#TopTen | No. 4: Greenpeace & the Greens have a problem with the truth

 

Last year at EnZed’s fourth-most read political blog this was the fourth most popular post asking … if the Greens & Greenpeace have truth on their side, why do they need to lie so much?

---

If you have the facts on your side, there’s no need to lie. So when you discover activists who regularly make things up out of whole cloth, you have to ask why.

Take Greenpeace and their campaign against Golden Rice, a technology promising to liberate millions from disease. From publishing staged photos and video to faking studies, distributing false and misleading statements and destroying crops, this is the crowd who say we should follow “settled science” when it suits them; and when it doesn’t – as in this campaign – they resort instead to vandalism and lies. In the words of the American Council on Science and Health their campaign against Golden Rise is “made up of Internet hackers and eco-terrorists using fear-mongering to get uneducated people to do their dirty work for them.” Nobel Laureate Sir Richard Roberts simply calls their campaign of lies a “crime against humanity.” 

Let’s explain what they’re up to.

If you are not familiar with it, Golden Rice is the name of a product created when scientists added three genes for producing beta carotene, a Vitamin A precursor, to the 30,000 already in rice. Obviously this is a good thing in countries where Vitamin A deficiency is common.
    Regardless, organisations like Greenpeace and Union of Concerned Scientists have labelled it “Frankenfood.” In the time these groups have helped block its approval, nearly 20 million children have died and another 20 million have suffered preventable blindness…

“That’s blood on the hands of Greenpeace and the organisations they mobilise for support” says Hank Campbell at the American Council for Science & Health – and also on the hands of the Green Party, from whence NZ’s current Greenpeace director famously comes.

Greenpeace [continues Campbell] has variously alleged that the levels of beta-carotene in Golden Rice are too low to be effective or so high that they would be toxic. But feeding trials have shown the rice to be highly effective in preventing vitamin A deficiency, and toxicity is virtually impossible. (There’s an internal feedback loop in humans that stops beta-carotene from being converted to vitamin A if levels become too high.)

All trials show the rice to be both effective and safe. So with no science to support its antagonism to genetic-engineered food,

the organisation has been forced to adopt a new strategy: try to scare off the developing nations that are considering adoption of the lifesaving products. Greenpeace has gone so far as to concoct tales of genetically-engineered crops causing homosexuality, impotence and baldness, and of increasing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

There is nothing behind Greenpeace’s fantastic allegations but bluster. Never has been. Yet in press release after petition after protest they have continued  to spout these lies that have helped block approval of this life-saving food. They trade not in science but in fearmongering and innuendo.

Every trick in the Greenpeace playbook has been pulled out to publicise the lies and help bury the science, all of it lapped up by a compliant media, leading 100 frustrated Nobel Laureates this week to “sign an open letter asking Greenpeace and others who have been blocking progress and access to beneficial plant biotechnology products, like Golden Rice, to abandon their campaigns against genetic engineering in agriculture.”

In a letter unveiled at a press conference on June 30, more than 100 Nobel Laureates from diverse disciplines voiced their support for genetic engineering in agriculture and called on NGOs, the United Nations and governments around the world to join them. The Laureates–in fields including Medicine, Economics, Physics, Chemistry, Literature and Peace–all signed an open letter asking Greenpeace and others who have been blocking progress and access to beneficial plant biotechnology products, like Golden Rice, to abandon their campaigns against genetic engineering in agriculture…
    The website accompanying the release documents the global scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs (recently reaffirmed by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, and virtually every other authoritative scientific body on the planet). It also documents the abundant and widespread environmental and economic benefits confirmed by the experience of more than 18 million farmers around the world, the vast majority of them small farmers in developing countries.

Greenpeace International's response? They refuse to budge.

And the local rabble, led by former Green Party leader Russel ‘Rustle’ Norman? “The Herald says that “Greenpeace New Zealand could not be reached for comment.”

Someone at the Green Party leadership however could be reached, if not any sign of human intelligence – Greens’ co-leader James Shaw proudly affirming that rather than resile from it the hypocrisy would instead be continued.

Shaw [telling Newstalk ZB] that’s not going to change anything here.

Science being irrelevant to Shaw and his colleagues (not one of whom can even boast an undergraduate science degree).

But on this basis you do have to wonder what would make them change their minds about anything? If not science, then what? As commentator Henry Miller concludes:

It is unclear why Greenpeace—which has also raised money and its profile by bragging about sabotaging efforts to test insect-resistant crops that need less chemical pesticide—persists in some of its mendacious, anti-social campaigns. What is clear is that none is likely to be more harmful to the world’s children than its assault on Golden Rice.
    The real threat to life and limb is not genetic engineering. It’s the organised-crime organisation called Greenpeace.

And the Green Party.

---

Tomorrow, I post last year’s third-most popular post here at EnZed’s fourth-most read political blog asking … for all his tremendous popularity, is John Key a unique example of a Prime Minister without a legacy?

.

