University Scientists Caught Conspiring with Monsanto to Manipulate Public Opinion on GMOs

[RiverLover]

University Scientists Caught Conspiring with Monsanto to Manipulate Public Opinion on GMOs
by Dave Murphy
EcoWatch
Sept 12, 2015

What happens when a private company with a long history of producing some of the most toxic chemicals on the planet and now produces our food starts facing public pressure from a growing national grassroots movement to label their products to conform with basic principles of democracy and transparency?

Well, if the company in question is Monsanto, then you take a page out of Big Tobacco’s playbook and hatch a secret plan to enlist public university scientists to bury the potential harm of your genetically engineered crops by whitewashing negative studies and systematically demonizing your opponents in the media to mislead elected officials and the American public about the safety of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) and their accompanying toxic pesticides.

Today, Monsanto and the biotech industry are copying the same tactics, this time hiding behind the façade of public university scientists and hiring major PR firms to promote GMOs and the toxic weedkiller glyphosate, the main chemical ingredient in Roundup, which some scientists are offering to drink on Twitter and in front of classrooms of students to “prove” its safety and hide the fact that it is harmful to humans and the environment.

Last weekend, the New York Times released a stunning expose of how Monsanto and the biotech industry enlisted allegedly independent public university scientists in a deceptive campaign to lobby state legislators in Pennsylvania, interfere with ballot initiatives in Oregon and Colorado and paper over risks of high pesticide usage on the Hawaiian island of Kauai.

According to New York Times investigative reporter Eric Lipton, as the GMO labeling debate was coming to a boil in America in the past three years, Monsanto and their “industry partners retooled their lobbying and public relations strategy to spotlight a rarefied group of advocates: academics, brought in for the gloss of impartiality and weight of authority that come with a professor’s pedigree.”

Read article in its entirety~
http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/12/scientists-conspire-monsanto-gmos/

And now, in Congress, they may completely block states' rights to require GMO labeling. Sorry Vermont! Sorry Democracy! Campaign donations are just more important than you....

Orwellian Nightmare: Congress May Block States from Requiring GMO Labeling
Alternet
Sept 11. 2015

....The SAFE law sounds like it promises what polls suggest 99 percent of Americans want, accurate labeling of foods with GM ingredients. It likely guarantees that no such thing will ever happen.

Backed by biotech and food industry associations, SAFE would make it illegal for states to enact mandatory GM labeling laws. It would instead establish a “voluntary” GM labeling program that pretty well eviscerates the demand for the right to know what’s in our food. It would undercut the many state level efforts.

Vermont now has a labeling law that survived industry opposition, threats, and a court challenge, which may explain why the industry got busy in Congress. If you can’t beat democracy, change it. The Senate is expected to take up the bill after its August recess.

As written, SAFE is truly the labeling law to end all labeling laws.

The biotech industry is acting desperate for a reason. It’s seen Europe and most of the world close its regulatory doors to GM crops, for now, insisting on the same “precautionary principle” enshrined in the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. That principle calls for a relatively high level of precaution before the introduction of a new technology, to avoid the kinds of unintended consequences that have caused such harm in the past: tobacco, thalidomide, DDT, PCBs, and other cases of industry-backed claims of safety that, in retrospect, proved deadly.

Full story~
http://www.alternet.org/food/gmos-safe-act-will-block-states-requiring-gmo-labeling

[GummyBearz]

1. Good thing we have professor tenureship

Otherwise they wouldn't be able to lie about research without risking their job. Now, they can lie for big $$ from private companies and still keep their jobs. Yay

[aikoaiko]

10. Tenure does not protect academic dishonesty.

I don't enough details in these cases, but academic dishonesty can lead to the removal of tenure and lead to dismissal.

[GummyBearz]

21. So why are these professors

still professors?

I have seen this up close and personal. They wont be let go from the university, you can count on that. Thank goodness for tenure (for their sake)

[reformist2]

26. Not if those same scientists are bring in the big bucks with their research grants

People need to know that major universities typically take 50% cut of any money a professor nominally receives in research grants.

