'Unscientific' Is Secret Code for Anyone Who Opposes GMOs or Pesticides

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Recently
by Mike Adams: The
Top Five Negative-Calorie Health Foods That Burn Fat While Making
You FeelFull

Watch out
for the word “unscientific” in propaganda that’s pushing GMOs, pesticides
or other dangerous chemicals onto our world. In a joint letter to
USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, three Republican members of Congress
(Rep. Frank Lucas, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Sen. Pat Roberts) attempted
to spin GMOs as being “scientific.”

They urged the USDA to “return to a science based regulatory system”
and claimed that “science strongly supports the safety of GE alfalfa.”

The implication, of course, is that anyone who opposes GMOs
is “unscientific” (and therefore stupid). The letter further implies
that any USDA opposition
to GMOs is purely political in nature and not based on science.

Apparently the cabal of GMO
pseudoscientists have forgotten one of the most important principles
of science: The Precautionary Principle which states that
when dealing with large-scale unknowns (such as modifying the genetic
code of the world’s food crops),
it is wise to err on the side of caution.

Intellectually
dishonest spin

This effort to
characterize GMO opposition as “unscientific” is just the latest outlandish
spin campaign that attempts to reframe the entire GMO debate
as “scientific versus unscientific.” You’re either in favor of GMOs,
the twisted logic goes, or you’re against science!

In reality, it’s not actually science that’s behind GMOs but rather
corporate greed, public relations, lobbying and the financial
influence of members of Congress.
Today, Frank Lucas, Saxby Chambliss and Pat Roberts all effectively
painted signs on their foreheads that read, “GMO sellout.”

Another key
phrase: “Unscientific restrictions”

This isn’t
the first effort to frame the GMO battle as a defense of science,
of course. The phrase “unscientific restrictions” has cropped up
in the GMO debate throughout the EU, where anyone who opposes GMOs
– even for perfectly rational reasons – is immediately
branded “unscientific.”

NaturalNews
was the first to break the story
about how GMOs were being forced
into European nations by the U.S. ambassador to France who plotted
with other U.S. officials to create a “retaliatory target list”
of anyone who tried to regulate GMOs.

Astonishingly,
virtually the entire mainstream media has still failed to report
this groundbreaking story, which just goes to tell you how deeply
in bed the media is with corporate interests. (Since when did the
media not cover a Wikileaks
cable?)

Commonsense
restrictions would be a “dangerous precedent”

Continuing
with the “science” gobbledygook, another
letter put together by a group of seven Big Ag monoculture crop
giants claimed
:

Agriculture regulators would set a “dangerous precedent” by imposing
unscientific restrictions on alfalfa
growers who plant genetically modified seed, harming farmers using
other biotechnology-based crops.

There’s that
term again: “Unscientific restrictions.”

This is the GMO industry’s carefully-crafted spin phrase to try
to hammer away at any policy that attempts to protect natural crops
from GMO contamination.
It also serves to halt any real debate over the issue. Rather than
engaging in an intellectually-founded discussion of the potential
risk factors associated with GMOs, the GMO camp simply shouts, “Unscientific!”
and demands that the debate be halted.

This is the playground equivalent to saying, “Everything you say
bounces off of me and stick on you. Nah nah nah!”

It’s actually the same tactic used by the vaccine industry.
Any attempt to reasonably question the safety
or efficacy of seasonal flu
vaccines is immediately and savagely branded “unscientific” before
any real debate can take place at all.

The bludgeon
of “science” admits intellectual weakness

This is the tactic,
of course, of the intellectually inferior who have no solid
science to back up their intellectual playground bullying. Rather
than debating on the merits of good science, they seek to stifle
discussion
by accusing their opponents of questioning all science.
It is, of course, a fallacious argument, and it only makes the so-called
“scientists” appear to look even more like desperate zealots pushing
their own particular twisted dogma.

That’s what the pro-GMO position is, of course: A zealot-infused dogma
backed by lots and lots of dollars but absolutely no legitimate science.

And yet, GMO zealots continue to argue as if they have scientific
truths on their side.

The most astonishing
spin letter you will ever read

Take a look at
this
astonishing letter from Big Agro giants
which literally
claims that any regulation of GMOs would “…undermine the public’s
trust in the integrity of the scientific process that the president
directed all executive branch agencies to uphold.”

The letter goes on to say that “coexistence” (of GMOs and non-GMO
crops) would “set a dangerous precedent” and that all the following
regulations and restrictions on GE crops are entirely unacceptable:
“Isolation distances, geographic planting restrictions, limitations
on harvest periods and equipment usage, seed bag labeling, seed coloration,
and the listing of seed production field locations on a national data
base.”

This same letter even boldly insists that regulating GMOs would harm
America’s international trade! “If USDA moves forward with injecting
non-science-based criteria into the regulatory process it will undermine
our international trade efforts,” it claims.

Linguistic
contortionism

That letter, in
fact, is one of the most grotesque examples of pseudoscientific linguistic
contortionism I’ve ever seen. The author of the letter, whoever he
may be, is an intellectually dishonest individual who is knowingly
bastardizing the use of the word “science” to try to hide the real
agenda of corporate domination over the world’s food
crops
.

The whole point of the letter, by the way, is to request that genetically
engineered alfalfa be exempted from regulation by the federal government.
This particular pesticide-ready alfalfa is designed to withstand exposure
to Roundup. Care to guess which corporation is likely behind this
particular bit of nefarious deception?

What the letter essentially states is that GE alfalfa seed bags need
not be labeled as such; that GE seeds can be the same color
as non-GE seeds (so that farmers can’t tell them apart), that GE alfalfa
can be planted right next to non-GE alfalfa crops (where DNA cross-contamination
will obviously occur), and that the location of GE alfalfa fields
should remain a secret.

All this has been hidden underneath the veil of “science.”

“Science,” you see, is no longer what it once was. In fact, the abandonment
of ethics and honesty by those who invoke the term is now so severe
that the entire scientific community is seeing its reputation erode
by the day.

That brings me to the second part of this article,
called “The
downfall of science and the rise of intellectual tyranny
.”

Reprinted
with permission from Natural
News
.

Mike Adams is a natural health author and award-winning
journalist. He has authored and published thousands of articles,
interviews, consumers’ guides, and books on topics like health and
the environment. He is the editor of Natural
News
.

The
Best of Mike Adams

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare