Outrageous Lies Monsanto and Friends Are Trying to Pass off to Kids as Science

[marmar]

AlterNet / By Ronnie Cummins

Outrageous Lies Monsanto and Friends Are Trying to Pass off to Kids as Science
The claims made in a book from the biotechnology industry are laughable. But these blatant lies are passed off as 'science' for schoolchildren.

March 20, 2012 |


It's not enough that the biotech industry -- led by multinational corporations such as Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, BAS, and Dupont -- is poisoning our food and our planet. It's also poisoning young minds.

In a blatant attempt at brainwashing, the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) has widely circulated what it calls a Biotechnology Basics Activity Book for kids, to be used by "Agriculture and Science Teachers." The book -- called Look Closer at Biotechnology -- looks like a science workbook, but reads more like a fairy tale. Available on the council's Web site, its colorful pages are full of friendly cartoon faces, puzzles, helpful hints for teachers -- and a heavy dose of outright lies about the likely effects of genetic engineering on health, the environment, world hunger and the future of farming.

CBI's lies are designed specifically for children, and intended for use in classrooms.

At a critical time in history when our planet is veering toward a meltdown, when our youth are suffering the health consequences (obesity, diabetes, allergies) of Big Ag and Food Inc.'s over-processed, fat-and sugar-laden, chemical-, and GMO-tainted foods, a time when we should be educating tomorrow's adults about how to reverse climate change, how to create sustainable farming communities, how to promote better nutrition, the biotech industry's propagandists are infiltrating classrooms with misinformation in the guise of "educational" materials.
Brainwashing children. It's a new low, even for Monsanto. .............................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/food/154602/outrageous_lies_monsanto_and_friends_are_trying_to_pass_off_to_kids_as_science/

[jeff47]

1. Ok, let's go through the lies in the article then

any attempt to increase resistance to pests through genetic engineering will ultimately fail."

False.

Having actually genetically engineered bacteria back in College, it is quite possible to engineer organisims to be more resistant to pests. In fact, GMO crops are more resistant to pests.

The problem comes from the fact that evolution hasn't stopped for pests. So it is also possible for pests to evolve past the GMO crops resistance. Not guaranteed, but possible. Just like it is possible for disease-causing bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance. Yet we still give antibiotics to people who get sick. Why? It cures them the vast majority of the time. Similarly, GMO for pest resistance does help deal with pests the majority of the time.

Just as scientists had predicted years ago, a new generation of insect larvae has evolved, and is eating away at the roots of Monsanto's Bt corn -- a crop farmers paid a high price for on Monsanto's promise that they would never have to worry about corn rootworm again. Scientists are now warning of massive yield loss and surging corn costs if the EPA doesn't act quickly to drastically reduce Bt crops' acreage and ensure that Monsanto makes non-GMO varieties of corn available to farmers.

False. The same larva eat non-GMO corn too.

Biotechnology -- specifically genetic engineering -- helps neither farmers nor the environment, according to the majority of legitimate scientists and economists.

This is false, in that the author has decided to throw out any opposing opinions by declaring them "non-legitimate".

When multinational corporations move into areas previously dominated by small farmers, they force those farmers to buy their patented seeds and fertilizers -- under pretense of higher yields, and under threats of lawsuits if they save or share the seeds

False. The "buy every year" plan didn't work well. Because most farmers aren't idiots, much as the author wants to claim.

"Buy every year" does still happen in some crops and especially in the US. But that's because the farmer is trying to grow a specific variety of crop. Super-sweet corn, for example, only happens when you hybridize two specific not-super-sweet varieties. Using the corn from last year's crop will not yield super-sweet corn, because you no longer have the specific super-sweet hybrid.

Monsanto routinely sues farmers for growing their patented seeds illegally, even though the seeds were actually unwanted trespassers.

I keep reading stories of such farmers being horribly abused by Monsanto when "they didn't plant the GMO crop!". A big hue and cry comes from anti-GMO activists...and then during the trial it is revealed bags of Monsanto seed were in the guy's barn.

So if you're going to claim innocent farmers are getting put through the wringer because of seed blowing onto their field, please give me an actual example. Because all the previous examples I know of are farmers doing exactly what Monsanto accused them of doing.

In India, for instance, after World Trade Organization policies forced the country in 1998 to open its seed sector to companies like Cargill, Monsanto and Syngenta, farmers quickly found themselves in debt to the biotech companies that forced them to buy corporate seeds and fertilizers and pesticides, destroying local economies.

