Skip to main content

One Sentence Tells Us About Truthiness

Recently the Organic Consumers Association has gone ballistic, even more unhinged than usual.  GMO provided a proposal to convene a panel in Austin at the SxSW Festival this month. Cathy Enright was going to represent the scientific side that transgenic crops pose no special risk over traditional breeding, and offer more rapid means to genetically improve food.  A representative from Ben and Jerry's with a less favorable view on the technology will also serve on the panel. 

Apparently OCA felt that they were invited, and then un-invited. Only two people know the actual conversation, the two that were on the phone together.  Both have published accounts of the discussion. How do we know what to believe?

For me it is relatively simple, as we can we learn from the meta-information about truthiness. What can we learn from manipulative language to gauge trustworthiness?

It is important to pay close attention to words that are used and their intent to mislead.  Once we understand those instances, it provides significant weight to Enright's argument that there was no OCA invitation, and there is no resistance to debating them in other opportunities.

When we understand the science, we can see how OCA attempts to manipulate its supporters. The following comes from their website.  Here are some good examples of the spin:

How many falsehoods can you find in this blurb?

1. "The sole purpose"    Transgenic technologies have many applications.  The introduction of the virus resistance genes to papaya does not increase "selling toxic chemicals".  In fact, it decreases ag inputs.  Bt corn and cotton use significantly less insecticide than conventional counterparts.  The BS2 tomato cuts chemical use. Golden Rice increases a vitamin that does not necessitate chemical inputs. 

For OCA to state that "the sole purpose" is to sell chemicals is an outright misinterpretation of what the technology does and can do. 

2.  "Toxic chemicals" ?  The only chemicals that are implemented in transgenic crop production currently are glyphosate and glufosinate.  Neither are especially toxic, with glyphosate having the toxicity of table salt.  

Again, OCA uses inflammatory language to misinform its readers. 

3.  "to spray on food".   Again, they want their readership to think that something is being sprayed on food items.  It is important for them to maintain this myth, because if people know the truth it makes the OCA cause so much weaker.

The fact is that glyphosate is sprayed reasonably close to emergence, long before there are flowers, and long before any of the edible parts of the plant have developed.  It is not "sprayed on food".

4. "BIO does not want to debate the health and safety of GM foods"-  I can't speak for BIO, but I know I have a hard time recruiting folks to debate the issue.  On last November's biotech panel in North Carolina, I was one of the scientists that demanded we ask those that do not support transgenic technologies, requesting Michael Hanson and Scott Faber to the discussion.

I also submitted a workshop last year to Seeds of Justice, an anti-GM event.  I was told it was a good idea, took the time to do it, offered to pay my own way, and they never even had the decency to call me back to tell me they would not do it.  

So let's not talk about fairness and willingness to debate. 

The bottom line is that from one sentence we can extract four discrete manipulatory statements, blatant lies that show the trustworthiness of OCA.  This is one sentence in a tsunami of manipulative words that appeal to the biases of their unquestioning followers. They are a rabid activist organization.  They are not about science, and they would not know good science if it hit them in the head.  They are about controlling a losing conversation, holding fast to donation-grabbing philosophies that run counter to the scientific consensus and published literature.

If you contribute to OCA, or support their mission, how do you justify subscription to such bogus information?  Please comment below.  Thanks!

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…