insanity. I can be called anti-science all day long, but at this point it boils down to some simple common sense.

Notes:

[1] TheSocietyPages

The original source of this article is Natural Society

Copyright © Christina Sarich, Natural Society, 2015