The Progressive Contrarian

The Progressive Contrarian Tilting at Nonsense Home About GMO Labeling Poll Multimedia SEP All blogs of the Progressive Contrarian from September 17 until June 6 2013

17 The anti-GMO movement is anti-science/progress. They said so. Bernie Mooney Politics, Uncategorized 6 comments One of the issues rolling around regarding the anti-gmo movement is whether they are anti-science. The issue has been bandied about on various blogs and columns and in the Twittersphere. After all, the movement isn’t against all science, just the science that disagrees with their worldview, and that worldview seems to be corporations + science = bad. I happened to stumble across a Reason Magazine article from 2001 which might help decide the issue. It is written by Ronald Bailey and titled Rebels Against the Future. Witnessing the birth of the global anti-technology movement. Bailey starts off by quoting Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project. “Major anti-technology movements will be active in the U.S. and elsewhere by 2030.” Much to Bailey’s credit, he saw that future was now, or then, as they case may be. Bailey attended the 2000 International Forum on Globalization’s Teach-In on Technology and Globalization held at Hunter College in New York City. What he came away with foreshadows the rise of the anti-gmo movement. It was at this confab that various mossbacked 60s activist groups and their young fellow travelers made their case against the future. If it’s new, they hate it. What they fear and loathe most is biotechnology, but now some are beginning to train their sights on nanotechnology as well… Whenever one of speakers revealed shocking truths about corporations (always invoked simply as they), the audience would murmur in horrified dismay: “They can move genes between species!” or “They are patenting genes!” or “They have 1,200 nanotech patents!” It seems that few of the attendees had bothered to read a paper for the past few years, so all this was news to them. “Progressives” they may call themselves, but they certainly haven’t been keeping up with progress. (my emphasis) It is now 13 years later and that mindset resonates with too many progressives. The goal of the Teach-In, according to conference organizer and IFG head Jerry Mander (best known for his book Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television), is to “bring together the protest movement born in Seattle with the leading critics of technologies, Luddites if you will.” (my emphasis) Proudly Luddite. And what is it about technology that scares them? “…technology’s symbiotic relationship with corporate power,” according to Mander. He doesn’t much care for the Internet because he thinks “it’s facilitating the greatest centralization of unregulated corporate power in history.” Besides the Internet, “now we have biotechnology and its younger sibling nanotechnology, which can potentially redesign nature from the atomic level up,” declared Mander. “With these technologies, nothing will be outside of corporate control. They will achieve the full realization of a bionic society.” There it is. Corporations, the boogeyman of the left. Now we all know that corporations are not good citizens and are only in it for the money. But to fight against progress and science because of the paranoid idea that corporations might misuse it is worse than misguided. It’s stupid. Bailey also quotes Pat Mooney, (hopefully, no relation) head of the Canadian Rural Advancement Foundation International “Although it’s a long way off, they are moving toward creating nano-assemblers that could manufacture anything,” explained Mooney. “You could take materials from sewage, air, water, anything to build what you want.” He added, “Just read the White House press release from January 23 last year. It promises that nanotechnology could clean up the environment, end hunger, cure disease, and extend life. It’s scary.” (again my emphasis) Huh? What? I’ve said this before but I’m sill trying to figure out when the dumbass, Luddite hippie ethos merged with progressive thought? There’s more nuttiness. You have to read the whole article. Rebels Against the Future anti-GMO, anti-science, organic, organic farming, progressive contrarian AUG 31 From the archives: Why your kids are fat and sickly Bernie Mooney Politics, Science, Uncategorized 1 comment The Nonsense Crowd has blamed GMOs for all modern illnesses and allergies despite any evidence to the contrary. Back in 2009 I wrote this when I was writing for the NY Examiner. This was before GMO was on my radar. This was when I was really cranky. ———————– Hey, it was International Walk to School Day this week! It’s an international event. NY1 was on the scene in Riverdale, interviewing parents and kids to get their opinions of this radical new idea. One grinning parent loved this novel idea and said that it was a much better idea than driving his kid four blocks to school. I have another radical new idea. How about if they encourage their kids go outside and play after school? Oh, but wait, they might get hurt or dirty. Good. Getting dirty and hurt is healthy so they don’t grow up to be lard-assed, sickly whiners who suffer anaphylactic shock when they even look at a picture of a peanut. I know, it’s a crazy idea. The better solution is to ban bake sales, institute a tax on soda and stuff our kids into hazmat suits whenever they go outside. The over protection of children has become an epidemic. Why, when I was a kid, we played barefoot on concrete playgrounds embedded with shards of glass. If we fell off the jungle gym and got hurt our parents would taunt us while treating our wounds with muddy, salt water and poke us with sticks until we stopped crying. Then, and only then, were we allowed to walk