So...we must protect farmers because all farmers are morons? Um....no. Just like any industry, people can decide to make bad purchases, or purchases that turned out badly for them. Doesn't mean the product has to be banned. Nor were those farmers actually forced to buy GMO products. They decided to take a chance on them, and then a drought crippled crop yield. No drought, and they'd likely have done better than their neighbors...in fact they did the 3 previous non-drought years.

Study after study, over more than a decade, has warned us of just the opposite. Even the pro-biotech USDA has admitted that GE crops use more pesticides, not less than non-GE varieties.

That's because they're not necessarily engineering for insect resistance. Going back to super-sweet corn, there's a lot of genetic engineering going on. None of it is for pests. All of it is for sugar content.

How about telling kids instead that numerous reports, including one from the German Beekeepers Association, have linked genetically engineered Bt corn to the widespread disappearance of bees, or what is now referred to as Colony Collapse Disorder?

Well, mostly because it is ridiculously easy to prove those beekeepers were pulling a cause of CCD out of their ass - CCD happens far from GE corn too. This is known as lying. But this is a lie the author likes, so it must be true!

Maybe we should also tell them that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's herbicide, Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world, kills Monarch butterflies, fish, and frogs, destroys soil fertility, and pollutes our waterways and drinking water.

That's nice. Hey look, it's a chemical, and not genetically engineered. Now, I'm guessing the author wanted to go off on a rant against "Roundup ready" GMO crops. But just one page ago, the author was telling us how 'Roundup ready' utterly fails and Roundup resistant weeds were destroying GMO crops.

Which is it? Roundup ready is useless due to resistant weeds, or it's so widespread it's going to destroy all insects? Or are we back to all farmers are morons?

Genetic engineering -- of human food and food for animals that humans eat -- has been linked to a host of diseases and health issues, including auto-immune disorders, liver and kidney damage, nutritional deficiencies, allergies, accelerated aging, infertility, and birth defects.

Sure...if you consider the claims that aren't actually backed by any studies to be "true". I mean, the very first sentence in their second link says "more study is needed".

Then they wander off into complaints about our current food system...and their complaints are utterly independent of the GMO-ness of the food.

We've always been genetically engineering food. There is absolutely nothing natural about corn. Humans created it by choosing certain odd specimens over thousands of years. Today, corn can't grow without human intervention. Yet we're supposed to pretend engineering is new?

Could GMO cause problems? Of course. But lying about them is just as wrong as claiming GMO has saved the world.

[mike_c]

2. thanks for taking so much time to reply to the OP screed....

[chervilant]

3. Interesting...

So, you refute alleged "lies" in the article by proffering your own opinions? What makes your assertions legitimate?

I guess two can play this game, to whit:

Monsanto and other ginormous Agribusinesses--and related mega-corporations--are thrilled beyond measure when members of the Hoi Polloi carry their water for them, so to speak.

Here's what "technological breakthroughs in agriculture" have done for the human race:

~heavy metal pollution in virtually all of our groundwater

~inexplicable declines in honeybee populations

~nutritional deficiencies in almost every fruit or vegetable harvested since the 70s

~vast swaths of soil erosion and silt runoff

~measurable declines in the quality and flavor of most produce

~GLOBAL monopolies on seed stock

~unknown effects from GMO technology (which the manufacturers are NOT required to discuss OR disclose)

~cross contamination of vegetable foodstuffs from cattle and dairy operations (e. coli, anyone?)

~inhumane treatment of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, calves, chickens, turkeys, geese and ducks (and, almost every other animal we humans routinely consume).

Gosh, I could continue this list for HOURS and not finish... However, I'll conclude by observing that localized organic gardening (particularly, biointensive gardening) can achieve the same or better yields, without the myriad negative consequences that are part and parcel of our "scientific community's" much vaunted "modern agricultural practices."

I encourage you to do more research (much of what I've posted above is the result of my own research).

Oh, and, btw, Monsanto has been on the receiving end of much negative press and censure, from the mid-60s when they tried to vilify Rachel Carson, to the present day, when documentaries like 'Food, Inc.' substantiate how vile are their 'standard business practices.'

[jeff47]

6. So....is there something organic that helps with reading comprehension?

What makes your assertions legitimate?

What makes the article's? The fact that you agree with them?

Here's what "technological breakthroughs in agriculture" have done for the human race:

Great! Let's talk about GMOs, since that's what the article is about...

