So you may have seen this label around, from the Non-GMO project — it’s a kind of seal of approval by unscientific hoodoo artists to declare food “safe”, unlike those foods that were generated by intentional, directed genetic modification. They prefer their crops randomly mutagenized, you know, the natural way, as Herman Muller intended.
Although, truth be told, this whole nonsense began as a marketing scheme by a couple of big grocery stores, who discovered a clever way to slander the products sold by competing chains and set themselves up as an elite source. Slap an orange butterfly on a box and you can sell it for more money!
Now, of course, they continue to spread lies. The latest is the false claim that going non-GMO frees farmers from onerous patents and restores “traditional” farming practices. It doesn’t. The Plant Patent Act was passed in 1930, which gave patent rights to certain kinds of propagated plants, and the Plant Variety Protection Act in 1970 expanded on that. The first GMOs were approved in 1994. 1994 is later than 1930 and 1970.
In the 19th century, we also acquired hybrid seed — where the seed company maintained parental stocks, bred them together, and sold the more productive heterozygous seed. The farmer would not be able to propagate his hybrid stock. These were produced and sold in the 1920s. 1920 is before 1994.
There are lots of seeds that are patented and sold that are non-GMO.
This is #NonGMO seed, it is patented. I can not save it's seed to plant next year, yet the products it will make can carry the #butterfly label.
*BTW @NonGMOProject has me blocked because I tweet facts about products I grow, and they label. pic.twitter.com/rM7kQA2HuN
— David🌾Kucher (@DavidKucher) December 18, 2017
What’s going on with this GMO labeling crap is a dishonest game. It’s false advertising. Food that is GMO is not less safe or dangerous or less nutritious, and food that is non-GMO is not “pure” or “natural” or better for you.
The herbicide tolerant Clearfield canola was bred using chemical mutagenesis, in which plants are exposed to chemicals that induce genetic mutations. Desirable results that occur using this technique, like the Clearfield trait, are commercialized. Products made with crops from the seeds shown in Kucher’s image are eligible for the Non-GMO Project butterfly seal (though the herbicide is prohibited on certified organic farms).
You should be aware of how your food is made, where it comes from, and there are agricultural practices that are bad (overuse of antibiotics is just one of them). But that butterfly seal is a fraudulent marketing scheme that has metastasized into a tool to suppress a powerful and safe technique for producing better food crops. Avoid it. Don’t give these con artists more power over agriculture.
PZ, I would be very interested in your critical take on Steven Druker’s 2015 Altered Genes, Twisted Truths.
Yes, but the problem with your advice is that in general, there isn’t any way for consumers to know anything about the agricultural practices that produced any of the items in the grocery store. You can buy from a local farm market and interview the farmer, or even go to the farm, but otherwise, you just can’t find out. While the “non-GMO” label isn’t telling you anything particularly useful, we do need ways of being able to make better informed choices.
Sorry – Altered Genes, Twisted Truth.
When you analyse a lot of what appears to be anti-GMO feeling and campaigning it turns out it’s more about monopoly corporate control of the food supply than actual concerns about the technology of gentetically altering crop genes. Fine you don’t like all of our food supply being concentrated in the hands of a few companies, I do too, but don’t try and hang a campaign about that on a technoogy that is not controlled by those few companies to pull in people who wold be wary of ani-corporate campaigning if you did it more openl.
Cervantes in some parts of the world there are schemes that promote good practice in terms of soil conservation, animal welfare, minimising pesicide use etc, like the LEAF marque http://www.nsf-foodeurope.com/service.asp?service_id=certification&subservice_id=11&servicepage_id=144 You do see the logo on food in shops in the UK
Yes, but where would the “profit” be in that, for the non-GMO sellers (or their zealous advocates), never mind anyone else involved? Yeah, that’s right, I don’t believe for one second that the “organizations” involved in pushing for safer food are any more pure of heart either. The people following them may greatly desire to know, but the organizations are in it for other reasons (probably for funding from the very people pulling the scam, and the gullible public, who think they are being saved by them). I keep seeing the same things – leaderships that are either running a different con, or zealots who can’t see past their own goals to recognize when they have dragged the whole thing down the wrong road, with lots, and lots of gullible people parading behind them. The casualties of this are seen, just as they are by the far right when they pull something stupid, as somehow either deserving of the injury, or mere “collateral damage”.
