How is it “independent from the question” when that’s the article you tweeted out? It’s what I’m replying to, but somehow doesn’t apply to what you tweeted? Makes total sense
-
-
Replying to @matthewbabula @gorskon and
Let's go back to basics. My key issue is whether Folta was taking money from Monsanto and then trying to hide the fact. Folta is suing the
@nytimes but here is what they had to say. The more recent allegations are important too if they are true. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html …2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
You’re being disingenuous. Your first tweet, which we are replying to, was about his marital life. So, now your key issue is taking money from Monsanto? So why tweet that trash in the first place if you care about it so little?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @matthewbabula @gorskon and
As a
#MeToo
reporter I am definitely concerned about those allegations as well, but also about the role of researchers who advocate for GMO safety and how objective they are.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mbalter @matthewbabula and
That's fair Michael. Can you point to one thing I've said in a blog or in a podcast that is not supported by evidence from a scientific consensus? If not, then your objectivity question is solved. Thank you.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @kevinfolta @matthewbabula and
No, we are not arguing the science of GMOs here. We are arguing whether you have faithfully represented your relationship to industry or not over the years, including Monsanto (not just research funds but funds for advocacy as well.)
3 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @mbalter @kevinfolta and
.
@mbalter you may have trouble reaching people to understand conflicts of interest and the way corporate money biases research. These guys just hop up and down and screech "science" without understanding . . . science! "Why Disclosure Matters" http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/OreskesEtAl_EST15.pdf …2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @thackerpd @kevinfolta and
Yes. As I have said, I have no strong opinion on GMO safety. What bothers me is branding anti-GMO groups “anti-science.” This seems clearly inaccurate to me in regards to the major anti-GMO activist groups. “Real” scientists have been debating GMO safety for decades.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mbalter @thackerpd and
I call BS that you have "no strong opinion on GMO safety." Your Tweets suggest otherwise.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @thackerpd and
I have made no statements whatsoever about whether I personally think GMOs are safe, so I call BS back. What I have said is that it’s a legitimate scientific discussion, which you do not believe.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Not exactly. There are criticisms of GMOs to be made, but anti-GMO activists don't make them. The vast majority of criticism leveled by anti-GMO activists against GMOs is based on pseudoscience, cherry picked data, and ad hominem attacks, Very much like the antivaccine movement.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.