海角大神

You may have heard that popular scientist Bill Nye has mysteriously聽聽on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Several years ago, the children鈥檚 show host advocated for the labeling of genetically modified foods, citing concerns about what GMOs could do to ecosystems. But now his position on the controversial technology has flipped. This development is the latest in a聽聽spearheaded by agribusiness giants to discredit the GMO labeling movement, and it鈥檚 especially hard to disassociate his reversal from this PR blitz since it coincided with Nye鈥檚 recent trip to Monsanto鈥檚 headquarters.

We鈥檒l never know what actually went down during Nye鈥檚 visit, as聽, but we do know that Monsanto has poured聽聽into public relation聽efforts to sell the public on GMOs. Because that鈥檚聽聽when you are a corporation with deep coffers and a product that the public is wisely skeptical of.

Does this mean that it鈥檚 game over for the GMO labeling movement or that we should trust Monsanto鈥檚 word? Of course not. In fact, it means we should be more suspicious than ever.

Companies like Monsanto hope that casting doubt on the GMO labeling debate will cause us to get caught up in the proverbial weeds of the issue. So let鈥檚 get something straight: the debate over GMOs isn鈥檛 just about GMOs. It鈥檚 about the current and future聽鈥攚ho grows and sells our food, how it鈥檚 marketed, and what technologies were used to produce it. By selling seeds to farmers, peddling pesticides, forming聽,听补苍诲听聽on GMOs, agribusiness giants like Monsanto have one goal in mind: controlling the food system. The millions of people calling for labeling of GMO foods have a problem with that. Furthermore, it is disappointing to see such beloved science advocates as Bill Nye and聽聽being captured by the industry.

As I outlined in my book聽,聽Monsanto鈥檚 roots in the biotech game date back decades, and they have a long history of subverting public policy. In effect, the company used its relationship with the Reagan Administration to create a weak regulatory process that would help the company bring its products to market quickly and smoothly. A 1985 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruling that allowed for plants to be聽聽further entrenched Monsanto鈥檚 power in this area. Since 1999, the fifty largest agricultural and food patent-holding companies and two of the largest biotech and agrochemical trade associations have spent more than聽聽in campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures, much of it to create a favorable political context to allow GMOs to proliferate.

Just because the industry has launched a聽聽in the media when it comes to GMOs doesn鈥檛 change the basic facts: GMOs are largely untested, and their long-term effects on our health and our planet are still unknown; they promote the use of dangerous chemicals, and they pose a significant threat to organic agriculture. What鈥檚 more, consumers should absolutely get to decide whether the food they are buying carries these unknown risks or supports this system;聽.

Corporations and their hired guns love confusing people about the science behind their questionable products to help shape favorable public opinion (in the case of GMOs, asserting there is scientific consensus聽). But we aren鈥檛 buying their spin, nor should you.