By Julie Kelly
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
This week, a group of environmental activists will host a
faux tribunal in The Hague to pretend to prosecute Monsanto for crimes against
humanity. The Missouri-based company sells both genetically engineered seeds
and pesticides, which makes them Enemy No. 1 of the socialist Luddites who lead
the global environmental movement.
The International Monsanto Tribunal is being spearheaded
by some of the most notable anti-GMO activists in the world, including Vandana
Shiva, a physicist and author who makes lots of money telling phony stories
about Indian farmers committing suicide because they planted genetically
modified seeds. The stunt (held in a small school in The Hague, not the
International Criminal Court) from October 14 to 16 will “hold Monsanto
accountable for human-rights violations, for crimes against humanity, and for
ecocide.”
Fake judges will listen to bogus testimony from alleged
victims to “get a ruling — even symbolic — against Monsanto to bring justice to
victims of multinationals.” A few dozen activists from around the world will
claim injuries from Roundup (a chemical manufactured by Monsanto) or
contamination from GMO crops, as if such a thing exists; of course any judgment
will have no legal standing whatsoever. But it will undoubtedly earn media
attention from agenda-driven reporters sympathetic to the cause, and it will
convince some people the whole thing is legit.
One of the groups organizing the kangaroo court is the
Organic Consumers Association, a nonprofit based in Minnesota. While its name
may connote a bunch of suburban moms, aging hippies, and pretentious
Millennials, it’s far from it. The OCA is one of the most virulent campaigners
against science and innovation, opposing nearly every benefit of modernity from
vaccines to chemicals. The group claims to represent “over 2 million members,
including several thousand businesses in the natural foods and organic
marketplace.”
Its biggest foe is modern agriculture, genetically
engineered crops in particular. The OCA started the annual Millions Against
Monsanto march held in major cities around the world to protest “the biotech
industry’s contamination of our food supply and destruction of our
environment.” (Despite its name, this year’s march in Chicago attracted only a
few dozen stragglers.)
The OCA wants a global moratorium on genetically
engineered foods and crops, accepting the myth that they harm human health and
nature, although thousands of scientific studies attest to their safety and
overall benefit to the environment. The group inhumanely opposes fortified
crops such as golden rice, a plant being developed to help ease the scourge of
Vitam A deficiency, which debilitates millions of malnourished children each
year in the global South.
At the Paris climate conference in December 2015, OCA
president Ronnie Cummins announced the Monsanto Tribunal alongside other
environmental activists, blaming climate change on — of course — big
corporations involved in farming and food: “Why is there so much carbon
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere and not enough carbon
organic matter in the soil? Corporate agribusiness, industrial forestry, and
agricultural biotechnology have literally killed the climate-stabilizing,
carbon-sink capacity of the Earth’s living soil.”
But it’s not just corporations that the OCA is going
after. Over the last few years, they’ve funded a front group called U.S. Right
to Know (USRTK) to attack public scientists who research and teach
biotechnology. USRTK is using Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to try
to dig up dirt and smear prominent scientists who speak out in favor of genetic
engineering.
The group has filed FOIA requests targeting nearly four
dozen public scientists from prominent universities including Harvard,
Stanford, and the University of Illinois, looking for any collaboration between
the researchers and the biotech industry. USRTK is particularly focused on the
University of California–Davis, one of the top agricultural-sciences schools in
the world, and it has served UC-Davis with 17 public-records requests since
early 2015. Last March, USRTK sought e-mails from eleven UC-Davis professors
and staffers, requesting all correspondence between staff and companies such as
Monsanto and Syngenta, PR firms associated with the biotech industry, and even
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which funds crop projects around the
world.
Kent Bradford, director of UC-Davis’s Seed Biotechnology
Center, hit back. “We are not a ‘sock puppet’ or a ‘shill’ for anyone. We
strongly reject USRTKs fundamental premise that public–private collaborations
are conspiracies. . . . I am not concerned about the content of our
communications, although I cannot prevent selective editing by USRTK in their
attempts to justify their false conspiracy theories.” Despite finding no proof
that industry influenced the targeted scientists in any inappropriate way,
USRTK twisted e-mails to defame some scientists and inflict serious damage on
their reputations. At USRTKs prompting, the scientists have been relentlessly
harassed and have even received death threats from anti-GMO activists.
Not only is USRTK diverting researchers from doing their
job and creating lots of work for campus lawyers, but the group expects the
university to pay for it: Speaking for USRTK, “a nonprofit food-research
organization,” its head Gary Ruskin requested that UC-Davis scientists “waive
all fees in the public interest because . . . this will primarily benefit the
public.” But while USRTK cries poor, the group apparently has money to hire
lawyers to sue UC-Davis for not fulfilling the FOIAs fast enough; they filed a
lawsuit in August demanding that UC speed up its FOIA process.
Phony tribunals and FOIA fishing expeditions show the
desperation of the decaying anti-GMO movement. Now that the science confirms
the safety and potential of biotechnology (see the National Academy of Sciences
report of May 2016), anti-GMO activists can only resort to childish pranks and
gutter-level tactics to stay relevant. Even the Luddites would cringe.
No comments:
Post a Comment