There is something nauseatingly ingenious about the Huffington Post. A website that rose to prominence by shamelessly copying and pasting other people's work, it proudly refuses to pay most of its writers and has almost no editorial standards. In 2011, this journalistic dumpster fire was sold to AOL for $315 million. Utterly brilliant. It's like robbing a bank and having the police pay you for community service.
One of the latest contributions from HuffBlow to the national dialogue comes courtesy of self-described teenage "food safety activist" Rachel Parent, who skyrocketed to fame after giving an anti-GMO talk for Tedx and debating Kevin O'Leary. Her new article is titled "GMO Propaganda Has No Place In Your Child's Classroom." She then goes on to regurgitate her own propaganda.
PR spin proclaims that GM is safe
No, scientific studies proclaim that GM is safe. A massive review, which examined 1,783 documents, concluded that GMOs were safe for people, animals, and the environment. In fact, the consensus on GMOs is every bit as strong as that on climate change. Picking and choosing the science that one supports is perhaps the biggest hallmark of propaganda.
The PR spin in favor of GM is relentless, however, and is becoming embedded in our education system.
This is disturbing coming from a person who calls herself a "GMO educator." Going far beyond "teach the controversy," Ms. Parent seems to believe that there is nothing positive to say about GMOs. In her opinion, any pro-GMO material is, by definition, a lie. That's not education; that's propaganda.
[O]rganic farming is more suited for feeding the world.
Figures who front the PR strategy are invited to give talks as guest speakers or pose as independent science experts, while doing their best to hide their close ties to these corporations.
Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The Genetic Literacy Project reports that Ms. Parent’s father is the CEO of a multi-million dollar company, called Nutrition House, that peddles GMO-free dietary supplements of dubious nutritional value.
[S]ome teachers do not carry out adequate research about issues they teach about… The result is that students are exposed to a one-sided story full of falsehoods and convenient omissions.
Here’s a thought experiment. The next time you hear or read an anti-GMO argument, imagine replacing the term "GMO" with something else, like "evolution" or "climate change." That will give you an idea of the anti-intellectual, pseudoscientific nature of the anti-GMO movement.