Marketing people lie. It’s their job. Any time you see anything on packaging except dry facts, it’s lies spun by marketing people. You know, like those fat-free pure sugar candies. Or the genuine chocolatey flavor. Marketing is one of America’s cultural gifts to the world. At least it’s not as bad as our other: dropping high explosive on people. There, that’s some spin: explosive-free cultural artifact!
Nongmo is a scam?
Nongmo unhappy.
Nongmo feel very put out.
Wait till they find out about atomic gardening.
Marketing works when people are more interested in feeling good than in being knowledgeable. That’s the type of response I get from friends when we talk about GMO/organic/natural foods. The label gives them security without needing to probe deeper.
.
I was distracted by the Clearfield logo looking like a swastika on top of a field. That’s some brilliant marketing there.
I only drink GMO-free water. True fact. It’s also gluten free ™.
@ 11 JoeBuddha
Any idea where I can get some gluten-free rice?
I’m afraid PZ is wrong about GMOs and the Plant Patent act. GMOs are usually patented with utility patents, not plant patents, because “Interestingly, GMO companies often don’t seek plant patents for their plants and seeds. Instead, they obtain utility patents, a different type of patent with more stringent requirements on the description of the invention.” and “utility patents prohibit the replanting of seeds harvested from a licensed plant”. The Patent Landscape of Genetically Modified Organisms.
MikeHuben, ask any new drug manufacturer if they want a mere use patent, or a composition of matter patent. The latter gives them exclusive use of molecule, not just one given use that is patented. For a use patent, tough luck if your patent is for nausea, and the use is for Hansen’s disease and a leukemia in the case thalidomide.
Marcus Ranum @ #7
Marketing is another word for propaganda. I have a notion that propaganda antedates America by a few millennia.
Also, don’t forget that an Englishman, David Ogilvy, is often credited as the “father” of modern advertising. And, the “Mather” in his agency name, Ogilvy & Mather, was an advertising company started in England in the 1850s. So, America may not be the only contributor of this cultural gift. What probably propelled American marketing into the stratosphere was the introduction and rapid spread of TV.
Yep, many/most of the attacks against gmo are fact free. But monsanto donates a ton of money to republicans, so whatever hurts their bottom line is ok with me. Just as I’d rather join with left-leaning religious folks to address social issues than side with the libertarian/reactionary atheism minus crowd.
gmcard @16
You’re OK with attacks on GMOs because it hurts the bottom line of a company that donates a few hundred thousand dollars to the wrong political party? That comes with an awful lot of collateral damage. I work for a non-profit developing virus resistant crops for developing countries, and the anti-GMO sentiment makes that harder. It’s like being ok with attacks on vaccines because big pharma donates more to Republicans than to Democrats.
God, these threads are playgrounds for corporate propaganda.
The problem with this distinction is that corporate monopoly/oligopoly control of anything is inseparable from the science of said thing. This isn’t debatable – it’s well documented for cigarettes, lead, and genetically engineered crops themselves. Corporations distort science, pay academics and other researchers, attack alternatives,* buy propaganda to shape the public discourse, prevent independent researchers from examining their products, co-opt or threaten journalists, harass and try to discredit dissenting scientists, secede from the scientific consensus when it suits their purposes (see IAASTD), capture regulatory agencies, hide from public scrutiny, and so on. Monopoly corporate control of the food supply is pretty much an existential threat to humanity that should inspire dedicated global resistance; but corporate power can’t be set aside when assessing GE technology itself, as should be obvious.
* This is probably the most important.
OK, but as was argued in the OP, that is an independent issue from GMOs. Plants that are bread conventionally are also patented, not allowing farmers to replant with the same seed.
Whatever this is supposed to mean, it’s wrong. Read my comment.
Bred. And this is totally irrelevant to my point.
OK, i’ll go through it more carefully.
There is currently no monopoly or oligopoly of GMOs. There is currently no monopoly or oligopoly of the food supply. The consolidation of agricultural supply and food distribution companies is a concern, but it is not aided by GMOs. It would happen just as fast without them. Stronger anti-trust regulations and enforcement would not hinder GMOs at all, and would not at all be an anti-GMO position.
If your point here is that GMOs should be treated with exactly as much suspicion as conventionally bred crops, which are developed by the exact same corporations, then I agree with you. If your point is something else, then I am unclear on what your point is.
Do that. (I’ll ignore your following remarks.)
Indeed you are. My point is about how corporations (in addition to the not-at-all-distinguishable threat they pose on so many levels to human and other life on earth) mess with scientific research, conclusions, communication, and the very understanding of what science means and includes. Again, this is demonstrated fact. We can’t really have an honest conversation until this is acknowledged.