Greenpeace has a problem with the truth

 

If you have the facts on your side, there’s no need to lie. And if you don’t … why, then, if you’re Greenpeace, you just make it up. In the words of the American Council on Science and Health  “made up of Internet hackers and eco-terrorists using fear-mongering to get uneducated people to do their dirty work for them.” And their succesful opposition to Golden Rice in particular, a technology promising to liberate millions from disease, they are involved in what Nobel Laureate Sir Richard Roberts calls a “crime against humanity.”

From publishing staged photos and video to faking studies, distributing false and misleading statements and destroying crops, this is the crowd who say we should follow “settled science” when it suits them, and when it doesn’t resorts to vandalism and lies.

If you are not familiar with it, Golden Rice is the name of a product created when scientists added three genes for producing beta carotene, a Vitamin A precursor, to the 30,000 already in rice. Obviously this is a good thing in countries where Vitamin A deficiency is common. Regardless, organisations like Greenpeace and Union of Concerned Scientists have labelled it “Frankenfood.” In the time these groups have helped block its approval, nearly 20 million children have died and another 20 million have suffered preventable blindness…

“That’s blood on the hands of Greenpeace and the organisations they mobilise for support” – including the Green Party, from whence NZ’s current Greenpeace director comes.

Greenpeace has variously alleged that the levels of beta-carotene in Golden Rice are too low to be effective or so high that they would be toxic. But feeding trials have shown the rice to be highly effective in preventing vitamin A deficiency, and toxicity is virtually impossible. (There’s an internal feedback loop in humans that stops beta-carotene from being converted to vitamin A if levels become too high.)

Yet there is nothing behind their allegations. Never has been. They trade not in science but in fearmongering and innuendo.

So with no science to support its antagonism to genetic-engineered food,

the organisation has been forced to adopt a new strategy: try to scare off the developing nations that are considering adoption of the lifesaving products. Greenpeace has gone so far as to concoct tales of genetically-engineered crops causing homosexuality, impotence and baldness, and of increasing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Every trick in its playbook has been pulled out, leading 100 Nobel Laureates this week to “sign an open letter asking Greenpeace and others who have been blocking progress and access to beneficial plant biotechnology products, like Golden Rice, to abandon their campaigns against genetic engineering in agriculture.”

In a letter unveiled at a press conference on June 30, more than 100 Nobel Laureates from diverse disciplines voiced their support for genetic engineering in agriculture and called on NGOs, the United Nations and governments around the world to join them. The Laureates–in fields including Medicine, Economics, Physics, Chemistry, Literature and Peace–all signed an open letter asking Greenpeace and others who have been blocking progress and access to beneficial plant biotechnology products, like Golden Rice, to abandon their campaigns against genetic engineering in agriculture…
    The website accompanying the release documents the global scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs (recently reaffirmed by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, and virtually every other authoritative scientific body on the planet). It also documents the abundant and widespread environmental and economic benefitsconfirmed by the experience of more than 18 million farmers around the world, the vast majority of them small farmers in developing countries.

Greenpeace Inernational’s response? They refuse to budge. And the local rabble, led by former Green Party leader Russel ‘Rustle’ Norman? “The Herald says that “Greenpeace New Zealand could not be reached for comment.”

The Green Party itself however could be reached, co-leader James Shaw proudly affirming the hypocrisy would continue.

Green co-leader James Shaw said that’s not going to change anything here.

Science being irrelevant to Shaw and his colleagues, why the hell would it. But you do have to wonder what would make them change their minds about anything?If not science, then what? As commentator Henry Miller concludes:

It is unclear why Greenpeace—which has also raised money and its profile by bragging about sabotaging efforts to test insect-resistant crops that need less chemical pesticide—persists in some of its mendacious, anti-social campaigns. What is clear is that none is likely to be more harmful to the world’s children than its assault on Golden Rice.
    The real threat to life and limb is not genetic engineering. It’s the organised-crime organization called Greenpeace.

And the Green Party.

.

Greens spin fracking report

The Greens called for a Royal Commission on the science behind Genetic Engineering—then demonstrably spat the dummy when the Commission came out overwhelmingly against the luddites. (Because it was never “all about the science.”)

The Greens also demanded “evidence-based policy” to ban fracking, and have come out with spin now the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has looked at the evidence and said “fracking is safe if it is properly regulated and managed.”

Which is to say fracking is safe if property rights are properly recognised and protected.

The Greens want to pretend she didn’t say that however.  The ParlCommish’s report they say “is not a green light for fracking, but a red flag.” And this is a party that will always keep the red flag flying. By lies and spin, if necessary:

* * “The PCE’s report does not say that fracking in New Zealand is safe,” says the Greens’s Gareth Hughes.

Well, yes it does. “Fracking is safe,” says the report, “if it is properly regulated and managed.”

* * “…the report concludes that fracking companies do not have a ‘social license’ to operate and that the regulation is fragmented and light-handed.”

