GMO’s: Scare Mongering at Its Worst! Part X

By Rich Kozlovich

This is the last of my ten part series on Mike (The Health Ranger) Adam's, article, The Agricultural Holocaust explained: the 10 worst ways GMOs threaten humanity and our natural world.  Here is Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI,Part VII, Part VIII and Part IX.

I’ve taken some time to post this tenth article for a number of reasons. I’ve been writing this article in my head since I first read his piece, but didn’t start the actual writing until a few days ago. It has also been the most difficult of the ten articles to organize because it’s nothing more than a very long attack on the personal qualities and character of those who work with the latest agricultural technology needed to save untold millions from the suffering of malnutrition and starvation. And his tenth “reason” to be against GMO’s is the same repetitious horsepucky he’s spouted throughout the article. Therefore, my response had to be organized differently than the rest. In this post I will address each component of his argument as it’s presented.

Unfortunately, it takes paragraphs of facts to overcome cleverly worded soundbites, as a result this article has taken me longer to construct, and is in itself much longer than I would like, since I'm sure a substantial number of my readers will move on before they finish.   

One more thing! I generally hate this kind of refutation for two reasons. I spend more time organizing their thoughts into some sort of logical progression than I do responding to them, and they repeat their positions over and over again while saying nothing, forcing me to waste time giving the same answers over and over again.  But if you fail to challenge every aspect of their positions you’re accused of being afraid to face their “facts”.

The Health Ranger's tenth reason to be against GMO’s is: “The kind of scientists who collaborate with biotech companies are the most dishonest, corrupt and unethical scientists in our world”. He goes on to say:

The world of science consists primarily of ethical, reasonable people who are doing their best to contribute to knowledge and progress for our world. But the darkest "fringe" fanatics of bad science are found in the realm of GMOs, where scientists routinely accept money from the biotech industry to lie to the public and attack "GMO skeptics" -- people who are skeptical about the false promises made by biotech corporations.

First of all, scientists working on any project deserve to be paid, including those working on biotech projects, and secondly -generally speaking - ethics are usually a matter of whose ox is being gored. Third, it’s been my experience those scientists I consider “fringe fanatics of bad science” have been those who’ve sold their integrity for government grant money. As my friend Jay Lehr, one of the founders ofthe EPA, once noted:

“Yes, science is following the government money, and it’s a problem in all industries. We’ve totally distorted science, not all of it, but certainly at the university level. They know they have to say what the government wants to hear in the grant proposal process in order to get their money. U.S. EPA rules the roost, and if they’re not out to prove or say bad things about chemicals of all kinds, they won’t likely get the money. This is all driven by the environmental advocacy groups that control U.S. EPA today. It’s a horrible thing, and what it has done to science mostly at the academic level is bad. But U.S. EPA’s goal is to remove every useful chemical from the environment. They are driven by environmental advocacy groups, who are basically Socialists wanting to destroy capitalism and progress and make us a weaker nation. It’s hard to understand their motivation but they are an unhappy bunch.

When confronted by these kinds of comments I have found the first thing done by the left is to snort and smirk, with a morally superior air, in an attempt to denigrate such comments as conspiracy theory nonsense. Unfortunately for all of us - it isn’t!

Recently the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a “Minority Staff Report” entitled, “TheChain of Environmental Command: How a Club of Billionaires and TheirFoundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA”, which states among other things;

“In reality, an elite group of left wing millionaires and billionaires, which this report refers to as the “Billionaire’s Club,” who directs and controls the far-left environmental movement, which in turn controls major policy decisions and lobbies on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

This 92 page document needs to be read by everyone who stands in defense of worthwhile environmental policies and honest science.

He claims those scientists working for biotech companies are ‘lying’ to the public but fails to list one demonstrable lie, nor can he cite any false promises, especially since GMO’s are working wonders feeding the world and helping to produce pharmaceuticals that would never have come into being otherwise.

He goes on to say:

Biotech-linked scientists and journalists are the most nefarious and evil-minded of their kind, waging vicious smear campaigns against environmentalists while working desperately to block the public's right to know what they're eating. "Biotech shills" have been a key part of the defeat of GMO labeling laws in California and Oregon, for example, where their message has been, "Make sure the public NEVER knows they're eating GMOs!"

Once again he resorts to personal attacks without presenting one fact that supports his assertions and then uses a common tactic of the left by transferring the guilt and actions of themselves onto those they disagree with, but saying;

“Biotech-linked scientists and journalists are the most nefarious and evil-minded of their kind, waging vicious smear campaigns against environmentalists while working desperately to block the public's right to know what they're eating”.

A “vicious smear campaign” against environmentalists? I would like to see what he construes as a “vicious smear”. It seems likely he refers to anything that exposes the fallacies of his position with facts that can be scientifically substantiated.

Smear campaigns are a tactic of the left, and right out of Saul Alinsky’s book The Rules For Radicals. Eventually they resort to threats, and in some cases violence. The eco-activists are the spear point of the left, and their tactics are the tactics of the left. We really do need to understand that! If they can’t get you to buy into their lies they attempt to bully you into submission.

