Articles
Subcategories
GM myths 8
Why are stories about GM "miracles" lapped up so uncritically by the media and why does non-GM research into solving exactly the same kind of problems seem to get minimal if any reporting, even though it is far more successful? We look at some classic examples of how GM's often exaggerated crisis narratives and hyped silver bullet solutions successfully grab media attention. We also look at how even when these claims turn out to be completely bogus, it attracts little if any attention, and how some failed GM projects, or successful crop developments that have nothing to do with GM, even get passed off as big GM successes!
GM firms 9
The GM firms present themselves as operating out of futuristic laboratories and hi-tech greenhouses in order to provide farmers with innovative crops with valuable new traits. But in reality, all the leading GM firms developed out of the chemical industry and the three biggest seed companies (Monsanto/Bayer, Corteva and Syngenta) are also three of the biggest global pesticide producers.
Monsanto, for instance, was established as the world's biggest seed company well before Bayer, already the world's second largest agrochemical company, purchased it in 2018. Monsanto was also a leader in the global herbicide (weed killer) market. The fact that it owned over 80% of all GM seeds planted globally helps to account for why around 90% of GM seeds have been engineered to be resistant to herbicides. And Bayer/Monsanto's main GM product remains crops resistant to glyphosate - the active ingredient in their herbicide Roundup.
Having operated for many decades as major chemical corporations, and in the last few decades additionally as biotechnology companies, Bayer and Monsanto have a significant historical legacy. This makes it possible to examine their records when it comes to issues of public and employee safety and protection, regulatory compliance, customer care, etc.
This is particularly relevant to the regulation of GM crops and their associated pesticides, as regulation is almost entirely dependent on trust, with regulators normally basing their assessments of environmental risk and food safety on data from unpublished studies provided to them in confidence by the GM firms that developed the products.
Below we look in detail at the corporate character and record to date of both Bayer and Monsanto. The picture that emerges is not reassuring.
Test
Facts 9
LobbyWatch: GM Myth Makers 26
LobbyWatch provides an A-Z of the people and groups involved in the push for GMOs and their associated pesticides. As well as thumbnail sketches of the different individuals and organisations, it includes links to profiles, articles etc. for more detailed information about them. Together these serve as a guide to the networks of power, lobbying and deceptive PR around the GM issue. (An archived version of our old lobbywatch.org site can be found here.)
Among those featured in our A-Z are:
FRONT GROUPS/LOBBY GROUPS: Genetic Literacy Project, WePlanet, Alliance for Science, AgBioWorld, Science Media Centre, American Council on Science and Health, Science for Sustainable Agriculture, Sense About Science, Academics Review, Allow Golden Rice Now!, Give Genes a Chance, PG Economics, Reboot Food, Science 2.0, Scientific Alliance
INDUSTRY-FRIENDLY EXPERTS: Kevin Folta, Jack Bobo, Jonathan Jones, CS Prakash, Bruce Chassy, Jim Dunwell, Stuart Smyth, Henry I Miller, Pamela Ronald, Geoffrey Kabat, Alison Van Eenennaam, Guy Poppy, L Val Giddings, Maurice Moloney, Robert Paarlberg, Graham Brookes, John Krebs, David Tribe, Drew Kershen, Derek Burke, Tony Trewavas
ECOMODERNISTS: WePlanet, Mark Lynas, Patricia Nanteza, Breakthrough Institute, Emma Kovac, Ted Nordhaus, Michael Shellenberger, Hidde Boersma, Stewart Brand