barefoot uphill six miles to school in six feet of snow, backwards. Allergies seem to be rampant among kids today. Parents’ obsession on cleanliness and anti-bacterial this and antibacterial that, is harming kids. Back in the dark ages, you never heard of kids having peanut allergies. Now it seems that every other kid has them and all kinds of other immune deficiencies as well. Scientists have come up with an idea of why this is happening. It’s called the Hygiene Hypothesis. Simply stated, our kids are too clean. Kids need to get dirty. They need to strengthen their immune systems. Studies have found that kids who grew up on farms have significantly lower rates of allergies and asthma. However, Dr. Scott T. Weiss professor at Harvard Medical School and ivy league spoilsport says “Eating dirt or moving to a farm are at best theoretical rather than practical clinical recommendations for the prevention of asthma.” We are raising a generation of kids who will grow up to be soft, weak and sickly. The worst case scenario is that it will be a generation of kids who have to live in bubbles, like John Travolta. Hygiene Hypothesis., the progressive contrarian AUG 29 Anti-GMO movement are liars and a disgrace to progressive activism Bernie Mooney Politics, Science 27 comments Never in the history of progressive movements have so few lied to so many. That pretty much sums up the anti-gmo movement. It is the most dishonest, wretched and immoral movement to ever come out of the left. They traffic in lies, obfuscation, threats and violence. It used to be progressives, liberals and the left based their arguments on evidence and facts. They may have been coming from different perspectives but the debate was honest. The anti-gmo movement has jettisoned that honesty and intellectual rigor. They have not only allowed fringe crazies into the house, they have allied with them. The anti-gmo movement can’t deal with facts and evidence. They dismiss every challenge to their fabrications and distortions with allegations of industry propaganda. One of the biggest offenders in this area is GMWatch, an anti-gmo group that would make make Goebbels proud. (Yup, I went there) Whenever a progressive writer decides to do some research into this issue and they come to realize the activists are full of shit, the discrediting machine goes into full gear. Nobody does this better than GMWatch. When environmentalist Mark Lynas did his mea culpa on gmos, the GMWatch propaganda machine went into overdrive. They questioned his bona fides as a “founding member” of the anti-gmo movement. Now, whether he was or not, is beside the point. What GMWatch did was not refute his evidence and facts but embarked on a smear campaign to discredit him and thereby his facts. The latest victim of GMWatch is Nathanael Johnson of GRIST who did a multi-part series on gmos to separate the non-gmo wheat from the chaff. What was his crime? He dared to believe actual experts in the biotech field. GMWatch, or rather Claire Robinson, Minister of Propaganda at GMWatch wrote: Being wrong on GM as often as he is, ignoring or twisting corrections to support his preconceived views, and in the process misleading the readers of a till now respected publication like Grist, doesn’t make him exciting, creative, or cool. It just makes him an unreliable source. Wow, what brass ones she has. If there is anyone who engages in that behavior its GMWatch. It seems that if you work in biotech for a living, that excludes you from being a reliable source in the minds of the antis. It would be like dismissing the expertise of a heart surgeon because he does that for a living. Slowly, as mainstream and progressive journalists come to see through their lies and bullshit, the antis like GMW are going nuts. They have turned to attacking those who see through their lies. Since they don’t have the science on their side they claim those who have changed their minds as falling for industry propaganda. They’re also big on cherry picking and taking things out context GMWatch is proficient at this technique. What’s even more lame is that they link to their sources and when you actually read the source, it doesn’t say what they claim. One of their latest bits of nonsense is in response to Golden Rice. They quote the World Health Organization as saying “Vitamin A supplementation has already “averted an estimated 1.25 million deaths since 1998 in 40 countries.” This is true. What they left out was the next part ”…supplementation capsules lasts only 4-6 months, they are only initial steps towards ensuring better overall nutrition and not long-term solutions” and “Food fortification takes over where supplementation leaves off. “ And then you get the physical destruction of gmo field trials. The very same activists who claim there haven’t been enough studies, destroy field trials that are designed to do just that. The latest travesty was thedestruction of a Golden Rice trial field in the Philippines. Greenpeace and others applauded. Side note: Greenpeace tweeted that the Russians were “illegally” boarding their ship in the Arctic. That’s rich. A group that engages in destruction of property whining about illegality. But wait…there’s more. Not only do the antis promote lies and destruction of property, scientists report having received death threats. One of those scientists is Kevin Folta who has been in the forefront of trying to dispel the lies peddled by the anti-gmo Philistines. Folta, a stout yeoman for science if there ever was one, has written on his blog, Illumination that he’s received more than few death threats over the past few years. The latest salvo of veiled threats came after he flew to Hawaii to try to get a dialogue going regarding the science of biotech. Hawaii has become the latest gmo battleground.

