When Will Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Accept the Global Scientific Consensus on Biotech Crops?

Ronald Bailey | July 1, 2009

Earlier this month, the European Food Safety Authority ruled that Monsanto's insect resistant biotech corn variety MON810 is safe. According to the EFSA: 

...MON810 is as safe as its conventional counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health. The EFSA GMO Panel also concludes that maize MON810 is unlikely to have any adverse effect on the environment in the context of its intended uses....

Of course, in light of the overwhelming scientific consensus that biotech crops are safe, environmental activists immediately dropped their opposition to them. OK, not exactly. As Reuters reports:

"Allowing EFSA to express opinions on GM crops while it cannot assess long-term environmental impacts is like allowing someone into a Formula 1 race just because they have a driving licence," said Marco Contier, GMO policy director at Greenpeace's European office in Brussels.

"The green light should not be given for this crop to continue to be grown in Europe," said Helen Holder, GMO campaign coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe. "It's time to sack the EFSA scientists, disband its GMO panel and move GMO risk assessment to a truly independent and effective body," she said.

As usual, Greenpeace and FOE prefer to shoot messengers rather than listen to their scientific evidence. 

Comments

|7.1.09 @ 11:39AM|#

So does this mean that Reason accepts AGW theory?

MNG|7.1.09 @ 11:40AM|#

Let me be the first to say, these liberals are being stupid here. Going with the majority view of experts is the sound way to go.

|7.1.09 @ 11:45AM|#

Oatwhore: Check out:

(1) My 2005 column "We're All Global Warmers Now"
(2) My 2006 column "Confessions of an Alleged Exxon Mobil Whore"
(3) My 2007 article on "Carbon Taxes vs. Carbon Markets"
(4) My 2009 column on "Wagging the 'Fat Tail' of Climate Catastrophe"

Fascitis Necrotizante|7.1.09 @ 11:49AM|#

You Sugarfree'd the 1st and 3rd links, there, Ron.

Gotta remember that 'h'.

|7.1.09 @ 11:50AM|#

Frankly, I think that biotech crops are going to be great for the environment. By allowing more and better food to be grown using less land and resources, we can put less strain on our precious planet. Really, by apposing biotech crops, Greenpeace is actually hurting the earth.

Rich|7.1.09 @ 11:50AM|#

Just eat mutants, the way God intended.

Warty|7.1.09 @ 11:52AM|#

Greenpeace is actually hurting the earth.

For the 653rd time.

|7.1.09 @ 11:53AM|#

"whatever it is, i'm against it..."

|7.1.09 @ 11:55AM|#

nipplemancer | July 1, 2009, 11:53am | #

"The skin above his chest hair was the color of a television, tuned to a dead channel."

Warty|7.1.09 @ 11:55AM|#

nipplemancer

Say, that's a pretty good occupation for the census form.

|7.1.09 @ 11:56AM|#

long-term environmental impacts

They keep wailing about long term impacts but never seem to say specifically just how long term they mean.

I assume 'long term' for them means millenia.

Jeff P|7.1.09 @ 12:01PM|#

But what does Jenny McCarthy think?

Jeff P|7.1.09 @ 12:02PM|#

Also, does Greenpreace address the fact that none of the top ten domestic cash crops existed in their present state a hundred years ago?

Hugh Akston|7.1.09 @ 12:03PM|#

no-Kurt,

That's the crux of the game. The argument goes that biotech crops should not be planted until we know their long-term environmental effects. Aside from planting them and seeing what happens, there is little else we can do to test long-term effects. Since we can't plant them to see what happens, we will never know the long-term effects. Therefore, biotech crops should not be planted.

Richard Hoste|7.1.09 @ 12:03PM|#

Environmentalism is a religion.

Michael Ejercito|7.1.09 @ 12:10PM|#

These people treat industrialization as a sin, as others treat premarital sex as a sin.

The two groups probably overlap a lot.

cm|7.1.09 @ 12:10PM|#

I've been reading about how harmfull gm crops are in some newsletters I subscribe to, but most of th news is about different organizations that are opposing them.


>This is the closest I've come, but even here it admits the research was cancelled.

|7.1.09 @ 12:13PM|#

"It's time to sack the EFSA scientists, disband its GMO panel and move GMO risk assessment to a truly independent and effective body," she said.