[RufusTFirefly]

31. Yes. It's a bit like the way that leagues looked the other way at steroid use.

The revenues generated by juiced-up athletes made it unprofitable to crack down on them.

Reminds me of the old Woody Allen joke (I'm paraphrasing): "I have an uncle who thinks he's a chicken. We'd have him committed, but we really need the eggs."

[tblue37]

44. "My brother-in-law thinks he's Woody Allen. We'd have him committed, but we need

the Kirkegaard refences."

(I wish I could remember which film that line came from.)

[erronis]

28. If the $$s coming into the Unis is significant, they will do everything they can

to keep the paid-for "researchers" on board. Universities are now just money-making schemes, like the rest of the capitalist system. Screw honesty or integrity or learning. Reward the administrators and other stakeholders.

[hunter]

46. Same way PBS and NPR were corrupted...

$$$

[kiva]

12. I'd suggest you educate yourself about what tenure really is

before you assume it provides some sort of bulletproof shield against all behavior.

[GummyBearz]

20. I've seen it first hand

I have a PhD and have seen my adviser lie about results. Years later he is still tenured, go figure...

[reformist2]

27. The biggest factor these days in obtaining tenure is how much $$$ they can bring in.

[RufusTFirefly]

32. Yes. Neo-liberalism has infected our entire system. n/t

[kiva]

48. And I'm tenured faculty and have seen another

tenured faculty member fired. There are good reasons why anyone who works for the government should have a level of protection - unions, tenure, strong employment policies, whatever works. Does that stop corrupt practices? Not entirely, but it does protect the innocent along with the handful of guilty who scam the system.

[GummyBearz]

55. I've seen tenured faculty get fired too

Last edited Sun Sep 13, 2015, 09:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Never from a science discipline though

[kiva]

67. I'm on the other side of the school

in humanities, so I'll take your word for the science half...we don't bring in a lot of money

[Ed Suspicious]

76. Wow. I would think tenure would allow professors to reject this sort of money grubbing

bullshit because their jobs would not depend upon it.

[2naSalit]

2. One would hope

that the public would figure this out after so many attempts at manipulation. But the grover has his hands in this up to his shoulders.

[RiverLover]

4. The public in general is pliable. And its easier to believe all those rampant chemicals dispersed

in GMO fields do no harm than to actually fight & try to change things.

In Ohio, for example, we had a heat wave a week or so ago. A final hot goodbye from summer weather. Yet we couldn't swim because Lake Erie, the Ohio River, Lake St Mary & Buckeye Lake were all deemed unsafe due to toxic algae, from nitrogen overload. In Columbus, one of the main drinking water sources is the Scioto River. We were warned it too was found to be infected with algae toxins. But we were told it was safe to drink because they used charcoal filters....I could go on endlessly about the water situation in Ohio....

Sure, some of the algae is from massive meat farming & the sh8t it produces, but its also from the runoff from the chemical laced GMO farms which cover the state. Its so sad. And frustrating. I want to play in the water. I want my dog to be able to as well. It would also be nice to not worry about water from the faucet.

[jwirr]

18. Went back to Iowa some years ago and driving along

the roads saw many of the man made ponds that used to look like lakes not look like algae beds. One of the worst things was just north of the Iowa Great Lakes channels that ran into the lake were also full of this stuff. A once beautiful tourist area turned into a toxic dump. How long until this will run off into the Great Lakes themselves?

BTW does the article ever mention which Universities and which scientists?

[RiverLover]

34. It does, and its fascinating

ie,

...Lipton’s story details how a University of Illinois professor and longtime GMO promoter Bruce Chassy used his Monsanto connections to lobby the Environmental Protection Agency to abandon its efforts to tighten regulations on insecticidal GMO seeds. If you take a dive into the emails, you can see how Chassy enlisted the help of former advisor to George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton, Nina Federoff in his efforts to influence the EPA’s policies.

