New York Times reporter Amy Harmon flies to Hawaii for a week to attend public hearings on Bill 113 that bans experimental GMOs on the Big Island of Hawaii. Instead of holding a standard of investigative journalism, her piece is a love fest for pro-biotech talking points, painting local advocates of GMO labeling as fringe, fear-mongering hippies. Her 5,000 word article states: “But the risks of such crops could be reliably tested, and they had so far proved safe.” Great investigative reporting?
Has the New York Times heard of GMO Myths and Truths - a compilation of over 600 studies showing GMO crops to be "high risk" by scientists?
Or how about the ENSSER statement signed by over 300 international scientists who declare:
No Scientific Consensus on GMO Safety?
Like and share if you think the New York Times has an agenda with their reporting on GMOs!
Give us a call next time you attempt to write a factual story on GMOs, Amy! #StopMonsanto #GMOs #Hawaii#StopPoisoningParadise #MythsTruths
Robyn O'Brien response to the NYT Article:
"Mr. Ilagan discounted the correlations between the rise in childhood allergies and the consumption of G.M.O.s." Since these products were never labeled, the industry is able to claim no evidence of harm, no evidence of allergies, when in fact, since there are no labels, there is no accountability, no traceability, no liability.
NYT Article Comments (1417 and counting)