If death threats aren’t enough, Folta reports that activists are now creating fake websites purporting to be the original biotech sites and impersonating biotech scientists. Critics of biotechnology are now stealing the identities of reliable information sources, creating bogus inflammatory websites, and then promoting them as the real thing. Why? They realize that these sources of legitimate, unbiased science communication have appeal to those in the middle seeking quality information. I highly recommend Folta’s blog. I have never met the man, but I have had extensive digital communications with him. He’s as honest as they come and due to that, he is one of the top targets of the anti-gmo activists like GMWatch. And speaking of GMWatch which we were, here is their notion of what science is Even if such a “consensus” of GMO safety did exist, it wouldn’t be worth the paper it was written on. Science does not advance in the manner of a flock of sheep, by “consensus”, but through the generation of new data. The new data in turn lead to new conclusions that build a new paradigm.It doesn’t matter if just one scientist or hundreds generate the new data. (my emphasis) What our good Claire fails to understand is the consensus she derides is arrived at, not because of one scientist, but studies that have been replicated enough times there is no doubt. Then it becomes a consensus. Robinson and GMWatch borrow from the climate denial camp when they assign more weight to fringe scientists whose flawed work has never been reproduced and has been discredited by the overall scientific community. Robinson then goes on to play the Galileo gambit. Galileo didn’t have “consensus” support for his observation that the earth went round the sun. But because the data supported him, people eventually came round to admitting he was right. RationalWiki describes this gambit The Galileo gambit, or Galileo fallacy, is the notion that if you are vilified for your ideas, you must be right. It refers to Galileo Galilei’s famous persecution at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church for his defence of heliocentrism in the face of the orthodox Biblical literalism of the day. People use this argument repeatedly in response to serious criticisms that more often than not they just don’t understand. They go on to say Cranks who use the gambit to claim persecution by “big science” often fail to see the irony in the comparison — it was the Catholic Church that censored Galileo, not the “scientific establishment.” An additional irony arises when we consider that if the maverick idea does manage to amass enough evidence to win over the majority, it will become the new consensus — at which point, by the fallacy’s own reasoning, the idea must become wrong! The bottom line is the anti-gmo groups are a disgrace to honest progressive activism. It makes me question the motives of the groups like GMWatch. It makes me angry that groups like GMWatch are liars and frauds. The fact that a non-scientist of average intelligence like me can easily debunk their lies and cherry picking should be an alert to the average person who is looking for honest information. anti-GMO, anti-science, GMWatch, organic, the progressive contrarian AUG 03 NY State Assembly public hearing on GMO labeling was a farce. Bernie Mooney Politics 3 comments This is a tough one. I’m not sure where to begin. I attended a show trial NY State Assembly public hearing on gmo labeling last Tuesday which was held at Lehman College in the Bronx. It was chock full of lies, bullying, nonsense and a pretend sense of balance. Basically it was a 3/12 hour farce disguised as a public hearing. The public hearing was convened by Assembly member Linda Rosenthal who sponsored a bill that would require all foods sold in NY that contain genetically modified ingredients to carry a label. Although Rosenthal touted the hearing as “hearing from both sides,” it was obvious that she didn’t mean it. Her demeanor was more self-righteous bully. She acted more like an anti-gmo activist than an elected representative looking for facts. She told the NY Daily News in an email “I am confident that after a comprehensive public airing, where both sides have an opportunity to provide testimony, the case for labeling of GMO-containing food products will be categorically made.”

