Skip to main content

If They Say "Agent Orange", Stop Listening

Some people are truly slimy.  Few things frame the use of fear to attempt to motivate opinion on transgenic crops like the increasing use the phrase "Agent Orange".  It seems that you can't read an anti-GMO opinion lately where the author does not allude to the tragic use of this military agent, now in the contemporary setting of a farm near you!   And of course, they'll tell you it will be in your food.  And in your baby food.  And in your breastmilk.  It is about fear.  Period.

Agent Orange was a collection of herbicides, namely 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, that were produced by at least sixteen companies during the Vietnam War era.  They were used as defoliants, key weapons to expose an entrenched resistance in a dense jungle.  These compounds are synthetic auxins, a class of plant hormone that inspires rapid cell division and elongation growth.  Essentially, a plant grows itself to death.  

The 2,4,5-T preparation was contaminated with a potent dioxin, a chemical directly responsible for the tragic health impacts on soldiers and civilians. 

2,4-D has been the most widely used agricultural chemical in the last century. Nobody ever cared or thought twice about it until plants were genetically engineered to resist it-- now it must be villianized.

2,4-D is NOT AGENT ORANGE.  IF SOMEONE SAYS THIS, OR EVEN EVOKES THE TRAGIC USE OF CHEMICAL WARFARE TO INFLUENCE YOU... YOU ARE BEING MANIPULATED.  IF SOMEONE NEEDS TO EXPLOIT A TRAGEDY OF VIETNAM TO PUSH THEIR ACTIVIST AGENDA, TELL THEM IT IS SHAMEFUL, AND STOP LISTENING. 


Of course the opinion piece in an Oregon paper doesn't mind going there.  What better term to flip out a state rich with those that believe anything first, and ask science questions never*?  A local physician and a retired EPA scientist sure don't mind using it-- it's scary! 

It comes up again and again in the mindless comment stream. 


You'd think a physician and a retired EPA scientist could build an argument based on facts rather than fear.  When you've got nothin', play the Agent Orange card.  

This is how you know there is no legitimate evidence backing the labeling initiatives.  There is no science, no reason.  There are no data or conclusions.  You can't motivate Joe and Jane Six Pack away from the Kardashians to engage them with scientific information, but you can give them a major-league chemophobic freak out by conjuring up images of an weapon of war, now applied to food. 

Disgusting.  

The minute you read or hear the phrase Agent Orange, know you are being manipulated by false pathos.  Tell them to save the hyperbole.  If they have to scare you to vote for labeling with false associations, then it probably isn't such a hot idea. 

*After my original post a received a few comments and emails from proud Oregonians that didn't feel this characterization was appropriate.   After a short exchange with one friend (K.L.- YES YOU) she stated, "The place does have quite a few flakes",  which I think is consistent with what I said.  Not everyone there is goofy, duh.  Some of my favorite thinkers are there at OSU and OU, and a bunch live in Portland just 'cause they love it.  So kudos to Oregon, you've never done me wrong, but in my estimation you're up there with Texas, Florida and Vermont with those that might put belief over science... not quite California, but keep trying! 

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…