Anti-science rants are not solely the purview of conservatives

[Brainfade]

Left-wing nutjobs are equally irrational, and their views are potentially more harmful. Denying evolution is stupid, but it does not impact others' lives. On the other hand, irrationally denying the science of biotechnology in food production, and arrogantly depriving the underprivileged nations of every opportunity to improve themselves smacks of elitism, and will lead to malnutrition and starvation.

Eat Your Frankenfood! A. Barton Hinkle|Jan. 27, 2014 12:00 pm A slavish devotion to narrow ideology has led many people to reject overwhelming scientific consensus as nothing but a plot by malevolent forces to control ordinary people’s lives. If you think that sentence describes conservative skeptics of global warming, congratulations — you’re right. If you think it describes liberal opponents of genetically modified crops, congratulations — you’re right again. Conservatives get tagged as anti-science, and for good reason. A Pew Research Center survey last month found only 43 percent of Republicans — and 25 percent of tea partyers — accept the theory of evolution. The reason is obvious: Evolution contradicts a literal reading of the Bible. Only 27 percent of white evangelical Protestants, who make up nearly half of the conservative wing of the GOP, think evolution is true. This is a clear case of motivated reasoning — of letting your feelings determine the facts you accept. Likewise, two-thirds of Americans think the planet has been getting warmer. But only half of Republicans, and only one in four tea partyers, think that. As to what is causing global warming, two-thirds of Democrats — but only one-quarter of Republicans — think human activity has something to do with it. There is much confirmation bias going on here, too: The science of climate change is not so settled as the science of evolution, but it is solid. This doesn’t mean no questions remain — the current pause in global warming has the potential to falsify the anthropogenic thesis. But just because we don’t know everything doesn’t mean we know nothing. Progressives have gotten a lot of mileage mocking conservatives’ truculent refusal to accept scientific conclusions. But the left has exhibited similar truculence on another subject: genetically modified organisms — “Frankenfoods,†as they’re sometimes called. Last month, Hawaii County Mayor Billy Kenoi signed a measure banning GMOs (except genetically modified papaya). The measure enjoyed passionate support from supporters who made many of the standard arguments against GM foods: They cause cancer. And allergies. And liver and immunodeficiency problems. They spread uncontrollably, causing “genetic pollution†and “contaminating†the natural ecosystem. And they probably do lots of other horrible things, too, but we don’t know what because they haven’t been studied enough. All of which is thoroughly false. GM foods have been studied, extensively and assiduously. And the overwhelming scientific consensus is that they present no danger. “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are no more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies.†That is the conclusion of the European Commission. It is seconded by the American Medical Association, which agrees “there is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods.†And by the National Academy of Sciences, which says “no evidence of human health problems associated with the ingestion of (GM) crops or resulting food products have been identified.†And by the French Academy of Science, which says, “All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.†And by the Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities, which says the risk from GM foods “is in no way higher than in the consumption of food from conventionally grown plants. On the contrary, in some cases, food from GM plants appears to be superior in respect to health.†Regarding that last point, consider golden rice — which has been engineered to produce a precursor of vitamin A. It has the potential to prevent more than a million childhood deaths a year in the impoverished world. But GMO opponents continue to attack it, both rhetorically and physically. In August, saboteurs wrecked a golden rice field trial in the Philippines. In response, Science magazine printed an editorial by a chairman emeritus of the National Academies of Science — along with two Nobel laureates, a National Medal of Science laureate and several other eminent scientists. “If ever there was a clear-cut case for outrage,†they wrote, “it is the concerted campaign by Greenpeace and other non-governmental organizations … against golden rice. … Introduced into commercial production over 17 years ago, GM crops have an exemplary safety record. And precisely because they benefit farmers, the environment, and consumers, GM crops have been adopted faster than any other agricultural advance in the history of humanity. … We, and the thousands of other scientists who have signed (a) statement of protest, stand together in staunch opposition to the violent destruction of required tests on valuable advances such as golden rice that have the potential to save millions of impoverished fellow humans from needless suffering and death.†If the overwhelming scientific consensus on GM foods is so clear, then why do so many environmentalists and other activists resist it? Simple — they do so for the same reason right-wingers resist the scientific consensus on climate change: fear of Them. To GMO critics, “they†are not big, bad government but big, bad corporations. A presumption of corporate malevolence drives much of the hostility toward GM foods. Opponents view them as a diabolical plot by companies like Monsanto to diminish consumer choice, entrench “corporate control of agriculture,†“monopolize seed markets,†put “profits above human health,†and so on. It may be lost on some GMO opponents that “organic†food companies have much to gain from fueling unfounded fears about genetic engineering. That’s why they have backed efforts to require the labeling of foods with GM ingredients. The belief that ostensibly evil corporations are out to control the food supply is not subject to empirical testing, so it cannot be falsified. And it evidently is strong enough to negate whole libraries of factual evidence: Anyone who says GM foods are safe must be a stooge and a shill for our corporate overlords. And therefore not to be listened to. (This apparently applies even to the EC and the National Academies.) Besides — The Truth Is Out There. In September, a piece about GM foods on The Huffington Post included this ominous-sounding tale: “A few months ago, I read an article by best-selling writer and filmmaker Jeffrey Smith. … Smith writes that an ex-Monsanto scientist revealed to him that, due to the results of tests on milk from cows injected with genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH), three of his colleagues refused to drink milk again unless it was organic. … According to Smith, the scientists also disclosed that Monsanto employees discovered adverse reactions in rodents that were fed genetically modified corn. It was further revealed that instead of withdrawing the dangerous crops, the study was written to omit the problem.†Well, there you go: a cover-up. Like climate-change skeptics who believe only what they want to and therefore trust talk-radio hosts over peer-reviewed studies, GM skeptics tend to put more credence in third-party hearsay from anonymous sources than the assertions of Nobel laureates in prestigious journals. It might seem contradictory to accept settled science in one case and reject it in another — if you think the common denominator is science. But it’s perfectly consistent if the common denominator is corporate malevolence. If you’re emotionally invested in believing corporations are the principal source of all the world’s troubles, then the consensus about man-made global warming comes in pretty handy. And the consensus about GM foods? Clearly, that’s nothing but an evil corporate plot.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/01/27/eat-your-frankenfood