Hansen & Rosenthal in pre-hearing “rally”

She spouted all the anti-gmo nonsense which included citing discredited studies. What makes it even worse is she is the Chairperson of the Assembly’s Commission on Science and Technology. Why is that bad? She’s scientifically illiterate, at least on this issue. If you are going to chair a science committee, it would behoove you to understand something about how the science works, especially before you sponsor legislation that is based on scientifically unsound information. One of the issues she kept raising was the idea that gmos create “new allergens” which is a bold-faced lie. She and other antis brought up the Brazil nut example which if anything, actually proved their claim wasn’t true. The story is this: The company Pioneer tried to insert a Brazil nut gene into soybeans. They selected a protein that wasn’t allergenic. To be on the safe side, they asked allergists to test it just to make sure. It was found that the allergen transferred over. So, they abandoned the project. She also kept harping on the idea that there is no “concrete proof” gmos are safe. Well, as chair of a science committee she should know that nothing can be proven “concretely” safe. And if she actually cared about whether they are deemed safe, or as safe as anything can be, maybe she should consult the hundreds of independent studies that exist out there. Even better, actually consult scientists. While grilling three upstate farmers she really went bullygirl actually disagreeing with the farmers about their experiences with gmos. She read otherwise, she claimed, dismissing their actual experience. One of the farmers, Beth Chittenden of Dutch Hollow Farm seemed to get the bulk of her bullying. She accused the farmers of making disparaging remarks about consumers when they suggested labeling might confuse them in thinking there was something wrong with the product. She said that the reason to be against labeling is because they (the farmers) might be afraid of what we might find out. She also said what they were saying was… “reprehensible is too strong of a word…objectionable” Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket. What an asshole. These weren’t industry bigwigs, they were upstate family farmers trying to explain why they used gmos; their own experiences. During those exchanges, the packed anti-gmo crowd showed their true colors when they heckled Chittenden. Some shouted, “Bullshit.” It was at that point the chair of the hearing admonished them and basically told them to act civilized and listen to what people had to say. But that’s not what they were there for. They were there to make public their incredible lack of brain power apparent. I decided to not engage any of them since you can’t have a rational discussion with true believers. It was becoming clear this wasn’t a legislative hearing, but a chance for Rosenthal to denigrate the opposition. She allowed the pro-labeling witnesses to spout all kinds of discredited nonsense without an inkling of challenge they way she challenged the opposition. Pro-labeling folks like Michael Hansen of the Consumers Union got plenty of time to lie and obfuscate. Throughout his questioning by the panel, he kept contradicting himself at one point saying that gmos aren’tingredients and then later saying they were. He made some absurd statement that Bt, the soil bacteria used widely in organic farming somehow “bleeds from the roots to poison the soil.” Now these witnesses were sworn in and testified under oath. I wonder if it would be possible to bring Hansen up on perjury charges? Of course the industry was represented. Louis Finkel VP for Government Affairs at the Grocery Manufacturers Association and Michael Rosen, VP of the Food Industry Alliance of New York State held their own against hard questioning. They were pros. Nurse Ratchet kept asking them about how much money was spent lobbying. She wouldn’t leave that alone. She also kept whining how she wasn’t getting a satisfactory answer. You have to have a begrudging admiration for guys like these two. As hard as she tried to knock them off their game, they never wavered. Anyway, what the hell does how much money the industry spends lobbying have to do with the issue of gmo labeling? So, who were some of those other guys? Guys like Hansen, who never met a GMO fact he liked. Hanson, did his best Sean Hannity impression, flogging the discredited Seralini corn rat study, one the many studies he said were “carefully well designed studies.” There were others like reps from the usual suspects likes Patty Lovera from Food and Water Watch and Andrew Kimbrell from the Center for Food and Safety and Stacey Orel from GMO Free New York. I would have left half way through had it not been for the fact that a Twitter acquaintance was scheduled to speak toward the end, Val Giddings. The incredibly tall Giddings came out of the box and ticked off a list of false claims made by the previous pro-labeling witnesses. Rosenthal seemed to be unimpressed since this was what she was doing while Giddings was speaking

