Socialist low ground versus moral high ground
GMOs
Mitch Daniels for (future) president
Ninety
eight percent of everything we eat is genetically modified.
You
certainly wouldn’t know that if everything written by the food police is taken
to heart. What comes out of their shrill whistles is a continuing litany of
warnings of increases in cancer, obesity, gastrointestinal illnesses, kidney
diseases, autism and allergies if genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are
allowed to touch any parts of your body. They, the elitist clan who rely on
computer modeling as if it was one of the cornerstones of their fountain of
youth, have convinced 57% of Americans that genetically modified foods pose
health risks. Their antics, though, have failed to prove a single long term,
specific health problem.
On the
contrary, the benefits from real science that has produced these organisms has
done more to enhance human existence and environmental sustainability than
anything in the last two decades.
The manipulation
of the sought characteristics of the current crop of GMOs versus the traditional
manipulation of genetic tendencies is tied to the transfer of certain genes by
cellular intrusion. That differs from a cattle breeder who controls a genetic
process by capturing desired characteristics through selective breeding, but
the results are the same. It gives the resulting organism traits they would not
otherwise have.
The major
benefits are currently associated with plants where genetic alteration is resulting
in pest and herbicide resistance. This allows the reduction of pesticides and
herbicides without the worry of killing the planted crop. In the field, the
result is fewer passes across the land, reduced tillage, and a decreased
footprint on our nation’s soils. That is the real benefit, but that is not the
message the critics are voicing.
Depending
on which whistle is protesting, they are suggesting the expansion of GMOs is
certain to cause many maladies including intolerance to gluten, increased autism,
Type II diabetes, obesity, and, perhaps, even the spread of six toed children.
Their message is repeated enough that over half of the folks believe the sky is
actually falling.
The truth
is … it isn’t.
GMOs
The
National Academies of Science has finally published a study on the affects of
GMOs. The scope of the research considered more than 900 studies over a 20 year
period. They found nothing that would suggest pending mass murder through the
planting of modified zucchini and summer squash. Alas, GMOs are safe for humans
and animals.
The number
of GMOs grown worldwide is low. The United States grows modified
cotton, soybeans, sugar beets, corn, canola, alfalfa, and a few fruits and
vegetables. The major emphasis is in corn, soybeans, and cotton. Overall, the
modified varieties are saving huge amounts of money, but they have not
significantly increased yields. They have lowered pests in some cases, and, if
there is a negative, there is some herbicide resistance weed expansion (but
there is resistance weed expansion everywhere just as there is resistance
growing in antibiotics).
Around the
world, about 12% of all cropland has been planted in the new modified varieties,
but there is much pushback against their use and especially in the European
Union. It was interesting, therefore, that the study found no long term
patterns of health patterns from Canada and the United States,
where the plants have been planted since the mid ‘90s, to Europe,
where GMOs are not widely eaten. An example was the increase of autism in
children. The patterns from Europe to the United States
and Canada
are very similar.
A Voice in the Cornfield
The problem
is what should we actually believe?
The GMO story is tangible. It is
working and the outcome is not indifferent from all the practical application
of genetic modification that has taken place for a millennium. The food police
and the social groupies, however, aren’t buying the study results. They are
stuck within their PC algorithms and cocktail party discussion points, and, as
a political force, they are powerful. One anti GMO website alone has 35,000 verifiable
non GMO products of which enlightened, civilized folks ought to be feeding to
themselves and their day cared offspring.
The anti GMO
groups are attacking the report claiming that the participating scientists are
tied to industries and corporations that are vested in sale of the modified
crops. The resulting conflicts of interest are contributing to watered down
science due to those agricultural influences.
Isn’t that akin to the pot calling
the kettle black?
The fact is
politically correct science has captured its own permanent funding sources. The
expected outcome is what the funding agents intend to prove hence the problem with
this science more often than not is … it isn’t.
Examples are numerous.
In an attempt last summer to
replicate 100 published psychological experiments, 65% failed to show
statistical significant repeatability. Most of the remainder showed reduced
effects. As a result, William A. Wilson revealed that modern psychology research
is a house of cards filled with unreproducible results.
Wilson
described a similar effort to duplicate cancer research results. Data from
fully 75% of the cases in the review failed to match up with the attempts to
replicate them. Such results must mean that either the original findings were
false or they were useless. Results that cannot be reproduced in science are,
by definition, useless.
The problem
isn’t isolated to psychology or medicine. Climate change is the bell cow of the
movement, but the same modeling is spreading to other fields allowing
researchers to invent their own virtual realities rather than investigating
undisciplined nature.
The measurement of that natural
world isn’t clean or clinical hence it is more trendy and socially “heady” to
invent computer modeling extra-realities. We have entered a computer driven
world of unreproducible results and political driven outcomes. The debacle is
huge, and, again, climate change science is leading the way. It alone accounts
for 55% of all modeling done in science and 97% of climate change research is
computer modeling. More and more we are realizing the outcome isn’t tied to
real world observations at all. It is computer driven modeling science and it
is being used as a political wedge to demonize opposition in all conflicting
issues. To the environmental mobs, it is their higher authority. To the rest of
us, it is creating a nearly universal suspicion that all science is suspect.
Of course that shouldn’t be the
case, but, in order for it to regain credibility we must also regain a renewed
position of strength to fight this battle.
We might
start by watching the leadership of Purdue
University’s president,
Mitch Daniels. Aside from the fact he has excelled in the world outside of
academia and has earned a spot in Fortune’s top 50 world leaders, he is
standing toe to toe with the anti GMO foes demonizing our industry. His
assessment of the tirade against us is our foes are the stewards of “blatant
anti-science”.
“It (anti GMO
forces) is inhumane and it must be countered on that basis,” he preaches.
The
antagonistic coalition, including U.S. organic companies and
environmental groups, are stoking a worldwide fear about many things in
production agriculture and GMOs are in their immediate crosshairs. Daniels
reaches into the heart of the matter and is calling out the tedious environmental
indulgence by the rich.
“It (demonization of GMOs) is not
just scientifically indefensible, it is morally indefensible,” he preaches.
The world is on a trend line to
surpass 9 billion souls within years and could reach 11 billion sometime after
mid-century. That represents a lot of hungry folks in our future. President
Daniels is shouldering this task on the basis that global agriculture isn’t
simply dollars and cents. It is a humanitarian mission. It represents life and
death and the avoidance of tragedy. He also thinks we have the moral high
ground and … we need to start conducting ourselves as such.
Post Script
As I struggle to finish this day, I
am reminded that the real world is neither neat nor tidy. I’ve been in the
corral sorting, and, as I look down, I realize my boots are not house worthy.
They are covered with earthy, undisciplined nature. They have been with me as
the quest for a more perfect cow for our country continues. It is a constant
and stepwise process as certain specific traits are sought. Today’s events were
more subjective than objective, but the incremental steps toward producing an
animal that can convert grass and grow a calf under these desert conditions
better than her predecessors is the constant goal. It is in every sense genetic
modification.
We aren’t taking a drought tolerant
gene from a jackrabbit to bridge a characteristic gap that would make our cattle
more tolerant, but, if we could, we would. Hail to the man who has the skills
and the intelligence to perform that feat.
He’s welcome at our camp … anytime.
Stephen L. Wilmeth is a rancher from southern New Mexico. “Hoorah for
GMOs!”
