War on Science
GMO Fight Exposes Green Hypocrisy
show comments
  • Bruce

    The greens are just one of many of the left wing Dem coalitions whose primary goal is Communism. Why would they abandon hate speech? It has worked for them as they move the country left. Granted, it wouldn’t work without a compliant media, but there is a compliant media, so they don’t have to worry about that. It is helpful that WRM and staff point these things out. Be mindful of the strategy and the end goal.

  • S.C. Schwarz

    The current green movement can, in my opinion, best be understood as the religion of the secular left. Religions aren’t, and don’t have to be logical. The greens will use science where it is useful but at their root green beliefs are not scientific they are emotional.

  • Fat_Man

    There is no reason to let environmentalists off the hook or to see them as well-motivated but misguided. They wish no man well. They care only for things. Environmentalism glorifies “pristine” nature over human needs.

    Environmentalism cannot be a political theory. Men are, as Aristotle held, political animals. But, no set of preferences can be a legitimate theory of political organization unless it can uphold the maxim “Salus Populi Lex Suprema Esta.” And, Environmentalism values things only in the degree to which they are devoid of human content and are forbidden to men. It values men only to the degree that they are not part of a political society.

    Green Alarmism does not derive from science. It comes from a religion, the faux pagan worship of Gaia, the earth goddess. She is angry and must be propitiated by the sacrifice of human values.

    You may ask who are these people, from whence do they come, and how do they arrive at their bizarre primitive religion? They spring from the educated and wealthy urban elites of the American North-eastern and Western Coasts. We can easily observe the collapse of Christian belief in that class. There are a couple of reasons for that.

    First, they are all Marxists now, not industrial grade Stalinists, but cultural Marxists theorized by Adorno, and Gramisci, and the French lumpen-philosophes such as Foucault and Derrida. But, even those variants of Marxism demands atheism.

    Second, atheism, especially, the nasty anti-intellectual atheism of Dawkins et. al., allows them to indulge their favorite passion — Contempt for the unwashed masses of Americans — the obese bitter clingers who inhabit fly-over country and cling to their guns and religion.

    The adoption of primitive paganism in this class is entirely due to their atheism. Being an atheist does not mean believing nothing. As Umberto Eco wrote:

    “G K Chesterton is often credited with observing: “When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn’t believe in nothing. He believes in anything.” Whoever said it – he was right. We are supposed to live in a sceptical age. In fact, we live in an age of outrageous credulity.

    “The “death of God”, or at least the dying of the Christian God, has been accompanied by the birth of a plethora of new idols. They have multiplied like bacteria on the corpse of the Christian Church …”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3621313/God-isnt-big-enough-for-some-people.html

    Now that communism is dead, and Marxism has been discredited, environmentalism is one of the most pernicious political forces in the western world. The sooner it is exposed and understood. the sooner we will be able to get around to the real business of solving real problems.

  • You write: “What the planet and the people who live on it badly need is a pro-environment, pro-people movement that actually cares about scientific evidence. Unfortunately that’s not what we’ve got…” But we do have precisely such a movement, which is closely associated with the Breakthrough Institute. Of course, most Greens regard eco-modernists such as myself as dangerous heretics, as S. C. Schwartz (below) would surely understand.

  • CiceroTheLatest

    “… when they’ve got scientific evidence on their side …”

    The further we get from the basics of clean air and water, the less Democrats, Greens, and other Leftists rely on anything like evidence, and the more they rely on fake data, “jump-to-pre-programmed-answer” “models and simulations,” and hysterical, frothing at the mouth name calling.

    These people are malignantly evil. They should be dealt with on that basis.

  • SDN

    I would be fascinated to see if any of the scientists on the “climate consensus” list are also on the “GMO shill” list…..

    • EricBaum

      Yes, GMO safety and Global Warmism are on a very similar level as actual science. Namely, cargo cult. Also they are both backed by government, big media corporations, and big financial interests. Both fields feature distinguished deniers being drummed out of academia.

      • Terenc Blakely

        How long have people been eating GMO crops? In all that time has there been any proven link of GMO crops to someone getting sick and/or dying? Are GMO crops more dangerous than ‘normal’ crops? Is tinkering with a crops DNA with modern techniques more dangerous than crossbreeding? Do you realize that GMO crops have greatly improved crop yields? Would you prefer more third worlders to starve rather than risk eating GMO crops? Do you really think that big corporations would risk the lawsuits and criminal prosecutions putting out lethal food products? Are you a believer in Kennedy assassination conspiracies?
        I get a definite whiff of Luddism from anti-GMO fanatics. Oh, and trying to compare GMOs with Global Warming is an ‘apples and oranges’ comparison if I ever saw one.