I assume she means her own organization is the only independent and effective body, which is neither truly independent, nor effective.

|7.1.09 @ 12:15PM|#

Ron Bailey clearly has no regard for the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. They are a real live medical group with "academy" in their name! And they want a moratorium on GM foods. Not only are they an academy, but they are American. And environmental.

|7.1.09 @ 12:16PM|#

FN: Links looked good in preview. Let's try this again:

(1) My 2005 column "We're All Global Warmers Now"
(2) My 2006 column "Confessions of an Alleged Exxon Mobil Whore"
(3) My 2007 article on "Carbon Taxes vs. Carbon Markets"
(4) My 2009 column on "Wagging the 'Fat Tail' of Climate Catastrophe"

|7.1.09 @ 12:18PM|#

Lamar: Correct. No regard whatsoever. :-)

|7.1.09 @ 12:19PM|#

There's a preview function?

DADIODADDY|7.1.09 @ 12:22PM|#

These people treat industrialization as a sin, as others treat premarital sex as a sin.

The two groups probably overlap a lot.

would that be industrialized sex or premarital industrialization?

Xeones|7.1.09 @ 12:24PM|#

industrialized sex

Who told you my business plan?

JB|7.1.09 @ 12:29PM|#

Greens are nothing but reds in drag. And they hate science.

alan|7.1.09 @ 12:50PM|#

The skin above his chest hair was the color of a television, tuned to a dead channel.

WG -- lame plots, for most of the post Nueromancer novels, but some mighty damn good descriptive lines.

BeesInTheBrain|7.1.09 @ 12:53PM|#

It's all in the marketing. They should be touting the improvement in CO2 consumption per acre versus normal crops.

"We here at BiGen take our role as guardians of the biosphere very seriously. Towards that end we are excited to introduce our latest variety of corn. The Redenbacher Mach 6 removes 1 guadtrillion tons more greenhouse gases from the atmosphere per acre than it's predecessor the Mach 5 and 20 quadtrillion tons more than normal corn....."

BioGen Corn, now with enhanced CO2 consumption.

MaterialMonkee|7.1.09 @ 12:54PM|#

Follow the money as they say

In Europe at least the anti-GM posse is funded by rich aristocratic landowners

"conservation" is the name of the game when you claim to be a radical

but

"protecting European agricultural tradition" when you're a right wing politician giving agricultural subsidies to you're aristocratic buddies.

Farming is already subsidized to make it less productive and protect the "traditional" lifestyles of the European aristocracy

GM is opposed as it is more productive and therefore a threat to aristocracy


That's not to say that there aren't very strong reasons to criticize some GM companies for Bio-piracy

but that's an entirely different issue to the safety of GM

alan|7.1.09 @ 12:54PM|#

Oatwhore | July 1, 2009, 11:39am | #
So does this mean that Reason accepts AGW theory?

Sure, to the extent the data shows it to be occurring and where the theory is sound. We just don't throw in the fucking Book of Revelations in to mix.

MaterialMonkee|7.1.09 @ 12:57PM|#

"Greens are nothing but reds in drag. And they hate science."

At least in Europe they're all aristocratic conservatives

its "conservation" right?

They're trying to conserve the land their ancestors stole and that is now subsidized by working taxpayers

creech|7.1.09 @ 1:04PM|#

How long before we see long trains of hoppers bound for U.S. ports to ship grain to the starving multitudes in Eurocaliphat?

24AheadDotCom|7.1.09 @ 1:06PM|#

I'm sure all the research Bailey mentions took place over decades so we know the full, long-term effects. I'm also certain that none of that research (and its associated advocacy) was tainted by industry money. I'm also certain that - consistent with libertarian doctrine - libertarians will demand that companies take full responsibility for their actions, such as posting a bond - perhaps even covering their officials' descendents - if long-term negative impacts of any kind develop. And, I'm sure that Reason isn't just a corporatist ho.

Of that I'm sure!

P.S. Here's my GMO foods round-up, including Tom Vilsack and Monsanto.

|7.1.09 @ 1:07PM|#

So does this mean that Reason accepts AGW theory?

