This is part of the book “Stéphane Foucart et les néonicotinoïdes. The World and disinformation 1“ where I show the journalist misinforms (= false or misleading statements) the reader. Specifically, we show that his presentation of the ban on beet NNIs as obvious is misleading. All quotes are translated (by me), except the ones marked between [ ] in the french version (french quotes are to numerous to be marked in this one).
S. Foucart implicitly or explicitly invokes the invented consensus of which we spoke above. Here is an explicit reminder:
“Beyond the effects on bees, however, a considerable scientific literature documents the deleterious effects of neonics on all ecosystems. Hundreds of studies published in recent years show, beyond reasonable doubt, the full extent of the damage that these substances cause not only on pollinating insects, but also, and above all, on all arthropods, on birds in agricultural areas, on aquatic organisms, etc.” (65)
It’s more implied here:
“The scientific world is no exception. At the end of September, in Liberation, a consortium of some sixty international researchers specializing in the effects of “neonics” also expressed its opposition to the bill. This is, write the interested parties, “a serious mistake, on the pretext of minor or inaccurate reasons, given the immense stakes for which you are fully responsible today”. “This error forces us to step out of our usual reserve to reaffirm to you the disastrous impacts of neonicotinoids, the subject of a reintroduction proposed by your government,” they added.” (68)
The author thus presents this consortium as “the scientific world” or in any case its representative (apposition effect). This passage contains a lot of innuendos:
- The arguments supporting the reauthorization are only “pretexts”.
- The error would be indisputable and of extraordinary magnitude.
You see here how the invention of consensus or evidence comes close to denigrating opponents: if it is consensus / evidence, then there is bound to be a hidden agenda, different from the arguments put forward. We will come back to it shortly after.