While guys like Hansen and Kimbrell got a lot of time in the form of questions. When Giddings finished his testimony, he was given a polite, dismissive, thank you. Actually, it would be unfair to dismiss this hearing as all one-sided. The biggest offender was Rosenthal, but the chairman, Assembly member Jeffrey Dinowitz and James Skouflis asked some good questions and actually seemed interested in hearing the anti-side. At one point Skouflis scolded…damn I can’t find it in my notes, one of the pro-labeling witnesses who trashed farmers. Skouflis responded by saying he took offense at their depictions of farmers; that many of his constituents were farmers and they were good, decent hardworking people. Yay, James. On a side note: Trashing farmers seems to be common on the anti side. What’s up with that? They depict farmers as greedy people who don’t care about the environment or people’s health. On one hand they claim farmers are being exploited by companies like Monsanto and when farmers respond by saying, “No we’re not,” they counter that they’re greedy poisoners. But lest you go away thinking Rosenthal is some shrieking harpy, she does have a good record on progressive issues. That’s the disconnect on this issue with the liberal/left. They seem to throw reasoning out the window. Rosenthal is a classic example of this. On a final giggity note, Dinowitz pressed Kimbrell that if labeling incurred no onerous cost, why not require labeling of conventional/non foods? Kimbrell said he would be against that. “Why? Dinowitz pressed. If there is no “onerous cost”, “Why not? Dinowitz knocked him off his game. anti-GMO, anti-science, Assembly Linda Rosenthal, gmo labeling, Kimbrell, Michael Hansen, progressive, the progressive contrarian AUG 01 More anti-GMO dishonesty: GMWatch selectively edits Bernie Mooney Politics, Uncategorized Add you comment GMWatch, in attempt to make you believe that scientists are anti-gmo did a little selective editing to prove their point, again. The anti-gmo crowd just can’t be honest. The issue is a fungus that is decimating the Cavendish banana crops. It’s been hard to find a cure for what ails the Cavendish banana. On their site they quote one Dr. Emile Frison as saying, “Only GM can save the banana “ Well at least they got that right. He did say that and he does work for Syngenta. And they did cite some legitimate research that showed there may be other ways to save the banana. But here’s the dishonesty. They quoted a letter from banana scientist, Dr. David Jones to New Scientist Magazine taking issue with that claim, saying other methods of conventional breeding could work. Yes, he did write that. However, GMWatch neglected to quote him completely. Here’s what they left out. “Many banana scientists, including me, believe that genetic engineering should complement rather than replace conventional breeding strategies. (emphasis mine) Let’s not put all our eggs in one basket.” I would link to the letter but it’s behind a paywall. But once again we see the dishonestly that is rampant in the anti-gmo movement. Anastasia Bodnar co-founder of the site Biofortified once tweeted that countering the anti-nonsense is like playing whack-a-mole. It’s hard to keep up. The antis engage in what is called the Gish Gallop. The Gish Gallop, named after creationistDuane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Eugenie Scott is not to be confused with weird evangelist sax playing preacher from the 1980s-90s, Gene Scott. As nuts as he was, at least he was entertaining. anti-GMO, anti-science, GMWatch, progessive contrarian, progressive JUL 21 More anti gmo-dishonesty: The Diabolical World of Genetic Manipulation Bernie Mooney Politics 3 comments Apparently there is a book called Seeds of Destruction: The Diabolical World of Genetic Manipulation written by F. William Engdahl. It is published by an organization called Global Research. They describes themselves this way The Global Research website was established on the 9th of September 2001, two days before the tragic events of September 11. Barely a few days later, Global Research had become a major news source on the New World Order and Washington’s “war on terrorism.” The Global Research website describes the book thusly This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms. The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is. (my emphasis) Basically all you need to know about this book is in the introduction, where Engdahl has a 1948 quote by US State Department senior planning official, George Kennan “We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so,we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives.We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.” Sound sinister? The doctored quote comes from a post WWII memo by Kennan called Memo PPS23. It is part of a larger analysis of U.S. post-war foreign policy. The memo begins When Mr. Acheson first spoke to me about the Planning Staff, he said that he thought its most important function would be to try to trace the lines of development of our foreign policy as they emerged from our actions in the past, and to project them into the future, so that we could see where we were going. During the first months of the operation of the Staff, I hesitated to undertake any such effort, because I did not feel that any of us had a broad enough view of the problems involved to lend real value to our estimate. I have now made an effort toward a general view of the main problems of our foreign policy, and I enclose it as a Staff paper. It is far from comprehensive and doubtless contains many defects; but it is a first step toward the unified concept of foreign policy which I hope this Staff can some day help to evolve. The paper is submitted merely for information, and does not call for approval. I made no effort to clear it around the Department, since this would have changed its whole character. For this reason, I feel that if any of the views expressed should be made the basis for action in the Department, the views of the offices concerned should first be consulted. Real sinister and diabolical, no? But what about that introduction? Well, it it is a highly edited and totally out of context quote from the section where Kennan talks about our foreign policy in regards to Asia

