Question ‘science’ in unscientific age

Published 9:22 pm Friday, October 4, 2013

By Staff Reports

 

Two big science announcements are getting widely divergent responses from the left this week. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report has some pledging never to fly in airplanes again. That’s because the “science is settled” (at least to a “95 percent” certainty, according to the IPCC).

But a massive review of the scientific literature that shows genetically modified foods are safe isn’t getting quite that reception. GMO activists claim a conspiracy, even as innocent papayas suspected of being genetically modified are cut down in Hawaii by “eco-terrorists.”

There’s little new in the IPCC report; it dismisses the most recent 15 years of climate data that shows no warming, and it reinforces the agency’s belief in computer models. We seem to be at yet another precipice of calamity.

So nothing new here.

But the GMO survey, published in the Critical Review of Biotechnology, was an evaluation of 1,783 research papers, reviews and reports between 2002 and 2012.



“The report delved into specifics,” the website RealClearScience notes. “First focusing on the effects that GM crops might have on biodiversity, the researchers found little to no evidence that GM crops harm native animal species. Furthermore, their review revealed that non-GM crops actually tend to reduce biodiversity to a higher degree.”

The conclusions are clear.

“To date, there’s little to no evidence that GM crops damage the environment,” the website explains. “Similarly, they’re also safe for the animals and humans who consume them. Before all GM crops are sent to market, they must first be shown to be comparable to their unaltered counterparts. For example, nutrients should be present in near identical amounts, and potentially toxic molecules should be absent. This process, known as substantial equivalence, has been very successful thus far.”

But that’s not evidence enough for many on the left.

“About 100 genetically modified papaya trees were hacked down with machetes on Thursday night on Hawaii’s Big Island,” the Huffington Post reports. “The act is believed to be an act of eco-terrorism rather than random vandalism as the Big Island is currently considering the future of biotech on the island. Two bills that would impose restrictions on biotech are currently up for debate… One of the bills would require that the island’s GMO papaya fields be cut down entirely, and farmers caught growing GMO papaya would face jail and fines.”

Other states, such as Washington and Oregon, are trying to force producers to label GMO foods.

“Local activists and the national groups Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association and Food Democracy Now!, also rallied at the Capitol on Monday, and said they planned to deliver a petition with 30,000 signatures to Gov. John Kitzhaber,” the Oregon Statesman-Journal reported last week.

Now, there’s really nothing wrong with labeling GMO products, except perhaps for two things: Logistics, and logic. First, many more food products would qualify — humans have been modifying crops for millennia. And second, GMO activists would use the labeling to mislead consumers.

The point here is that science should be science — for both sides of the aisle.