As I’ve said here for years, people everywhere should be able to fight for their horti/agriculture and to do science that determines the best path, and to be supported in this. Corporations shouldn’t be able to impose themselves, in the name of progress or science or whatever.
Democratically assess all of the different alternatives, from a variety of perspectives, from a truly scientific and not a corporate-pseudoscientific point of view.
Can anyone who argues that Monsanto doesn’t lie be an honest participant in this discussion?
I say no.
“…(list of bad things that corporations do)…”
The (partial) list – in which the “bad things” directly concern the subversion/twisting of science:
Corporations distort science, pay academics and other researchers, attack alternatives,* buy propaganda to shape the public discourse, prevent independent researchers from examining their products, co-opt or threaten journalists, harass and try to discredit dissenting scientists, secede from the scientific consensus when it suits their purposes (see IAASTD), capture regulatory agencies, hide from public scrutiny, and so on.
OK, I have (vegan! :)) cooking/baking/wrapping tomorrow, so good night, all!
SC:
I’m not sure how this can be helpful in this particular case. There are corporations on both sides of this issue. Organic, anti-GMO, etc. etc. market, is also a giant market backed and milked by a lot of corporations. On the GMO side, there is Monsanto, as you say. So now what?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Déjà_vu
robro@#15:
Edward Bernays (an American) defined and established the fields of public relations and marketing. While propaganda has been around for a long time, marketing is a new form – it exists to influence consumer behavior not political behavior. It’s a worthwhile distinction. We could also credit America’s own PT Barnum for breaking new ground in the field of flimflam; he was a spiritual forerunner of Donald Trump. Barnum, at least was a relatively small-time conman.
OK, sure, I can agree that some corporations lie about some things. I don’t a agree that every single incorporated business lies, and I don’t agree that any corporation lies about everything. Big corporations develop non-gmo seeds. Big corporations develop gmo seeds. Why do you place more suspicion on gmo seeds than non-gmo seeds if the same big corporations are developing both. Monsanto sells seeds to organic growers, does that mean that organic food is bad?
I agree with this statement. I wish the anti-GMO organizations like the non-GMO project label did, too.
It seems like you are under the impression that the “truly scientific” view would find that GMOs are harmful or somehow detrimental to farmers or the environment. This is not the case.
I bet they have lied about something at some time, but you will have to be specific about any claim that they have made to have a meaningful discussion.
This is not responsive to what I said, which was specifically about the role of the most powerful agribusiness corporations in distorting the scientific understanding of the field in which they profit. Putting it in these vague terms is simply evasive.
Wrong: “Biotech companies Monsanto, Syngenta, and BASF withdrew from IAASTD because it did not back GMOs as a solution to reduce poverty and hunger. The comprehensive report was produced by over 400 scientists from around the world over a 3-year period.” (There used to be an article online by a leading scientist involved in the project calling out the corporations for their anti-scientific actions, but unfortunately it’s now gone.) Here’s another. And as these reports make clear, the question isn’t whether this approach is harmful – which I believe, based on the evidence, it is – but how it compares to other approaches. International research has found that other approaches are not only preferable but urgently needed, and these corporations have worked for years to obscure this conclusion.
LOL. I have posted about them hundreds of times over the past several years. They’ve lied or misled people, to give a small sample, about: Rick Relyea’s work, what they’re up to in Haiti, the role of surfactants, Plan Colombia, their Bovine Growth Hormone, PCBs, Agent Orange,… Wikipedia notes that “As of November 2013, Monsanto was associated with 9 ‘active’ Superfund sites and 32 ‘archived’ sites in the US, in the EPA’s Superfund database. Monsanto was sued and settled multiple times for damaging the health of its employees or residents near its Superfund sites through pollution and poisoning.” (Now that the corporations have installed their ridiculously corrupt man at the head of the EPA – thanks again, Jill Stein – that database could well disappear, so it’s probably useful to make note of this.)
Nerd of Redhead @14:
I think I will take Mike’s EVIDENCE over your OPINION.
