Monday, January 24, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
Watch out for the word “unscientific” in propaganda that’s pushing GMOs, pesticides or other dangerous chemicals onto our world. In a joint letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, three Republican members of Congress (Rep. Frank Lucas, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Sen. Pat Roberts) attempted to spin GMOs as being “scientific.”
They urged the USDA to “return to a science based regulatory system” and claimed that “science strongly supports the safety of GE alfalfa.” (http://agriculture.house.gov/press/…)
The implication, of course, is that anyone who opposesGMOsis “unscientific” (and therefore stupid). The letter further implies that anyUSDAopposition to GMOs is purely political in nature and not based onscience.
Apparently the cabal ofGMOpseudoscientists have forgotten one of the most important principles of science:The Precautionary Principlewhich states that when dealing with large-scale unknowns (such as modifying the genetic code of the world’s foodcrops), it is wise to err on the side of caution.
Intellectually dishonest spin
This effort to characterize GMO opposition as “unscientific” is just the latest outlandish spin campaign that attempts to reframe the entire GMOdebateas “scientific versus unscientific.” You’re either in favor of GMOs, the twisted logic goes, or you’re against science!
In reality, it’s not actually science that’s behind GMOs but rathercorporate greed, public relations, lobbying and the financial influence of members ofCongress. Today, Frank Lucas, Saxby Chambliss and Pat Roberts all effectively painted signs on their foreheads that read, “GMO sellout.”
Another key phrase: “Unscientific restrictions”
This isn’t the first effort to frame the GMO battle as a defense of science, of course. The phrase “unscientific restrictions” has cropped up in the GMO debate throughout the EU, where anyone who opposes GMOs — even for perfectly rational reasons — is immediately branded “unscientific.”
NaturalNews was the first to break the story about how GMOs were being forced into European nations by the U.S. ambassador to France who plotted with other U.S. officials to create a “retaliatory target list” of anyone who tried to regulate GMOs (http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_G…).
Astonishingly, virtually the entire mainstream media has still failed to report this groundbreaking story, which just goes to tell you how deeply in bed the media is with corporate interests. (Since when did the medianotcover aWikileakscable?)
Commonsense restrictions would be a “dangerous precedent”
Continuing with the “science” gobbledygook, another letter put together by a group of seven Big Ag monoculture crop giants claimed:
Agriculture regulators would set a “dangerous precedent” by imposingunscientific restrictionsonalfalfagrowers who plant genetically modified seed, harming farmers using other biotechnology-based crops.
There’s that term again: “Unscientific restrictions.”
This is the GMO industry’s carefully-crafted spin phrase to try to hammer away at any policy that attempts to protect natural crops from GMOcontamination. It also serves to halt any real debate over the issue. Rather than engaging in an intellectually-founded discussion of the potential risk factors associated with GMOs, the GMO camp simply shouts, “Unscientific!” and demands that the debate be halted.
This is the playground equivalent to saying, “Everything you say bounces off of me and stick on you. Nah nah nah!”
It’s actually the same tactic used by the vaccineindustry. Any attempt to reasonably question thesafetyor efficacy of seasonalfluvaccines is immediately and savagely branded “unscientific” before any real debate can take place at all.
The bludgeon of “science” admits intellectual weakness
This is the tactic, of course, of theintellectually inferiorwho have no solid science to back up their intellectual playground bullying. Rather than debating on the merits of good science, they seek tostifle discussionby accusing their opponents of questioning all science. It is, of course, a fallacious argument, and it only makes the so-called “scientists” appear to look even more like desperate zealots pushing their own particular twisted dogma.
That’s what the pro-GMO position is, of course: A zealot-infused dogma backed by lots and lots of dollars but absolutely no legitimate science.
And yet, GMO zealots continue to argue as if they have scientific truths on their side.
The most astonishing spin letter you will ever read
Take a look at this astonishing letter fromBig Agro giantswhich literally claims that any regulation of GMOs would “…undermine the public’s trust in the integrity of the scientific process that the president directed all executive branch agencies to uphold.”
The letter goes on to say that “coexistence” (of GMOs and non-GMO crops) would “set a dangerous precedent” and that all the following regulations and restrictions on GE crops are entirely unacceptable: “Isolation distances, geographic planting restrictions, limitations on harvest periods and equipment usage, seed bag labeling, seed coloration, and the listing of seed production field locations on a national data base.”
This same letter even boldly insists that regulating GMOs would harm America‘s international trade! “If USDA moves forward with injecting non-science-based criteria into the regulatory process it will undermine our international trade efforts,” it claims.
That letter, in fact, is one of the most grotesque examples of pseudoscientific linguistic contortionism I’ve ever seen. The author of the letter, whoever he may be, is an intellectually dishonest individual who is knowingly bastardizing the use of the word “science” to try to hide the real agenda ofcorporate domination over the world’sfoodcrops.
The whole point of the letter, by the way, is to request that genetically engineered alfalfa be exempted from regulation by the federal government. This particular pesticide-ready alfalfa is designed to withstand exposure to Roundup. Care to guess which corporation is likely behind this particular bit of nefarious deception?
What the letter essentially states is that GE alfalfa seed bags need not be labeled as such; that GE seeds can be the samecoloras non-GE seeds (so that farmers can’t tell them apart), that GE alfalfa can be planted right next to non-GE alfalfa crops (where DNA cross-contamination will obviously occur), and that the location of GE alfalfa fields should remaina secret.
All this has been hidden underneath the veil of “science.”
“Science,” you see, is no longer what it once was. In fact, the abandonment of ethics and honesty by those who invoke the term is now so severe that the entire scientific community is seeing its reputation erode by the day.