We know that IARC’s political bias, non-transparency and conflict of interest on glyphosate were bad. But according to a recent publication, it is nothing compared to how bad their activist science was.
Category: NGO lobbying
The Organic Shillbillies
For all the American farmers working through their Fourth of July Weekend and having to continually endure the closed-minded prejudice of the organic food industry lobby.
The Nobel Savage: Greenpeace’s Colonialist Ambitions
In 2013, Greenpeace inspired the destruction of Golden Rice trials. Today science declares their position as a crime against humanity.
Living in the Age of Stupid: How to comprehend Brexit, Trump and the Anti’s
Everyone keeps asking how is it possible? Simple: This is the age we are living in!
Banalising the Risk Perception of Endocrine Disruption
Two decades of nonsense on endocrine disruption has brought good business to chemophobic NGOs, but a rather pointless fear for the rest of us. The issue needs to be “banalised”.
Please Don’t Throw Greenpeace in Prison
Resolute has charged Greenpeace with racketeering, conspiracy and fraud. We know they do not follow ethical codes of conduct, but let’s not make them martyrs!
Goodbye Glyphosate: Why Science Doesn’t Matter in the Age of Stupid
Next week, the European Council will consider the European Commission’s last-ditch compromise effort to reauthorise the widely used herbicide, glyphosate. It won’t go well.
Reasonable People – Towards a New Age of Lobbying
Industry needs to rethink its lobbying strategy as reasonable people and independent scientists start taking the lead in responding to activist campaigns.
How to win without science: argumentum ad hominem
Argumentum ad hominem is the tool you use when there is no science on your side. Is that why activists are using it so much today?
Brussels: A town where nobody works
Decisions on jobs and growth are made by people who have never worked; decisions on food made by people who have never farmed. Welcome to Brussels!
Corporate Europe Hypocrisy
A blog from 2010 on how a transparency group is not very transparent. There are three and half years of comments and shared data from readers who found this hypocrisy fascinating.
The Risk-Monger 