This is a response that I made in the comments section for that article. I am aware that it is categorized as "commentary", but that doesn't diminish the necessity to put this shill, which she seems adamant to paint herself as, in her place on this issue. The issue is GM crops, in the end, but it is specifically about the fledgling "golden rice" that is apparently being manufactured, and thus sold (and therein comes the downsides) to curb the advent of Vitamin A Deficiency (or "VAD"). With my ever-growing knowledge of the dark side of the GMO market, I can only sense negative implications with this crop, amongst the many genetically-modified crops already present (such as virtually all corn you'll buy anymore, as well as nectarines & tomatoes). What's worse is that you can't escape from GM crops, as they are taking more hold on the agriculture industry than otherwise, and Monsanto owns over 90% of the shares of said market.
Without much further ado, I'll present to you the comment that I authored on that page. It had a maximum character count, but it was surprisingly enough to write what I wanted to. I've added a bit more "exclusively" for this post. Just a quick note: it appears that the overwhelming majority of comments get down-voted, thus hinting at a frightfully unattractive community of nitwits.
---
How much were you paid to outright promote GM crops, Mrs. Wente? Your credibility went right out the window when you said that GM crops improve health, which they don't. I'm referring to the following paragraph, completely un-edited so as to not manipulate any information for readers:
Genetically engineered crops do far more than improve people’s health. They can dramatically boost yields in places such as Africa. They are the key to feeding the world’s exploding population. But GM opponents have been tragically successful in stalling the spread of modified crops to the people most in need of it. In China, where people are already terrified about food safety because of major scandals over tainted milk powder, GM crops are generally shunned.
Previously, you decried Greenpeace's skepticism in the risks and implications that are not-yet-known, but at the same time quite possible, with the consumption of this new "golden rice." Keep in mind Mrs. Wente that these are genetically modified crops, and given how it appears that every GM crop causes implications in health and even in economics & biodiversity (after all, GM crops negatively impact natural crops), you made yourself appear quite one-sided. Here is the excerpt where you fail to defend your claims with a source while attacking Greenpeace's necessary skepticism:
The last thing Greenpeace wants is for Golden Rice to be effective. It insists that the rice poses all kinds of environmental and health risks, even though repeated risk assessments by leading scientific bodies have found no such risks. In fact, according to scientists at the University of California, GM rice reduces pesticide use and improves farmers’ health.Oh, brother. In regards to the last sentence, do you have a study to back up your counter-claim? You should, as a "journalist", provide any and all information to such studies, via sourcing. Let's also not forget how aggressive Monsanto gets with this method of stifling opposition to the ever-growing GM crop market. They pay many "study groups" to produce results that coincide with Monsanto's wishes. They really are that scared of groups like Greenpeace, who help keep people aware of the industry's malpractices.
You're also ignoring the economic implications that GM crops will bring about. I know that the inventor of the GM crop had good intentions with the idea, but that idea has become a ploy to gain a monopoly over what is inarguably the most important industry on earth; agriculture. Monsanto is notable in their quest to dominate the agriculture business by:
1) Owning all parties involved in the agriculture industry with their patents and corporate takeovers.
-and-
2) Using patents to eliminate competition, and the products that they manufacture in greater amounts to destroy any chance of would-be competitors gaining any ground (high costs of seeds, eliminator genes in said seeds which prevents sustained re-growth, buying pathetically weak politicians who implement loopholes and laws to protect Monsanto's interests, etc.).
Another economic hurdle will be in how much money is spent on these crops. Millions will be spent on producing this product, but read on further. Greenpeace is right when they note how it is not yet known what side-effects of consuming this rice will bring about. You can ignore it all you want in favor of "feeding the poor", but if it has impacts on health, then it'll do more harm than good in the long run. So to invest in this new product which only addresses VAD, while at the same time there are proven healthy methods of addressing VAD as well as other nutritional concerns such as supplements, proves how short-sighted you are, Mrs. Wente.
Shame on this Roger Cooper (a user who wrote a comment on this article previously) for exploiting the sad fact that millions of people around the world are malnourished and starving, while ignoring the sad fact that the parties involved in the sale of GM crops are only in it for the money and nothing more. Only bad things can come of that, especially if this product gains a foothold in its market and gives the producers an excuse to increase their stranglehold on said market.
I feel pity for those who fall to the temptation of money, and let it blind them, or allows them to demonstrably deceive those who seek information on the issues that really affect us, like the things we eat to survive. After all, Monsanto doesn't give a spit if you are a healthy individual, just as long as you depend on their often poisonous, artificial "food" products. Politicians routinely display their cowardice, their weakness in resisting the temptation of money to keep them in power, and Monsanto & its few competitors easily stifle progress in the industry this way. It's one of the many reasons why I think all politicians should be fired and lose all their money.
I understand the need to feed as many people as possible, but this actually proves to be a double-edged sword; it is causing the hopeful in these decidedly third-world nations to have to depend on Monsanto more and more, paying more and more money because of the dreaded eliminator seeds. It's also a burden against people who still luckily possess natural, or semi-natural crop seeds because should Monsanto be made aware of any growth they feel would impede on their control of the world's agriculture markets, they'll do what they can to stifle the growth, or sue those in question, or take over their resources, or easily do all three.
Margaret Wente should be ashamed for this shilling, but I doubt she is. She gets paid for it, so why should she be? Money brings down many an otherwise respectable individual, and she appears to be no exception. If anything, I wish for her sake that she didn't stupidly destroy any semblance of credibility she had with the paragraph (which I quoted, and that's the first one I quoted in this post) where she didn't hold back in defending the GM market. You might as well be a spy stating outright to his/her targets that you're spying on them with this gaffe. It didn't bolster her argument one iota, and only proved Greenpeace's point.
With that said, good job, Wente?
