Last month, the far left Atlantic magazine provided a platform for these corporations to spread their propaganda in exchange for corporate cash during an event titled “Harvest: Transforming the Food We Eat” sponsored by DowDuPont.
The event was centered on discussions with “farmers, foodies, techies and tinkerers” on how new technologies are changing the way in which we grow crops and cultivate animals, and what these changes mean for the future of food.
Of course, there were a number of things that were conveniently never addressed at the event, including the fact that dangerous pesticides have been scientifically proven to harm children’s brains, the fact that DuPont covered up the health risks associated with the Teflon chemical which has contaminated waterways around the world, and the fact that DowDuPont refused to help clean up after a 1984 pesticide plant accident in Bhopal. How odd it is that these people who care so much about the “future of food” don’t seem to take safety and the dangers associated with pesticides into consideration. (Related: A brain-damaging neurotoxic pesticide has been found in hundreds of foods.)
It’s also ironic how those who are concerned about genetically engineered seeds and chemically enhanced crops are called “anti-science,” yet the fact remains that all science is grounded in nature. If anyone is anti-science, it’s those that are peddling this “future food” propaganda, because they are the ones ignoring the scientifically proven realities of the chemicals that they so strongly support. (Related: Dangerous farm pesticides are now showing up in America’s drinking water.)
The notion that science is rooted in nature also applies to the ongoing debate over climate change, which incidentally is another issue where skeptics are labeled as “anti-science.” According to a study put out last year by Australian scientists John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy, most global warming is natural and not significantly influenced by human activity.
“We began by deconstructing the six-proxy series from different geographic regions – series already published in the mainstream climate science literature,” the study states. “One of these, the Northern Hemisphere composite series begins in 50 AD, ends in the year 2000, and is derived from studies of pollen, lake sediments, stalagmites and boreholes.”
“Typical of most such temperature series, it zigzags up and down while showing to rising trends: the first peaks about 1200 AD and corresponds with a period known as the Medieval Warm Period, while the second peaks in 1980 and then shows decline,” the authors go on to explain, adding that in between these two peaks “is the Little Ice Age, which according to the Northern Hemisphere composite bottomed-out in 1650 AD.”
Obviously, when it comes to the issue of climate change, science is based on nature because the climate has been changing for thousands of years naturally. The same can be said for the issue of gender, which the progressive left insists is on a spectrum rather than accepting the fact that there are only two genders in biology: Male and female. Here again, science is rooted in nature.
What advocates of “future foods,” climate change alarmists and social justice warriors constantly do is replace science with propaganda. They claim to believe in science, and even go as far as accusing those that disagree with them as being “anti-science,” but the reality is that they’re the ones that don’t face the facts. They’re the ones that are anti-science, because they are anti-nature.