In the emails, Chassy’s efforts to lobby the EPA for looser regulations were encouraged by a Monsanto lobbyist even as Chassy was negotiating the release of his grant from the company.

For background on how this current story originally broke, you have to go back to Aug. 6, when the international science journal Nature reported that more than 4,600 pages of emails from University of Florida plant scientist Kevin Folta “reveal his close ties to the agriculture giant Monsanto … and other biotechnology-industry interests.”....

Its worth reading the whole thing.

[jwirr]

37. Thank you. One of the worst parts of this is that they

are tax supported universities and should not be engaging in biased studies like this.

[Enthusiast]

36. This Ohio resident agrees.

[progressoid]

82. Algae bloom has nothing to do with GMOs.

It's primary cause is the use of nitrogen and phosphorus which are used on non-gmo crops too.

[libodem]

3. Even an article such as this

Will dog whistle trolls from under bridges to come to DU and defend GMO's as wholesome and healthy.

Three, two, one, zero:

[DFW]

5. I'm sure they're on their way. Don't forget: the science, the science! n/t

[libodem]

7. Ah, yes

The science....

[Gore1FL]

64. Science is self-correcting and the best methodology we have to find the truth.

Disparaging it is not particularly helpful to any argument.

[Person 2713]

62. Mother may have made a nice Sunday dinner so it may be awhile before they get back downstairs

She made corn bread !

[progressoid]

66. OK, I'll bite.

Oh, wait, this is about how big business is infiltrating academia. Not about the safety of GMOs. Because it appears that both sides are doing it.

Companies like Monsanto are squaring off against major organic firms like Stonyfield Farm, the yogurt company, and both sides have aggressively recruited academic researchers, emails obtained through open records laws show.

The emails provide a rare view into the strategy and tactics of a lobbying campaign that has transformed ivory tower elites into powerful players. The use by both sides of third-party scientists, and their supposedly unbiased research, helps explain why the American public is often confused as it processes the conflicting information.

Where is the great outcry about the organic industry doing the same thing Monsanto is doing?

[PatSeg]

72. "They're Here!!!!"

Evidently they get a late start on Sundays!!!

[laundry_queen]

6. Not surprising

There was an investigation done by a journalist here in Canada a while back (I want to say 2-3 years ago) that found many of Canada's most prominent scientists had ties to several extremely large corporations. IN fact, a lot of their 'groundbreaking research' was funded in a round-a-bout way by these corporations. The journalists interviewed the scientists and asked them if they thought where their funding came from may have tainted their research. The answer was "Of course not. I wouldn't do that. This is science." Yet, the journalist pointed out, none of the research ever, ever came out with a conclusion that didn't line up with the corporate interests. Very interesting investigation especially since there were a lot of big name scientists involved.

Essentially what happens is that a corporation makes a bunch of small 'think tanks' and names them something like 'the society for truth in science' or some other Orwellian name. Then they make up another subsidiary that has a different corporate name. Then they take that subsidiary and use it to fund the new 'society for truth'. Then that 'society for truth' entity funds the research, or people IN the society fund it so it's more difficult to trace where the funding comes from. There are literally hundreds of these types of incestuous entities and it makes the source of the funding for the research extremely difficult to trace.

This is done constantly. Unless you are an investigative reporter, it's difficult to trace where the funding came from. So to the average person, looking at the research it looks totally like it came from trustworthy independent sources. But the average person would be wrong.

What shocked me about the investigation is that the scientists showed no shame about taking large amounts of money from corporations. Very disappointing.

[RiverLover]

9. It is disappointing. And The Times story left out the fact that Monsanto has given $1 million

over the years to Folta's University of Florida.

(see What The New York Times Missed On Kevin Folta And Monsanto's Cultivation Of Academic Scientists http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2015/09/10/what-the-new-york-times-missed-on-kevin-folta-and-monsantos-cultivation-of-academic-scientists/ )

Greed is causing the destruction of so much that could & should be good in the world.