SC None of that is an argument on scientific grounds as to the benefits or disbenefits of GE as a suite of technologies, let alone any specific GMO. There are scientists working on GMO’s that as far as I can tell are not influnenced by the pro- GMO corporations, except negatively by the appalling way they introduced their corporate GMO’s. And Iotharloo is correct there are corporations on all sides of this debate, and those backing say organic food are just as dishonest. I am deeply suspicious of anyone who takes a position as virulently as you are doing, I may be being unfair to you, but neither you nor the member of my own family who takes a similar position appear to be being very rational on this, you are making some concrete supported acusations and far more nebulous accusations that I can see no evidence to support such as the distorting of the whole field by the corporations. I have moved to a generally pro-GE technology poition from a completely anti-GE position and am prepared to change my position on the basis of the scientific evidence, are you SC?
Dave Grain @32 And that added exactly what to the conversation?
lotharloo:
Yes, there are corporations in the organic market, and they do all of the things corporations do and so their PR should be greeted with skepticism. Their capacity to distort agricultural science and regulation in their interest, it should be noted, has paled in comparison to that of traditional agribusiness. The conclusions of large-scale, international scientific assessments have not been favorable to the Monsanto gang (and their promises of wonderful GE breakthroughs have failed to materialize), but it’s important to note that these assessments have concluded that no system in which large corporations (of any sort) are dominant is the way to go. In the meantime, we have to read the science critically and skeptically and look for independent research.
Somewhat as an aside, what annoys me is the tendency – very much encouraged by the biotech industry – to treat GE technology as “science” and all other approaches as un- and even anti-scientific, like there are no scientific conventional, sustainable agricultural projects. I also dislike the suggestion that genetic engineering is just the scientific extension of conventional plant breeding. Whatever anyone’s arguments with the book I mention @ #1 above, the author provides a detailed description of how the process works, and it is vastly different.
What are you talking about? I linked in #31 to information about literally the largest scientific assessment that has been done on the subject, the 2007 IAASTD, and the 2013 UNCTAD report.
SC (Salty Current) @31
I started to reply to this, taking note of your charge of me being evasive, but I couldn’t find a single concrete argument or even a specific claim from you as to why GMOs are bad, or why the non-GMO project is good. I went back to your earlier comments and I don’t think that you have given a single reason why GMOs are bad and cannot be part of improving agriculture for large or small farmers, in developed or developing nations, or for rich farmers or poor farmers.
I try not to be a moral monster, so let me know what I am doing wrong. I use transgenic technology to introduce virus resistance to orphan crops heavily used by subsistence farmers in developing countries. This germplasm will be given away for free, and farmers can replant as much as they want.
Re-reading your previous comments I can only come up with: Corporations are bad, therefore GMOs are bad.
Jackson @ 17
The deranged republican control of the US is a far more imminent global existential threat than a crop virus, so yes, quite OK.
what annoys me is the tendency – very much encouraged by the biotech industry – to treat GE technology as “science” and all other approaches as un- and even anti-scientific, like there are no scientific conventional, sustainable agricultural projects.
Oh! I had missed this – here’s a piece about conventional-breeding successes. It refers to this article in Nature*: “Cross-bred crops get fit faster: Genetic engineering lags behind conventional breeding in efforts to create drought-resistant maize.” (Here’s another by the same author from last year: “The race to create super-crops: Old-fashioned breeding techniques are bearing more fruit than genetic engineering in developing hyper-efficient plants.”) This site, which is obviously anti-GE, provides examples of developments in conventional breeding. The comparative resources being thrown at GE technology are ridiculous. Even setting aside for the moment all of the other risks and harms, on a scientific basis alone it doesn’t remotely justify this level of expenditure and attention.
* Nature in general appears to have a pro-GE slant, so even this article is surprising to see.
SC (Salty Current) @39
But wait, Monsanto’s conventional breeding program is larger than their GMO development program, so doesn’t that mean that conventional crops are bad? Monsanto sells seed to organic farmers, so doesn’t that mean organic farming is bad?
Conventional breeding and genetic engineering are not mutually exclusive ways of introducing traits to a crop variety. We can and do live in a world where we use both to give us the most effective genetics we can get.
How wonderful to see a GMO-centric fracas w/out any of that golden rice red herring!
OK, this will be my last comment on this thread. I have things to do, and I’m starting to think portions of my comments must be invisible.
– @ #1/3 I cited a specific book. It very thoroughly spells out a variety of criticisms of GE. I have arguments with it and expect others will as well, but you could perhaps, I don’t know, read it.
– Once again, I linked to information about literally the largest scientific assessment that has been done on the subject of agricultural methods.
– I also linked to information about a more recent international assessment that came to similar conclusions.