[ganeshran]

For some reason, a lot of the people in the left just don't get GMO technology. They conflate Monstanto's unethical practices with a scientific judgement on the safety of GM technology. The 2-3 papers which are repeatedly cited (rat and GM corn, Pigs and GM corn) have been thoroughly debunked. The right wing however is worse when it comes to ignoring proven scientific facts - Evolution and climate change for e.g.

[Brainfade]

For some reason, a lot of the people in the left just don't get GMOs techonlogy. They conflate Monstanto's unethical practices with a scientific judgement on the safety of GM technology. The 2-3 papers which are repeatedly cited (rat and GM corn, Pigs and GM corn) have been thoroughly debunked. The right wing however is worse when it comes to ignoring proven scientific facts - Evolution and climate change for e.g.

Why is one worse than the other? It's the same irrationality. For many "progress"ives, their warped devotion to ecofundamentalism as a cult/religion trumps everything else, and is no better than devotion any other cult. At least, a lack of acceptance of evolution hurt no one.

[ganeshran]

Why is one worse than the other? It's the same irrationality. For extreme "progress"ives' date=' their warped sense of ecofundamentalism is a cult/religion no better than any other cult. At least, a lack of acceptance of evolution hurt no one.[/quote'] How does a lack of acceptance of evolution and refusal to accept basic scientific facts not hut anyone? Right wingers don't merely refuse to acknowledge evolution, the lobby for legislation which allows teachers to teach intelligent design in classrooms. They lobby against funding of stem cell research. In the long run that is far more harmful to a society. By that same token, you could say that all the left wingers who think that GM tech is intrinsically harmful are merely arguing for GMO labeling and buying expensive organic foods which are hardly that beneficial compared to conventional agriculture. I wish the left collectively evolves on this subject though. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum people belong to, they shouldn't take liberty with scientific facts.

[Brainfade]

How does a lack of acceptance of evolution and refusal to accept basic scientific facts not hut anyone? Right wingers don't merely refuse to acknowledge evolution, the lobby for legislation which allows teachers to teach intelligent design in classrooms. They lobby against funding of stem cell research. In the long run that is far more harmful to a society. By that same token, you could say that all the left wingers who think that GM tech is intrinsically harmful are merely arguing for GMO labeling and buying expensive organic foods which are hardly that beneficial compared to conventional agriculture. I wish the left collectively evolves on this subject though. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum people belong to, they shouldn't take liberty with scientific facts.

Agree completely.

[Brainfade]

As for hurting people - 10 reasons why the rabid, militant anti-GMO movement hurts more than a lack of belief in evolution. First, they have forced Hawaii to disallow planting of any new GMOs there although, ironically enough, it was GM that saved the papaya industry there by providing varieities resistant to the ringspot virus. Second, they will not allow distribution of golden rice, which could prevent blindness in millions of children in Africa. Third, they have strong-armed aid agencies to oppose the donation of food derived from GMO into starving African nations such as Zambia. Fourth, by lobbying for GM-labeling, they have set the stage to increase food costs while providing no useful nutrient or toxicological information. Fifth, they are spreading misinformation about pest-resistant Bt crops and farmer suicides in India, forcing the Indian govt to consider banning them, knowing fully well that this will harm the livelihood of thousands of farmers while also increasing the pesticide footprint. Sixth, they are running amok destroying fields planted with GM-crops that were painstakingly planted either by farmers or university researchers. Seventh, their lunatic fear-mongering and advocating for "farming like your grandma farmed" will only result in more land-use as they will simply not yield enough per acre and we will have cut more forests down to produce the same amount of food. Eighth, it will result in the need for more tilling and thus increased erosion, and therefore more harm to the environment more. Ninth, if we succumbed to their insistence on going back to subsistence farming methods as opposed to mechanized precision agriculture, the number of Americans going back to the farm will have to go from the current 2% to 30%. And tenth, and shame on the California "progress"ives for this one, by opposing GM-technology, Californians have divested themselves of an opportunity to plant cereal and vegetable crops that are drought-tolerant (yes, those varieities are languishing on the shelves of university labs waiting to be deregulated) and help farmers overcome the severe CA drought. Jeffrey Smith, Mike Adams, Dr. Oz, Vandana Shiva, and even Pollan and Bittman have collectively caused more harm than is apparent.