We are being confronted with very important questions about the anti-GMO movement and Mr. Ruskin, an anti-GMO activist who operates the website U.S. Right to Know. Are anti-GMOers also anti-vaxxers?2 If not, then why do they take money from anti-vaxxers?
Groups Who Hate Us
RT is Russia's propaganda outlet in the U.S. and around the world, which broadcasts "news" that advances the agenda of President Vladimir Putin. Ruskin heads U.S. Right to Know, which insists on GMO labeling as a way of scaring Americans about food safety. And USRTK gets a ton of dough from a group which is known to propagandize for RT.
Taking advantage of today's toxic, confrontational mindset are outlets like SourceWatch. The website is like a politicized, unscientific version of Wikipedia. Volunteers – rather than qualified experts – write smear articles about people and groups they don't like (one of them being us).
When people disagree with us, that's fine. But when they start throwing accusations around that we write what we write because of some secret company that's funding us, that's not fine – because it's a lie. If people are too stupid or blind to realize this, here is a little refresher course.
'Twas The Night Before Christmas, ACSH-style ...
Looking to fly to an exotic locale and enjoy catered dinners while you lament what peasants outside your hotel are doing to the environment? Then you should join fellow elites in the environmental and conservation movement at the 2016 UN Convention on Biodiversity in the resort town of Cancun.
The guidelines were born of good intentions; created to make Americans healthier. However, they were not inscribed on stone tablets and handed to mankind. Instead, the guidelines are the result of a bureaucratic process and, as such, are susceptible to dubious conclusions and adverse influence by activist groups.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest, an activist group known for nuisance lawsuits related to health issues and scaremongering just about every food in the modern world, wants the Department of Agriculture to put warning labels on bacon. Yes, bacon.
In a lawsuit CSPI, in its fifth decade as America's premier sue-and-settle faux consumer advocacy group, claims the marketing for PepsiCo's Naked Juice is "misleading" because it can have more sugar than some of Pepsi's cola drinks. We have zero interest in defending Pepsi, but it didn't create that sugar, nature did.
Some people just come right out and ask if you will simply repeat, in public, what they say. In fact, it is such a given in the anti-science community, where the technique is so common. Amazingly, brazenly, those folks often just blatantly ask each other to parrot their work, no matter how flawed it is. Here's how Friends of the Earth does it.
Environmental groups really dislike the weed killer 2,4-D. So much so, that they routinely play the "let's scare the public by calling it something else" game. What are the rules? Just make sure that whenever 2,4-D is mentioned, also refer to dioxin and Agent Orange so that everyone thinks they're the same. But they aren't. Not even close.
Dr. Mehmet Oz, that oracle of televised medical wisdom, is at it once again. This time his misguided excursion beyond the scientific realm produced his suggestion that fluoridated water is harmful. In response, the American Council on Science and Health once again plainly states that there needs to a warning label on his show.