As I sit in my kitchen reading through the various
newspapers from the last weeks, I am once again
disappointed (even disgusted) by the dogma
presented in the free Alberta Farmer Express
publication. I haven't even read all the articles,
because the jest of this publications stories is
almost always the same.
Big global GMO agriculture - good; small organic
or non-gm family farms - bad, is the message
from those publishing this free paper.
Pushing, along with the CCA, the irradiation of
meat instead of feeding and slaughtering
practices that would seriously reduce any chance
of contamination. Let the packing plants run at
break-neck speeds, so what if the hygiene
practices are substandard - irradiation will cover-
up their deficiencies.
Oh, and drones are good! Yes, agriculture drones
used to inspect crops are exactly the same as
military drones, so the casual use of the word
"drone" is innocent. I guess farmers are getting
so out of shape they can't walk about in their own
fields. I'm not saying that these arial views aren't
going to be helpful, it's just the authors flippant
comparison to military drones used to launch side
winder missiles to kill people, or their use with spy
cameras used to invade citizen privacy, that
upsets me.
The kicker article, is " Scientists say new study
shows pig health hurt by GM feed". The first two
paragraph leads the reader to find a specific
conclusion.
Using the words "controversial new study" and
then "label the study as flawed" directly subject
the reader to a biased conclusion. The 22.7 week
study on 168 pigs shows two disturbing findings:
the GM only diet caused higher rates of severe
stomach inflammation, and also caused the
female uterus to be 25% heavier compared to
pigs fed non-gm feed.
But, Monsanto and CropLife International claim
their studies disprove this new one. The article
clearly shows bias and helps the reader who is
more than likely a pro GM, pro chemical farmer to
justify his/her opinion is correct. Instead, they
should be questioning their belief and asking
more questions about the study. How is it
flawed? What makes it controversial? Is it only
controversial because it gives damning evidence
against GM crops? How does severe
inflammation of the stomach translate to potential
human conditions? Etc.
When will there be sufficient evidence of harm to
change your minds about some of the new
agrotechnologies? Do you really expect
Monsanto or CropLife International to come out
with a study that claims their product could be
harmful?
Trash like Alberta Farmer Express are free in the
mail for a reason, if they had to survive off of
consumer subscriptions they'd be done for. It is a
product of corporate advertising selling us a pro-
company message, period.
I hope their message is not that of the majority.
newspapers from the last weeks, I am once again
disappointed (even disgusted) by the dogma
presented in the free Alberta Farmer Express
publication. I haven't even read all the articles,
because the jest of this publications stories is
almost always the same.
Big global GMO agriculture - good; small organic
or non-gm family farms - bad, is the message
from those publishing this free paper.
Pushing, along with the CCA, the irradiation of
meat instead of feeding and slaughtering
practices that would seriously reduce any chance
of contamination. Let the packing plants run at
break-neck speeds, so what if the hygiene
practices are substandard - irradiation will cover-
up their deficiencies.
Oh, and drones are good! Yes, agriculture drones
used to inspect crops are exactly the same as
military drones, so the casual use of the word
"drone" is innocent. I guess farmers are getting
so out of shape they can't walk about in their own
fields. I'm not saying that these arial views aren't
going to be helpful, it's just the authors flippant
comparison to military drones used to launch side
winder missiles to kill people, or their use with spy
cameras used to invade citizen privacy, that
upsets me.
The kicker article, is " Scientists say new study
shows pig health hurt by GM feed". The first two
paragraph leads the reader to find a specific
conclusion.
Using the words "controversial new study" and
then "label the study as flawed" directly subject
the reader to a biased conclusion. The 22.7 week
study on 168 pigs shows two disturbing findings:
the GM only diet caused higher rates of severe
stomach inflammation, and also caused the
female uterus to be 25% heavier compared to
pigs fed non-gm feed.
But, Monsanto and CropLife International claim
their studies disprove this new one. The article
clearly shows bias and helps the reader who is
more than likely a pro GM, pro chemical farmer to
justify his/her opinion is correct. Instead, they
should be questioning their belief and asking
more questions about the study. How is it
flawed? What makes it controversial? Is it only
controversial because it gives damning evidence
against GM crops? How does severe
inflammation of the stomach translate to potential
human conditions? Etc.
When will there be sufficient evidence of harm to
change your minds about some of the new
agrotechnologies? Do you really expect
Monsanto or CropLife International to come out
with a study that claims their product could be
harmful?
Trash like Alberta Farmer Express are free in the
mail for a reason, if they had to survive off of
consumer subscriptions they'd be done for. It is a
product of corporate advertising selling us a pro-
company message, period.
I hope their message is not that of the majority.