As for this business about labeling; that’s nothing more than an attempt to place these products on a list to be targeted by eco-activists. Once that happens there will be no end in sight to their lies, and scare mongering. Is it any wonder the industry is afraid of the backlash from consumers and take a strong stand against such labeling? These eco-activists know this and are counting on frightening consumers. As one person stated, “that's ultimately the food industry's problem." No, it isn’t. It’s humanities problem! Such tactics will only cost the food industry money. The cost to humanity will be in misery, suffering, malnutrition, starvation and early death.

The Health Ranger rails against the biotech industry calling them criminals who should be tried for crimes against humanity for promoting these products. So where exactly are these alleged crimes against humanity happening? To whom have these alleged crimes against humanity occurred? In spite of all this hyperbole they are incapable of demonstrating where one person has died from these GMO’s, and the Indian suicide claims are a myth, which I addressed in an earlier post.

It would appear his crimes against humanity are imaginary! Yet, in just one arena, the stand by these eco-activists against the introduction of Golden Rice since 1999 has cost the lives of millions, and millions more who have been blinded and suffered from “a vulnerability to childhood infections, anemia and poor growth” as a direct result of their stand. I don’t know about anyone else, but that seems to me to be evidence of “real” harm, and “real” crimes against humanity because “real” people are suffering and dying. And who will answer for those “real” crimes against humanity?

He continues with his illusionary smears against those in science and journalism who won’t tout the green line by saying;

In every way imaginable, the scientists and journalist who blindly push GMOs are a great disservice to the scientific community and will only discredit science in the long run as the long-term harm caused by GMOs becomes undeniable.
REAL science allows for skeptical questions and embraces the precautionary principle, but quack "GMO science" abandons precaution while disparaging anyone who poses reasonable questions about playing God with nature.

Again – what is the “undeniable” long term harm? If it’s undeniable there must be evidence to support such a statement, and speculation isn’t evidence. Real science does allow for “skeptical questions”, but “real” eco-activists don’t! His ilk has demonstrated over and over again that eco-activists love name calling and personal attacks, because when you’re bereft of facts that's the only fallback position available.

Let’s take Anthropogenic Global Warming – oops – I forgot, the world isn’t warming any longer so it’s now Anthropogenic “Climate”Change – as a classic example of such intolerance, calling those who disagree with AGW as “skeptics” and “deniers”, and claiming they’re the equivalent of“holocaust deniers”, and “flat Earthers”.

However he exposes what is the real foundational for their position. The Precautionary Principle (PP), which I have addressed in a previous post. Make no mistake about it – there is no end to the irrational demands which will be imposed on anything they oppose based on the PP. And there will never be enough testing, or enough money spent on testing or enough evidence in support of a product’s use that will provide a satisfactory answer for the green left.

The Health Ranger continues by claiming the blind are leading the blind saying;

GMO shills, of course, dismiss all these concerns (or hope you don't notice them). Their foolish strategy is to cover their eyes, cover their ears and march humanity down this path of destruction, all while hoping to cash in on quarterly profit dividends in the mean time.

Why is it everyone who disagrees with them is an industry“shill”?  What a mixed bag of logical fallacies. Just what are these concerns he’s talking about that hasn’t been addressed? While he and his cohorts in no way accept any evidence that's in opposition to their positions, they will not, and cannot, present any factual information that is credible beyond speculation. Fortunately the public is becoming aware of their “Chicken Little – the sky is falling” scenarios. It’s like Dan Rather intoning– “questions remain”!

He then resorts to anti-capitalist demagoguery saying “hoping to cash in on quarterly profit dividends in the mean time”. When did it become criminal to make money for doing good work? Once again, I have to waste time pointing out that if there are no profits there are no products, and that’s what he wants.  As a side bar - I don't see him giving away all those "health" supplements he sells on his site. 

What should really concern society is not that companies are making profits by producing viable worthwhile products, but how the green movement cashes in by scare mongering against these products, as they did with the Alar scare.

He goes on to say;

There is no rational justification for putting the entire world at risk with genetically engineered crops that have clearly failed to be subjected to responsible long-term scientific testing.

Somehow I don’t think feeding a growing world population is an irrational justification for promoting GMO’s. Although the eco-left activists do! They’ve publically stated over and over again the world’s population needs to be trimmed to no more than two billion people. And those are the “moderates” among them! The “radicals” want to see humanity wiped out! As for putting the “world at risk” - other than his unfounded speculations - just how is the “entire world at risk”?  We’ve been using GMO’s for decades and they’ve yet to demonstrate any harm – either in the short or long term. And that’s the fly in the ointment isn’t it? Long term consequences! What exactly does that mean?

Those of us who’ve had to deal with these people understand “long term” means “forever”! And until we can prove nothing does any harm “forever” – which is scientifically impossible – according to them it can’t be used. That’s the real world application of the PP by eco-activists.

