Five Reasons Monsanto’s ‘Science’ Doesn’t Add Up | Global Research
How long can Monsanto ignore the
mounting actual scientific evidence that their technology is not only
failing to live up to its promises, it’s putting public health at risk?
To hear the pesticide and junk food marketers of the world tell it, anyone who questions the value, legitimacy or safety of GMO (genetically modified organisms) crops is naïve, anti-science and irrational to the point of hysteria.
But how long can Monsanto ignore
the mounting actual scientific evidence that their technology is not
only failing to live up to its promises, it’s putting public health at
risk?
How long can Monsanto ignore the mounting actual scientific evidence
that their technology is not only failing to live up to its promises,
it’s putting public health at risk?
Jim Goodman, farmer, activist and member of the Organic Consumers Association policy advisory board, recently wrote about Monsanto’s deceptive use of the expression “sound science.”
But, ‘sound science’ has no scientific definition. It does not mean
peer reviewed, or well documented research. ‘Sound science’ is only a
term, an ideological term, used to support a particular point of view,
policy statement or a technology. ‘Sound science’ is little more than
the opinions of so-called “experts” representing corporate
interests.Simply put, ‘sound science’ always supports the position of
industry over people, corporate profit over food safety, the environment
and public health.
Here are five new reports and studies, published in the last two
months, that blow huge holes in Monsanto’s “sound science” story.
Reports of everything from Monsanto’s Roundup causing fatal, chronic kidney disease to how, contrary to industry claims, Roundup persists for years,contaminating soil, air and water. And oh-by-the-way, no, GMO crops will not feed the world, nor have they reduced the use of herbicides and pesticides.
