Is that really a valid defense? Just because all big companies only care about profit doesn’t mean every single one of them is evil?
I admit there is a lot of fake news and fake science on both sides of the alley, but when you compare NGOs vs Monsanto and reliable News vs Drumpf and fake news you obviously have to equate Drumpf with Monsanto.
Bad-left-wing journalism and fake-science like BuzzFeed’s Pee Gate and the petition above only damage the cause, but still an overwhelming majority of real science states that climate change is real as well as an overwhelming majority of real news about Monsanto is bad news. (I’m not saying all of it is bad - there are some seemingly trustworthy studies that state that the working conditions at Monsanto are really great. But the same can be said about G%§$e and still all in all they do more damage than good to our world.)
“an overwhelming majority of real news about Monsanto is bad news.”
Wrong. I have never seen any such overwhelming majority. The same
scientific authorities that are concerned about climate change, such as
World Health organisation and American medical Association, are also saying
that GMO is safe. Look at this picture:
There are many other such comparisons on the net. The point is: Because GMO
and Roundup is safe (if you use it reasonably), there is no big, dirty
secret for Monsanto to hide. If you believe these scientific communities
when they say that climate change is seriously dangerous, you should also
believe them when they say that GMO is safe.
Personally, I think this is one of the biggest problems environmental NGO’s are facing at this moment. Sooner or later, they will have to admit the environmental problems caused by GMOs are not as big as they presented them to the general public.
There are still a lot of reasons to oppose GMOs, but the environmental impact is not one of them. Monopolies, ethical questions like “can anyone really “own” life?”, lies told by supporters (“we’re going to end famine”) are much more important arguments to oppose GMOs…
A source for that picture would be nice, but even if I believed everything it states - actually most of it looks quite believable - this has nothing to do with whether Monsanto is evil or not.
To judge an agricultural company by whether the end product is proven to do health damage to people who eat it is probably the lowest bar you can set.
The only statement in that picture I have a problem with is The AMA’s about Biotechnology:
“There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modifier foods.” This may be true as the science they talk about only evaluates the health aspects of the product. I’m sure the American Medical Assosiation doesn’t have any scientifical justification for preferring fair trade & local goods over others either.
Just because it isn’t unhealthy to them I don’t think customers shouldn’t have the right to know how the product was produced.
“Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have ben reported and/or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature.” Again, that is not wrong, but consider this: Humanoids have consumed meat for over 2,5 million years and it took until 2015 for the WHO to classify processed meat as a carcinogen. I don’t want to say that that means bioengineered food is unhealthy - it probably isn’t - but 20 years is not enough time to determine either way - especially if you have lobbying and fake science on both sides.
Monsanto is a company that spends a lot of money lobbying for bills to get passed that put their interest over interests all humans should share, like biodiversity, trade regulations and correct labeling of ingredients and processes (cf. open source, transparency - you can’t argue those are bad things right?).
