PBS just ran a 2 hour special: Harvest of Fear on the GMO issue. Please read the review below by Tom Mathews. Then please go to the PBS website and vote NO!
And pass this on to everyone: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/ There are 7 opportunities to vote interspersed with biased information and quotes... An interesting option at the last opportunity to vote: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/exist/arguments.html - "This your final chance to make a decision. If you like, you may review all 12 arguments for and against before committing." As of 10 am. 4/25/01: Of the 3754 readers who have responded so far: 27% said we should grow GM crops, 69% said we should not grow GM crops, 2% are undecided. Send your thoughts to <[email protected]>. Please put "GM Crops" in the subject header. They will post selected responses. "Please note your contribution may be edited for clarity." ----------forwarded message---------- From: Tom Mathews <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 To: [email protected] Subject: Frontline report gets low grade I would give the April 24 PBS Frontline report Harvest of Fear a C-minus. I taped it, hoping it might be useful in our work, but, except for a few brief excerpts, I don't believe it would be helpful as a campaign resource. The recent video prepared at Simon Frasier University is far better. I think the program was an example of lazy journalism. The writer, Jon Palfreman, went to the obvious sources, but did not do an adequate job of investigating further. I would not call this investigative journalism. The Bill Moyers report on the chemical industry a few weeks ago was investigative journalism at it's best. As Moyers said in the discussion after that program, an investigative reporter does not consult with the subject of their investigation in order to achieve balance. Here the attempt to achieve balance gave GE industry supporters far to much credibility. But, as others have noted, the fact that two hours on PBS were devoted to this topic shows we have made progress. Statements by GE opponents were at least presented to the public, unfortunately along with much unchallenged or inadequately rebuted industry propaganda. Statements by Jeremy Rifkin, Jane Rissler, and the Greenpeace representative were very good. I can review the tape, time permitting, if anyone needs a fact or quote looked up. Here are some problems I saw with the Frontline program: 1. It portrays opponents of agricultural genetic engineering as terrorists, opening with a report on the fire at Michigan State University, and returning to that incident towards the end of the program. 2. Far too few scientists who oppose agricultural GE were interviewed. In fact, I think Jane Rissler of the Union of Concerned Scientists was the only opposition scientist interviewed. Some of her statements, especially about labeling, were good. But the many other opposition scientists like Martin Teitel, Mae-Won Ho, Miguel Altieri, and many others were ignored. 3. The substantial equivalence rationalization used by the FDA was presented as good science and was not challenged. Gas chromatography studies done by industry were accepted uncritically as proof of substantial equivalence. 4. It was accepted without challenge that Bt toxin, except for the Starlink variant, is safe for human consumption, in the huge quantities produced by Bt corn plants. 5. The phrase "scientists say" was repeatedly used to present pro-GE arguments, without noting that other scientists dispute those claims. Example: Scientists say we have been tampering with the genetic makeup of organism for centuries. 6. The false statement that GE is more precise than conventional breeding was made and not challenged. 7. It was stated that Fishberry, the genetic engineering of a strawberry plant by the addition of a fish gene, was never actually done. I was under the impression that this was an actual GE organism, though never commercialized. 8. Golden Rice was portrayed as a success, and its developer, Ingo Petroykus (sp.?) portrayed as a hero, even though the amout of vitamin A precursor it produces is to low to be of benefit. 9. It was stated without challenge that organic agriculture has failed in Africa. However, the type of subsistance agriculture practiced in Africa should not be considered modern organic agriculture. 10. No third world opponent of GE was interviewed. Vandan Shiva ought to have been interviewed. 11. The fact that if population in a country is growing food, must be available (See Daniel Quinn's books) was not discussed. The fact that enough food is grown in the world was dismissed as nonsense by GE supporter Florence Wambugu, whose questionable statements that transport of this food is too expensive, and people will not eat food given to them as charity went unchallenged. 12. Towards the end of the program the following preposterous statement was made: "Because the GE controversy has made us question the safety of the food we eat, we are all better off." As if people and the environment have benefited from GE agriculture!! 13. At the end of the program, the situation was portrayed as basically hopeless, as it was noted that GE ingredients have been now been found in foods labeled GE-free. 14. The developers of a GE papaya were portrayed as heros under attack by evil opponents of GE. 15. The program dragged terribly. It was not worth two hours of the viewer's time. It wasted much time on such things as footage of people eating food, as if we had never seen that before. This was just filler--lazy journalism like we see on the local TV news every evening. Tom Mathews - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT to [email protected] -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: [email protected] -or- [email protected] with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. To post, address your message to: [email protected] Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