The report concludes that fracking can be managed effectively provided, to quote the Royal Society
of London, “operational best practices are implemented and enforced…”; that “oversight is [presently] complex and fragmented” and (confusingly) at the same time “may be too light-handed”;  and that “if this new industry is to prosper, it needs to earn and maintain its ‘social licence’ to operate,” to earn it in the face of “concerns” that are “many and wide-ranging,” yet as she says herself are unproven.
This is certainly not any sort of libertarian conclusion, but it is subtly different than the one Gareth Hughes is trying to insinuate.  And the ‘social license’ she talks about is simply better public understanding of the technology, in the face of lies and spin from the likes of Gareth.

* * “The PCE has identified numerous ways in which fracking can cause environmental harm…”

Well, it has identified four: location of the well site, design and construction of the well, surface spills and leaks, and waste disposal. All of which, as the PCE recognises, are generally managed by common sense.

** “I believe these are good arguments for a halt until better rules are enacted… That’s why I am renewing my call for a moratorium on fracking…”

Which they are not. But which he was going to do whatever the PCE said…

** “…and urging the Government and councils to take a safety-first approach until we have strong regulations in place to ensure the health of people and the environment.”

…which regulations he will never every agree would be sufficient.

* * “Kiwis are right to be concerned about fracking’s environmental impact,” Hughes continues. “What we’ve seen of fracking with less than 100 well sites in New Zealand, mostly in Taranaki, doesn’t provide much confidence in the status quo.  We’ve seen fracking jobs being done without specific consent, returned fracking fluids dumped in a local stream in Southland, groundwater and soil contamination from storing fluids in unlined earthen pits, shallow fracking and fracking close to aquifers that increases the risk of water contamination, flaring of gas and fracking fluids from ground-level pits … and lack of scrutiny and transparency of fracking chemicals.”

Let’s be clear, these are genuine objections, but not one of them is unique to fracking—and nor are any of them fatal to it.  All of them essentially amount to problems of waste disposal—problems that are all easily managed by proper protection of property rights through common law, i.e., the same sort of protection that for several-hundred years, before statute law came along, stopped anyone legally dumping waste over your fence.

And notice that he’s not bothered to mention the alleged impact of fracking on earthquakes, presumably because even the ParlCommish is only prepared to allow a risk of “very tiny” localised earthquakes. And that her mention of risk to aquifers being “very real” is also made in the context of waste disposal—not of fracking itself. Because as the commissioner of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency admitted to Congress recently, after over sixty years of fracking in continental America, “"I'm not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water…"

“"I'm not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water."–Lisa Jackson

So in summary, the objections of the Greens’s Gareth Hughes to the report hold up to any scrutiny. As a commenter said in response to Gareth: “You called for an inquiry. You said wait for the outcome of the inquiry. It doesn’t go your way, so you renew your call for a moratorium… So much for evidence-based decision making.”

The commissioner said fracking is safe and should continue. His objections to that are spin, pure and simple.

The same can be said about his conclusion:

Renewable energy will always be cleaner and safer than fracking [he says] and is a better future for New Zealand.

Not only does this not follow, not only is it utterly unproven, so-called “renewable energy” does not really even produce real energy. Which is why the Greens like it so much—and why they oppose any form of genuine energy production: because without energy our industrial civilisation could not survive, and it is our industrial civilisation they are really against.

Here’s Anne McElhinney:

RELATED POSTS:

• “Fracking Amazing”

Genetic engineering: it’s been happening since the dawn of time

Writing this morning in the New York Times,James Mcwilliams takes on the idea of genetic modification as “unnatural.”  Bureaucrats and anti-GE activists (those few that still exist) insist that transferring genes from one species to another is “unnatural.” That genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are “unnatural.”

The UK’s Health and Safety Executive … explains that genetic modification occurs when the genetic material of an organism (either DNA or RNA) is altered by use of a method that does not occur in nature. The anti-biotech Non-GMO Project notes that genetic modification creates combinations of plant, animal, bacteria, and viral genes that do not occur in nature. The Huffington Post plugged last October as non-GMO month on the grounds that genetic modification produces goods through processes that do not occur in nature. Greenpeace has described breaching species barriers as unnatural. Daily Kos insists that gene splicing does not occur in nature. In a word: frankenfood.
    Well, you know where this is going. Scientists have now confirmed what evolutionary geneticists have long suspected nature does produce GMOs. Swedish researchers discovered an enzyme-producing gene in a meadow grass that naturally crossed into sheep’s fescue about 700,000 years ago. The most plausible explanation, said Professor Bengt O. Bengtsson of Lund University, is that the gene was transmitted by a parasite or pathogen, such as a virus, perhaps with the help of a sap-sucking insect.
    The fact that cross-species gene transfer happens without human intervention in nature, however rare, provides further justification for viewing transgenic technology not as a Frankensteinian intervention into the natural world, but as yet another method of trait selection, something we’ve been doing with heroic results since the dawn of agriculture… [hat tip AgBioWorld]

So the objections to GE as “unnatural” fall to the ground.