It is urgently necessary that we recognize our own limitations as a moral and ideological force among the Asiatic peoples. Our political philosophy and our patterns for living have very little applicability to masses of people in Asia. They may be all right for us, with our highly developed political traditions running back into the centuries and with our peculiarly favorable geographic position; but they are simply not practical or helpful, today, for most of the people in Asia. This being the case, we must be very careful when we speak of exercising “leadership” in Asia. We are deceiving ourselves and others when we pretend to have the answers to the problems which agitate many of these Asiatic peoples. Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction. So, if the book starts off with a doctored quote, how honest can the rest of the book be? anti-GMO, bad journalism, conspiracy, Global Research, the progressive contrarian JUN 20 Organic Consumer’s Association issues “threat” to Congress. Bernie Uncategorized 3 comments Just when you thought the crazies over at the Organic Consumer’s Association (OCA) couldn’t get more goofy, they have warned Congress that if the they pass any amendment that would “preempt or nullify any state GMO labeling law” they will work to recall candidates or support their opponents in the next election. What has their organic hemp panties is a bunch? It’s an amendment by Iowa Congressman, Republican Steve King The King Amendment would reinforce the Commerce Clause by asserting the right of a state to trade agricultural products with another state. States that a state cannot deny the trade of an agricultural product from another state based on its means of production. On his website King elaborates I am pleased that the Committee passed my amendment, the Protect Interstate Commerce Act (PICA) because states are entering into trade protectionism by requiring cost prohibitive production methods in other states,” said King. “PICA blocks states from requiring ‘free range’ eggs or ‘free range’ pork but covers all agriculture products listed in section 206 of the Agriculture Marketing Act of 1946. By 2014 California will require only ‘free range’ eggs be sold and the impact of their large market would compel producers in every other state to invest billions to meet the California standard of “means of production.” PICA will ensure that radical organizations like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and PETA are prohibited from establishing a patchwork of restrictive state laws aimed at slowly suffocating production agriculture out of existence.” The Agricultural Committee passed King’s Amendment. Now what is this section 206 of the Agriculture Marketing Act of 1946 the good congressman speaks of? Being a good republican, he gets it wrong. There is no listing of products in that section. It’s strictly administrative rules. No matter. I see what King is going for here and I can’t say I disagree. His hatred for groups like PETA and HSUS not withstanding, I see his point. Whatever his reasons for inserting his amendment it does make sense which makes this an anomaly; a republican doing something that makes sense, but accidentally. OCA sees this as a slippery slope where there will be more amendments piled on top of each other. They want to stop it by taking direct political action. Legally, can they? Well, the OCA is registered as both a 501(c)(3) and their lobbying and legislative arm, Organic Consumers Fund (OCF) is a 501(c)(4). What’s the difference? Both confer non-profit status. A 501(c)(3) allows an organization to promote social welfare issues but not engage in politics. They can’t endorse candidates, donate money to them or publicize which candidates agree with them on issues. As a 501(c)(4), an organization can get involved in politics as long as they don’t spend more than 50% of their funds on political issues. Its obvious both the the OCA and OCF are the same group. The OCF website says The Organic Consumers Fund (OCF) is the 501 c4 allied organization of the Organic Consumers Association. Allied? Organic Consumers Fund · 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland MN Organic Consumers Association · 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland MN Both groups have Ronnie Cummmins listed as the big cheese on their IRS 990s, except the 990 for the OCA he’s listed as Ronald Wayne Cummins and on the OCF he’s listed as just Ronnie Cummins The interesting part of the OCA’s threat is that it comes from their website and they seem to be the arm that is threatening political action, not the OCF arm. If so, that would mean they are engaging in political activity which isn’t allowed under their 501(c)(3) status. Also on their site they have a list of those who voted for and against the amendment categorized as good guys and bad guys. That sounds pretty much like a 501(c)(3) no no. That sounds like they’re rating representatives. Whether legal or not, the OCA seems to be engaging in big time hypocrisy here. They are big opponents of the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision. Yet