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 they remain the world's biggest manufacturers of agrochemicals. The leading GM corporations together control nearly 75% of the global pesticide market.
Syngenta, for instance, is not only the world's third largest seed company, it's also the world's second largest agrochemical manufacturer. Monsanto, the world's biggest seed company, is the world's fifth largest agrochemical company. That is why around 80% of GM seeds have been engineered to be resistant to weed killers (herbicides). Monsanto’s main GM product is crops resistant to glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup), creating a near-monopoly for Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, which is now off patent.
Having operated for many decades as major chemical corporations, and in the last 20 years additionally as biotechnology companies, the leading GM firms 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, as it 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on trust, with regulators normally basing their assessments of environmental risk and food safety on data from unpublished studies provided to them in confidence by the GM firms that developed the crop.
Below we look at the corporate character and record to date of the major GM firms.
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