But now he steps into it with both feet by claiming;

As with most other chemicals -- aspartame, Agent Orange, Bisphenol-A and so on -- industry simply unleashes them onto the world and hopes nothing goes wrong.

He’s back to logical fallacies and lies of omission. None of these products were merely dumped on the public. All chemicals, and GMO’s, have been tested extensively. As a basis for his reasoning he throws out products that have been attacked over and over again, such as Aspartame, Agent Orange and Bisphenol-A, which have all been tested and retested and retested ad nauseam. What have been the results? Let’s explore this!

In order to show how irresponsible Adams is let’s take a look at his examples of products “unleashed unto the world”.

Aspartame - The American Council on Science and Health states:

"The constituents of the sweetener are phenylalanine and aspartic acid, two amino acids found in many different proteins, and methanol, an alcohol found in many fruits and vegetables, as well as in wine, whiskey and beer. At the levels supplied by Aspartame, only the phenylalanine is potentially dangerous, and then only to the relatively small proportion of people who are born with a condition known as phenylketonuria — an inability to metabolize this particular amino acid. In light of this, the FDA has mandated a label on Aspartame-containing products warning those people of its phenylalanine content."

"Aspartame has been tested and re-tested again and again to see if it is really a threat to human health — indeed it is probably the most widely tested food additive in the United States, if not the world. And the results of all this testing are that the product is safe at typically consumed levels — up to 40 milligrams of Aspartame per kilogram of body weight."

They’re quoting from the article The Truth About Aspartame and Your Health that goes far deeper into the chemistry of Aspartame and the real world of facts versus the world of imagination and speculation of the eco-activists.

Agent Orange – Dioxin is the common name for Agent Orange and has been called the most toxic manmade substance on Earth by eco-activists. Yet “two independent laboratories using different methodologies reported a single serving of the ice cream contained about 200 times the level of dioxin the EPA says is safe — according to the existing EPA standard. Under the new EPA standard, a serving of Ben & Jerry’s would exceed the EPA’s safe level by a whopping 2,000 times. The level would be about 7,400 times what the EPA says is safe for a 40-pound child.”

What’s even more interesting is a genetically engineered mouse cell line is “used for the detection and relative quantitation” for substances like dioxin.

Apparently those who attempted to assassinate Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko believed all the hype. He had 1000 times more dioxin in his blood than normal, and yet he lived. He was sick, in pain and suffered severe acne, but “the most toxic manmade substance on Earth”, failed to kill him.

So how dangerous are dioxins? “No credible study to date has shown an increased risk of cancer, developmental disorders, or other illnesses attributable to exposure to "background" levels of dioxins or other organochlorines. Until very recently, even scientific studies of people exposed during industrial accidents to extremely high levels of dioxins failed to find any long-term adverse health symptoms.”

“Some scientists and policy advocates assumed humans are just as sensitive to dioxins as are guinea pigs and rats. Only later did it become widely known that humans (and several other species) are thousands of times less sensitive than these laboratory animals.”

Bisphenol-A - On July 7^th of this year Angela Logomasini, Ph.D. published an article entitled, “Greens' Attempt To Ban Bisphenol A Will Endanger Public Health”, stating;

“Yet the overwhelming body of science on BPA shows the exact opposite: BPA bans are not only unwarranted, but they are the real danger to public health.” She goes on to say;

“EWG and other anti-BPA activists ignore the fact the comprehensive reviews of BPA science find BPA risks to be negligible and the benefits substantial. In addition to U.S. Food and Drug Administration, governmental bodies in the European Union, Japan, and Canada, as well as the World Health Organization have all studied BPA and concluded the risks are negligible. The best-designed studies show that the human body metabolizes BPA quickly, passing it out without any impacts.

Ignoring these comprehensive scientific reviews, greens instead focus on myriad small, inconclusive, and poorly designed studies to sound the alarm and generate media hype. For example, EWG says in its press release: “It [BPA] has been linked to cancer, obesity, diabetes, infertility, hormone disruption and early puberty in children.”

It doesn’t matter what history and reality show, eco-activists will accept no conclusions that are contrary to the tenets of their secular neo-pagan religion – environmentalism.

Adams ends by saying;

”there is presently zero willingness on the part of biotech corporations to expend the kind of time, money and resources required to establish such safety. There is also zero willingness in the minds of GMO-fronting scientists to even consider the possibility that they might be wrong.”

It seems to me that can only be construed as a deliberate lie since he must be aware they’ve spent millions testing these products. The rest is all emotional horsepucky with a warning of playing Russian Roulette in hopes that Monsanto has thought of everything, and then intones that history proves otherwise. Well, truth is the sublime convergence of history and reality, and here's the truth.  

 

All advancements carry risks, but as history has shown, those advancements have far outweighed the risks, otherwise we would be living in mud huts, half starved, sick and short lived.  Everything eco-activists yearn for.  Just like so many in the third world who suffer from the actions of these misanthropic and morally defective people.  

 

Here are the links to the entire series:   Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI,Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX and Part X