Privatization of research in agricultural and food sciences has ramifications with far reaching consequence. If GM foods have become predominant in the US, the major reason is the investment made by a few corporate giants whose financial clout is as much as, if not more than, that of many independent countries combined! Their power is all permeating with no seats of governance beyond their lobbying and influence as exemplified by their ability to "smuggle" through GM foods into the food plates of Americans unnoticed and unannounced in a non-transparent manner. The adverse consequences of privatization of research will be phenomenal when it comes to poor nations which do not have the wherewithal to buy modern food technologies as most of them are under the monopoly building patent regimes. Realizing that there could be adverse PR for them, many food giants are moving into a mode where public research institutions are systematically being infiltrated to create many public "scientists with private agenda" to fool the world. Here is a report that could be quite disconcerting to any sane person caring about probity and integrity among scientists.
"We have heard a lot in recent years about the questionable or sometimes downright unethical corporate business practices of "Big Pharma" and "Big Tobacco"–now, even "Big Soda." But what about "Big Food?" Well, according to recent reports, some experts are convinced the corporate food and agribusiness industry is also in need of some watch-dogging. According to ABC news, premier scientific researchers, such as David Allison of the University of Alabama, are increasingly being funded by the big names in corporate food, and their financial ties to such companies as Coca Cola, Kraft, McDonald's, Mars and Nabisco (just to name a few) may be threatening their objectivity: "Critics say Allison is part of a concerted effort by big food to co-opt scientists not only by funding their research but by offering them lucrative speaking and consulting deals, in an effort to confuse U.S. families about the health effects of popular food products. Such tactics, critics say, are similar to those once used by Big Tobacco." In a recent commentary published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), researchers warn that "the food and beverage industry has created or funded front groups reminiscent of the tobacco institute that give the appearance of grassroots support." One such group the JAMA writers cite is the Center for Consumer Freedom, an organization which in truth was founded by a $600, 000 gift from big tobacco and is funded by powerful agribusinesses (as well as America's most prominent tobacco and alcohol barons). The center is known for maliciously opposing public health and advocacy groups such as PETA, Mother's Against Drunk Driving, Center for Science in the Public Interest, The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine".
Such devious practices by scientific community, though few in number can bring considerable disrepute to the whole scientific world and must be condemned and ruthlessly eradicated. It is unfortunate that for every scientific finding there are multiple views and some time such non-unanimity can lead to dis-unity and animosity which must be discouraged. Honest divergence of view is healthy but supporting some thing which is blatantly wrong and anti-consumer for "money" is unethical and dishonest. Scientific community must ostracize such black sheep from their midst if they have to reclaim the high moral ground and citizen's respect. Already there is considerable confusion prevailing regarding the safety of many food additives, processing operations, safety of packaging materials, nutritional data, health parameters and use of chemicals for food protection and the world can do without another controversy concerning the integrity of food scientists.
V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment