In her response to my column "Planted myths about GMOs," Ellen Slack wrote that Monsanto “has a very long reach into the political and scientific communities.” Though it is matter of joy that Slack took the time to read my column, it pains me that she didnot understand that this is exactly the kind of baseless allegations that I wrote against.
Her argument regarding Gilles-Éric Séralini’s experiment completely ignores the fact that the study design had numerous flaws, the raw data in its entirety has not been released and that the journal that republished the study is very new and is not yet considered a reliable source by the scientific community. There are many great articles that tackle this issue and to recapitulate their points here would be a waste of this paper’s precious real estate.
Also, Slack's implication that Monsanto’s “shills” are busy doling out pro-GMO propaganda is unfounded and definitely a form of the ad hominem attack on activists who have nothing to gain other than the satisfaction of dispelling ignorance. I would like to repeat the point that I made in my original article: Please take some time to study the issue before you perpetuate myths and lies, and keep the conversation civil.Comments powered by Disqus
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.