Skip to main content

The Gullible "Moms Across America"- A Post Mortem

A friend sent me a link to an alleged scientific report.  The "report", found here, claims to show the "stunning" nutrient content in GMO corn vs. non-GMO corn.  Mom's Across America, a website dedicated to fear mongering and cleansing of scientific input, posted this information and decorated it with a healthy sprinkling of non-critical thinking and logical fallacy. 

Unfortunately for them, the "report" has no source cited, no methods, no anything.  Definitions in the footnotes are wrong.  It appears to be a table of soil data (there is more zinc and copper than carbon present, etc) or is a complete fabrication. 

When corrected by scientists in the comments section, we were ripped apart by aggressive robot-like dogma that discredited us, slandered us and distorted our work. 

When we replied, many of the replies were censored from the website, allowing only the insane comments of bitter non-scientists to be presented.  As usual, if you can't discuss the facts, cleanse the facts so that the lies run unopposed. 

The best part is, Zen Honeycutt, the website administrator and attack dog, is one of the least scientific thinkers I ever have seen.  When you read her comments on her blog you'll see disdain and condescension for science and scientists. These folks are bitter and mean. 

Here is a sample of one of her (his) comments to justify her assault on science and scientists, and her rationale for silencing scientific discussion. You should look here to see all of it

Zen and her ilk stand by these data as legitimate.  She repeatedly bolsters their scientific validity as representing data from corn. Here's a little sample of the kookiness. (her comments in italic, my responses follow)
  
ZH: (GMO nurition) explains a lot…why animals will NOTeat GMO corn even in the dead of winter. 

KF: Cute anecdote.  Again, good at believing anti-scientific junk, not much of a science filter.

ZH:  (this is) Why human allergies have increased 400% since GMOs were introduced…why health issues have skyrocketed. 

KF: Again, someone that has no understanding of correlation vs. causation. 

ZH: Irregardless of this report, I have scores of Moms who have answered our health survey who repeatedly share that going off GMOs reduced, improved or dissappeared their children’s and their own health issues.

KF:  Aside from the use of "irregardless", this is frightening.  First, of course readers of her non-scientific website will fill out a poll saying that there are problems.  Second, her family members have health problems and she blames safe food. It is a lovely anecdote, not scientific, and when 70% of the food in this country contains transgenic ingredients and does not cause health effects, she clearly is barking up the wrong tree. Worse, her family members may have serious underlying medical problems that go untreated because a scapegoat product. 

ZH: Not eating something that has this many toxins in it would for sure be a factor in an improvement in health. 

KF:  Sure, if it had toxins in it.

ZH:  I have also been told that this report looks like a soil report because, yes, this usually is the kind of test done on soil. The people who took it ran this panel of tests because they wanted to test for mineral and toxins usually on found in soil, NOT on food, so that was the closest test to run. 

KF: Somehow she knows the people that did the work, but does not post that information.  That's a red flag to me.  Perhaps someone manufactured the information and used her website as a conduit.

ZH: Chris (a commenter on the website), just because it looks like a soil report, does not mean it is, if it says corn report, at some point, unless you have another agenda, the public needs to take things at face value…juts like I am sure your field would appreciate any study that you do and title it as you see fit, to read it and take it as you say.

KF: Chris posted that it was a soil report.  Again, Zen deflects scientific inquiry to an underlying conspiracy and agenda.  She says, "The public needs to take things at face value".   I have a UFO in Rosewell to sell her.

ZH:  I respectfully ask you Chris to use your intellect to create something useful and please stop posting on this website. We have heard your point, get your stand for honesty, and thank you for please moving on. Thank you.

KF: And then Chris is asked to move along and not comment again

That truth, reason and critical thinking are not allowed on Moms Across America!  If you dare to discuss science, you are asked to not comment.  If you continue to do so (or even if you're not) your comments are expunged.

This whole situation should be extremely meaningful to the anti-GMO movement.  Here a report, with no source in the real literature is distributed as gospel and defended rabidly. Scientists are trashed and science ignored.  It could be fake data from an anti-anti-GMO interest too, and that would be really interesting to see...  

----------------
Post-Mortem

So what is this report?  It comes from a PDF from a company called Profit Pro (ironically, as transgenic technology opponents claim that transgenics are only about profit) and their newsletter. Some good sleuthing by readers of this blog shows that Profit Pro's December 2012 and January 2013  newsletter present this table. They don't even know what Brix is. 

They have a product they want to sell, they show a bogus comparison, and scare the pants off non-critical readers.  

A quick look at the website's "articles" shows a credulous subscription to nonsense, faux scientific articles that fool readers. Same old crap.  

PLUS!!  Natural News has picked up on this garbage, calling it a "breakthrough report" and a "paper".  The best part is that the title starts with "Biotech Lies".


Please think for a minute.  Who is really misrepresenting science here?  If all of this does not demonstrate the clear agenda and lack of scientific thinking in the anti-GMO movement, what does? 




Popular posts from this blog

Scientific American Destroys Public Trust in Science

This is a sad epitaph, parting words to an old friend that is now gone, leaving in a puff of bitter betrayal. 
When I was a kid it was common for my mom to buy me a magazine if I was sick and home from school.  I didn't want MAD Magazine or comic books.  I preferred Scientific American
The once stalwart publication held a unique spot at the science-public interface, bringing us interesting and diverse stories of scientific interest, long before the internet made such content instantly accessible.  It was our trusted pipeline to the new edges of scientific discovery, from the mantle of the earth to the reaches of space, and every critter in between.
But like so much of our trusted traditional science media, Scientific American has traded its credibility for the glitz of post-truth non-scientific beliefs and the profits of clickbait.The problem is that when a trusted source publishes false information (or worse, when it hijacked by activists) it destroys trust in science, trust in s…

Chipotle's Ag-vertising to Fix their Anti-Ag Image

After years of anti-farmer rhetoric, disgusting anti-agriculture videos, and trashing farmer seed choice, Chipotle now seems to have found a love for the American farmer that is as warm and inviting as the gooey core of a steak burrito.  Their new "Cultivate the Future of Farming" campaign raises awareness of the hardship being experienced in agriculture, and then offers their thoughts and some seed grants in order to reverse it. 

But are they solving a problem that they were instrumental in creating? 

The crisis in agriculture is real, with farmers suffering from low prices, astronomical costs, and strangling regulation.  Farmer suicides are a barometer of the crisis.  Farms, from commodity crops to dairies, are going out of business daily. It is good to see a company raising awareness. 


From Chipotle's website- The "challenge is real" and "It's a hard living"-- and companies like Chipotle were central in creating those problems. 

However, Chipotle&#…

Mangling Reality and Targeting Scientists

Welcome to 2019, and one thing that remains constant is that scientists engaging the public will continue to be targeted for harassment and attempted reputation harm.  

The good news is that it is not working as well as it used to.  People are disgusted by their tactics, and only a handful of true-believers acknowledge their sites as credible. 

But for those on the fence I thought it might be nice to post how a website like SourceWatch uses a Wikipedia-mimic interface to spread false and/or misleading information about public scientists. 

Don't get me wrong, this is not crying victim.  I'm actually is screaming empowerment.  I spent the time to correct the record, something anyone can check.  Please look into their allegations and mine, and see who has it right. 

This is published by the Center for Media and Democracy.  Sadly, such pages actually threaten democracy by providing a forum for false information that makes evidence-based decisions in policy issues more challenging.  It…