GE is in clover

While Greens and former Greens wring their hands in dubiety over the proposal here to use a genetically engineered clover as animal feed in order to reduce agricultural emissions (in simpler words, to reduce animals’ farts, and with them their putatively dangerous greenhouse gases), genetically engineered horticulture has been safely and successfully covering the planet and improving both production and prices. Says Time magazine in a recent reassessment of so-called “Frankenfood,”

Some 740 million acres (300 million hectares) are planted with GM crops, about equally divided between North America and the rest of the world — primarily Argentina and Brazil…
    Advocates see biotech as a no-brainer, the only way to boost yields while escaping the trends of a growing world population (now 6.8 billion, heading beyond 9 billion by 2050) and finite cropland nourished by stressed water resources … [while] reducing pesticide use (a major source of water contamination) by about 10%.

And the number of documented safety problems with all this? None. Not one.  [See this good summation and dismissal of most of the anti-GE myths that are so frequently peddled.]

Any sane person would see all this a good thing, a very, very good thing—more food for more people at less environmental cost—as a sober illustration that the frequent Malthusian rants about “running out” are just so much ignorant cant.  That so many Green persons are still in hand-wringing mode might lead one either to question whatever supposed sanity one might to grant them with, or to surmise that perhaps the primary reason for their Malthusian opposition to genetic engineering is that it almost single-handedly overthrows all their defeatist arguments about our inevitable doom.

As I’ve been saying for a while. And Mike Moore pointed out very well back in 2005:

Genetically modified foods offer us the opportunity to feed a hungry world. It is hard to see how we will provision the world and lower the use of dangerous insecticides and fertilisers without enlisting the new forces of science.
    Of course we must be prudent, cautious and seek high standards, because science can move faster than our moral, ethical or legal capacity to cope. But those who wish to destroy science have as their forefathers those who burned so-called witches, not the heroes who freed the slaves. These small groups, which exaggerate the dangers to a gullible media, represent pre-Enlightenment thinking.

Ethics and the Two Johns

I posted a piece on the success and future promise of genetic engineering the other day and offered a prize to anyone who could successfully link the subject of the post with the foundations of ethics.

Sadly, no-one succeeded, but instead of giving you the answer directly let me give you a clue. In fact,three clues – three quotes in chronological order -- one from a Beatle, two from Enlightenment legends, and one from a certain Russian/American novelist/philosopher – and if you fill in the gaps between these and the post on Tuesday, you’ll have your answer.

“Nature to be commanded must be obeyed.” – Francis Bacon

"The intrinsic natural worth of anything consists in its fitness to supply the necessities or serve the conveniences of human life.” – John Locke

“Why in the world are we here/Surely not to live in pain and fear.” - John Lennon

“…the purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.” --Ayn Rand

Have at it!

“It’s time to play God” - Guardian

It’s time to play God, says JohnJoe McFadden in the Guardian:

    The poet Joyce Kilmer wrote, "Poems are made by fools like me, / But only God can make a tree." New research by Craig Venter, one of the main scientists behind the human genome sequencing project, may change all that. His latest research, published in Science, has succeeded in making a new form of life in the laboratory. The hope is that this "synthetic life" will eventually lead to custom-made organisms engineered to tackle the world's woes…
    Of course, the prince of the realm and the anti-Genetic Engineering lobby will howl that we should not be playing God. Yet millions of tons of GM food are consumed each year without a single authenticated case of any harm. And although there have been justifiable concerns about the ecological impact of GM crops, research has tended to conclude they are more benign than conventional farming.
    Mankind cannot stand still. Since the 19th century human longevity in the west has been increasing by about five hours every day. Most of our extra years have been bought with advances in science and technology. But much of the world has been left out. With people living longer, population growth, crop yields waning and global warming, we need to innovate. Synthetic biology provides new hope for a bright future.

Great piece. 

It makes the great point that it’s playing with nature that keeps us alive, not being in thrall to it.  To be commanded, nature must be obeyed – to paraphrase Francis Bacon – but it’s in the commanding that we are able to flourish.

It reminds us too that despite the years of use and the ravings of the Anti-GE loons, there has not been a single authenticated case of any harm caused by GE. 

And finally, it’s going to play hell with this well-used PJ O’Rourke quote.  I look forward to a rewrite of his piece “How Ferrari Refutes the Decline of the West” or at least of the quote.  (If you can come up with a good quote rewrite I’ll send you one of a new pile of books I’ve been given to give away.)

And for an extra point, see if you can tell me succinctly how “playing with nature” relates to the subject of ethics, and how this piece illustrates the starting point for the science of ethics.  (I’ll give you the answer tomorrow morning, if no-one’s got it before then.)

Exit Maid Marian

Twice in her parliamentary career I've been surprised to find myself cheering on Marian Hobbs, who gave her valedictory speech to parliament last week.

Who wouldn't be surprised?

The  first time I found myself in her corner was with her resolute defence of science and genetic engineering in the face of Nicky Hager and "little creep" John Campbell's pathetic 'corngate' beat-up in the run-up to the 2002 election, when civilised New Zealanders were silently and not-so silently applauding Clark and Hobbs for allowing a GE crop to reach maturity, and reflecting that things could have been a lot worse with Nick Smith in the Environment chair, and will be a lot worse if rumours about Jeanette Fitzsimons taking the chair in a post-election Labour Cabinet were to come to pass.

