5 ms·

Its a joint website amongst all the multinational players in the GMO space (Bayer, Dupont, Syngenta, Monsanto, BASF, etc.). It may look like a biased source, i

Its a joint website amongst all the multinational players in the GMO space (Bayer, Dupont, Syngenta, Monsanto, BASF, etc.). It may look like a biased source, its not too bad. Most of the opinions/articles are backed by peer reviewed research. I think the purpose of the site it to put faces/ human touch on people that work directly with this stuff. Not some faceless corporation

jacquesm 9y ago
No, the purpose is to be a PR vehicle to promote GMO. Peer reviewed research can be cherry picked to promote one view or another. There was a time when 'peer reviewed research' was a badge of merit that would lead to general unquestioned acceptance. But when this was noticed and subsequently weaponized it became just another weapon in the arsenal of companies. Here is another nice example of this (Big Tobacco & science): http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20071114_cardio-tobacco/ http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20071114_cardi...
- api 9y ago
  > There was a time when 'peer reviewed research' was a badge of merit that would lead to general unquestioned acceptance. But when this was noticed and subsequently weaponized... Everything is weaponized: science, religion, philosophy, any form of art or culture, any signifier of identity or group affinity, etc. If you think it and say it or express it publicly it will be used against you. Propaganda is the plague of our age. It's like the informatic equivalent of the Black Death in the Middle Ages. Edit: I'm not necessarily anti-GMO but I do not trust... anything. I just don't trust anything anymore. Every source of information is guilty until proven innocent.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > I'm not necessarily anti-GMO but I do not trust... anything. I just don't trust anything anymore. Every source of information is guilty until proven innocent. I think that's the right attitude to take to media. You'd have to spend way too much time to follow the money trail in order to determine who is paying the piper this time around to get anything useful done.
    - api 9y ago
      Yes. I also tend to be suspicious of anti-GMO stuff which could just be shilling for organic food.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        Or just unfounded panic. The good news is that producers of organic food tend to have much smaller marketing budgets than the GMO giants, even so you are absolutely right that you can't trust either camp to have your best interests at heart and you should be wary of any article that picks one side over the other without being totally transparent about the party that commissioned the article. I hope that in the future we will be able to solve this problem because access to unbiased information is super important if we are to move forward as a species.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > The good news is that producers of organic food tend to have much smaller marketing budgets than the GMO giants Sure, food producers, at least individually, have less money than big seed companies. But don't kid yourself that the organic vs. GMO side makes a big difference. Often, its the same companies.

jacquesm 9y ago

No, the purpose is to be a PR vehicle to promote GMO. Peer reviewed research can be cherry picked to promote one view or another. There was a time when 'peer reviewed research' was a badge of merit that would lead to general unquestioned acceptance. But when this was noticed and subsequently weaponized it became just another weapon in the arsenal of companies. Here is another nice example of this (Big Tobacco & science): http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20071114_cardio-tobacco/ http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20071114_cardi...

api 9y ago
> There was a time when 'peer reviewed research' was a badge of merit that would lead to general unquestioned acceptance. But when this was noticed and subsequently weaponized... Everything is weaponized: science, religion, philosophy, any form of art or culture, any signifier of identity or group affinity, etc. If you think it and say it or express it publicly it will be used against you. Propaganda is the plague of our age. It's like the informatic equivalent of the Black Death in the Middle Ages. Edit: I'm not necessarily anti-GMO but I do not trust... anything. I just don't trust anything anymore. Every source of information is guilty until proven innocent.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > I'm not necessarily anti-GMO but I do not trust... anything. I just don't trust anything anymore. Every source of information is guilty until proven innocent. I think that's the right attitude to take to media. You'd have to spend way too much time to follow the money trail in order to determine who is paying the piper this time around to get anything useful done.
  - api 9y ago
    Yes. I also tend to be suspicious of anti-GMO stuff which could just be shilling for organic food.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      Or just unfounded panic. The good news is that producers of organic food tend to have much smaller marketing budgets than the GMO giants, even so you are absolutely right that you can't trust either camp to have your best interests at heart and you should be wary of any article that picks one side over the other without being totally transparent about the party that commissioned the article. I hope that in the future we will be able to solve this problem because access to unbiased information is super important if we are to move forward as a species.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > The good news is that producers of organic food tend to have much smaller marketing budgets than the GMO giants Sure, food producers, at least individually, have less money than big seed companies. But don't kid yourself that the organic vs. GMO side makes a big difference. Often, its the same companies.