‘GMO free’ myth busting: Labeling movement leading farmers to use more toxic chemicals | Genetic Literacy Project

‘GMO free’ myth busting: Labeling movement leading farmers to use more toxic chemicals | Genetic Literacy Project:

'via Blog this'

GMOs, Go, Go, Go!

It seems the pseudo-scientific issue that bears the most weight with the people in my life is anti-GMO activism, so I once again find myself evaluating an article on that topic. This time around, Roberta L. Millstein attempts to take a middle road, but falls into a standard anti-science trap. “Just label it,” says the pseudo-scientist, “let the people decide.” Sure, label the GMOs. Teach the creationists’ “controversy”. Let the parents decide whether to vaccinate their kids. Oops, was my opinion leaking through here? I’ll get back to that in a bit.

She takes issue with the argument that the anti-GMO movement, and even the suggestion to label GMOs, is anti-science. She has conveniently listed her reasons in a numbered list, so let me take a specific look at these arguments.

Organic Cherry Picking

Bad Chart Thursday: Organic Cherry Picking

Strong-Arm Tactics, or Brand Confidence?

Here's another article shared by the same person who's been sending me the GMO links:

How Seed and Pesticide Companies Push Farmers to Use Bee-Killing Insecticides

There's a lot of reading to do here, and I haven't familiarized myself yet with the subject in general or the specific research, (some of which appears to be behind a paywall), but there's one big, obvious issue right in the article itself that I wanted to comment on. The headline makes a bold accusation of coercion, as though the sellers are strong-arming innocent farmers into using dangerous substances. When you read the details the same article provides however, the actual practice becomes much less sinister:

The companies also include incentives to buy coated seed in the form of insurance: If their crop fails , the farmer will get a 100 percent rebate. Without the coatings, the rebate is only 50 to 75 percent.

Now, I'm not an expert, but I did spend a decade working in shopping malls and customer service centres. In retail, this is what we call a "warranty". You put a warranty on products that you're confident are unlikely to fail. It's just good business; you're making a bet that the product is reliable. The elaborate long-term warranties are for brands like Sony and LG, not the Chinese knock-offs. That would be a bad bet. It's all about confidence in your product.

Like I said, I won't criticize the science until I've read up on it some more, but I will criticize the ethics of the writer (or their editor/publisher). Once again, an article is written to provoke an emotional reaction, at the expense of the "evil corporations" who are doing nothing more than performing the role our society needs them to perform, in a way that allows them to continue doing so: profitably.