The second time I applauded Hobbs was just yesterday when I came across her valedictory speech, and not just because she's leaving parliament, but for for her observations on the state of journalism which she identifies is more focused on personalities than it is policies.   This is not just the complaint of someone who's had a bad run with the media -- although it is partly that -- it's also right on the money.

    "Politics is about making decisions, be it the laws we pass or the budgets we approve," she said.  "But modern news media doesn't evaluate our decisions in the light of which policy is best.
    "Instead they build a web around personalities and behaviour. It's about a smiley new face versus the one we are familiar with. The news is about decision makers, rarely about decisions."

This is the reason scandal-mongering and smiley faces flourish in the corridors of power, while policy-makers are either ignored or pursue their work in the shadows - often to the detriment of those whom their policies damage.

"You need only to sound assertive, even when you don't know what you're talking about," she said.

There's a lot of that about, isn't there. When the focus of reporting is on "the game," and who's "winning it" rather than on policies and who's being done over by them, it's no wonder that flatulent fools like Winston Peters -- who's never read a whole policy document right to the end, but is a master at sounding assertive -- gets all the media time he does, while policy analysis -- even on the blogs -- is little more than left versus right.

UPDATE: "As the media often rate how well MPs are doing," David Farrar asked MPs to reverse the favour, and score the media and press gallery.  The results are here: MPs survey of the media.  On a scale of 0-10, very few scored over 5, and then only barely.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...

Jordan Carter suggests the time is right to reflect on Labour's performance in its seven years, three months in office, and he offers five best and five worst things his objects of worship have done in all that time. Here's my list. First, five worst:

1. The blatant theft of an election by using the money taken from taxpayers to run the Prime Minister's Office to run for the Office, demonstrating an utter disregard for constitutional restraints.
2. The introduction of retrospective legislation to legitimise the theft, indicating that in the area of constitutional restraints on government, we're down there with Botswana.
3. Passing the Foreshore and Seabed Act, which in one stroke removed the right of litigants in common law to prove before a court that they have property rights in these areas -- demonstrating an utter disregard for judicial independence, common law and property rights.
4. The renationalisation of the Accident Compensation Corporation and Air New Zealand (after refusing permission for Air New Zealand to make its own way in the world), and the ever-expanding, ever-more intrusive meddling in all areas of the economy.
   
5. Piling up the tax take to pay for a new welfare system (which also, incidentally, helped to buy the last election): Welfare for Working Families takes with one hand and doles out with the other, demonstrating that trickle down is not a characteristic of capitalism, but of state worship. Welfare for Working Families raises the marginal tax rate of recipients to levels of nearly ninety percent, it makes beneficiaries out of one third of the country, and it will 'normalise' for a whole generation the lifestyle of sucking off the state tit, meaning this is damage on a generational scale.
   
6. No action taken at all to increase property rights protection under the Resource Management Act, to make any positive changes to the state's disastrous factory schools, or to slow down the rampantly soft fascism of political correctness that infests the government half of the economy, and is slowly taking over the other half.

Oops. That's six. My bad, because they're so bad. But now, just to be fair, are six of the best:

1. One unequivocal move in the direction of freedom was the introduction of civil unions. Government has no business in people's bedrooms, and good for Tim Barnett for quietly and diligently pushing this through on the grounds of individual freedom. Support for laws such as this is a litmus test for freedom lovers: it is not for the State to judge adult relationships; it is their job simply to recognise and protect them should the partners wish that to happen (I won't mention the Property Relationships Bill which does just the opposite -- whoops! I just did). The Civil Union Bill moves in the direction of freedom, with no new coercion. A big tick.
2. The decriminilisation of prostitution recognised that people should be free to do with their own bodies what they wish, and free to charge for the use of their bodies if they wish. You don't need to be an advocate for prostitution itself to recognise that it's not the State's business to proscribe people's choices for themselves. And once again, good for Tim Barnett for being the quiet achiever. Another big tick.
3. I confess I'm struggling now. I think the Chinese free trade deal looks good. So that's another tick. In fact, the commitment to free trade at all deserves a very favourable tick, as does Labour's recognition that the Douglas-Richardson reforms should (for the most part) be retained -- even if these reforms have been regularly demonised for Labour's rather simple constituency who still haven't realised that these reforms have remained largely intact.
   
4. I did enjoy Marian Hobbs' defence of genetic engineering during the pathetic 'corngate' beat-up. Not so much an achievement, I guess, but her arguments and those of the Royal Commission for the science of GE were very sound, and as a consequence the legal environment for genetic engineering hasn't been as bad as it could be. Things would have been a a lot worse with Nick (A Tongue So Forked You Could Hug a Tree With It) Smith in the Environment chair.
5. Some of Phil Goff's changes with parole and sentencing were a step in the right direction of making punishments fit the crime. Small steps. Just baby steps, and only because of electoral pressure. Steps that the death of showed are still barely sufficient. Susan Couch, Tai Hobson and the families of Kylie Jones, Karl Kuckenbecker and many many others would undoubtedly disagree that things have yet moved far enough, and of course they'd be right.
6. The words 'slow', and 'only because of electoral pressure' could also be applied to the few weak moves to remove racial favouritism from legislation. But baby steps have been taken here too, which is something.