        • EricBaum

          In fact the big food manufacturers have successfully lobbied congress for exemption from legal liability, which is another thing that should make you suspicious. Its not in their interests to find anything wrong with GMO’s if in fact there is something wrong, and basically they are the only people looking.

          Also this is a total strawman. I said from the beginning, I’d be ok with GMO’s if they were actually decently tested, and if the manufacturers did in fact take legal liability.

          As to the implicit test that has been done by putting them on the market, I don’t believe anybody has adequately examined the data to know whether they are causing big problems. Various problems such as some cancers have increased since their introduction.
          Also each new GMO presents new dangers and needs new testing.

          Finally, I don’t believe there is an affirmative and 100% basis to claim the genetic techniques are not changing something in a harmful and systematic way that is not different than selective breeding, say. I know the “scientific consensus” seems to claim that, but as I said that’s an oxymoron.

          • Terenc Blakely

            “In fact the big food manufacturers have successfully lobbied congress for exemption from legal liability”
            I would have to see a citation for that. Lawyers have a huge lobby in congress and I don’t see that happening at all.
            And by the way there is nothing 100% safe in life. The big question is whether the risks of GMOs outweigh the benefits. By any sane measure, the benefits of GMOs greatly outweigh the risks. I noticed you didn’t address the greater yields of GMO crops. I’ve noticed food Nazis don’t give a damn about starvation in the third world.

          • EricBaum

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Assurance_Provision
            It appears that the law it was allowed to recently expire (under heavy fire from critics of GMO’s) but I think there have been numerous attempts to reinstate it when no-one was looking (for example each time they extend government spending authority) and I bet you they sneak it back before all is said and done. I also wonder if you’d have trouble suing even with it expired for any crops they release while it was in force.

            Your posts seem to be very much flavored by your big picture theoretical biases such as “Lawyers have a huge lobby in congress that clearly would overwhelm Monsanto’s money.” I’ll warn you such biases are probably not a reliable way to determine the safety of what you are consuming.

            The similarities between GMO’s and Global warming are striking. In both cases you have prestigious scientists who become deniers, and are subsequently run out of the field and you have major efforts to forcibly withdraw contradictory papers. In both cases you have large numbers of lay people who are convinced of the “scientific consensus” although they have never understood the science, presumably mainly because they support a political cause. You are apparently personally one of those. In both cases if you look at the science and try to find the logical proof of the contention, it appears nowhere to be found, witness nobody citing an actual technical paper here that they have read to prove GMO’s are safe. In both cases you have big financial, media, and government interests supporting the establishment position.

          • hyperzombie

            =In fact the big food Organic have successfully lobbied congress for exemption from legal liability, which is another thing that should make you suspicious. Its not in their interests to find anything wrong with organics if in fact there is something wrong, and basically they are the only people looking.

            Also this is a total strawman. I said from the beginning, I’d be ok with organics’s if they were actually even tested, and if the growers did in fact take legal liability.

            As to the implicit test that has been done by putting them on the market, I don’t believe anybody has adequately examined the data to know whether they are causing big problems. Various problems such as some cancers have lowered since their introduction. I bet the population has gotten much more obese since their introduction, don’t know if its related.
            Also each new oganic presents new dangers and needs new testing.

            Finally, I don’t believe there is an affirmative and 100% basis to claim the genetic techniques are not changing something in a harmful and systematic way that is different than selective breeding, say. I know the “scientific consensus” seems to claim that, but as I said that’s anmoron.

  • Ted Wade

    One day I would like to ask an organic booster why they hate natural habitats. Organic food requires more land to grow, therefore is worse for the environment.
    Unexamined internal contradictions abound.

  • Terenc Blakely

    When you sift through the BS and look at the results of most of the left’s and green’s policies you realize that they are nihilists at heart. They view humanity as a plague that must be controlled and/or cut down. That’s why so many of their policies result in misery and death.

  • The Climate Change Cult is a subset of the Gaia Cult, a holy order within the Cult of the Credentialed and Connected Omniscient, home of this century’s fundamentalist bigots … for they all seek the same goal: to put the “uppity” members of a particular species “in their place”.