– I’ve provided a small sample of areas in which Monsanto has lied, which can be found with a moment’s Googling. But I find it hard to believe that any adult would be unaware of how Monsanto uses its power to mislead the public, shape politics, and distort science.
– I’ve now linked to information about comparable successes of (scientific!) conventional breeding.
I don’t know that I’d say GE technology should have no role in agriculture going forward. I do know that it should have a much smaller role than it currently does, and the science supports me on that. I think other practices and techniques offer far fewer risks and more actual and potential benefits, and that the best agricultural system isn’t dominated by any sort of corporations but based on local, sustainable production using good science, and I believe the science supports that view as well.
I haven’t said anything about the Non-GMO Project.
This is some serious bad faith, trolling bullshit. I was planning to stop commenting in any case, but this makes me feel better about the decision to leave this thread behind.
I’ve read excerpts. Every bit that I have read of it has been garbage. You might as well start citing Serelini or Judy Carmen or Jeffery Smith for their great scientific works on GMOs.
I didn’t read all 600 pages, but I tried to read the parts specifically addressing genetic engineering. They say things like:
“GM technology can be only one component of a wider strategy including conventional breeding and other forms of agricultural research to provide a series of structural, regulatory, and economic evaluations that relate economic, political, and scientific context of GE crops to their region of adoption. ”
I think that is a reasonable statement, and not at all supportive of anti-GMO sentiment or policy. They do say a lot of things like “Anti-GMO positions exist among people,” which I also find to be a factual statement, but not supportive of the rightness of that position.
Which is 100% irrelevant to whether GMOs are beneficial or not. Monsanto being bad is an equally good argument for why conventional breeding and organic food is bad.
Conventional breeding is tremendously useful. It has led to fantastic improvements in agriculture over that last few thousand years. I do some conventional breeding and work with conventional breeders, and they are good people doing interesting, useful, and science-based work. I find it utterly bizarre that you think that is an argument against genetic engineering.
Once again, I find it incomprehensible that you are using this as an argument against genetic engineering.
No, it’s sarcasm. You use the argument that Monsanto is bad therefore GMOs are bad. I was using sarcasm to show that using “what Monsanto spends money on” is a poor proxy for whether or not that thing is good.
Oh – I see. You’re not trolling; you’re thick. Bye.
@jrkrideau #12
You think you’re saying something absurd, that anyone who understands what gluten is should recognize that rice does not contain it. You’d be surprised, however, how prevalent cross-contamination from wheat is. There are few foods which are processed which do not frequently come in contact with equipment that also processes wheat. Rice needs to be hulled, at the very least, and guess what? Sometimes that same equipment is used for wheat! And for people who can’t even have a trace amount of gluten without getting sick, it’s important to look into the ingredients we purchase. That includes purchasing gluten free rice.
Cui bono? The first GM crop on the market was publicized as such — the Flavr-Savr Tomato. They tried to appeal to gee-whiz futurist sensibilities. Sadly, it was basically tasteless )I bought a six-pack). Since then, those who sell GM products to consumers do not boast about it.
There are two issues here: GMO, and what GMO allows a farmer to do. I’m not really concerned about the GMO itself. But GMO enables a crop to be (in the typical case now) sprayed with Roundup several times during the growing season. Roundup is taken up in the plant tissues and it ends up getting consumed. So, if you are OK with GMO, what you are really saying is that you’re OK with consuming Roundup, because that’s what GMO enables the farmer to do and the sole reason why they use GMO. There are studies that show that Roundup is linked to cancer. And apparently work is being done on GMO which allows a plant to withstand 2-4-d.
@39 SC (Salty Current):
What’s the point of this post? It’s really puzzling me. Are you trying to refute the claim that “GMO is always better than conventional methods”? Because I don’t think anyone is making that claim. If you are not trying to refute that claim, then what is it that you are trying to argue?
Okay, I see what the problem is. So you have bought the pseudoscience bullshit that GMO is “spooky” and “unnatural”, woooo!
seitanist, 49
The amount of active-ingredient from pesticide spraying that is actually applied to each plant is tiny. The small percentage of the small mass of pesticide applied to each plant that is actually absorbed by the plant and makes its way into the final agricultural product is dwarfed by the quantity and variety of pesticides naturally produced by the plant as a result of its natural evolution. Plants were not made by a creator and did not evolve specifically to be eaten by humans.
Also, regarding a supposed link between roundup and cancer, are you referring to the rat-torturer Seralini?