So what sort of list could you draw up? Head across to Jordan's, if you like, to see if either his or his commenters' lists give you any assistance.

RELATED: NZ Politics, Labour

Record year for GE crops!

Nearly a dozen years after commercial release of genetically engineered, "a record number of biotech crops were planted worldwide last year."

Some 10.3 million farmers in 22 countries grew engineered crops on 252 million acres last year, a 13 percent increase over 2005, according to the report. About 9.3 million of those people were considered subsistence farmers...In 1996, the first year genetically modified crops were commercially available, about 4.3 million acres were under cultivation. Now genetically engineered crops are grown throughout the Americas, China and India. Last year, Slovakia became the sixth European Union country to plant genetically engineered crops

In all this time it's still the case that "no illness has been attributed to biotechnology crops." The same cannot be said however of organic crops.

Despite this however, the critics are still not happy: "Critics complained the gains were more of the same: aimed at making corn, soy and cotton crops resistant to weed killers and bugs." Nothing to do with critics and regulators in the US and Europe doing all they can to keep GE crops off the market. These are people who would complain if there house was on fire, and then complain again if someone came along and put it out.  

LINK: Record biotech plantings in 2006 - Associated Press
The hidden dangers in organic foods - Center for Global Food Issues
The costly fraud that is organic food - Dick Taverne, Sense About Science, The Guardian
FDA warned farmers about E. coli last year - USA Today 
 
RELATED: GE, Environment, Health, Science, Politics-US

Chinese rice tipping point for GE

China is "on the verge of a decision that historians eventually may interpret as a tipping point in the global debate over genetically modified food," says Dean Kleckner of Truth about Trade and Technology.

No doubt the decision will also nettle the type of environmentalist that Charlie Pedersen was criticising.

The 'tipping point' about which he speaks and which will have deep ecologists and their fellow travellers choking on their muesli is the imminent approval by Beijing of the planting and commercial sale of genetically modified rice. The motive for the decision is clear enough:

    A recent study by a team of Chinese and American scientists revealed that the use of biotech rice reduced pesticide costs by 80 percent. “We estimate that if 90 percent of the farmers plant GM rice, then the annual agricultural income of China will increase by $4 billion,” said Huang Jukun, director of the Agriculture Policy Research Center at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. .
    Around the world, GM crops are becoming more popular. No country that has allowed access to this technology has subsequently turned its back on biotech, in what we might label an “untipping point.”
    To be sure, a number of European nations continue to hold out against GMOs. Yet they are becoming increasingly isolated, and China’s forthcoming decision will highlight their detachment. You certainly don’t need to crack open a fortune cookie to predict the future of rice farming in China: Farmers want it, and they will get it.

And if China gets it, that means the rest of the world won't be far behind. Read the whole article here.  

LINK: Biotech tipping point - Dean Kleckner, Truth about Trade and Technology  

MORE ON THESE SUBJECTS: GE, Environment, Politics-World

Destruction of GE crops is not a victimless crime

New Zealand has been mercifully free of crop vandalism since Nandor Tanczos's Wild Greens broke into Lincoln Univerity's GE crop research lab and destroyed about a million or so dollars of scientific research, despite the boasts of the "sandalled vandals" of 'Green Gloves' in the wake of the Royal Commission Report on GE going against their hopes and wishes.

Not so in Europe however, and Dr. Ferdinand Schmitz of the Federated Association of German Plant Breeders is saying enough is enough. "Field destruction is not a victimless crime," says Dr Schmitz in a recent press release (in German unfortunately -- translation below). "The losses to breeders and farmers cost millions."

   
The destruction of field trials of genetically modified plants by militant opponents of green biotechnology is creating great distress among scientists and plant breeders. After careful scientific and official assessment of ecological and agronomic variables, the field trials take place outdoors where their protection from criminal trespass is scarcely possible. . .
    The damage caused by the destruction of the field trials is considerable. Uprooted and destroyed plants do not represent the loss of ordinary crops, but rather the loss of valuable breeding material which contributes to the development of new varieties and new technologies. The immediate physical damages inflicted by the destruction of outdoor field trials amounts to EU250,000 to EU300,000. The value of the research imperiled by destruction of any individual field trial runs into the millions. Things are little different for seed certification tests. . .
    Before a new plant variety -- whether developed through biotechnology or traditional methods -- is released to the market, it is evaluated over several years under agricultural conditions. . .
    If an evaluation for the certification of a new variety is lost, damages ranging into the millions result for the seed developer and with it, an entire year of market opportunity. Still greater is the loss to agriculture in general. For example, the development of new corn [maize] varieties annually increases productivity by 1.5 decitonnes per hectare. If farmers were to go without this amount of progress for one year, that damage alone is considerable.
    Civil courage required "We cannot test our innovations in secured, isolated areas. We work in and with nature and that leaves us vulnerable to attacks," Schmitz said of the problem. A broad support of the state for the optimum protection of field trial integrity alone is not enough, in the opinion the BDP. "We appeal to attentive citizens who understand injustice, and who share our rejection of the use of force against persons and property to press a political argument. We are very grateful for the civil courage of vigilant residents near the location of the recent raid in Baden-Wuerttemberg, who reported the destruction to police. With support of the public, hopefully expressed by the press, television and politicians, it will become clear to the opponents that this form of argumentation will be ineffective."

