Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

Page By Category

Forum - CREDO action: NPR reported against organics because Monsanto paid them to

Tags: stupidity, GMOs, butthurt, organics, bad logic, BAWWWWW, ideologues [ Add Tags ]

[ Return to Science | Reply to Topic ]
Wolf BirdPosted: Jun 29, 2011 - 08:57

I shoot you dead.

Level: 9
CS Original

I got this e-mail today. I originally subscribed to them when the AmeriCorps program, which I'm in, was on the budgetary chopping block. Well, I'm now unsubscribed from them after this BS, and when I unsubscribed, I could submit comments. This is what I submitted.


I received an e-mail charging that Monsanto paid public media to report on the science of organic farming. The e-mail did not present any data on the following issues:

A) how organics will actually solve world hunger
B) how GMOs are in anyway harmful, either to people or really, the environment
C) how organics are truly any better than 'conventional' or GMO crops

Instead, the e-mail was just a conspiracy theory that Monsanto paid public radio to report against organics, without any hard data to back up CREDO's position, or even any proof that this had actually happened. It was just an angry e-mail that American Public Media was taking a skeptical look at organics, instead of being politically correct, with nothing but an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory to back CREDO's position. There is surely room for legitimate criticism of Monsanto's practices and GMOs, but that does not somehow equate to 'they are evil and organics are good'. Monsanto sponsoring American Public Media does not mean they paid APM to write propaganda. 'Industrial' agriculture is backed my qualified scientists who surely know more about how to manage soil than environmental ideologues, who use flawed logic and emotions to support organics, instead of data and sound science. Human beings farmed organically for generations, but increased life spans and human population started right around the same time as the advent of modern agriculture and modern medicine. If organics could only support a small population then, why should we expect any differently now?

I refer you to three brief articles by Brian Dunning of, each of which contain further links to sound scientific studies.<br /><br /></p>

Conventional agriculture feeds more people worldwide than organics ever did. GMOs are just a next step - all they do is grant crops resistance to certain diseases, or the ability to grow better in poor soil. This means less pesticide, herbicide, fertilizers, etc. 'All-natural' in no way automatically means 'better', especially since, as Dunning points out, organics use pesticides and fertilizers too. Organic pesticides contain chemicals that, in high enough doses, may be just as toxic and harmful to human beings as those in conventional pesticides.

I do not agree with CREDO's stance on this issue, and I'm angered that all they had to support their position was a conspiracy theory. No facts, no data, no sound logic, just a conspiracy theory. This is not good activism and does not help anyone.

Thank you for your time.

#1 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]