[GreatGazoo]

41. also $5.5 million to Cornell to go after "Right to Know"

http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/gates-foundation-backed-pro-gmo-cornell-alliance-science-attack/

[KT2000]

15. I think some of those "think tanks"

are quoted here on DU.
Thanks for this info.

[laundry_queen]

17. They are

I've done some digging on some of the links posted as being 'independent studies'. Let's just say - they aren't independent.

[Octafish]

8. Crapadaemia at its finest.

Do you wonder if Big Money does the same for political discussion on academic forums?

[MisterP]

11. that's just 'cuz y'all aren't starry-eyed enough: your disbelief will drag us into a new Dark Age!

if you ever stop clapping Tinkerbell will DIE!

'sides, technology's neutral, or at least so we pretended while inventing the Bomb, and then the H-Bomb, and then the N-Bomb, and then SDI

[Rex]

13. I've always found it interesting which multi conglomerates we are supposed to have faith in

and which ones we are supposed to hate. Interesting in that these monster companies don't give two shits about people, we are their revenue stream. Yet some would fall on their sword for these private industry Goliaths.

Have fun with that crap!

[Shandris]

14. "B-b-but muh science-based approach!"

Every single person involved in this should be in prison for the remainder of their natural lives. That they are not shows that this nation does not, in ANY way, care about the needs of its people.

Now you know why there's been a sudden uptick in "Oh those bad anti-GMO companies!" postings. I thought I smelled the stench of paid shills in those threads.

[bkkyosemite]

16. We are the only County in the U.S....

that voted out GMO's here. Boy is Monsanto and their cohorts mad. They used millions of dollars to stop the labeling in Oregon and CA. Now there is the DARK act they want to pass to not enable States to vote on labeling GMO's. They are poisoning our fields and our bodies. They need to be in prison.

[Overseas]

19. K&R. The technique has worked well to prevent action on climate change.

So i'm not surprised Monsanto is working on their denial campaign.

[PatSeg]

22. Neil Degrasse Tyson

did a segment on his Cosmos TV program about the lead industry and how it hired a scientist to testify repeatedly about the safety of lead to Congress years ago. In a heartbeat HE turned around and told GMO critics to "Chill out".

“So now we can do it in a lab and all of a sudden you’re going to complain? If you’re the complainer type, go back and eat wild apples…” he said, noting their lack of flavor. Sadly he does not see the hypocrisy of his condescending remarks. I could never take him seriously again.

[Duppers]

50. NDT badly needs to be educated on this issue.

Bill Nye included.
http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-nye-explains-his-stance-on-gmos-2015-7

[PatSeg]

56. They both should have known

than to spit out generalizations on a subject they clearly know little about. I think Tyson just got a little too full of himself. Even Cosmos started to feel like a showcase for NDT, not science.

[progressoid]

68. Actually, it was getting educated on the issue, that caused him to support GMOs.

Guest host Bill Nye says he’s changed his mind about GMOs. Find out why when he and co-host Chuck Nice answer your questions about the controversial subject of Genetically Modified Organisms. Bill tackles them in his own, inimitable style, from “Is Monsanto paying you?” to “Can we breed drought-tolerant crops?” Along the way, you’ll learn about new technology for assaying genes that’s 10 million times faster than 20 years ago, the truth about glyphosate and Roundup Ready seeds, the drawbacks to organic farming, and how GMOs could actually help reduce the stress on our crop-pollinating bee populations. Explore the differences between genetic modification and selective breeding, and find out how the sweet potato changed our understanding of what nature is capable of on its own. You’ll also hear about female scientists at Monsanto, and how Monsanto and other companies like Dupont, Con Agra and Dow have morphed from chemical manufacturers of products like Agent Orange into biotech firms helping to feed the world. And that’s just in Part 1.

http://www.startalkradio.net/show/cosmic-queries-gmos-with-bill-nye-part-1/

[PatSeg]

70. Watch This Researcher

Destroy Neil deGrasse Tyson’s GMO Argument in Less Than Two Minutes.

