Posts

A Kind Scholarly Note from a Sweet Soul

Image
Last weekend when skimming the petition to silence Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson I stumbled upon one that seemed really odd.  The author, I'm guessing a female, said, "End the Bt (Agent Orange) Toxic Corn", as part of her rant.  She offered her email address an suggested that Dr. Tyson contact her, of course, perhaps in more crunchy tones. Seeing as though Dr. Tyson was probably busy solving problems of the cosmos and not likely to respond to this request, I kindly took it upon myself to send her a quick note and clarify her Bt/Agent Orange foible. Shortly thereafter I received her gentle retort. Reaching out to touch the lives of others with the gift of science.  My she is one feisty space bat.  I'd recommend Occupy a Padded Cell. I'm guessing her trusted and accredited news sources is probably Natural News. My first note to her was honest and well intended, and I'd be glad to talk to her about transgenics, Bt, 2,4-D, agent orange, whatever.  I

Danish Pigs Accumulate Glyphosate!

Image
This is likely one of the worst papers ever to be published. However, to some, it is stellar evidence. Here's one website claiming that the link between glyphosate and piglet deformities is now CONFIRMED!    At least that's what many in the anti-GMO community think, and a recent paper is all the proof they need.  A new steamer from Monika Kruger's group in Germany provides low-power investigation oozing with no science, heavy rhetorical flourish, and missing controls. The whole thing is designed to scare the bejezzus out of the credulous.  And it works!  I only found this because an anti-GMO soul on a comments section pointed to it as "irrefutable evidence tying glyphosate to birth defects".  The work appears in May's  J Environ Anal Toxicol.  First, articles in "Omics" journals are usually pretty lame. They are a well known predatory publisher that will publish anything if the price is right.   Second, Kruger's group

DeGrasse Is Not Always Greener in the Other Science

Image
I was grateful when Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson accidentally stepped in science's ripest dookie- anti-GMO pseudoscience.  He's getting to experience first hand what it is like to be a scientist trying to communicate sound science with the most rabid bunch of clueless know-it-alls ever amassed under a single banner. When asked last week about transgenic crops, he said that humans have been manipulating genes for thousands of years, so "chill out".  He's exactly right.  Humans have been taking the trash that nature gave us and folding it into useful crops for certainly the last 10,000 years. The process is random and wild, and only since the dawn of biotechnology do we have any handle on what genes we are moving and how we do it. However, far be it from the anti-GMO movement to accept scientific facts.  To them, Tyson is a sellout to corporate seed greed, a Monsanto Collaborator, and probably someone that Mike Adams wants dead. I wrapped up my Saturday science day

Consumer Reports Selling Out to Anti-Scientific Analysis

Image
Grandpa Folta liked Consumer Reports , the magazine that would help him find maximum value in his oil filters and bacon bits. They have been recognized for a long time as an objective source of critical side-by-side analysis of consumer goods, and I've made decisions based on their recommendations. The magazine is still popular, and is well known for its independent evaluation of consumer goods, helping the consumer make better buying decisions. My friend Chris alerted me to a little Consumer Credulity. The latest version shows that even an source claiming objective and technically sound analysis, is not immune from the bias of bad information.  A recent article on Milk Alternatives: Should You Sip or Skip provides a short evaluation of the various consumer milk substitutes, stuff like coconut milk, soy milk, almond milk and other dairy alternatives. You can read about the pros and cons of milk substitutes in the latest Consumer Reports .  Unfortunately their reviewers hav

"Health Ranger'"-like Science Cleansing in Stalin's Russia

Image
Sometimes history repeats itself.  Sometimes history repeats itself in remarkable irony. Last week Mike Adams (the Natural News ‘Health Ranger’), a highly public figure in natural foods and magical thinking,  made a less than veiled call to arms.  Citing references to Nazi propaganda, he almost directly instructed the assassination of scientists and journalists that exhibited favorable viewpoints on transgenic (GMO) technology.   Much has been written about his rants onsocial media , along with his tenuous claims that scientists and journalists are dangerous corporate pawns with a mission to poison the planet. Adams’ deplorable viewpoints caused quite a hiccup, followed by a backpedal.  Even anti-GMO's darling Vandana Shiva lovingly posted Adams' science-Nazi rants, until even she realized that he is insane and probably bad for $40,000 speaker engagements.  They have since been pulled from her website and live on only in screenshots for use another day. Inciting ha

Do You Stand with Adams and Shiva?

Dear Biotech Critics, Mike Adams has issued a rather unveiled threat against journalists and scientists that favorably view crop biotechnology.  His position has since been implicitly backed by Vandana Shiva on her website. it is the moral right — and even the obligation — of human beings everywhere to actively plan and carry out the killing of those engaged in heinous crimes against humanity . This is a call to publicly denounce the terrorist tactics by Adams and Shiva.  It is important to your own movement that you distance yourself from them, and condemn their statements. Or, if you think their positions are good, don't I have a right to know? Thanks! Kevin

Who Do You Trust?

Image
Whenever I take the time to comment on an article, or discuss GM in a public forum, I get barraged by opposition-- but "__________" says... So who is  "_______________"?   Why does their perspective count more than mine? The irony is that those of us that work in public service are labeled as pawns and stooges, dupes of higher corporate interests, and not 'real' experts-- but we are public-sector scientists that don't have anything to do with the GMO discussion as a primary part of our positions. It is not our day job. Yet we are frequently classified as "shills" or scientists with conflicts of interest.  However, the main voices critical of the technology seem to be closer to such conflicting financial and career incentives. It may be good to point out to those making "shill" accusations. So who are the voices of science in the GMO discussion? Who do they work for, how are they compensated, and what are their "day jobs&