    • 0bamasnought

      Shame on you!
      The first rule of the Climate Change Cult is…

  • EricBaum

    I would be fine with GMO’s if they were tested and proven safe, but from all I’ve seen the tests done before release are limited to short term tests, feeding it to rats for 3 months. The first group that did longer experiments, found lots of tumors. Not reassuringly at all, there was a PR campaign against them and their published paper was forcibly withdrawn by the journal, but from what I understand it had just as good methods as the safety tests done by the industry, only better cause they followed the rats longer. And whether or not they really did a bad test, why did nobody else do this obvious test before each GMO is fed to hundreds of millions of children? And shouldn’t somebody be doing tests with people where some eat GMO’s and some don’t, to see if there are long term effects? Given that several researchers have found problems in animal studies? And given that the genes spread into the biosphere? Modern GMO’s are a new technology. There is no reason to believe the bugs are out of it, and out of each and every new GMO they introduce, and the consequences of being wrong would be pretty disastrous.

    • hyperzombie

      No food can be PROVEN safe, at least GMOs are tested unlike all other food crops.

      • EricBaum

        Unfortunately they flunked some of the tests. If you are planning to eat them, I’m curious what you base your faith on.

        • hyperzombie

          No faith, just science and and an understanding how modern plant breeding technologies work. Here is what the FDA says,,http://www.fda.gov/food/foodscienceresearch/biotechnology/ucm346030.htm

          • EricBaum

            Its faith unless you cite and read the actual science papers, and they demonstrate the safety in a meaningful and scientific way.

            The actual state of affairs I believe is that the industry did some 3 month studies, which sometimes aren’t even refereed and published I don’t believe, and independent people who did longer and anyway other studies found very serious problems.

          • hyperzombie

            Here is an overview of 1700+ papers on GMO safety,http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595

          • EricBaum

            None of which you have read. I bet you could show me 17000 papers on global warming, but since I’ve understood the science I know they don’t demonstrate the desired conclusion. I’m not willing to take on faith that those 1700 papers have proved GMO safety either, but it seems you are. More power to you, but its unfortunate to inflict it on the world when it spreads.

          • hyperzombie

            Once again you CAN NOT prove safety. How can they spread? There is very little to no evidence of this. GMOs are all designed to be farmed, they only grow well in farmers fields.

          • Andrew Carter

            So how many papers would it take? 1700 papers showing no issues are insufficient to give you confidence in GMO safety; a single controversial study showing *possible* issues makes you steer clear.

            If that kind of margin isn’t enough to sway your opinion, then you’re not concerned with science- you’re concerned with having your own beliefs verified. You are a case in point for the above article.

          • EricBaum

            The question isn’t the number of papers, its the logical basis. I want to see trials on animals looking at long term effects, and trials on humans looking at long term effects, preferable randomized double blind trials. The trials of those kinds of which I’m aware show GMO’s are dangerous, they need to be solidly rebutted and to my knowledge they haven’t been. I am posting this in hopes you can rebut me with one or two solid links.

        • Andrew Carter

          I’m curious what you base your faith that organic broccoli is safe on. Because it’s “natural (or at least the packaging or the guy at the farmer’s market says so)?”

          Have these “tests” been administered to the organic broccoli at all? If not, then how do you know it wouldn’t flunk?

          • EricBaum

            I am totally cogniscent of plant toxins. I avoid wheat and beans for example for that reason. GMO’s are clearly different and new, and I find unsupported your apparent faith that they can’t be any worse than plant toxins we’ve evolved to deal with, and tested for many hundreds of years breeding to find less toxic strains.

          • hyperzombie

            75% of all commercial crops breeds have been only around since the advent of nuclear energy, they are based on gamma ray mutagenesis. http://mvgs.iaea.org/AboutMutantVarities.aspx

    • Andrew Carter

      Can you actually site this study? Give a link or something, don’t just state “a study said X” and think that you just hit the I-Win button. Watch: This one study said that guys named Andrew Carter are right 100% of the time. There. I win. Unfortunately I don’t have the citation info right at hand, but I win anyway.

      • EricBaum
        • hyperzombie
          • EricBaum

            As I mentioned, it had been forcibly withdrawn. I regard this as a bad sign for GMO safety, not a good one. Its quite reminiscent of global warmism.

          • hyperzombie

            Forcibly withdrawn, no such thing. Withdrawn because it was crap science.

          • EricBaum

            Withdrawn by the journal, after it had passed peer review and been accepted. Not withdrawn by the researchers who stand behind it.

          • hyperzombie

            Funny, just because it passes Peer Review doesn’t mean that it is not crap. TOns of papers have been withdrawn after peer review, they have to be extra crappy to be withdrawn after peer review.

