Pardon the lateness - spring break :)
A couple things stand out as very wrong with this. It might be my personal experience with BioFortified. There's the implication that they're shills but last year when they tried to raise some funds, I chipped in $50 and to my surprise Karl called me not to thank me, but to return my money. I had accidentally contributed from my corporate Paypal account and he was adamant that BioFortified would not take any support from any corporate donors. Even for such a small amount. It's an anecdote sure, but it illustrates something that I've noticed about them - they are scientists and pursuing the truth, and aren't trying to blindly push an agenda.
Which brings up the second thing which struck me. In "Toxic Sludge is Good For You", the theme was how PR campaigns and powerful interests were pushing demonstrably harmful products. With GMOs, there have been millions spent testing them and many have been shown to be equivalent to other plants. They have been in use for years and they have shown themselves to be safe. So unlike toxic sludge, the science is on the side of the GMOs and it's protesters with an ill-informed naturalistic bias who are in the wrong.
Speaking just of harm, every year tens of people are seriously hurt or killed by organic foods, typically because of a dogmatic opposition to things like radiation for sterilization combined with manure fertilizers. It may not be a popular stance with lefties, but if you have a serious commitment to exposing PR campaigns, the dark side of the organic movement has led to a lot of real harm.
I'd really like to see PR Watch exposing the influence of organic food producers on anti-GMO initiatives. Isn't it that organic growers and organic food stores and chains are supporting the GMO testing and libeling initiatives? Is this not lobbying? No PR involved?
It seems that a purpose of the mascot is to counter the fear based unscientific conclusions about GMOs that are spread by activists. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that GMO food products currently produced commercially present no more danger to human health than conventional crops. The NYT piece you link to says "Thirty-seven percent of those worried about G.M.O.’s said they feared that such foods cause cancer or allergies, although scientific studies continue to show that there is no added risk." This demonstrates that the public is ill/misinformed on the subject. Jonathan Latham's organizations (listed in the article) promote bad science and spread misinformation about GM food crops. People who are interested in the subject would do well to examine the evidence presented by the Biology Fortified and the Genetic Literacy Project websites. The fears expressed by the critics of GM technology are addressed with logic, reason, and credible, substantial evidence. As a liberal progressive who demands corporate and governmental accountability, I still am able to separate corporate behavior from the science. Yes, corporations stand to profit from GM food crops, and they stand to profit from pesticide and herbicide use. But all of these technologies need to be assessed scientifically (and they have). Attacking GMOs due to emotional attachment to anger about corporate evils is an incorrect path to the truth.
As an organic farmer who has interacted extensively with Biofortified, and Anastasia Bodnar in particular, I find this attack paints an entirely inaccurate portrait of BFI, its co-founders, and its mascot. It's rare to find an on-line forum and individuals so dedicated to balanced, informed, intelligent, and respectful conversations on GMOs and related agricultural topics. You may not agree with their conclusions, or even their paradigm, but to question their intent or their integrity is completely out of line. I'd urge the author of this piece and any readers to spend some time on the Biofortified site, to interact with the co-founders and contributors, and to make up your own minds. My respect for PRWatch has been severely damaged by this post.
I am disappointed in the site. In the past I have used it as a reference for fair reporting. You imply connections, but lack any evidence to show that there any corporate ties. To me that says that the evidence is lacking.
I have to ask you have done any investigation on some of the sites that are anti GMOs and their ties to the organic food industry. If you haven't you should. There you can find real links and ties, not imaginary ones.
Pages