Back in August, The New Yorker ran a
terrific profile of the evil anti-biotech charlatan Vandana
Shiva that nicely revealed, well, her evilness, to the world.
Incensed that her fables were questioned Shiva attacked using the
characteristic techniques of the Big Lie, implications of racism,
misdirection, and more made up data. David Remnick, editor of
The New Yorker has now replied. Remnick’s letter was
reproduced at the Genetic Literacy Project. Selections are
below:
Dear Dr. Shiva:
This is in reply to the letter you sent and subsequently posted
on the Internet earlier this week. It is not for publication in any
way or on your website, but I thought you were asking for a serious
reply. So here it is: I should say that since you have said that
the entire scientific establishment has been bought and paid for by
Monsanto, I fear it will be difficult to converse meaningfully
about your accusation that the story contained “fraudulent
assertions and deliberate attempts to skew reality.” But maybe I am
wrong; I’ll try. …One hardly needs to hold a Ph.D. in physics to become an
effective environmental activist, as you have demonstrated. Yet,
when a prominent figure, such as yourself, is described for
decades—in interviews, on web sites, in award citations, and on
many of your own book jackets, as having been “one of India’s
leading physicists” it seems fair to ask whether or not you ever
worked as one. …Your math and conclusions on the issues of farmer suicides and
seed prices and values differ from the math in studies carried out
by many independent, international and government
organizations. Mr. Specter is far from alone in rejecting,
based on data, your charge that Monsanto is responsible for
“genocide” in India. In your letter you state that “Specter
promotes a system of agriculture that fails to deliver on its
promises of higher yield and lower costs and propagates
exploitation.” This has always been your position, but as Mr.
Specter pointed out in his article, there have been many studies on
the effects of planting BT cotton in India, and on the whole,
scientists – none of whom were connected to Monsanto –have found
the opposite to be true. …One of the best recent studies on the economic impact of Bt
cotton on farmers found that “Bt has caused a 24% increase in
cotton yield per acre through reduced pest damage and a 50% gain in
cotton profit among smallholders. These benefits are stable; there
are even indications that they have increased over time.’’ The
researchers also show that Bt cotton adoption has raised
consumption expenditures, a common measure of household living
standard, by 18% during the 2006–2008 period and conclude that Bt
cotton has created large and sustainable benefits, which contribute
to positive economic and social development in India.
The whole
reply is worth reading.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/W7uLVC
via IFTTT