posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 12:57 PM
I am terribly worried about this.
I am following these developments and can't help but wonder if we are not being "set-up" to lose the battle against food monopolies based on gene
Now, I must maintain that I object to the mechanisms used to create and deploy a better food source. My objection is based upon some side issues that
matter to me. For example: that any improvement to the hardiness or yield of any food product should not lead to a commercial monopoly; that any
such changes - either via horticultural, chemical, or biological manipulation of the food source's physiology or ecological load, should be
well-tested and publicly open to review (no trade secrets) ... and my most cynical tendency is that those producing the food be obliged to eat it.
Now, this relates to the issue in a way that disturbs me.... when the initial study was released by the French researchers, there was an immediate
public relations reaction on the part of any media chain that has a corporate relationship to the big money behind and within Monsanto.
Many (read the threads) news outlets scoured their contact lists drudging up every University professor, quasi-governmental, or notable talking head
to make certain that we understood that "they" have no confidence in the research and went so far as to point out that this researcher (and or his
or her group) was suspect of not undertaking "good science" and being determined to a preconceived outcome.
In fact, they made it seem clear that they were prepared to report many inconsistencies in the data and methodology of the study. Some claimed the
test animals were predisposed to tumors, that the sample size was too small, or that the math was done wrong. They have reported anything but
confidence in the report about cancer-causing-GMO-maize.
Now - what if the entire exercise was to use bad research to make this claim, get a bunch of press on it - and then, when the time is right;
destroying the research to create a "GMO vindication" moment in the minds of the public. They have already succeeded in making most of the world
believe that their crops yield more (even when they don't) and that farmers LOVE this stuff.... even though it costs them more, restricts their
farming practices, creates long-term indebtedness to the patent-holding giant, and even forces them to buy special tractor tires which were getting
destroyed by newer-better-more hardy the corn stalks.
I hope we don't get taken by the marketing folks; who seem well on their way to making these research results seem like the work of