          • EricBaum

            Peer review doesn’t prove a paper right for sure, but the
            chief characteristic shared by those papers I’m aware of that were forcibly withdrawn by journals over one or more authors’ protests are that they step on large financial interests.

          • richard40

            Leftist science papers are also beholden to plenty of financial interests, but somehow that never seems to be a problem for them. In the end the evidence should win out, and if a paper was withdrawn, it is a sign to me that people found serious flaws in it.

          • EricBaum

            Richard40, I bet that’s based on pure faith. I bet you’ve never read a withdrawn paper in your life and understood what is wrong with it, or not as the case may be. By contrast, I’ve looked at several. In this case, I’ve seen published accounts that the paper withdrawn, Seralini, was based on very similar research to the papers claiming GMO’s are safe, only extended longer in time. And the main complaint was, they didn’t use enough rats. I agree, more rats would be better. But again, I ask you, don’t you think someone should have funded a study using more rats and going for long term, a long time ago? Why do you think there’s little or no funding available or provided for studies like that, which obviously should be done?

            BTW, just for comparison and contrast, an important study that I’ve seen relied on by recent papers claiming vaccinations are safe, admittedly relies on injections into two (2) rabbits. (I know this because papers citing it complain that someone should do a better study with more rabbits, but they continue to cite it so apparently nobody has yet. For some strange reason, nobody forces the 2 rabbit paper to be withdrawn.)

            Richard40, I personally hope your faith is founded and you live a long life.

          • richard40

            I merely say that in the end the case with the best evidence should win, and you say I am relying on faith, and here I thought I was relying on science.

        • Andrew Carter

          So these potatoes were modified to produce a substance (lectin)that was already suspected of being harmful? Congratulations, you’ve verified that lectin is bad (assuming that the experiment was sound, which no less a body than the Royal Society seems to think it was not).

          That has nothing to do with the organisms being GMO. It has to do with what they were engineered to do (produce lectin). This should be obvious. Modifying rice to produce cyanide- BAD. Modifying rice to make it more efficiently digestible for humans- GOOD.

          • EricBaum

            To the best of my knowledge, the potatoes he was testing were and probably are being sold to the public. So whether they were harmful because of the inclusion of lectins or because the lectins were incorporated by genetic technology isn’t that relevant to whether you want to feed them to your children. However Pusztai has done more work since and does seem to believe that genetic technology is involved.

  • EricBaum

    Incidentally, I have never seen the word “scientific consensus” used where it wasn’t BS. The very term is an oxymoron. In practice what it refers to is some set of claims which are scientifically unsupportable backed by powerful financial interests, government, and huge media corporations.

    Albert Einstein — ‘A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth.’

    “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
    ― Richard P. Feynman

  • dankleitman

    You are wrong. There is no hypocrisy here. These people spew hatred and vituperation against anyone who opposes them, quite consistently. The better founded criticism of them may be the louder and stronger are their anger and their expressions of contempt.
    They have convinced themselves that their cause is true righteousness, and that all opposition to it is not only evil but produced by sinister plotters with evil motives.
    This is the same attitude displayed by Hezbollah and Hamas, which go on to violence against opposition.
    The fact that science and reason and the interests of the poor are against them does not affect their faith in their simplistic ideas, which has become an integral part of their lives.
    They are so quick to cast aspersions on opponents because they assume that the opponents are as unscrupulous as themselves.

  • dave72

    Where’s Michael “Piltdown” Mann and his infamous hockey stick curve to prove GMO is bad science.

  • blogagog

    “…when they’ve got scientific evidence on their side, green campaigners
    spew hate speech about the evil science deniers on the other side.”

    I have not heard of an instance where greens had science on their side. Are you sure there is one?

    • richard40

      You could revise it to when they think they have scientific evidence on their side. I agree that the scientific evidence for AGW is nowhere near as solid as the leftists claim.

  • FrancisChalk

    This is so typical of the Green/Environmental movement. Here is an undeniable universal constant on par with Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation: Greens/Environmentalist ONLY care about the advancement of Leftist/Socialism; they have absolute zero regard for truth, evidence, science or facts.

  • nickshaw

    The wind farm versus birds and bats, as well as, solar facilities destroying desert habitat are other good examples.
    Frankly, I could put up with either if they were not touted as being the replacement of fossil fuels.
    If I had my way, the power these methods generate would be directed to producing hydrogen.
    But, that’s just me.

  • GitOffMahLawn

    Read articles like this, and always wonder what Gregor Mendel would have to say at this point in history….

  • Pat McBride

    Science is a tool to be awkwardly picked up and wielded without understanding when you are working towards political ends.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.