website devoted to misinformation about GMOs

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 31 Jul 2013, 14:15

GMO Answers is funded by the members of The Council for Biotechnology Information, which includes BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto Company and Syngenta.

Balanced or what?

Anyone fancy taking on the feckers? They 'invite discussion' which of course is code for uninviting people who are too much for them.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 31 Jul 2013, 17:00

First one in:

Nice and easy to start....

If a GM crop cross-pollinates with a neighbouring non-GM crop and the owner of the neighbouring non-GM crop goes on to sell seeds from his now GM-contaminated crop, will he be liable to being chased by the GMO company for trying to sell what they consider to be copyrighted GM organic material?

I've got loads more ..

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 31 Jul 2013, 17:09

Fair play to you Steve.

And here's a question on the site:

Is this website part of a PSYOPs type initiative designed to distract visitors from the truth?

The question could be answered by other questions, which I'll quote from here:

If you had a question about how to protect yourself from a criminal known to break into houses in your neighborhood, would you ask him how to protect your home and then take his suggestions, or would you be suspicious he might be answering them in a way that would make your home even easier to encroach?

If you had a question about the honesty and integrity of a person in an authority position, would you ask that person to investigate himself and then accept his findings?

Well, that's quite a common procedure, innit? You know, like self-regulation or internal enquiries. So that makes it ok, yes?

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 31 Jul 2013, 17:17

I just noticed too, there are a hell of a lot of questions unanswered or pending (look under 'latest') - maybe hundreds. Some are repeat questions from different people, a common one asking why they spend millions preventing labelling in the states, when they say they've nothing to hide.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 31 Jul 2013, 18:21

emordnilap wrote:I just noticed too, there are a hell of a lot of questions unanswered or pending (look under 'latest') - maybe hundreds. Some are repeat questions from different people, a common one asking why they spend millions preventing labelling in the states, when they say they've nothing to hide.

So do you think they are deliberately only providing answers to chosen questions?

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 01 Aug 2013, 03:16

Would they do that???

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 01 Aug 2013, 11:34

stevecook172001 wrote:
emordnilap wrote:I just noticed too, there are a hell of a lot of questions unanswered or pending (look under 'latest') - maybe hundreds. Some are repeat questions from different people, a common one asking why they spend millions preventing labelling in the states, when they say they've nothing to hide.
So do you think they are deliberately only providing answers to chosen questions?

You should ask them.

Trouble is, if they answer, it'll follow some predictable lines and not the honest ones.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 01 Aug 2013, 12:45

Steve, do you have the report linked to in this article? Keep a copy on your desktop for instant referral!

And keep posting the questions, do.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 01 Aug 2013, 13:52

This may be useful too, guys.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 04 Aug 2013, 19:36

emordnilap wrote:Steve, do you have the report linked to in this article? Keep a copy on your desktop for instant referral!

And keep posting the questions, do.

Thanks for that E. Also. the buggers haven’t answered my question yet either.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 04 Aug 2013, 20:11

Just had a look at the site. They don't provide honest answers, mere political manouvering. It's a waste of server space.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 04 Aug 2013, 20:13

woodburner wrote:Just had a look at the site. They don't provide honest answers, mere political manouvering. It's a waste of server space.

Very true, in all respects. Goebbels would approve of it.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 04 Aug 2013, 20:27

So would Owen Paterson.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 13 Sep 2013, 11:11

And now, a booklet to use alongside the website:

Food Biotechnology: A Communicator’s Guide to Improving Understanding, 3rd edition

Even the title made me chunder.

A (3.15MB) pdf of it can be downloaded or read on-screen here and is available in multiple languages.

Particularly interesting is the section, "Words to use, words to lose". Examples include replacing words or phrases such as "scientific advancements" and "technology" with "commitment" and "inspired"

or "not a direct danger to human health; most research has not
found an adverse effect" with "provide safe, healthful, sustainable crops". You get the picture.

There's a great section on "tough questions" and the answers are a politico's dream; if ever a language was used slimily, this is it. Check it out, it's fascinating and you'll have a larf. Or is it barf?

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 13 Sep 2013, 16:09

Looks as if Fille could do her A Level English project on it!