Letters to the Editor
-
Fundamental Philosophy
Good article, Andrew, and I would like to add a clarification which you alluded to but didn't explicity state. An opponent of genetically modified food and a believer in global warming are interested in the same thing - the natural, unaltered world. Global warming, to the extent it has been caused by humans (a lot), can be seen as an unnatural (read: invented) process, like genetic modification via scientific human intervention. I think the environmentalists believe that staying as close to the uninvented, unmanufactured world as possible is a good thing, and should be aspired to, brought about, made a priority for humans as a whole. They're right. Overengineering the system is what has brought us global warming and "artificial" genetic modification. And transfats. And enriched uranium and plutonium. And on and on. Just plant regular corn, for chrissake already.
-
Bull
The world has been constantly altered. Breeding of animals is a genetic modification. Just because there is money backing something doesn't mean it is unsafe. If there is science that backs the claim that something is unsafe, then it is one thing. But, assuming that because someone is making a profit off something means that it is unsafe is too dogmatic for my tastes. It smacks of environmental fundamentalism, and it is the same lack of thinking that drives the organic movement.
-
Consensus?
I'd love to see evidence of a scientific consensus promoting GM crops. It simply does not exist, and as far as I've been able to determine, except for scientists getting paid by the corporations getting rich via GM, the majority of scientists seem to be on the same side of the debate as environmentalists.
-
Just the same, except it's not.
Breeding of animals is *not* a genetic modification. Genetic modification is changing the genes through wholly unnatural means , cutting and pasting gene sequences from other species. If bushwhacker00 could breed a cow with wings or a flower with fur, then he would have a point.
That said, false equivalence is the trademark trick of the professional corporate polemist and the junk science hack, the shill. It's too bad that critical thinking is so rare that guys like this can influence public opinion.
Bummer.
-
Not Bull
Of course it has. Overaltered is what I personally am concerned with. When the alterations become unhealthy for those affected by or near the alteration, as in too much carbon in the air, too much mercury in the lake, too much we don't know what in the genetically modified corn, etc, that's when I think everyone needs to be concerned. I haven't become aware of a scientific consensus that GM crops are safe. Crops are also modified for different purposes. Crops modified to increase their nutritional content might well be less dangerous than crops modified to kill other organisms. It's sounds to me like bushwacker00 has stopped thinking about what we're doing and whether it's helpful or harmful and has simply become angry at environmentalists.
-
The Natural World
ain't all it's cracked up to be. While I agree with the premise that we should of course be careful of genetic modifications and global warming, the "natural, unaltered world" has disease, hardship, women dying in childbirth, inequality (not to mention bad teeth), and so on and so on. Just because it's "natural," don't make it good or desireable.
-
No contradiction
I can't speak for all environmentalists but for me the argument for doing something about global warming and the argument against GMOs are two entirely different types of arguments: doing something about global warming is a matter of prudence, and being against GMOs is a moral argument. Al Gore has stated that mitigating global warming is a moral issue, but it at heart is a matter of prudence, arguing that the consequences of doning nothing would be such that it would be unwise. For me, splicing genes from one species into another is a moral, not prudential, wrong
-
Apples and Oranges?
If definitive proof emerged that GMO's were safe for human consumption, I don't think many environmentalists would be okay with that, because as far as I can tell, the safety aspect is a small part of opposition to GMO's. Many environmentalists (myself included) have strong preferences for 'the way things were' without human impact. Just think of the root of the word 'conservation'. I personally think much of the Anti-GMO furor is a bit too 1. Luddite and 2. tinged with anti-capitalist sentiment for my tastes, but scientific consensus declaring GMO's safe isn't going to have any impact on those two forces and preferences.
So comparing environmentalists reaction to consensus on Global Warming and consensus on GMO safety seems more than a little (genetically-modified) apples and oranges.
-
So I contradict myself? I contain multitudes
--from Whitman
To say "Environmentalist" have a point of view is like saying that Americans have a point of view.... Of course, the environmental movement is as varied as any other movement, in many ways, more so. Bailey contradicts himself, as we all do when we change our minds.
But has Bailey really reconsidered? He states that the models are "all over the map", then cites John Christy and Roy Spencer from UAH who are consistently at the low end of most accepted climate models of climate change.
How can one place Global Climate Change and GM Foods in the same category? There is no scientific consensus on the safety of GM foods unless one were to cite only industry-funded scientists. Even NASA erred on the side of caution when traveling unknown territory.
There is an emerging movement within the environmental community to weed out the other issues. Anti-immigration groups tried to seize control of the Sierra Club a couple of years ago and that was a wakeup call. Allowing anarchists, communists and other issue groups to seize control of the the environmental movement will only do it harm.
In some cases, however, the communities are rightly linked. GM may be one such link. If large agri-companies are allowed to control our food supply, do you think they will do so for the benefit of all mankind? Like unregulated energy sales in California, perhaps? (Think Enron).
The bottom line with GM is uncertainty. It may be that the scientific community determines that GM crops are safe. Yet these modified genes cannot be contained once released into our environment. Even now, nearby crops are contaminated by cross-pollination. Amazingly, the "patent holders" of these GM crops sue farmers whose crops they contaminate for patent infringement!
For the time being, distributing unproven, unselected gene patterns into the wild is a dangerous, foolish and irreversible experiment.