Submitted by
Alice on August 17, 2014
Forbes Magazine is known for its
lists of the wealthiest people and companies. Frequently they use
their influence to slyly support their big dollar buddies in the
biotech industry.
Forbes successfully plumbed a new
depth with an
attack on Consumer Reports magazine last
week.
Consumer Reports did an article
ranking different milk substitutes for its readers. In that report,
they (gasp) referred to the inclusion of GMOs as a “con” in their
review on soy milk.
This caused Forbes
Magazine to release the hounds in
defense of genetically modified foods everywhere.
The hound in this case was Jon Entine. Entine, a pro-GMO
activist, was very distressed by this report. I know this
because he said so, repeatedly, ranting his way through an
entire article about how CR has let him down with their complete
ignorance about science.
Which makes it all the more distressing that this once
venerable institution-in-a-magazine has driven off the science
cliff in obeisance to the current hysteria—yes, we are
listening Neil deGrasse Tyson—over genetically modified foods…
But the most egregious CR development is its unexplained
dissing of GMO soy milk. Upwards of 94% of the US soy crop is
GMO so it’s no surprise that your favorite edamame or your
morning glass of soy milk is made from soy beans designed to be
grown with fewer insecticides (Bt soy) or less toxic herbicides
(herbicide resistant soy). In its “Cons” section, CR encourages
consumers to “Look for brands with the USDA organic seal or the
non-GMO verified label.”
But why? It never explains, and based on CR’s stated
intention to rely on evidence to form its judgments, it’s
violating its own guidance. After all, there is not one
published study that suggests that GM soy products are any less
nutritious than alternatives; nor are they, or any approved GMO
food, harmful in any way. In fact, it’s well established that
organic products, including soy milk, are more likely to have a
higher risk of pathogen contamination.
Just to recap here: Entine is upset
that CR is letting consumers know that the ingredients in soy milk
are most likely GMO. He seems to disregard the fact that if
consumers are concerned about GMOs in their diets, this is
legitimately, a “con” and is important information for those of us
who wish to identify and avoid GMO. If
the consumer doesn’t care about GMOs, he or she is unlikely to take
this warning to heart and will blithely guzzle down the
negatively-reviewed product.
Entine wants you to know that GMO soy
is actually better for you, also – you know, because they use less
insecticide and herbicide when growing it. (I must have missed the
“science” that says that these plants are sprayed less – and also
that if they are, that less chemicals are better than no chemicals –
I hope someone can send me a link to those reports. Please and
thank you.) As well, Entine takes a moment to point out the organic
products are worse for
you than GMOs (he must have forgotten to put in the evidence of this
“well-established fact” because that link goes no where.) It’s
important to note that all of Entine’s “science” links back to his
own site, pompously called the Genetic Literacy Project.
Because the rest of us are…you know…illiterate. His theories are
remarkably similar to the propaganda and the lies that the
biotech industry espouses.
But Entine doesn’t stop with praising
the health benefits of GMOs and the likelihood of a horrid
death-by-pathogens from that nasty organic food.
Oh no.
His ire takes on a target completely
unrelated to Consumer Reports, the Organic Consumers Association.
The “radical Organic
Consumers Association.” (Because we all know those organic food
hippies are just crazy.) While he’s on the topic of how awesome GMO
soymilk is, he took this opportunity to criticize both the OCA and a
company that responded to activists by removing GMOs from their soy
milk, all in one condescending fell swoop.
This is not the first time that activists have brandished
their anti-science club to quash empirical based thinking on the
issue of soy milk. In 2009, Dean FoodsDF +0.88%, owner of the
Silk Soymilk brand, faced a barrage of criticism from food
activists when it switched from organic to conventional
soybeans, calling it their “natural” line—which was correct. The
move was actually done for the best of reasons. Most certified
organic soybeans are sourced from countries with low or
non-existent labor standards; the switch to conventional soy
means that workers would not being exploited to satisfy Silk
Soymilk customers.
The radical Organic Consumers Association went on a rampage,
calling for a boycott—and it was effective. Rather than stand by
its ideals and its fair labor commitment, Dean caved, throwing
its worker protection pledge under the bus to embrace the
anti-GMO scare campaign. It now positions itself as a driver of
the fear bus. “GMOs? No thanks,” Silk.com writes on its web
page. “We think the less you mess with Mother Nature, the
better.”
Kevin Folta, the head of the University
of Florida plant technology program,
who is clearly unbiased *snort* in his support of GMOs, pointed out
unhappily that Consumer Reports, by criticizing GMOs, gave ”a
backdoor endorsement of organic and non-GMO verified brands.” Isn’t
it interesting how suggesting one thing is bad, Consumer Reports is
accused of endorsing something else?
Entine summed up his disappointment
with Consumer Reports’ anti-GMO stance with his own unsubstantiated
pronouncement:
The only difference between soy milk made with GM soy and
alternatives is that the substituttes (sic) would almost
certainly cost a heckuva a lot more because of the price premium
extracted by organic producers. In other words consumers would
be paying more for no benefits.
Is that the kind of advice that you want from Consumer
Reports? How to spend more for new (sic) real benefits?
Forbes Magazine has a history of
promoting the interests of Big Business. If you google “Forbes and
GMOs” you’ll find a long list of pro-Biotech propaganda,
including 2000+ Reasons GMOs Are Safe to Eat (also
penned by Entine, who must get a heck of a Christmas present each
year from the folks who sell GMO seeds.) Meanwhile, Forbes mocks
organic consumers as “agricultural narcissists.”
The creators of the famous Forbes 500
lists have a dubious interest in educating the public if it might
lower the net worth of companies with questionable ethics like
Monsanto and Dow. In fact, articles like these could potentially
manipulate markets by using their influence to attempt to sway
public opinion. By setting themselves up as well-educated experts
and condescending to the rest of us ignorant fools with ad
hominem cries of “anti-science”,
they promote the money makers: low quality, dirt cheap ingredients
that can be highly processed and marked up with an enormous profit
margin.
But honestly. Forbes really just wants
you to have the scoop about genetic modification. Forbes Magazine
wants you to know that GMOs are good for you, and that organics
contain deadly pathogens. Forbes cares about you.
Source(s):
activistpost.com
http://www.healthfreedoms.org/forbes-calls-consumer-reports-anti-science-in-a-pro-gmo-rant-thatlacks-science/