~heavy metal pollution in virtually all of our groundwater

Really? They've genetically engineered a crop to put heavy metals into the soil? Interesting. Oh wait...not GMO. Oh, and if you are looking for the source of heavy metals, you might wanna take a gander over at heavy industry.

~inexplicable declines in honeybee populations

If it's inexplicable, how do you know it's from big agriculture? Do you just "know"? Are you going to claim that CCD is caused by pesticides, yet ignore that there was no CCD back when we sprayed DDT everywhere?

Oh, and still not GMOs that we're talking about.

~nutritional deficiencies in almost every fruit or vegetable harvested since the 70s

*Citation Needed

And still not GMOs, since they didn't do that in the 70s.

~vast swaths of soil erosion and silt runoff

Because the dust bowl never happened. This is all new due to big agribusiness.

So....gonna claim GMOs are engineered to promote soil erosion, or you still not on GMOs yet?

~measurable declines in the quality and flavor of most produce

Actually, I'm quite enjoying the quality, flavor and variety of produce I can get now. It's nice to have apple choices besides red delicious and granny smith, which was all we could get when I was growing up.

Oh, and since produce has been picked pre-ripe for waaaaay longer than big agribusiness, I'm very interested to see your proof that it's a new phenomenon.

~GLOBAL monopolies on seed stock

You do realize there are unpatented seeds, right? You don't have to use Monsanto's. Hell, farmers can do what they did for centuries, and keep some of their crop to use as seed the next year.

If you want the benefits of the patented product, you'll be paying the person with the patent. Be it seeds or computers.

But hey, you managed to finally hit a GMO issue! Congratulations!

~unknown effects from GMO technology (which the manufacturers are NOT required to discuss OR disclose)

Don't forget Chupacabra attacks. No one is required to disclose those either. But they MUST be happening!!

~cross contamination of vegetable foodstuffs from cattle and dairy operations (e. coli, anyone?)

Are you going to claim that e. coli is new? Seriously? Putting a cattle ranch uphill from a farm has always been a bad idea. Modern farming doesn't change that.

What I find most interesting on this particular subject is just how backwards the organic folks have it. If you go buy a sack of ammonium nitrate, you will get 99.9999999999999999% ammonium nitrate. The remainder will be other ammonia and nitrogen compounds that aren't toxic. That sack of fertilizer won't contaminate anyone's food, but the plants will really love it.

What's the alternative large organic farms use? Manure. Sewage.

~inhumane treatment of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, calves, chickens, turkeys, geese and ducks (and, almost every other animal we humans routinely consume).

You're going to seriously pretend we danced and lived in harmony with our farm animals like a Disney cartoon until the 1980s? Inhumane treatment of livestock is an ancient practice.

Gosh, I could continue this list for HOURS and not finish.

Maybe you should try for a few more hours. You might stumble across something relevant to the article.

However, I'll conclude by observing that localized organic gardening (particularly, biointensive gardening) can achieve the same or better yields, without the myriad negative consequences that are part and parcel of our "scientific community's" much vaunted "modern agricultural practices."

Not without lots and lots more labor. Those "localized organic gardening" programs require lots of volunteers, or produce far more expensive food. Good news everyone! We're now using localized organic gardening! The bad news is 1/3rd of you can't afford to eat any of it. But Twinkies are still cheap!

I encourage you to do more research (much of what I've posted above is the result of my own research).

I encourage you to not believe everyone with a web site that fits in with your preconceived ideas. Sometimes, people say things on the Internet that aren't true! It's shocking!

Oh, and, btw, Monsanto has been on the receiving end of much negative press and censure, from the mid-60s when they tried to vilify Rachel Carson, to the present day, when documentaries like 'Food, Inc.' substantiate how vile are their 'standard business practices.'

Please quote where I said Monsanto was a wonderful and cuddly company. Oh wait...I didn't. They may be evil incarnate. Doesn't mean we should lie about them to "help make our point".

[chervilant]

8. Yawn...

How predictable...

[jeff47]

9. Yep. Enjoy your food grown in sewage! I'll be chowing down on some genetically engineered stuff.

[Odin2005]

7. Finally, some sanity against the luddite BS.

[Shirley0401]

4. wow

Just wow.
This is what happens when we let the Almighty Market into education. It becomes less and less about anything resembling education. Everything becomes about influencing opinion, about outcomes, about numbers. At some point, it was about raising an educated population.

[MisterP]

5. also, techno-messianism