Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience
Showing Original Post only (View all)Michael Pollan as GMO ‘denialist’ dupes credulous New York Times [View all]
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/22/michael-pollan-brags-about-twisting-facts-to-support-anti-gmo-activism-and-duping-credulous-new-york-times/#.Umg-B53n_IW"This title is stark. Stay with me. This is not a hit piece on Michael Pollan. This is a disturbing story about the misuse of the power of journalism by one of the most, if not the most, influential food writers in the world.
Strong words. Read on.
Michael Pollan is a big deal, arguably more influential on agriculture policy than the Secretary of Agriculture and certainly one of the most powerful figures in journalism. He is the author of five books, all best sellers, professor of journalism at the University of California-Berkeley and one of the most cited and quoted commentators on food and the farm in the world, with more than 330,000 followers on Twitter, many of whom consider him a hero. Although the public perception of him is just the opposite, he is not a reputable science journalist orby his own admissionan objective reporteron organics or agriculture.
...
But what is the real world according to Pollan? What does he say and write when he is not among friends at Grist or participating in fawning PDAs with a fellow foodie for Smithsonian magazine. The reality is that Pollan regularly, and increasingly, talks out of both sides of his mouththere, I wrote itand because of his influence he is inflaming a discussion about crop biotechnology that has already gone off the rails.
..."
A very thorough, interesting piece.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
53 replies, 27271 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
53 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ok, let's look to the scientists for safety of 'food additives,' where most are exposed to GMOs.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#1
YOU: Reject Pollan on GMOs, not a scientist. ME: Fine. Read this knowing that GMOs = food additives.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#6
Food additives derived from GMO corn, GMO soy, GMO canola, GMO cottonseed are indeed 'GMOs.'
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#11
I said you were in la la land, and then you further prove it with your response.
HuckleB
Oct 2013
#13
The science-based links are at odds with the business-based links. Got cognitive dissonance?
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#19
SEE POST #1, please note depth and breadth of analysis of currently abysmal state of affairs.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#21
Hardly. Here are all the links separated from the news aggregating sites you're so fond of dissing.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#23
That translates into a whole lotta recent science w zero relevance of personal attacks on M.Pollan.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#24
The update was to my own post which lit up the yellow tab for MY POSTS and linked to this old post.
proverbialwisdom
Jan 2014
#48
PRESS RELEASE > Environmental Chemicals Harm Reproductive Health: Ob-Gyns Advocate for Policy Change
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#2
Nope, The American Society for Reproductive Medicine & The American College of Obstetricians and Gyn
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#7
GMO's are mainly consumed as food additives which scientists, not Pollan, are assessing in my links.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#12
No need to be rude. The whole world (slightly exaggerated) apart from the US is wrong? Snort. nt
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#16
Oh, please, it's a PRESS RELEASE backed by 57,000 ob-gyns + 7.000 reproductive medicine specialists.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#8
RECOMMENDED Press Statement, along with Pollan's brilliant 'Food Rules: An Eater's Manual.'
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#26
Check it out. DISCLAIMER: Recognized experts, although I have no familiarity with Robbins or event.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#31
Please see http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-09-03/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-NEW-PROTEINS
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#33
Ah, I see you've posted from the highly respected science magazine Elle
EvolveOrConvolve
Oct 2013
#35
Go figure. Your source cynically parses words or is woefully uninformed.
proverbialwisdom
Oct 2013
#38
"This is not a hit piece on Michael Pollan" - I'd hate to read what the author does consider
muriel_volestrangler
Oct 2013
#40
If that's your understanding, may I suggest due diligence necessitates additional reading?
proverbialwisdom
Jan 2014
#49