“How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a “crime against humanity?"

The American Interest laments the ignorance of millenials concerning the safety of GMOs.

...it’d be easier to convince people of the importance—and the safety—of GMOs if there wasn’t a concerted effort already underway on the part of green groups to discredit them. Earlier this year, a group of 107 Nobel laureates penned a letter denouncing Greenpeace for its “dangerous…anti-science” scare tactics used to discredit GMOs. “How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a “crime against humanity?” they ended the letter by asking. We’re going to need these crops in the coming decades, but we’re also going to need to do a better job informing people of their merits—and a better job combatting the misinformation being spread about their perceived dangers.

Read more here.

Politics invariably gets way ahead of the science

Robert Tracinski writes at The Federalist,

I wrote recently about seven big failed environmentalist predictions, from global cooling to the population bomb (which the New York Times, always on the cutting edge, has just noticed was a complete bust). But it’s not only the big scientific theories they’ve gotten wrong. When science gets harnessed for a political cause, it tends to produce a running series of oversold theories that don’t bear up under further examination.

Here are five examples that recently crossed my desk.

1) Electric cars aren’t all that “green.” ...if the electric cars ever actually become convenient and affordable for the masses—which is still a very long way off—environmentalists will suddenly discover all of the hundreds of thousands of tons of heavy metals that are being stripped out of the Earth to build them, then combined with various chemical concoctions and distributed carelessly on our roadways.

2) Global warming isn’t killing the bees. ...Recently, scientists serendipitously discovered what looks like the actual cause of colony collapse: the spread of a parasitic fly that attacks the bees and uses them to grow its own larvae. ...The fly is not spread, as far as anyone can tell, by warmer weather. (And even if it were, global temperatures have been flat for the past 15 to 20 years.) Instead, it seems to be spread by the increased transportation of honeybees across the country by beekeepers.

3) It’s not killing the frogs, either. Global warming was also supposed to be killing frogs. But again, new studies indicate that the frogs are being killed by a natural pathogen, the chytrid fungus, and that its spread has been accelerated by the natural weather pattern known as El Niño, and not by some anomalous global warming.

Nature is always roiled by competition between species, which includes the spread of natural pathogens that evolve to prey on a particular species, which in turn evolves to avoid the pathogens. This has been going on since the beginning of life on Earth, and those who seek some extraordinary cause for every new pathogen are the ones who are denying science.

But the temptation is understandable, if not entirely forgivable. It’s driven by something scientists refer to, when talking amongst themselves, as “grantsmanship”: the skill of writing a grant proposal in a way that is more likely to win funding, particularly from government agencies. So if you just want to study frogs, for God’s sake don’t say that. How much money can there possibly be for studying frogs? Instead, say that you want to study the effect of climate change on frogs. Now you’re tapping into a much larger fund, the money set aside for studying “climate change.” So you’re more likely to get your grant, while some other poor sucker who just wants to study frogs gets left out.

4) “Organic” food is grown with pesticides.

Tracinski links to an article by Andrew Porterfield in Genetic Literacy Project:

The USDA National List of allowed pesticides for organic growers is quite long. The list includes some substances that one would assume would be relatively harmless, such as mulch, dairy cultures or vitamin B. But others on the list should raise eyebrows: Copper sulfate, elemental sulfur, borax and borates are all known to cause some harm to humans and are approved members of the organic list. Among “synthetic” pesticides, pyrethrums are still allowed, and Vitamin C that is chemically derived (and therefore synthetic) is allowed, as are various forms of alcohol.

Read more here.
Tracinski continues,

5) Genetically modified organisms are natural.

Tracinski links to this news report from May 22 at Reuters:

All human beings, two Cambridge University scientists have established, are genetically modified, including Chipotle’s customers. Over the years, hundreds of foreign genes have jumped into human DNA through a natural phenomenon called “gene flow.” As a result, all humans carry genes that originated in algae, bacteria and fungi. If humans can safely accept alien genes without mishap, why not food, too?

When fears about genetically modified foods first arose, little was known about gene flow, also called horizontal gene transfer. The idea that genes could jump across species violated then-conventional wisdom. But scientific research has established that natural gene transfers regularly occur. So genetic transfers are not a human invention—just a belated human effort to imitate what nature has been doing all along.

Tracinski concludes,

These are just a few more reminders that we should be skeptical when science is dragooned for a fashionable political cause. Because the politics invariably gets way ahead of the science.

GMOs are the answer for sustainable food production

This fall Coloradans will be voting on a proposition requiring labeling of every product that has beenp roduced with genetic engineering. Krista Kafer is a local talk show host I listen to, an organic gardener, and a person who will vote no on Proposition 105:

This fall, as I reap the produce of my organic garden, I will be voting "no" on Proposition 105, the genetically modified organisms (GMO) labeling initiative on the ballot in Colorado. I have researched ways to produce food with fewer chemicals and less water, and have determined that GMOs are the answer for sustainable food production. Requiring food to be labeled "Produced With Genetic Engineering" will unfairly stigmatize GM crops and food processed from GM ingredients.

The time it takes to create desirable traits in plants was drastically reduced beginning in the 1980s when scientists began to insert beneficial genes directly into plant species. After being introduced to commercial agriculture in the 1990s, farmers have been increasingly switching to GM products because they require fewer "inputs" such as water, herbicides or pesticides while generating greater harvests. GM sweet corn, for example, protects itself from insect predation and thus does not need to be sprayed with insecticides. GM herbicide-tolerant sugar beets allow farmers to more easily eradicate weeds thus preserving water and nutrients for crops.

Even though GM technology is helping mankind grow more nutritional food on smaller acreage, with less water, and fewer chemicals, no one should be forced to eat such food. They can buy organic. Also, companies that produce goods that do not use GM crops are free to label their products thusly. In fact, Ben & Jerry's is in the process of sourcing all of its ingredients from non-GM crops. This voluntary business decision will no doubt boost sales among those for whom genetic modification is a concern.

The forced labeling approach of Proposition 105 is not about providing information but provoking fear and ultimately stopping scientific progress.

Read more here.