Anti-GE activists say they object to GE crops being 'released' before they're researched, about which nobody disagrees. But then the same activists defend vandalism against the research they say needs to be carried out.

Not for the first time, and just like the small children their actions so often resemble, the vandals want it every way, just so long as its their way.  

LINKS: NZ and Korean activists take direct action against GE crops - Organic Consumers Association (March 16, 1999)
Libz declares war on activists - Libertarianz, Scoop
Eco-Terrorism - Editorial, The Press (Jan 14, 2002)
Field destruction is not a victimless crime (in German) - BDP Lebensbasis Planze

TAGS: Environment, Politics-Europe, GE, Libz, Politics-Greens

Modern Enemies of Reason

A fabulous piece here from the unlikely source of Mike Moore, former prime minister of New Zealand and former director-general of the World Trade Organisation. [Hat tip Owen McShane]  

Modern enemies of reason - SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST,
September 2, 2005: Proving that genetically modified foods are safe is a bit like proving the existence of the Loch Ness monster: it's hard to prove something is not there when fanatics want to believe.

It is embarrassing to see environmentalists being suckered into using dubious European slogans such as the "precautionary principle" - which the rest of the world realises is sophisticated protectionism for their privileged, subsidised farmers. This is just another example of Europe losing the plot.

What once gave Europe, and cultures of European extraction, the edge? What allowed their societies to flourish and expand, giving their economies the opportunity to explode with creativity and become the dominant global force for the past few centuries? The answers: the separation of church and state, freedom of religion and, more importantly, freedom from religion. Given freedom, enlightenment was sure to follow, philosophers argued. "Have the courage to use your own reason," was the motto of the Enlightenment. People began to refuse to outsource their consciences to clerics, or accept privileges conferred by a sovereign.

So who are the modern enemies of reason, tolerance and freedom? Fundamentalist religious fanatics rage against modernity: their most evil expression of powerlessness is terrorist attacks. But even in open societies, intolerant forces gather, march, and claim to know a truth that everyone else must live under.

These enemies of reason normally align themselves on the political right. There are, however, enemies of reason who pose as progressives and, like others, claim to be saving the world. The environment is their vehicle of power. Fundamentalists oppose stem-cell research, which offers ways to treat some of mankind's most devastating diseases and injuries. But pharmaceutical research is moving out of Britain due to rabid activists who last year were responsible for over 300 attacks on research facilities and staff.

The FBI, in a recent report to a US Senate committee, warned that eco -militants are the new terrorist threat: fire-bombing SUV dealers in opposition to gas-guzzlers; burning so-called insensitive housing developments, causing US$ 70 million in damage; and so forth. Yet, it is in the name of animal rights that the most violent exchanges have taken place in many countries. One animal-rights activist recently said that they were not bound by law, and their cause was like the anti-slavery campaign.

Where the fundamentalists and environmental militants join hands against science is in the arguments against GM foods and stem-cell research. Genetically modified foods offer us the opportunity to feed a hungry world. It is hard to see how we will provision the world and lower the use of dangerous insecticides and fertilisers without enlisting the new forces of science.

Of course we must be prudent, cautious and seek high standards, because science can move faster than our moral, ethical or legal capacity to cope. But those who wish to destroy science have as their forefathers those who burned so-called witches, not the heroes who freed the slaves. These small groups, which exaggerate the dangers to a gullible media, represent pre-Enlightenment thinking. It is, however, a good way to grab the headlines and raise funds.

Q&A: Why are Libertarians for genetically modified food?

In response to yesterday's Celebration of Ten Years of Commercial GE here at Not PC, Lucyna asks on the Sir Humphrey blog: "Why are Libertarians for genetically modified food?" A fair question.

It's true that many libertarians (small 'l') are in favour of capitalism, technology and genetically modified food, but as a political party Libertarianz (big 'l' and an 'NZ' on the end) is neither for nor against GE. What Libertarianz is for is laws protecting against force and fraud. What we are against is busybody politicians inflicting force and fraud on us. In this respect, under 'Force and Fraud' and 'Busybody Politicians' please see 'The GE Debate,' particularly under Fitzsimplesimons, Jeanette and Hager, Nicky.

The Libertarianz position is that the issue of GE food is not one for politicians who know nothing - who should butt out - but for scientists, consumers, farmers, manufacturers and the like; the only political issue is a legal one, that there should be laws that protect against fraudulent labelling and objectively proven damages. I answered the particular question about legal protection some years ago here, and gave a speech to students on the subject some more years ago here. (Dates have been changed on the hosting site for some reason; these two were delivered some three to five years ago as I recall.)