I’m returning after Xmas break to respond to a couple of short posts by lotharloo, and then I’m done again.
I’m really concerned that in this and other instances, people have lost the ability to distinguish amongst various separate arguments. Let’s say, very roughly, that the umbrella claim is “Genetic engineering of plants for food is bad.” This contains several different arguments, for example:
1. The genetic engineering of plants for food is ecologically reckless.
2. The genetic engineering of plants for food is often associated with the use of pesticides which are ecologically harmful.
3. The genetic engineering of plants for food is often associated with the use of pesticides which are harmful to human health.
4. Consumption of the plants produced through genetic engineering is harmful to human health.
5. The genetic engineering of plants for food carries inordinate risk of various sorts, relative to other agricultural technologies.
6. The research associated with the technology is extremely expensive relative to other agricultural technologies.
7. The technology has a disappointing track record in terms of results, particularly relative to other technologies, and is therefore wasteful given finite resources.
8. The genetic engineering of plants for food is part of a set of practices that are unsustainable.
9. The technology is overwhelmingly dominated by large corporations, which use their power to conceal facts from public knowledge, distort science and scientific communication, present this method as the only scientific solution and its opponents as opponents of science, corrupt regulatory agencies, pressure farmers, and wield political power to advance the use of GE products and draw resources and attention away from methods that are not dominated by them and potentially part of local, sustainable systems that would check corporate dominance.
(I’m sure I’m forgetting some.)
These are all different arguments, though several are related to others. #9 has implications for many of the others because when giant corporations (individually and as a group) have at their disposal a sophisticated PR machine and powerful lobbying arm, they can and will use them to muddy the scientific waters or shift public or government opinion in favor of their products. That doesn’t mean that if you recognize the truth of #9 you necessarily believe, say #s 1, 2, 3, or 4. It does, though, have to be taken into account when skeptically assessing information or regulatory decisions about #s 1, 2, 3, or 4. Also, it should be noted that common tactics of this PR are to try to set the terms of any discussion to limit it to one or two objections, implying that if that objection is allegedly countered then the discussion is over; to try to claim that critics are making one of the objections when in fact they’re making a different one.
My comment and links @ #39 referred primarily to #7 (and #6). This point relates to the larger questions addressed by the IAASTD and UNCTAD assessments. This isn’t whether the genetic engineering of plants for food is bad in one or another specific sense, but which technologies should be at the center of global approaches to food production going forward. Therefore, it doesn’t really answer questions about whether GE or any other technology should be used ever or in any circumstances, but questions about where localities, governments, international organizations, and researchers should “invest.”
This involves attention to political and social questions involving control over resources, distribution and the stability of food supplies, the rights of farmers, local and national sovereignty and corporate power, and the impact of different technologies on these matters. But what I was getting at in #39 was the scientific potential of different methods. This is an urgent question, especially given the effects of global warming, which mean that solutions will have to come at a rapid pace. My point in that specific comment and the one it expanded on, was that – again, setting aside for the moment all of the other objections to the use of this technology – the genetic engineering of plants hasn’t to date, after several decades, shown itself to be the robust scientific breakthrough the public continues to be told it is or will be (as the first article @ #39 argues). Its results have been disappointing, despite continued promises of highly effective products. Even if someone were to conclude that all of the other arguments against the genetic engineering of plants for agriculture are unconvincing or unimportant, it would be difficult given these disappointing results to justify the interest and resources devoted to this technology when others have proven far more effective at addressing the needs and problems of the present and future.
I thought it was important to point this out because corporate PR has created a sense among many people that GE is a very successful technology with the strongest potential and that scientifically minded people should get behind it. The conclusion of #7, taken in isolation, isn’t that GE is bad and should be banned, but that a massive redirection of attention and resources away from it and toward more demonstrably effective technologies with more potential to meet current and future challenges is warranted. Now, I don’t think we can take #7 in isolation: GE’s lackluster results change its profile and make the potential risks loom larger, for example, and other technologies are both often much cheaper and scalable to the local level. But in any case the evaluation in #s 6 and 7 was the focus of that comment.
It isn’t just false advertising. These groups are creating a market.
This is on e of those markets that is created by companies with a lot of money. Like halitosis. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/marketing-campaign-invented-halitosis-180954082/
In my marketing studies, a market can be created, or you can fall into a market at the right time. Then, the market (us) is either ready, or made ready.
So, to fight this, you have to fight Capitalism in general, and I would be with you on that.