4 ms·

If you run "ad campaigns" like Monsanto I don't think you can really call it unfair at this point. Why demand fairness here? If you are a biochemist you may ha

If you run "ad campaigns" like Monsanto I don't think you can really call it unfair at this point. Why demand fairness here? If you are a biochemist you may have been either a victim or a participant in their campaigns. You should be angry at them if they damage scientific integrity apart from that because it will reflect on anyone working in that field. Here is the multi billion dollar company trying to influence reporting but this comment from a random redditor is wrong and a bit unfair? I don't get the incentive to even mention that.

netizen-936824 5y ago
Even if Monsanto is trying to influence reporting, that doesn't mean that the criticism against GMO is automatically correct. That doesn't even make sense The previous commenters are talking about the criticism of GMO in which GMO organisms are suddenly killing babies because there's corn making fish proteins. The criticisms literally don't make sense from a biochemical mechanism standpoint, and the previous commenters are pointing this out. That means that the previous commenters are standing up for scientific integrity while you come along saying "big company bad, therefore everything big company says is lie"
- raxxorraxor 5y ago
  A genetically modified mold is used to create citric acid for a hundred years now and it used in almost all types of food. Maybe better if people don't know but even there are still problems with intellectual property. Still, not the point. The topic of the article is corporate propaganda and you hand wave criticism away by making fun of "big company bad" remarks. To feel better than some of the most stupid criticism? That doesn't elevate you that much higher. Yes, big company is bad. It did influence reporting and research for its own interest. That is very, very bad. Much worse than a criticism not hitting the mark by miles.
car_analogy 5y ago
> I don't get the incentive to even mention that. "The best way to damage a cause is to advocate for it badly." If you allow bad anti-GMO/Monsanto arguments to proliferate, the good ones will have a harder time reaching the light.

netizen-936824 5y ago

Even if Monsanto is trying to influence reporting, that doesn't mean that the criticism against GMO is automatically correct. That doesn't even make sense The previous commenters are talking about the criticism of GMO in which GMO organisms are suddenly killing babies because there's corn making fish proteins. The criticisms literally don't make sense from a biochemical mechanism standpoint, and the previous commenters are pointing this out. That means that the previous commenters are standing up for scientific integrity while you come along saying "big company bad, therefore everything big company says is lie"

raxxorraxor 5y ago
A genetically modified mold is used to create citric acid for a hundred years now and it used in almost all types of food. Maybe better if people don't know but even there are still problems with intellectual property. Still, not the point. The topic of the article is corporate propaganda and you hand wave criticism away by making fun of "big company bad" remarks. To feel better than some of the most stupid criticism? That doesn't elevate you that much higher. Yes, big company is bad. It did influence reporting and research for its own interest. That is very, very bad. Much worse than a criticism not hitting the mark by miles.

car_analogy 5y ago

> I don't get the incentive to even mention that. "The best way to damage a cause is to advocate for it badly." If you allow bad anti-GMO/Monsanto arguments to proliferate, the good ones will have a harder time reaching the light.