GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
        • Notícias em Português
        • Nieuws in het Nederlands
        • Nachrichten in Deutsch
      • Archive
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
      • 2022 articles
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Donations
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

INTRODUCTION TO GM

GMO Myths and Facts front page.jpg

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE EDITING MYTHS AND REALITY

A guide through the smokescreen

Gene Editing Myths and Reality

ON-TARGET EFFECTS OF GENE EDITING

Damaged DNA

'Follow the money' behind critics of organic foods (17/10/2004)

  • Print
  • Email
Details
Published: 17 October 2004
Twitter

for more on the GM proponents behind the attacks on organic farming, see ORGANIC ATTACK!
http://www.gmwatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=7&page=1&op=1
------

'Follow the money' behind critics of organic foods
Grand Forks Herald, Oct. 17, 2004
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforksherald/news/opinion/9940508.htm

CORNUCOPIA, Wis. - Your recent "Breakfast Blend" story, "Behind the organic label," would be laughable if the "smell test" were applied to those critical of organic food.

For example, a scratch-and-sniff test applied to the Hudson Institute, a dogged critic of organic farming, reveals crucial backing from chemical giants such as Monsanto, Dow and DuPont. These firms stand to lose a bundle should growing legions of Americans continue to choose food produced without toxic pesticides and herbicides.

Less than funny was an urban legend inserted into the story's body alleging that organic crops were "five times likelier to show fecal [manure] contamination" than conventional crops, hence causing more disease. What your readers and apparently the story's author don't know is the source of this baloney.

Earlier this year, we called Francisco Diez-Gonzalez, the lead University of Minnesota researcher involved with the farm manure study. He told us the report actually concluded there was "no statistically different" risk in the pathogenic contamination of certified organic and conventional produce.

In the "Breakfast Blend" story, Rutgers University scientist Joseph Rosen says there's "not sufficient science" to support the claims of organic supporters, including the reputable public-interest watchdog Consumer's Union. Contacting Consumer's Union, we learned that their article in Consumer Reports that was attacked by Rosen on the risks posed by pesticides on fruit and vegetables was subject to the customary peer review of other respected scientists.

As the "Breakfast Blend" story duly noted, Rosen's anti-organic conference was part of a national meeting of the American Chemical Society.

The bottom line is, who should reporters and the public trust - agrichemical interests and their mouthpieces who smear organic food? Or Consumers Union, a not-for-profit institution dedicated to protecting the interests of food buyers?

Will Fantle

Fantle is the research director for the Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based non-profit organization working on farm and food policy issues.

Menu

Home

Subscriptions

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

Non-GM Successes

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

Donations

Content 1999 - 2023 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design