I don't know that Reason, Inc. has a position on it. Ron seems to have bought into it.

I don't think anyone can argue that there hasn't been a warming trend over the last few decades, although the degree of the trend is controversial due to measurement and sampling difficulties.

Whatever trend there is remains well within historical (pre-industrial norms), though.

What is far from "proven" is the extent to which anthro CO2 drives that change. CO2 is a relatively minor greenhouse gas. Anthro CO2 is a minor constituent of the global CO2 load. CO2 is also subject to a saturation effect; after a certain point, more CO2 doesn't increase warming. The recent warming activity doesn't correlate very well to increases in atmospheric CO2, either.

Any projection of warming outside of historical norms depends on feedback loops that are, so far, purely notional and unsupported by data as far as I know. Build a model assuming that theoretical feedbacks happen in a certain way, and you've got a model that predicts ahistorical warming. That's pretty much the case for catastrophic global warming, as far as I can tell.

Craig|7.1.09 @ 1:09PM|#

There's no such thing as a "global scientific consensus" on pretty much anything.

|7.1.09 @ 1:10PM|#

Lonewacko,

How can we distinguish your many opinions from those of a xenophobic luddic conspiracy theorist? Inquiring minds want to know.

Seward|7.1.09 @ 1:14PM|#

MNG,

Going with the majority view of experts is the sound way to go.

Except on all the occassions that it hasn't been sound.

|7.1.09 @ 1:15PM|#

LoneWacko decided that it was time for him to step out of his usual obsessions. What would he chime in on now? Then it hit him: GMO foods! It was brilliant! It made no sense, which worked perfectly with his internal insanity, and would surprise the shit out of the libertard assholes at H&R.

So what position would he take? Clearly he had to be anti-GMO; anything else wouldn't be paranoid, and he couldn't have that. But other than that, he resolved to make absolutely no sense--not even tying it into the WetbackMenace. That would confuse the hell out of the retarded monkeys at reason.

He began typing a new blog entry, grinning madly. A new chapter had begun, and he was in the driver's seat. Plus, he had been really constipated and finally took a sizeable dump this morning, so he was pretty pleased with that as well.

Warty|7.1.09 @ 1:16PM|#

Lonewacko is a luddite? Jesus Christ, shut the fuck up, Lonewacko.

|7.1.09 @ 1:30PM|#

Does Monsanto still sue farmers whose crops happen to get accidentally pollinated by Monsanto's GM pollen?

|7.1.09 @ 1:32PM|#

Even though I feel closer to you than the brother I kicked to death in my mother's virulent womb, you are wrong assuming that this is a different track for Teh Whacko, Epi.

GMO corn means more corn, more corn means more masa, more masa means more tortillas. And who eats tortillas? DirtyIllegalMexicans!

GMO corn is a plot to swell the ranks of TEH BROWN HORDE!

Kreel Sarloo|7.1.09 @ 1:33PM|#

Has Monsanto ever sued farmers whose crops happen to get accidentally pollinated by Monsanto's GM pollen?

|7.1.09 @ 1:36PM|#

SugarFree is right, clearly complex carbohydrates are a tool of miscegenation.

|7.1.09 @ 1:37PM|#

NutraSweet deliberated for a few minutes. Would he tell Episiarch of his love for him in public? Would that make it more powerful?

He struggled with his own demons briefly, and then acquiesced to his own cowardice. He would merely allude to it, and distract with a reference to LoneMongoloid and corn.

Inside, he felt like a pussy. A huge, loose, drippy, yeast-infected pussy.

|7.1.09 @ 1:38PM|#

Does Monsanto still sue farmers whose crops happen to get accidentally pollinated by Monsanto's GM pollen?

I know Monsanto has been sued by farmers claiming evil Monsanto pollen "contaminated" their fields, but I thought most GM plants were sterile, meaning their pollen can't pollinate anything.

Fascitis Necrotizante|7.1.09 @ 1:41PM|#

Whacker's concern for GM foods is pretty well in line with his fluoride trutherism.

"You realize that GM food is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"

I'm pretty sure the only reason they're modifying food is to weaken American men and sap their resolve. Whacker only eats what he finds in his rain barrels.

|7.1.09 @ 1:44PM|#

Inside, he felt like a pussy. A huge, loose, drippy, yeast-infected pussy.

