In response to Nature Biotechnology

Why Nature Biotechnology's "Truth" Is A Dodgy Option

By GM Watch

There's more than an irony about the recent editorial from the journal Nature Biotechnology. It tells pro-GM scientists that to win the GM debate they need to stand up for the truth. It says that only the constant repetition of "basic truths" will establish "the facts" and counter the "myths" about the hazards of GM food. But, revealingly, the editorial is itself built upon a lie.

The editorial begins by contrasting the publicity surrounding the recent E. coli O157 contamination of spinach in the US with that surrounding the contamination of US rice by the unapproved genetically engineered rice, LL601.

On the one hand, says the editorial, the publicity surrounding the unapproved rice was full of alarm and misinformation, including repackaged myths of GM hazards. This in spite of the fact that the GM rice was perfectly safe and its turning up in the food supply was of no possible public concern: "Nothing to see. Nothing happened. Move right along with your life."

On the other hand, the editorial says, the truth of the E. coli outbreak was that organic spinach seems to have caused significant numbers of people to get sick and some possibly to die. Yet the publicity surrounding this calamity was very restrained:

"none of the press stories suggested... organic fresh produce per se was hazardous, that combinations of 'organic' and 'spinach' were simply a time-bomb waiting to go off, that greedy growers were seeking to hoodwink the public about the so-called 'health benefits' of organic salad..."

It's hard to know where to begin with this, but here are some basic facts. There is no scientific evidence that organic spinach caused anyone to get sick or die. All 13 of the bags of spinach which were found to contain E. Coli O157 came from conventional farms - not one was organic.
http://www.dailyevergreen.com/story/19810

This raises the interesting question as to how - if, as the editorial claims, the publicity surrounding the E. coli outbreak was both balanced and restrained - the editorial writer managed to gain, and then convey, such a totally false impression.

Well, here is an extract from just one of the pieces that made it onto AgBioView, a listserv popular with pro-GM scientists, including perhaps the editorial writers of Nature Biotechnology.

"I was visiting my sister in Wisconsin when news broke about the deadly E. coli outbreak linked to contaminated spinach from an organic farming operation in California. It killed a woman in Wisconsin and sickened hundreds...

...it occurred to me that the people who died and those who suffered have also been victimized by a shrewd propaganda campaign run by activist groups that oppose the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.

For decades, American consumers have been bombarded with messages from activist groups claiming that organic foods are safer, healthier and better for the environment. Today, organic products command shelf space in supermarkets across the country. But the activists never mentioned that using cow manure instead of synthetic fertilizers poses risks, including E. coli contamination."

Does this sound balanced and restrained? Or does it sound like it's looking for a broad brush with which to smear organic food and everyone who criticises intensive agriculture?

And consider these headlines from some of the other articles that AgBioView used to frame the contaminated spinach issue:
* Sinister Spinach
* When Spinach Is Bad For You
* Organic Company Disputes Tainted Spinach Claim
* Researchers say deadly bacteria may be in, not on, spinach
* E. coli also a concern for home gardeners
* Enjoy Organic Foods Including Spinach While Avoiding E. coli
* 21 reasons not to waste your money on organic
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7066
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7084
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7069

The latter piece contained such claims as, "Organic food may contain more carcinogens, nerve toxins and oestrogen mimics."
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7066

As this might suggest, the disinformation around E. coli and organic spinach that made its way into multiple op-ed pieces and onto Anerican talk radio, quite apart from AgBioView, was not something new but just the latest episode in a long-running campaign to smear organic food and farming, in which GM proponents have played a leading role.
http://www.gmwatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=7&page=1&op=1

Not content, though, with basing its rallying cry for truth on scare-mongering about organics, the Nature Biotechnology editorial then uses another classic technique of the black propagandist - guilt by association.

It does this by drawing parallels between the GM debate and how it says the research community in the UK was forced to stand up to "a vicious campaign of physical and economic intimidation by extreme animal rights campaigners". According to the editorial, it was only by encouraging the British government to introduce draconian seeming penalties, that the biotech and pharmaceutical industries marginalised "illegal protesters", diminished "public support for animal rights extremism" and reclaimed "the center ground".

The research community needs to stand up for GM foods, the editorial implies, in a similarly robust fashion. But, by association, it makes those critical of GM part of a realm that's "vicious", "extreme" and "illegal", and that's marked by violence and "intimidation".

Just as revealing as the guilt by association is the way the editorial of a science journal aimed ostensibly at all scientists interested in the subject of biotechnology, makes "the research community" interchangeable with the biotech industry. The two are treated as if syonymous:

'GM products will continue to be marginalized in Europe as long as industry remains silent'

'the research community has all but disengaged itself from the debate'

'those who know the most have the least to say'

'the UK biotech industry finally found a voice'

'illegal protesters, rather than the industry, have been marginalized'

So when the editorial concludes, "the debate is not about convincing your opponents of the error of their ways. It is about establishing your arguments and your position in the center ground," the implication seems to be that whether "you" - the reader - are a humble researcher in a publicly funded institute or a corporate executive in the biotech industry, you, your views and your interests are entirely one and the same.

This lack of critical distance does not just bedevil this particular editorial, it is the cancer at the heart of the GM project. And in such an intellectual environment, it's entirely unsurprising that a recent study revealed that even when publishing papers in science journals, scientists working in this area are failing to be open with the public about their financial vested interests.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7221

Why should they when journals editorialise without regard for honesty, and treat the interests of scientists and corporations as if they were the same?

(For more on the misleading language used by GM proponents: http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=68&page=1 )