Inside D.C.

Activists deny reality, attack the messengers

Why are some “consumer protection” groups deaf, dumb and blind to the opinions of the folks they purport to protect?  In the case of those seeking labeling of foods containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients, this triple affliction seems particularly severe and chronic, complicated by paranoia, petulance and an apparent compulsion to speak out of both sides of their organizational mouths.

When it comes to GM labeling, the people have spoken – labeling is a solution in search of a probelm.  Of the states which had state-wide ballot initiatives on GM food labeling over the last four years, all failed.  That means, my activist brethren, the majority of consumers in your state or the state you targeted as an activist carpetbagger didn’t buy what you were selling.  This is due in large part because the science of GM ingredients and foods showed safety to man and animal.

The defeated activists are going after the messengers of the scientific evidence that undid those political campaigns.  The former leaders of the failed California GM labeling assault have formed a new group:  U.S. Right to Know (USRTK www.usrtk.org/).   USTRK now attacks by implication the integrity of individual scientists who don’t agree with it.   Not content to raise donations on the obvious “Big Food” conspiracy threat, USTRK seeks the alleged co-conspirators whose work is the evidence demonstrating USTRK is wrong.

Earlier this year more than a dozen scientists at four land grant universities whose work repudiates USTRK’s philosophy and politics, and/or who actively opposed California’s failed 2012 GM label ballot initiative and/or who may been quoted on the Council for Biotechnology Information www.gmoanswers.com website, saw their institutions hit with public records requests under individual state disclosure laws. These requests demand the scientists turn over all emails and correspondence relating to their biotech work, including correspondence with biotech companies, their trade associations and public relations firms.

Here’s the USTRK philosophy, as stated on its website:  “Our food system is not safe.  America’s epidemic of food-related diseases…is the logical result of a food system that maximizes profits, not health or happiness. To cover their tracks, Big Food hides the truth about what they sell. They don’t want us to know what’s in our food, or how it affects our health. Our food system is corrupt because our government is corrupted, captured and crippled by the Big Food lobby.”  The site asks visitors: “Know any food-related scandals?  We love to hear about foods scandals and corruption.”

At best, such strategies are designed to intimidate and muzzle scientist who don’t agree with USTRK.  Implicit in the records request is a seed of suspicion these scientists may be in the pocket of big biotech, that research results might have been manipulated, that opinions may have been at least rented, if not purchased.  Publicity surrounding the records requests tarnishes a reputation, particularly among those who adhere to the “where’s there’s smoke…” philosophy.

Yet, USTRK last month sent letters to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees and the USDA Inspector General demanding a taxpayer-paid-for investigation of a possible “cover up for Monsanto, and whether USDA scientists are being harassed when their work runs counter to the interests of the agrichemical industry…These scientists work for the public, not Monsanto or the agrichemical industries.  It is crucial to the public interest that they do their work without industry harassment or obstruction.  The integrity of the USDA is at stake.”

That’s a blade that cuts both ways.  Land grant universities are publicly funded, and by extension their scientists deserve the same respect and protection from activists with a political axe to grind.  The folks in white lab coats who conduct cutting edge research must feel free to report their findings and comment on how that work may inform a public policy debate without fear of assault on their reputations or their livelihoods.

Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam, animal genomics and biotechnology specialist at the University of California-Davis, is one of the USRTK targets. She’s also winner of the 2014 Council on Agriculture Science & Technology (CAST) Borlaug communication award.  Van Eenennaam told a Washington, DC, audience recently, “The question facing researchers is whether the potential for such public records requests…would inhibit them from commenting candidly (in public policy debates).”

If scientists are not free to do research without fear of activist harassment or personal attacks the entire scientific process is at risk.

  • I dont want to eat GM foods. I dont want my 7 year old daughter to eat it. I don’t care that it makes food extremely cheap to produce. The FDA allows artificial dyes and high fructose corn syrup in food as safe for years. Studies that have been around for a long time show hyper activity in children who consume artificial dyes in food. Also how man americans are fat like prize winning cows from consumption of corn syrup in mt dew and other favorite snacks.Without ingredient labeling how would I be able to avoid eating this? Labeling foods ingredients is normal. Why so serious when it comes to continuing those ingredients GM? Also google the link between Roundup in out food and people going gluten-free as seen on grocery shelves. FDA says safe but the wheat industry is loosing customers fast due to unlabeled roundup content in food. See past the blinders big chem has on you and make independent choices and enjoy good health.

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published.


 

Stay Up to Date

Subscribe for our newsletter today and receive relevant news straight to your inbox!