Look at what an American RTI has recently revealed.
Basically, while the talk has been in the air for long, there's hard
evidence now indicating that some reputed scientists and public
intellectuals who have been speaking in support of GMOs, who have been
quoted as credible sources on the topic by mainstream news media and
reputed publications, and who have been severely criticizing (and
downright insulting in many cases) the people speaking out against
GMOs, while claiming that they were completely unbiased and were not
taking any money from GMO companies like Monsanto for saying what they
..It tuns out they were lying and cheating with their students, their
peers and the public all this time. They were being paid by the
companies that they publicly supported as unbiased voices.
And reading the articles, there is an indication that the rot might be
widespread. If you know people applying for biotech or similar courses
in US universities, please share this with them. And this could very
well apply to India too.. at a conference here in Pune some UoP
students mentioned that their professors are actively supporting GMOs.
By the way, did anybody reading the news on GMO crop trials in
Maharashtra notice something funny:
What is Dr. Anil Kakodkar, a famed proponent for the nuclear power
plants and officially known as a nuclear scientist and expert in
nuclear physics, doing at the head of a panel that is deciding on
GMOs? What authority does he have to brand all safety concerns as
invalid if his expertise is in nuclear physics and not in plant
biology? If he's merely heading other scientists' work then why aren't
the people giving the verdict being mentioned.. why is it all being
quoted with his name on it? Why has he been allowed to brand all
concerns as invalid just because they haven't changed from the
concerns raised a few years back? How did freshness/novelty of
concerns suddenly become a qualifying factor for validity? Why are his
statements being reprinted verbatim without anyone bothering to
question whether he has actually resolved the earlier concerns or not,
or even share what they were or what the methods for resolution were?
When did the fields of nuclear physics and crop biology suddenly start
to have so much in common with each other? And if this man is really
the next Leonardo Da Vinci (ie, being an authoritative expert in many
different fields) of our time, then why aren't we nominating him for a
Nobel Prize or something?
For those still wondering how to separate the grain from the chaff on
the GMO issue, how's this proposal:
How about conducting actual SCIENTIFIC confined indoor trials (both
growing and feeding) on GMOs to test for possible dangers to public
health before doing non-scientific open-air field trials that only
test for economic yield and will not give any results about safety?
Sounds like a sensible idea, right? So why are Monsanto etc, through
Intellectual Proprietary Rights (IPR) laws, banning any independent
third party from conducting these same trials on their GMO seeds? If
they were so confident about their safety, then why not allow anyone
to test them?
Does Godrej ban everyone else from testing their refrigerators and air
conditioners for energy efficiency? Does Maruti or Hyundai ban
everyone from testing their cars for safety? Does Coca Cola ban
everyone from testing their drinks for pesticide traces? If not then
why do seed companies get the special privilege? Is this in our
children's best interests? If a company is found behaving this way,
what does that tell you about their products?