Jeffrey Smith Responds to Tyson’s Rant

In response to Tyson’s rant, Jeffrey M. Smith, a researcher, author and filmmaker who produced ‘Genetic Roulette,’ has come out with the following video.

Smith acknowledges that Tyson is a “great scientist in his field,” and points out evidence from former FDA compliance officer Dr. Linda Khal that sheds an awful lot of truth the flawed basis of Tyson’s argument:

http://althealthworks.com/3455/watch-this-researcher-destroy-neil-degrasse-tysons-gmo-argument-in-less-than-two-minutes/

[progressoid]

73. Jeffery Smith. LOL!

“His only professional experience prior to taking up his crusade against biotechnology is as a ballroom-dance teacher, yogic flying instructor, and political candidate for the Maharishi cult’s natural-law party.”

[PatSeg]

77. Mockery, LOL

I haven't seen that one used before!

[progressoid]

81. Yes, mockery. It's hard to take someone seriously who posits,

"Scientific research studies show an even more extraordinary effect. The twice-daily program of Yogic Flying can be practiced by oneself in one’s own home. But extensive research has documented that when people come together and practice Yogic Flying in sufficiently large groups (equal to the square root of one percent of the surrounding population), they create an influence of orderliness and coherence that extends to society.

This coherence-creating effect, termed the Maharishi Effect, neutralizes stress and negativity in the innermost fabric of the nation. The crime rate drops. Sickness and accident rates drop. Inflation and unemployment decline and the economy improves. Even terrorism and open warfare have been reduced or stopped and the superpowers have become friendlier."

[CBGLuthier]

80. Yeah those ignorant PHD bastids should listen to the great unwashed slanted luddites.

This article lost all credibility in its first foaming at the mouth paragraph.

[MisterP]

54. heck, had this been 1994 Tyson would never have told us to doubt corpo-funded science

(plus all the Renaissance historians hit the roof when he dabbled in the 16th c., and again when his producer said his word outranked theirs since they were just historians)

[PatSeg]

57. Really?

I didn't know that about the historians. I watched the entire series and it got difficult to sit through a whole segment, as he became increasingly more annoying. I know I definitely won't watch any other Neil Degrasse Tyson Vanity Shows. I wonder what Carl Sagan would have thought of it.

[MisterP]

63. a lot of them do blame Seth MacFarlane for the fracas more than Tyson, who's not so "ideological"

he's more of an aesthete, I wanna say: science is good because it's pretty (no argument there); it's when historical stuff that's not only false but from 1874 get brought in that things go awry; he and Sagan often conflated and confounded science with ethics--knowing the "true" and knowing the "good"--but that's a whole 'nother matzoh ball

[mike_c]

23. this is utter bull shit....

From the NYT article: "There is no evidence that academic work was compromised, but the emails show how academics have shifted from researchers to actors in lobbying and corporate public relations campaigns." Emphasis added for clarity.

The OP is just plain misinformation intended to support the author's bias. If academic scientists tend to support genetic engineering it's because they've evaluated the evidence available to them and come to the conclusion, in their professional estimations, that GMOs are safe and effective. There's no conspiracy there. Just the truth.

And if academics are beginning to lobby and such, isn't that their right as informed citizens? We've been hearing for years that scientists need to be more active in the public arena. Well, there you go.

[HuckleB]

24. Indeed. The attack in the OP is the actual unethical act here.

Last edited Sun Sep 13, 2015, 05:14 PM - Edit history (1)

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/how-to-attack-a-public-scientist/

In fact, it contains multiple deceitful and unethical attacks. It's absolutely horrific to see so many DUers support such ugliness blindly. This OP is no different than what Fox News produces, and the response it engenders. We should be deeply disturbed.

