Letters to the Editor
-
gmos can never be safe
That is the problem, and that is why some enviornmentalists are hypocrites. GMO safety is no longer a scientific concern but instead an ideology. GMOs so far are safe? Well, the safety problem is in the future. The science, because it is backed by corporations, is suspect. The regulatory agencies are being captured.
To some people, GMOs will never be safe no matter what. To admit as much would, in their minds, put a dent in their anti-corporate, pro-organic ideology. This is exactly the same scenario conservatives went through -- if they admitted that global warming was for real, it would open up the possibility that regulation was necessary, and therefore hurt their free market ideology.
The fact is that GMO's are here to stay -- its the force of scientific progress. I think it would be better for liberals to align themselves with facts and truth -- and if in a particular case the facts support the big bad evil corporations so be it. Above all, we should be the "reality based" ideology.
-
on patenting and GM crops
Are environmentalists hypocritical when we point out these conflicts of interest?
I would treat that as a separate question. "Should we allow people to patent genes?" is a separate question from "Should we allow genetic manipulation in food crops?". The answer to the first question is much more difficult. The answer to the second is "yes, but carefully".
In terms of patenting, my position has always been, if you built it, you should patent it. It costs a *lot* of money to produce a GM-plant, and that money has to come from somewhere. Patents protect those folks (for 17 years - and I would tend to argue this should be shorter, but again, that's another debate) and allow them to get their money back. That said, as readers of HTWW are discovering, in India, enforcing patent protection on seeds is a lot more difficult than even patent protection on software. However, if you discover a gene, you should not be able to patent it (currently, you are allowed to). To me, patenting a gene you have discovered is rather a little like patenting the liver. Just because you saw it first, doesn't mean you get to own it.
Are we Luddites when we want serious and honest scientific inquiry into the real effects of GM products on lives?
Yes. The "serious and honest" inquiry that you are asking for has been done. Just because you have only become aware of GM-crops doesn't mean that they've only been around for 2 years. Most of the GM-crops that are currently being grown commercially were developed 10-15 years ago. They've been undergoing testing ever since. People who are demanding "more safety tests" would do better to ask which safety test they would like done that hasn't been done. The current generation of GM plants are safe* (and it is extremely difficult to imagine how they wouldn't be). Prior to GM crops, you have eaten every component in the GM-crops. Molecular biologists are just putting them together in the same package.
*I hate to use the word safe as an absolute. As I've posted elsewhere here, safe is a relative term, as everything is dangerous in the wrong dose. Even water. Even oxygen.
-
hypocrites
The founder of Earth Day, Gaylord Nelson, has said it is impossible to be an environmentalist and support increasing our population, but so many environmentalists support large amounts of immigration including allowing those who illegally entered the US to remain and to bring in their relatives (and those relatives' relatives).
-
pop growth and immigration are not the same thing
"The founder of Earth Day, Gaylord Nelson, has said it is impossible to be an environmentalist and support increasing our population, but so many environmentalists support large amounts of immigration including allowing those who illegally entered the US to remain and to bring in their relatives (and those relatives' relatives)."
-- jglammi
Huh? Where are you finding 'many' environmentalists supporting large amounts of immigration? Certainly there is debate on the issue, but 'environmentalist' doesn't directly equate with 'pro-immigration.' Further, immigration and population growth are not necessarily the same thing- 1,000 people moving from country A to country B increases country A's population while decreasing country B's by the same amount, but there is no change to the net population of the system. The migration of population between various countries is somewhat of a less important issue (though of course not inconsequential) vis a vis global warming than is overall global population growth.
-
bees
Meanwhile bee colonies have been dying off. What does the pollen of a roundup ready crop do to bees? Does anyone know or care? Could making plants resistant to insect predators also be harming pollinators?
Somehow I doubt that the people making these decisions are smart enough or ethical enough to ask these questions. "You need look no farther than the FDA. Do you think that nutrasweet and high fructose corn syrup are good for you? How about all those pills you see advertised on tv many of which are for diseases that weren't around thirty years ago.