In Response to a Misunderstanding

Major “Scientific” magazine won’t share the fact that pesticide usage has increased since the inception of GMOs. “We’re concerned about backlash from our members and potentially getting into a battle with the GMO industry.” ~ Food Babe’s FB page, representative of typical social network drivel

“We’re concerned about . . . Potentially getting into a battle with the GMO industry” is anything but grounds to attack Science.

Their deference to industry is not out of respect; they simply realize that they have nothing near the budget to resist being shut down by corporations of that size should they decide to take offense.

Leveling barbs at Science and Nature for a failure to realize that they do not have the luxury of operating in an editorial vacuum does little to bolster confidence in the legitimacy of the anti-GMO case, even if it might be legitimate.

As Bronner himself said — as quoted in this article, no less — “Science and Nature magazines, like the scientific enterprise in general, are not above the fray.” That has everything to do with the hands that control the flow of cash and little with the “enterprise” itself.

Pull the trigger on the right folks if you want to effect change. Otherwise, all you are is a groomed black sheep: Proudly against the grain, but a sheep, nonetheless.

This is response to general criticisms of Science and Nature levied by “activists”, themselves in response to those magazines’ rejection of an advertorial by an essay-advertorial by David Bronner, CEO of Dr Bronner´s Magic Soaps. It is better suited for my blog than as a direct response.

I won’t detail my own views, here. They’re more complicated than can be detailed in a short aside to a short blog post — as they very well should be. Suffice to say, I’m farther to the left than you, and I love the soap.