I won't respond to any more of this thread. I'm tired of seeing DU sink ever lower. It just sucks.

[RiverLover]

29. The BS is Monanto & Bayer making million$ and not caring they're putting US & the environment

in harm's way. And our elected officials are ok with it because BigAg gives big to them.

Just one ex, from a former pro-GMO industry scientist~

....Many GMO plants are engineered to contain their own insecticides. These GMOs, which include maize, cotton and soybeans, are called Bt plants. Bt plants get their name because they incorporate a transgene that makes a protein-based toxin (usually called the Cry toxin) from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Many Bt crops are “stacked,” meaning they contain a multiplicity of these Cry toxins. Their makers believe each of these Bt toxins is insect-specific and safe. However, there are multiple reasons to doubt both safety and specificity. One concern is that Bacillus thuringiensis is all but indistinguishable from the well known anthrax bacterium (Bacillus anthracis). Another reason is that Bt insecticides share structural similarities with ricin. Ricin is a famously dangerous plant toxin, a tiny amount of which was used to assassinate the Bulgarian writer and defector Georgi Markov in 1978. A third reason for concern is that the mode of action of Bt proteins is not understood (Vachon et al 2012); yet, it is axiomatic in science that effective risk assessment requires a clear understanding of the mechanism of action of any GMO transgene. This is so that appropriate experiments can be devised to affirm or refute safety. These red flags are doubly troubling because some Cry proteins are known to be toxic towards isolated human cells (Mizuki et al., 1999). Yet we put them in our food crops.

A second concern follows from GMOs being often resistant to herbicides. This resistance is an invitation to farmers to spray large quantities of herbicides, and many do. As research recently showed, commercial soybeans routinely contain quantities of the herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) that its maker, Monsanto, once described as “extreme” (Bøhn et al 2014)....

Please read entire article, very informative~

http://www.alternet.org/food/i-used-work-scientist-gmos-now-im-having-serious-second-thoughts-about-risks

[DisgustipatedinCA]

38. I shouldn't have to tell a college professor to brush up on the meaning of conspiracy.

But you should brush up on the definition of the word, because that's exactly what's described in the article.

[mhatrw]

39. Just like grinding up old tires and spreading them on soccer fields?

Last edited Sun Sep 13, 2015, 07:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Just like filling out teeth with 50% mercury.

Academic scientists still tend to support the safety of both.

Just like drinking out of hard plastic containers.

Just like asbestos.

Just like lead paint.

Just like tobacco.

Academic scientists once tended to support the safety of all of these.

[RiverLover]

49. Excellent point mhatrw.

[DirkGently]

45. Also from the NYT article

On the other side, the biotech industry has published dozens of articles, under the names of prominent academics, that in some cases were drafted by industry consultants.

And this one

Dr. Folta said that he had joined the campaign to publicly defend genetically modified technologies because he believes they are safe, and that it is his job to share his expertise. “Nobody tells me what to say, and nobody tells me what to think,” he said, adding, “Every point I make is based on evidence.”

But he also conceded in an interview that he could unfairly be seen as a tool of industry, and his university now intends to donate the Monsanto grant money to a food pantry. “I can understand that perception 100 percent,” he said, “and it bothers me a lot.”

The problem with this kind of pay-for-play is that you can't determine anyone's motives for good or ill either way. What you know for sure is that industry will pay to put forward one point of view exclusively, so there is no way to filter propaganda from good faith. This is why, in talking about conflicts of interest, we talk about "the appearance of impropriety."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html?_r=1

[hunter]

47. The "ALL GMOS GOOD! ALL OPPOSITION UNSCIENTIFIC!" chant doesn't work for me.

All these things have to be evaluated on an individual basis, with an eye open for the unintended consequences.

The pro-gmo crowd sometimes reminds me of the anti-drug crowd. There are "religious" wackos on both sides and reasonable discussions get lost in the noise.