they get to do their thing under the OCF due to that ruling. On their site they write The Citizens United ruling “contradicts the notion of transparency that should prevail in a democracy,” wrote the Los Angeles Spanish-language newspaper La Opinion, in their endorsement of the measure. The great site Biofortfied has a great post which goes into more detail about the OCA, Progressive Activists or Organic AstroTurf? It’s obvious the two groups are one in the same. The fact that the names on each organization are slightly different, even though it’s the same person smells of deception. But that’s not surprising The Cummins’ groups are hustlers and liars. JUN 13 Latest anti-gmo study: More bullshit. Bernie Politics 11 comments This is getting ridiculous. More anti-gmo nonsense science showing the harmful effects of gmos. It’s called A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. I hesitate to link to the study because I don’t want to give them the traffic. I was also going to summarize factually why this study is so lame, but the biotech squints and other smart people were immediately on the case like ugly on Ronnie Cummins, totally discrediting it on every level. I have posted links to those dissections below. But in a nutshell, the study claims that pigs fed gmo corn got sick. They had more stomach ulcers, or not. Mark Lynas: GMO pigs study – more junk science Farm and Food Care: Canadian experts convinced GMO swine feed study is deeply flawed Cami Ryan: From ‘I smell a rat’ to ‘when pigs fly’, bad science makes its rounds Random Rationality: Pigs, GMOs & Bullshit Control Freaks: The evidence of GMO harm in pig study is pretty flimsy GMOPundit: Pigs in the real world – feed them different diets, measure many health parameters, some will show differences– but what does it all mean? Biofortified: Lack of care when choosing grains invalidates pig feeding study I’m not being lazy, but I thought it would be silly to repeat what others have so expertly addressed. Besides, these are people whose sites you should bookmark. What I want to talk about here is how I have never seen a so-called progressive movement so willing to distort, lie, and obfuscate to advance their cause. It’s repulsive and offensive. And it’s hard to repulse and offend me. Anti-gmo activists are constantly painting Monsanto as evil. Well, we know corporations aren’t good citizens. But judging by the behavior of the anti-gmo activists and their in-house scientists, neither are they. The study was funded by folks like… wait for it… Jeffrey Smith’s Living Room for Responsible Technology and the Organic Federation of Australia. yet the studies authors claim no conflicts? It’s been said elsewhere, but what if Monsanto had funded a study that showed no hazards? The anti-gmo campaign brings dishonor to the progressive movement. Progressives have bought into crazy. Yeah, crazy. The folks running the anti-gmo campaign are frauds, charlatans and freaks. I mean c’mon really. Alex Jones is on your side? As soon as the latest study was released, anti-gmo groups like GM Watch warned of the “biotech industry” backlash against it. And by biotech industry, they mean any scientist that uses facts and evidence to point to the flaws in the study. What I don’t get, as a non-scientist, is how scientists can keep their jobs when they do such blatantly do such bad work, on purpose? Tenure? The sad thing is this bogus study will keep getting repeated ad nauseam on all the anti-gmo websites and I’ll have to listen to my anti-gmo friends cite it. The anti-gmo movement is the Tea Party of the left, yet they have gained traction in the mainstream liberal/left/progressive thought about this issue. anti-GMO, bad science, Jeffrey Smith, Mark Lynas JUN 10 Norman Borlaug and Vandana Shiva were walking along a beach… Bernie Uncategorized Add you comment Norman Borlaug* and Vandana Shiva were walking along a beach when they came upon a bottle. Borlaug reached down, picked it up and opened it. A genie appeared and thanked them for releasing him. He was so grateful that he offered to grant the two any wish they wanted. He turned to Borlaug and asked him what he wanted. Borlaug didn’t miss a beat and said, “I wish there was a new solution to help agriculture advance and help feed the poor of the world and increase nutrition in areas that lack it.” The genie winced and said, “Well, I don’t have the power to create the solution, but I can give you a scientific tool that will help. It’s called genetically modified organisms.” Borlaug was thrilled, thanked the genie and walked away smiling. He then turned to Shiva and asked what she wanted. Shiva furrowed her brow and then perked up and said excitedly, ”My neighbors get better yields with gmos than my organic farm. I want you to destroy my neighbor’s farm.” anti-GMO, anti-science, Norman Borlaug, organic farming, Ronnie Cummins JUN 06 Connecticut legislature makes anti-science history Bernie Politics 1 comment Today’s post is a version of an op-ed that was quickly and roundly rejected by the Hartford Courant with a curt, No Thanks, response.

