?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

For those who think that the rekection of GMOS by so many people is based on ignorance and baseless fear, think again: it's all about the bottom line. In particular, the bottom line of the companies that are desperately fighting to keep countries, states, counties, and cities from passing GMO labeling laws.

Those companies are BUSINESSES, people, and they are run by their accountants. All the accountants care about is how much money the company will make in a given 3-month period. And THAT'S ALL.

This whole "science proves that our products are nourishing and safe" schtick companies such as Monsanto are pushing, via scientists too naive to realize what's really going on, is just like the tobacco company's push to get the American public to agree that "science has proved there is no correlation between smoking our products and illnesses such as cancer, heart attacks, and related ailments" that took place back in the 1960s and 1970s. In fact, science hadn't proved anything of the sort -- these were just made up reports released by tame public relations experts working for those companies.

The same thing may well be true of companies such as Monsanto, whose public relations releases are calculated to distract people from the back that GMO products are produced and sold by BUSINESSES, large corporations whose interest lies in making as much money as possible from the sale of their products, and damn the consequences.

No, Neil de Grasse Tyson, this is NOT a matter of 'ignorant consumers making war on science" -- it's a matter of Big Business trying to push products on consumers that don't want or need them, and waging a P.R. war on anyone who resists that or probes to see what Monsanto's products really do and contain. And science is being used as a stalking-horse by such businesses to enable them to reach their goals using behind-the-scenes campaigns and psychological warfare on the public.

Research Monsanto and similar businesses, people. I think you'll find the restults interesting.

Remember: up until the 1930s or so, businesses could patent and sell concoctions such as "medical aids" that were supposed to have miraculous healing propteries but instead could be deadly. These included Laudanum, which consisted of poppy syrup to which was added concentrated opiates, a great deal of sugar, "soothing spirits," and some herbs for taste. It was perfectly legal to sell and distribute it. Bored housewives would drink it to soothe away the tensions of unhappy marriages. Nannies would give it to babies to make them sleepy so that the nannies could do things other than take care of the babies. The housewives became addicts, and some died of overdoses -- or deliberate suicide attempts. The babies died of overdoses of the stuff.

Finally, concerned citizens, including numerous doctors and responsible pharmacists as well as the lay public, asked Congress to prevent such "snake oil" from being sold ovr the counter, without a prescription. Later, they petitioned to have Congress ban the sale and distribution of many of these prdocuts, including e.g., laudanum as well as many others. Many lives were saved by this, and snake-oil producers were prevented from ripping off the public with their shady products and manipulative advertising.

The same may have to be done to at least some GMO producers. If nothing else, they should comply with honest labeling laws, and independent scientists should analyze all their products to determine if they are safe for consumption as well as crop production and related matters. If these companies are honest, they will comply with these rules, and be able to point to their products as guaranteed safe by independent scientific testing. If they aren't . . . well, they'll pull much the same shenanigans as they are doing now, suing states which try to pass GMO labeling laws backed by the people of those states to keep such legisltion from coming into existence, bribing governments to allow them to force consumers to sign lifelong contracts guaranteeing they will by such products from those companies and no others, and otherwise trying to establish themselves as overlords dictating what consumers will eat and what not, what crops they will plant and which not, and otherwise exercising despotic powers over them.

The issues, folks, have little, if anything, to do with science. They have to do with shady business practices, downright lies to the public, and, quite likely, under-the-table payments to governments and others ensuring that the latter will push their products to everyone and sneer at anyone who doesn't want their products or their damned contracts. They have to do with a super-strong drive to amass mountains of wealth by cornering the market on food and keeping people from earting anything else. You really want to go along with that?

It's time a very public accounting was made of those companies and their operations.

Profile

Let's Roll
polaris93
Yael Dragwyla

Latest Month

November 2017
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner