The hoax about a "multi F_ super food" foisted on the G 20, is still circulating around the net, set off by the link below and other's generous quotations from it.
The story is a crock, or rather, a pingo of detritus.
Read it for yourself at:
GM may be on the agenda at the G20 summit
The Times, April 1 2009
A few clues to its mischief:
"... involve the most ambitious use of multi-stacked genes to date, and has already been dubbed "a multi F-ing super food", because of its ability to feed, fuel and fortify the world, while helping to undercut the financial crisis.
In a press release Hugh Grant, Monsanto's CEO, commented, "Not only do one in three people go to bed every night malnourished and not knowing where their next meal will come from, but many of us can barely afford to run our hummers. ......
Prof. Pingo Detritus, who's been heading up the international project, said, "This breakthrough is of such monumental importance, that it's vital that the G20 leaders now unite behind this inspirational global endeavour ..."
Why is this important to check our facts?
First, we need hope as well as outrage. We have had some significant victories and made great ground in all sorts of ways:
-The Members of the European Parliament (MEP) are listening to the people, who are rationally cautious of GE food and are poised to toughen right up.
-Its apparent that the methodology and so called "peer review of the biotech corporation's studies are suspect and not surprisingly so given their tremendous influence with congress and government.
- substantial equivalence isn't holding up
- independent, peer reviewed scientific studies are showing very unacceptable results (something a lot of us suspected ) e.g.. feeding studies are showing toxicity,
-Many countries don't want it and have banned it
- crop disasters and disappointing results (e.g. 3 varieties of Monsanto corn in south African didn't set seed!)
-common folk, the world over are growing gardens and saving seed
- there are little bright lights of regional independence from gmos (GE crops) everywhere.
- and lots more examples
Credibility is a murky word on the net. Facts are easily destroyed or buried with some well positions strikes on one's authority, or fitness, to speak.
What is is left is fact checking and honest reassessment/discussion of what has been said. Trust is built with frankness and goodwill. The Dr. Pingo scenario, while certainly a possible future reality, is bloody well not with us now.
If we speak nonsense to argue against gmos or bad food safety bills, our credibility is questioned; there is no reasonable argument for discrediting the precautionary principle. There is ample to discredit the "multi F_ super food" story.
Does the industry help us along these blind treacherous alleys?