GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
        • Notícias em Português
        • Nieuws in het Nederlands
        • Nachrichten in Deutsch
      • Archive
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
      • 2022 articles
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Donations
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

INTRODUCTION TO GM

GMO Myths and Facts front page.jpg

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE EDITING MYTHS AND REALITY

A guide through the smokescreen

Gene Editing Myths and Reality

ON-TARGET EFFECTS OF GENE EDITING

Damaged DNA

Scientific American piece on GM

  • Print
  • Email
Details
Published: 24 March 2001
Twitter

BIOTECH SENTRIES - GENETIC STATE:

"Monsanto officials..Air Force guarding..40 tons..U.S.-based Monsanto.. denied reports.. military area..concealed..tightly guarded..barred.. security reasons..must back off..amid strong protests.." THE JAKARTA POST March 17, 2001 Genetically modified cotton seed arrives in Makassar from S. Africa
---

Funnily enough the contrarians are decidedly unhappy about the Sci Amercian feature, Barry Hearn of the EVAG writing, "Et tu SciAm? Et tu?"
---

originated: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.          
http://www.scientificamerican.com/2001/0401issue/0401hopkin.html

When I posted this Scientific american piece around, a friend asked " I'm curious Michael.  What did you find interesting about this article? I read the print edition the other night and was very disappointed.  The print edition contained a 4th article, also with a pro GMO slant, in my opinion.   There are some really great graphs, that soften the blow a little, but all in all, it looks like Monsanto propaganda to me."   to which I half-answered

"Only that it seemed less-pro GM than - for example what the Royal Society has been putting out - especially in its capacity as sc. adviser to the  brit government."

He wrote back

 "That's interesting.  The R.S. must be pretty ham handed. S.A. burned a lot of it's credability with me on this one. They did a slick job of presenting the material as if it was a balanced treatment, with the pro/con interviews and all, but if you go thru the other 2 articles and sort of score them on a paragraph by paragraph basis you get an entirely different picture.  Anti-GM arguments are presented and rebutted, pro-GM claims go unexamined.  The illustrative examples are curiously one sided - toxic celery produced by *conventional* breeding; the limitations of safety testing methodology as it relates to studies with a *negative* result.  And then there's that wonderful Socratic side step at the end of the article you quoted. Q: Why should we trust Monsanto to do safety testing? A: Who else would you have pay for it?

One other observation.  The 4th article, the one not on the web edition, closes with a statement from a corn/soybeans farmer who makes the ludicrous claim to have halved his "pesticide" use since going to 100% GM crops.  No where does it mention the the guy is the head of NCGA, ( nation corn growers Assoc. ).  While their web page doesn't list NCGA's "industry partners", I think I can guess who they are."  

Menu

Home

Subscriptions

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

Non-GM Successes

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

Donations

Content 1999 - 2023 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design