Worst 10 List: Advocacy Groups That Put Ideology Ahead Of Science On Food And Farming Issues

Andrew Porterfield, Genetic Literacy Project

[Editor’s note: This is one part of GLP’s two-part series examining organizations that place ideology ahead of science in addressing genetics. The companion piece focuses on human genetics, and can be found here.] 

Many non-government organizations aim to inform the public, policymakers and scientists about a wide range of complex and important issues. But there are times when science takes a backseat to ideology. Perhaps nowhere is this more common than in the volatile landscape surrounding genetically modified foods and modern agriculture. Criticism of GMOs, and everything connected to them, has given rise to a host of organizations pushing messages that often lack scientific support. Here are 10 NGOs that often abandon the science behind genetic modification of food in favor of such ideology.

Center for Food Safety

Known as the ‘legal swat team for the anti-GMO industry, the 15-year-old Center For Food Safety, a non-profit based in Washington, D.C., is headed by Andrew Kimbrell, a lawyer who was trained by anti-technology activist Jeremy Rifkin. The organization receives more than $3 million in donations annually and is closely tied to the organic food industry.

CFS unabashedly promotes and defends organic-only agriculture, and opposes GMOs, food irradiation, aquaculture, animal cloning and rBGH. It was one of the earliest adopters of a later debunked theory that mad cow disease was exclusively the result of non-organic livestock agriculture. CFS was the primary instigator of legal skirmishes over GMO sugar beets; it also organized opposition to GMOs in Hawaii and has aggressively backed GMO-labeling campaigns. It works closely with global anti-GMO activist Vandana Shiva, and offers her office space in Washington.

CFS has filed dozens of suits, often in partnership with EarthJustice and other activist organizations, targeting various U.S. government agencies. It filed a joint suit with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) against the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service seeking to ban GMO crops from 25 national wildlife refuges.

The organization’s website contains its own news stories and other content promoting organic food, while ignoring scientific support for using genetic engineering in agriculture. The group also claims there are no pre-market safety tests for GM food, and supports labeling of GM foods. It argues that the government’s “failure to require testing or labeling of GE foods has made millions of consumers into guinea pigs.” The group also argues that, “Existing regulations that identify GE crops and food ingredients as “Generally Regarded As Safe” use an outdated process with minimal testing requirements that rely on companies to self-evaluate the safety of their products.”

Environmental Working Group

The Environmental Working Group, based in Washington, D.C., has been operating as a non-profit since 1992. It advocates the adoption of organic food and opposes genetic engineering and farm subsidies.

The organization, which received more than $6 million in donations last year, issues reports that raise fears of toxins or other chemicals in consumer products (as well as in genetically modified food).The group also creates databases for public use, including one on consumer products that may contain bisphenol A (BPA), which the EWG and other groups maintain (without clear scientific evidence) is an endocrine disruptor that can cause cancer and other diseases.

Led by Ken Cook, a lobbyist and opponent of industrial agriculture, and a board that includes several prominent members of the organic and natural products industries, the group promotes organic techniques, because, according to its website: “Organic agriculture preserves biodiversity, improves soil health and saves energy – all the while saving American farmland from getting buried under tons of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. But less than one percent of our farmland is dedicated to growing organic crops.” It annually puts out a Dirty Dozen list of fruits and groceries that consumers are urged to avoid because, EWG says, they are covered with ‘dangerous’ amounts of trace pesticides–a claim totally at odds with mainstream science, but in accord with the marketing objectives of their organic donor base.

Read the Genetic Literacy Project profile and Activist Facts review.


Based in Amsterdam, Greenpeace is now the world’s largest environmental non-profit organization. Founded in the late 1960s, Greenpeace how has a budget in excess of $300million.


Read full article

You May Also Like:

Reports: North Korean State Media Announced Nuclear Program Shutdown Frances Martel, Breitbart

North Korea Announced The Suspension Of Nuclear And Missile Tests, But What Does That Really Mean? Kemberlee Kaye, Legal Insurrection

The Kevin Williamson Saga Reveals The True Colors Of Journalists Joe Simonson, The Daily Caller

Make the Tax Cuts Permanent [Watch] The Editors, Natinoal Review

Liberal Senators’ Push to Investigate Sinclair Chilling Attempt To Silence Speech Armstrong Williams, The Daily Signal

Delusions Of Justice Joel Kotkin, City Journalo

Barbara Bush's Subversive Secret To Happiness Andrew Ferguson, The Weekly Standard

What Cowardice Looks Like: More On The Philadelphia Starbucks Controversy Christopher DeGroot

How North Korea’s Hackers Became Dangerously Good Timothy W. Martin, The Wall Street Journal

Trump, Don’t Be Fooled, North Korea May Be Laying A Trap For You [Watch] Harry J. Kazianis, Fox News

Are Republicans Draining Or Filling The Swamp? Chris Talgo and Lennie Jarratt, , American Thinker

TOTAL LOSERS: DNC Suing Trump Campaign, Russia, And Wikileaks For Colluding To Win 2016 Election Matt Vespa, Townhall

NY Times Reporter: Male Hillary Clinton Staffers Directed Sexist Comments At Me Alex Griswold, The Washington Free Beacon

For More go to the Home Page >>>

Join Our Email List



FreeMarket Central

Some titles recent, all recommended -

Special Video Feature

FreeMarket Central

Voices From The 2017 International Students For Liberty Conference


In Search Of History

The Reagan Tax Cuts Worked

Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).


-- Daniel J. Mitchell,

Shadow Stats Snapshot

FreeMarket Central

ShadowStats alternate economic indicators are based on the methodology of noted economist John Williams, specialist in government economic reporting.

  • Unemployment:
    FreeMarket Central BLS: 4.07%
    FreeMarket Central Shadow Stats: 21.7%
  • Inflation:
    FreeMarket Central March Year-to-Year: 2.21% (CPI-U*)
    FreeMarket Central Shadow Stats: 9.9%

*[cpi-u is the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation rate for all urban consumers]