The Connecticut legislature made history recently when it overwhelmingly approved a gmo labeling bill. They made history by giving credibility to the anti-science views of crackpots, frauds, and charlatans. In 2012, the Assembly’s GM labeling task force had one Jeffrey Smith testify. Readers of this blog are well acquainted with him. He is the go-to-guy and is considered an “expert” on gmos. Unfortunately he is not a scientist and has no agricultural experience. He is considered a joke among the scientific community. His bio and resume are vague. What is known is he was a member of the Maharishi Natural Law Party in Iowa, whose solution to the national crime problem was “yogic flying.” In 1996, the Daily Illinni wrote, “Smith presented charts with evidence of a correlation between the presence of yogic flyers and an increase in the quality of life and a decrease in crime. Smith cited limited yogic flying programs in Washington D.C. and near the Middle East that resulted in less crime and more harmony.” He has two self-published books on genetic engineering. One of them, Genetic Roulette has been discredited by real scientists. The organization, Academics Review, looked at the book to see how his claims stacked up against current peer-reviewed science and submitted a chapter by chapter take down of the book. Smith recently backed out of a debate on the safety of gmos at the Cato Institute where he would have had to defend his nonsense against actual scientists. Those scientists are Karl Von Mogel and Kevin Folta. Von Mogel is a Ph.D. candidate in plant breeding and plant genetics at the University of Wisconsin who co-founded the science site Biofortified. Folta is Interim Chairman and Associate Professor Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida and writes the blog Illumination. Last year, I wrote the Connecticut legislature’s GMO Labeling Task Force suggesting they have an actual scientist testify as a counterbalance to Smith’s nonsense. From my email: I just read that Jeffrey Smith, of the Institute of Responsible Technology will be speaking before your GMO Labeling Task Force on August 8th. I would recommend you rescind this offer as Mr. Smith is a self- styled expert on GMOs. He has no experience in science or agriculture. For some reason he is considered an expert by the media and others. If this is not possible, I suggest you at least have actual scientists testify on this issue to counterbalance his nonsense. I received a polite reply from Elaine O’Brien who wrote “my intention is to gather as much information as possible. I understand that this is not a simple subject and I do not believe we should be rushing to label before we understand the issue”. It seems they didn’t take my advice and consult any real scientists and listened only to a minority of vocal activists who peddled discredited studies and lies. Every major health and scientific organization have weighed in on the safety of genetically modified foods. The safety is not in question. Humans have been genetically modifying foods for thousands of years. Activist claim GM is different. Yes, it is. It is more precise. With conventional breeding it is a hit and miss method. With conventional breeding they transfer thousands of genes, hoping they will get what they want. With GM, scientists only transfer the gene(s) that they need. Activists point to the 64 countries that have laws requiring labeling as a talking point. Well, 74 countries have laws against homosexuality. Should we follow their lead? The legislature should be ashamed of themselves. anti-GMO, anti-science, Connecticut legislature, gmo labeling, Jeffrey Smith, science « Previous Entries •

•

• Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Email Address

Subscribe

• Follow me on Twitter

• Recent Posts o The anti-GMO movement is anti-science/progress. They said so. o From the archives: Why your kids are fat and sickly o Anti-GMO movement are liars and a disgrace to progressive activism o NY State Assembly public hearing on GMO labeling was a farce. o More anti-GMO dishonesty: GMWatch selectively edits

• Categories o Politics o Science o Uncategorized

• Archives o September 2013 o August 2013 o July 2013 o June 2013 o May 2013 o April 2013 o March 2013 o February 2013 o January 2013 o December 2012 o November 2012 o October 2012 o September 2012 o August 2012 o July 2012 o June 2012 o February 2012 The Progressive Contrarian · coogee theme · 2008 RSS Feed · WordPress · TOP