Their claim is that the GMO Answers website is a PR tool. I suppose at some level it is, as the technology, traits, seeds and users of agricultural biotech have been defamed and smeared by activists for two decades without a whole lot of push back. Here the science is related to the public, which I guess defines public relations.
However, Truth does not need "PR"-- it just needs to be communicated effectively.
That is what GMOAnswers.com does.
For almost twenty years the non-scientific arguments, blatant untruths, and half-cocked evidence were allowed to tarnish the reputation of technology that has performed safely and effectively. These efforts have led to calls for horribly-conceived, non-scientific and expensive changes in public policy (like labeling). The worst part is that new technologies that can help the farmer, the consumer, the needy and the environment are slow to develop.
The organizations that fund GMOAnswers are tied to the ag biotech companies, so the unsophisticated thinker will automatically assume that the companies dictate what information is presented.
But this is the difference between science and non-science. In the world of anti-biotech activism you can make up stats, skew numbers, conflate false parameters and generate false associations in the interest of fooling a reader. That's common practice.
Science must play by rules. No matter what the ag biotech companies want, no matter what the communications firms desire, the facts are the facts, and the evidence rules. Period.
If I read anything on GMO Answers.com that was not true, I would tell them, not ask them, to correct it. Period. If they failed to do it, they would be the subject of a very pointy blog here at Illumination, and widespread criticism from the broader scientific community.
So let's analyze the conspiratorial and paranoid USRTK rant. Once again, they go after public scientists and promote nonsense, the old formula to keep the supporters happy and the cash flowing.
Ironically, they get funding based on their support for non-scientific ideas, whereas the independent experts they criticize get nothing (except hassles).
The avalanche of irony is that here is an organization getting paid to distort science, which is exactly what they accuse others of doing. How can you sort it out? Start with the hard science and compare it to what is presented at USRTK and GMO Answers. One of them isn't being exactly truthful.