Counterpunch: Who Will Bail Out Humanity If the GMO Evangelists Win?

[villager]

<snip>

In a more general sense, Spitznagel and Taleb see the same trend with GM as they saw in the globalised financial system: all risks are systemic and affect the entire population and ecosystem. The risks associated with GMOs are more severe than those of finance, however. The impact can result in complex and unpredictable changes in human health and the environment, while the methods of risk management – unlike finance, where some effort was made – are less than primitive.

Once the food system is contaminated by GMOs, there may be no going back. The GMO industry is carrying out a massive unscientific (despite what it would like us to believe) experiment using people as human guinea pigs to rake in massive profits. Fuelled by the same profit motive (poorly hidden behind the mask of humanitarian intent), those behind the GM project are just as (even more) arrogant and reckless as were (and are) their deregulating neoliberal evangelist bedfellows in the finance sector.

Given the political connections of the GM industry and the active support it is receiving from governments and institutions across the world, it is being propped up regardless of its impacts on health, the environment and the livelihoods of small farmers – who already feed most of the world, despite the marginalisation they experience.

The pro-GMO lobby tries to focus the debate on ‘the science’ surrounding this technology because once the argument is broadened to include the politics of GM and the wider social implications and impacts, the discussion takes it onto ground that it is unable or unwilling to engage on (for example, see this, this and this). But even when confining ourselves to the science of GM, its supporters still fail to provide a convincing case for GM.

Just like with the mega banks and the swindlers behind them, we are witnessing another systemic and politically well-connected, corrupt enterprise that is ‘too big to fail’. Spitznagel and Taleb are right to ask: who will be there to bail out humanity once it does fail?

<snip>

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/17/who-will-bail-out-humanity-if-the-gmo-evangelists-win/

[immoderate]

1. This is a 'must read' for all lab rats.

And that's everybody.

--imm

[tsites]

2. Replace GMO in this article

with the word Evolution or Global Warming, and it reads exactly like a creationist screed or a climate change denier's rant. Every time I see someone post a reference to a "must read" article on GMO's, it is always the same; lots of claims and warning of imminent doom, and with no evidence to back it up and misleading statements about research data.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of the lobbying by some GMO companies. This lobbying has resulted in extending intellectual property rights to companies simply for the discovery of an existing gene. Patenting a processes is one thing, but patenting a gene is quite another. This has led to companies suing farmers who plant seeds gathered from their own crops which they claim might have accidentally been pollinated by a nearby GMO crop and therefore might contain a patented gene. This is wrong and it is policies like these that we should be concerned about, not GMO's themselves.

Should we be concerned about GMOs? Yes, but no more than we should be concerned about hybridized crops or how crops are stored, shipped and packaged. If we should be concerned about anything, we should be concerned about the totally unregulated food supplement industry. You are far more likely to be harmed by an unregulated and untested "all natural" herbal extract than a GMO. Simply because something is "natural" doesn't mean it is safe. Unfortunately I find the people most concerned about GMOs are also typically the people who will submit themselves to regimens of massive intakes of untested herbal supplements and extracts on little more "evidence" than an endorsement by Oprah or because the person selling it has "Dr." in front of his/her name.

We should always make sure what we consume is safe, but we should also trust the scientific community in determining what that is. To do so we must properly fund the testing agencies and assure their impartiality. When people begin to claim conspiracies saying that we cannot trust those most knowledgeable on the subject, then by what means can we know the truth? We should indeed be concerned that industry is too often self policed, but if we focus on an imaginary bogyman of GMOs, then we risk ignoring the real problem of untested levels of hormones, pesticides, herbicides, and antibiotics that are being consumed and entering the environment. The number of food additives which have never undergone long term testing and the number that have never been tested at all (simply because "on paper" they probably should be safe or because they were a modification of a tested safe compound) is astounding. The companies won't do this testing and the government agencies are not given adequate funding.

The Left needs to be on the side of science. The GMO debate squarely places too many people on the Left in the same category as the anti-science Right in terms of tactics and justifications for ignoring scientific consensus. Unfortunately it is not just GMOs that expose many on the Left as being either hostile toward science or ruefully uninformed about the processes of science, but that's a topic for another time.

[villager]

3. "The pro-GMO lobby likes to think it has the monopoly on truth...."

The part I excerpted mostly refers back to an interesting NY Times article:

"Mark Spitznagel and Professor Nassim Taleb argue that prior to the economic crisis that started in 2007, they believed that the financial system was fragile and unsustainable, contrary to the near ubiquitous analyses at the time. Most people held that the financial system could not fail because it was underpinned by expert analyses and the latest technology, leading to greater sophisticated economic insight...."

<snip>

"In a more general sense, Spitznagel and Taleb see the same trend with GM as they saw in the globalised financial system: all risks are systemic and affect the entire population and ecosystem. The risks associated with GMOs are more severe than those of finance, however. The impact can result in complex and unpredictable changes in human health and the environment, while the methods of risk management – unlike finance, where some effort was made – are less than primitive..."

<snip>

The problem is that we're asked to accept the entire systemic delivery of GMOs, pesticides and all. And we don't know where that's going to lead.

Oh, and I never watch Oprah.

[tsites]

6. Why should I believe these people

Mark Spitznagel is a derivatives trader, with a background in economics. He is a Libertarian of the Ron Paul variety who tend to have a history of anti-science views. Nassim Taleb is a statistician whose work is in economics and finance. He has no scientific training to my knowledge. Their whole argument is based on the concept that scientists make scientific predictions the same way Wall Street makes market predictions. This is laughable.

All the things the author accuses his opponents of - unscientific tactics, polemics, fallacious arguments and emotional blackmail - are all the author himself can seem to offer in rebuttal. No science, no data, no evidence. If you think you will find more substance if you follow the links, you will be disappointed. But if the science doesn't agree with you or you just don't understand science, then lets turn to something totally unrelated - the 2007 economic crisis = the pending GMO apocalypse. Yeah, that makes sense. I agree that there are other factors involved - politics and corporate interests - but ultimately only the science matters.

You say "we're asked to accept the entire systemic delivery of GMOs, pesticides and all. And we don't know where that's going to lead". How, but through science, can we resolve your dilemma? Politics may or may not respond appropriately when presented with good science to support your cause, but without the science, you don't stand a chance. If you have a scientific case against GMOs, then present it. Articles like the one presented only make the scientific literate more convinced the anti-GMO activists have no case, otherwise they would not shy away from presenting their evidence.

[Joe Chi Minh]

4. 'We should always make sure what we consume is safe, but we should also

trust the scientific community in determining what that is.'

You are either 'not quite the ticket' or a sick individual.

[tsites]

5. Who would you turn to?

If not the scientific community, then who? You seem to believe we cannot trust scientist, then please point me to who can determine the safety of what we consume?

[Joe Chi Minh]

7. That is an implicit counsel of despair, isn't it? 'Sorry, Bud. You've nowhere else to go.'

It's an academic question, isn't it, since they won't label GMOs? Why did they lobby to prevent it? Does it not strike you as suspicious?

There is copious scientific evidence of a major rise in gastric disease in the US population since GMOs were introduced, Rip Van Winkle. Shame on you.

[Joe Chi Minh]

8. '....You seem to believe we cannot trust scientists,..'

Don't insult me. Why would any sane person trust such a corrupt establishment or its corrupt principals? There's no SEEM about it.