[Video Link] Kevin O’Leary, co-host of the CBC business news program The Lang and O’Leary Exchange uses every dirty trick in the book to try to derail an articulate 14-year-old girl named Rachel Parent, who advocates for GMO food labeling. Every time, the girl keeps her cool and stays on track.
The conversation got ugly when O’Leary accused Parent of being a “lobbyist” against GMOs and then equated her position of questioning GMOs to somehow supporting malnutrition and the death of children. Remaining cool-headed and composed throughout his harangue, Parent countered that people have a basic right to know what’s in our food and explained she has no vested interest in honest food labeling. She then highlighted the most basic facts for O'Leary: genetically engineered crops don’t actually out-produce organic crops, GMOs are treating human beings as lab rats, and consumers have a right to know what they're buying or eating.
Today, on Twitter, I learned something new and interesting from environmental reporter Paul Voosen. Over the years, I've run into reports (like this one from the Union of Concerned Scientists) showing that genetically modified crops — i.e. Roundup Ready corn and soybeans, which is really the stuff we're talking about most of the time in these situations — don't increase intrinsic yields of those crops. But I've also seen decent-looking data that seemed to suggest exactly the opposite. So what gives?
Turns out, this is largely an issue of terminology.
Earlier today, I posted on the recent paper that claims to have found a link between eating genetically modified corn and the growth of tumors in rats. Short version: The research sucked. It's a terribly done study and it demonstrates why "peer reviewed" does not always mean "accurate".
But now, this story is getting worse. Turns out, the authors of the study (and their financial sponsor, The Sustainable Food Trust) manipulated the media to ensure that the first news stories published about the study would not be critical of its methods or results.
First, some background. When a journal is about to publish a study that they think will be big news, they usually offer the full study to reporters under an embargo system. The reporter gets to read the study, do their reporting, and write a story ... but they can't publish that story until a specific day at a specific time. If you're a daily or an online publication, there's a lot of pressure to have your story ready to go the moment the embargo lifts. Otherwise, you'll look like you weren't on the ball. There's a lot of problems with this system, but it's very common.
What's not common: Forcing journalists to sign non-disclosure agreements promising to not show the study they're reporting on to any independent researchers or outside experts. If you're trying to make sure your publication runs a story on the study right when the embargo lifts, but you can't show the study to any third-party experts before the embargo lifts, then the story you run is going to (inevitably) contain only information the authors of the study want you to talk about. Read the rest