[cyberax]

And? Does it make their argument incorrect?

Also, can we now discount all the studies of harm of pesticides, unless they come from the Croplife America?

[cosmicgadget]

No, her argument makes her argument incorrect. Her bias makes her argument not worth the time.

[skywhopper]

It makes her arguments highly suspect, yes.

[arecsu]

You can also argue the opposite, that due to her working with a particular interest in proving the organic industry wrong, she is finding factual information about it. As usual, information should be dismissed or confirmed with more information, not with fallacies

[jraph]

OTOH this stuff has already been refuted and pesticide makers lobbying like this, spreading FUD on organic food, is a well known pattern already.

We can't afford properly refuting each occurrence, the effort is highly asymmetrical.

[cyberax]

Refuted where? Be specific.

[pogue]

The principle of charity suggests we should assume good intentions about others and their ideas, and give them the benefit of the doubt before criticising them.

https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-the-principle-of-char...

[cosmicgadget]

Seems like a great way to get conned. I'll pass.

[tim-tday]

Financial interest in a particular conclusion is a well-known mechanism of producing bullshit science, so yes.

[cyberax]

So we should disregard all the research from Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and other environmental organizations?

[DougN7]

Are they doing what they are doing for a profit motive?

[keeda]

Does it have to be a profit motive, or any motive would do?