[pnwmom]

53. There is a clear conflict of interest when the researchers are benefiting financially

from being the mouthpiece for these companies.

[RichVRichV]

60. There's nothing wrong with corporations funding research on their products.

It would be negligent for them not to in many cases. Where the failing is is in the lack of transparency. The people running the studies should always know who is truly funding it. And that information should be posted clearly with the findings so the research can be viewed with proper scrutiny as not being truly independant.

The other side of the coin is that true independant studies are a dieing breed. And that is largely the fault of government not providing the funding anymore and lobyists using government to block the funding.

[Duppers]

74. Yeah, quid pro quo doesn't exist. nt

[cantbeserious]

25. Naomi Oreskes Merchants Of Doubt

Web Page
http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/index.html

Key Documents
http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/keydocs.html

You Tube Speech

[appalachiablue]

30. K & R. Thanks for the important reminder. Need to check this out, asap.

~ If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace. ~ Thomas Paine.

[Zorra]

33. Recommend a whole bunch! nt

[Enthusiast]

35. I know where ever you are on the internet be prepared to argue with paid sockpuppets

if you criticize GMOs.

How do I know these are not just well meaning citizens with a different opinion? What betrays their identity is their passion in defending GMO labeling. No one would be that spontaneously passionate about NOT labeling a food product. It simply does not pass the smell test.

[mhatrw]

40. Don't label them as paid shills.

They don't like labels.

[Enthusiast]

43. True.

[PatSeg]

83. Best comment of the thread!!!!

[GoneFishin]

51. It doesn't pass the smell test. Like getting into a fist fight over Coke vs Pepsi, it only makes

sense if you have a stake in one of them, or if you are nuts.

[Ichigo Kurosaki]

58. Why not just

put labeling on all non-GMO products in nice big letters that say non-GMO?
The same with organic products, a nice big label.

If there isn't an organic or non-GMO label on it then you can assume GMOs and pesticides that haven't been approved for organics is part of the product.

Just so you know, I'm not a paid sock puppet. I have not received any money at all from the GMO industry.

[Enthusiast]

59. I think people could go for that. It could be like "gluten-free", lol.

[PatSeg]

71. Also they seem to working

of the same scripts.

You make a really good point about their "passionate" opposition to food labels. They've become quite predictable here on DU and when no will take their bait, they discuss the issue with one another. Its really getting old and very annoying.

[Enthusiast]

78. I'm so glad others can see through this ruse. I encountered it during my earliest days on the net.

I used to frequent a high traffic message board where we discussed everything. Certain characters never were present until someone made an observation that could be considered leftist in nature. This tag team would immediately make their appearance (pop up in the manner of a sockpuppet) well armed with false talking points. Nothing has changed.

[PatSeg]

79. I fell for their routines

quite a few times. They are experts at button-pushing. Now I mostly see the professional GMO advocates, but I've seen political agitators for each presidential election. They disrupt as many threads as they can (very passionate of course) and after the election they are gone. Being they are professionals, they are careful not to cross certain lines and get themselves banned.

Love the sockpuppet!

[WinkyDink]

42. "CONSPIRING."

[Duppers]

52. Big K & R

[Person 2713]

61. For some reason they couldn't buy so many academics in Europe, China, etc. but here in NA hands out

like beggars . Scientists we have here some with no ethics and money talks
Advocates call it the DARK Act
Deny Americans the Right to Know

SAFE ACT = double plus double speak

[progressoid]

65. How do you know they couldn't buy academics in Europe, China, etc.?

[Person 2713]

69. I wrote not so many (not enough to stop the current labeling laws ) although UK is readdressing

the current labeling laws in effect just due to the overall monetary loss in a stagnant economy (GMO is big money)and a big corporate push from guess whos not necessarily any changes in the academic research coming out of the area
The push is to reverse required labeling in the UK I believe or it could be planting?
Got to the politicians more than to the research in UK