So you think I feel like a pussy inside? Is that your coping mechanism for your embarrassing crush on me, to think I'm a girl?

And besides, you told me you like them yeast-infected. I believe your exact words were "Tangy. Yum."

Seward|7.1.09 @ 1:45PM|#

GM foods are after are our vital bodily fluids. ;)

24AheadDotCom|7.1.09 @ 1:49PM|#

2. Here are some *raw* links relating to my last point above; some of these contain accurate information, some don't:

lewrockwell.com/miller/miller17.html
guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/09/medicalresearch.health
amazon.com/Crime-Punishment-I-G-Farben/dp/0029046300
garynull.com/documents/Dental/Fluoride/fluoride2.htm
fluoridealert.org/
fluoridealert.org/iq.studies.html
abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread422784/pg1
theinfovault.net/vault/politics/fluoridenazis.html
infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?l=1&t=0&id=17791
boards.history.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800000240&messageID=800007763

P.S. Anyone here in Knoxville?

|7.1.09 @ 2:13PM|#

If you combine the war on GM food with the taxes they want to put on the imputs to food production in the name of AGW, you have to conclude that the environmental movement's goal is to kill us. Why else would you advocate such policies unless you wanted to see the return of mass starvation?

robc|7.1.09 @ 2:17PM|#

New Flash:

MNG opposes Copernicus and Galileo.

You know, back then. Not now.

Because the consensus was that they were wrong.

|7.1.09 @ 2:21PM|#

Lonewacko is ant-GM foods? What a caldron of neurosis.

Hugh Akston|7.1.09 @ 3:10PM|#

Unintentional cross-pollination by GM crops is the agricultural equivalent of IllegalImmigration.

Whenever LoneWhacko sees someone eating a taco, he dies a little inside.

Ska|7.1.09 @ 3:19PM|#

When I see porn sites with women my age labelled MILFs, I die a little inside.

Hugh Akston|7.1.09 @ 3:48PM|#

Don't fret, Ska. The term MILF applies technically to any woman who has kids and could still possibly bear them. That could be anywhere from a 20 year old with a toddler to a 40 year old with two in college.

phalkor|7.1.09 @ 4:50PM|#

I thought most GM plants were sterile, meaning their pollen can't pollinate anything.


Seriously, did you learn nothing from Jurassic Park ? Monsanto, as far as corporations go, is fairly effective at being evil. I have little doubt that they screwed over these farmers who had no idea genetically modified crops were growing in their fields.

That said, Europeans should shut the fuck up and eat their superfoods or else starve as we become genetically enhanced supermen.

|7.1.09 @ 5:28PM|#

KS & RCD: You're perhaps referring to the case of Percy Schmeiser who was convicted of seed thievery in Canada. See my column on the case here.

Kreel Sarloo|7.1.09 @ 6:43PM|#

Ron, I was aware of the Schmeiser case.

I was thinking of it when I wrote my comment which was actually intended to jerk the chain of this commenter:

gp | July 1, 2009, 1:30pm | #
Does Monsanto still sue farmers whose crops happen to get accidentally pollinated by Monsanto's GM pollen?

I see gp has not returned to list all the cases where evil old Monsanto has persecuted those poor honest organic farmers trying to keep the Frankenstein genes out of their crops.

Michael|7.1.09 @ 7:29PM|#

Here are some *raw* links relating to my last point above...

Huh. Your last "point" was some rambling about GMOs and the links you posted are all about...fluoride.

Far out, man.



This is thus far my favorite quote of the week:

"It's time to sack the EFSA scientists, disband its GMO panel and move GMO risk assessment to a truly independent and effective body," she said.

Because if the current group of experts isn't coming up with anything we want to hear, we should can them and find a group that will!

|7.2.09 @ 8:25AM|#

"Allowing EFSA to express opinions on GM crops while it cannot assess long-term environmental impacts is like allowing someone into a Formula 1 race just because they have a driving licence,"

Too bad that Formula 1 requires a special racing licence to get into the races which you get from being really good in the lower races.

Fascitis Necrotizante|7.2.09 @ 9:26AM|#

Just noticed the pic for this post is pretty much a cornjob.