The Royal Commission made a similar point in its report when discussing common law. In fact, the Royal Commission went much further than this:

"Technology is integral to the advancement of the world [they said]. Fire, the wheel, steam power, electricity, radio transmission, air and space travel, nuclear power, the microchip, DNA: the human race has ever been on the cusp of innovation. Currently, biotechnology is the new frontier. Continuation of research is critical to New Zealand's future." 

Not my words, or those of Ayn Rand, but those of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, which I would be proud to have written. The Commission adds, "As in the past we should go forward but with care." And as Lindsay Perigo clarified at the time: "The only "care" that needs to be exercised here is that at no stage are the rights to life, liberty & property violated. Otherwise, I say to the geneticists, tamper away - from your work will come more & better food, new medicines, & the unlocking of more of life's secrets. I hope you make bucket-loads of money from it."

Celebrating ten years of GE

Commercial genetically-engineered crops are now ten years old, and it's high time this wonderful technology was properly celebrated Michael Fumento is celebrating in the Washington Times:

Globally, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, biotech acres planted have grown almost 50-fold since 1996. They now cover the equivalent of 40 percent of the U.S. land area. An increasing percentage of these crops are in places with hungry populations such as China and South Africa. In the United States, three-fourths of the cotton, almost half the corn and 85 percent of the soybeans planted are biotech. Considering the massive variety of foods we consume containing corn and soy and cottonseed oil, almost all of us eat biotech food daily.

And evidence continues to grow that the food is healthier than 'health foods', a godsend for third-world farmers who can be productive without expensive fertilisers and pesticides, and in the case of crops like the soon-to-be-rolled-out golden rice 2, able to provide highly nutritious food where at the moment there is very little. This stuff feeds the world better than a song by Sting or Bob Geldof ever could.

And, despite the many warnings by activists that GE food 'could,' 'might' or 'may' lead to unspecified disasters, it hasn't. Not one single person has died in that time due to food being genetically engineered. 

On the other hand, food that hasn't been genetically enginered has continued to cause problems, some of which genetic engineering may have helped with. The onset of birth defects from fumonisins caused by mouldy organic corn, mentioned by Fumento, is just one example.

Ironically, as no news of problems with GE foods continues not to flood in, we continue to see reports such as these from The Times about organic foods: There is evidence "that organic farms may act as reservoirs for fungi which generate dangerous food mycotoxins - two such (fumonisin and patulin) are both reported to have a higher incidence in organic food. There have been cases of contamination of organic food worldwide -botulism in tins of organic soup, listeria in organic cheese, salmonella in organic sprouts, E. coli in organic apple juice..." Etc.

So do I expect the opponents of GE to get over themselves any time soon? Well, the Greens are now banging on about Peak Oil instead of GE in a desperate attempt to get themselves an election hook, and their FrogBlog hasn't even mentioned GE since the blog began. See.

So you tell me? Maybe I was wrong back in 1999? Maybe they have got it now. Maybe I was wrong in 2001? Robert Bidinotto doesn't think so.

What do you think?

Religionists for Nuclear

Stewart Brand predicts here in Technology Review that "Over the next ten years ... the mainstream of the environmental movement will reverse its opinion and activism in four major areas: population growth, urbani­zation, genetically engineered organisms, and nuclear power." The reason?

There are a great many more environmental romantics than there are scientists. That’s fortunate, since their inspiration means that most people in developed socie­ties see themselves as environmentalists. But it also means that scientific perceptions are always a minority view, easily ignored, suppressed, or demonized if they don’t fit the consensus story line.

Brand suggests a consequence of the 'romantic view' is that it can take a while to notice that the science doesn't fit their preconceived notions - sometimes up to thirty years; for example, population growth rates peaked in 1968, but the scare stories only recently began to slow down.

So will Rod and Jeanette start crusading for nuclear any time soon? Well, if their convictions on global warming and 'peak oil' are based on reason rather than religion, they will. (Yeah right.)

You see, people like Bob Bidinotto disagrees with the term 'romantic' to describe environmentalists. He prefers to call them religionists as he explains here in his blog. "Religions traditionally criticize human reason, and extol faith." he points out. "So does environmentalism."

And yes, there are a lot of them about. A 1997 survey published in American Demographics found that fully a fourth of all Americans 'see nature as sacred, want to stop corporate polluters, are suspicious of big business, are interested in voluntary simplicity, and are willing to pay to clean up the environment and stop global warming.' That’s amazing growth for a new faith in just three decades.

At this rate, environmentalism will supplant all rival religions in a few more years. "Why fight it?," says Bidinotto. Let's just accept environmentalism as a new religion and be done with it. At least then we could argue for the separation of church and state.

[Thanks to Stephen Hicks for spotting the Technology Review link.]

UPDATE: Owen McShane has pointed me to a speech by author Michael Crichton making a similar point about environmentalism being a religion. You can find the speech here.