In response to the Lynas presentation, Shiva replies: (this is real, by the way)
Let me get this straight Dr. Shiva-- Use of transgenic crops in sustainable ag is the same as encouraging a violent sexual act?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
I am so blown away by this ignorant comment that I'm almost beyond words. This week congress did not re-approve the Violence Against Women Act. This week I grew tears in my eyes when I heard that a young woman was gang raped in a Dehli bus for one hour by six men and died later. Rape and violence against women are not acceptable.
And for this allegedly well-read woman, a hero to the anti-GMO crowd, to say that using a sound technology for sustainable agriculture is tantamount to giving the "freedom to rape"?
I'm going to take a blood pressure break and look up "puppies and kittens" in Google Images. Be right back.
Okay. Better now. Remember to breathe.
In the age of "gotchas" it would be easy to really stick it to Shiva. Using logic and science, putting GMO seed into organic farms is a stellar idea. Both allow us to grow food with less environmental impact. The corollary then is that since GMO can favorably contribute to organic farming, then rapists should have the freedom to rape.
That is what science and logic say, according to her post. However, we know that is not what she really means. She did say that, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe even hope for a retraction.
It does illuminate an important point. The anti-scientific, anti-GMO interests are resorting to brazen analogies, placing biotechnology equivalent to brutal crime. This is not the way to educate, it is the way to build fear and potentially violence.
Words mean something, and someone as bright as Dr. Shiva should choose her words and analogies more carefully. In 20 years when GMO is everywhere and rape is unheard of, this tweet will be quite a treat to revisit.
6 comments:
"Using logic and science, putting GMO seed into organic farms is a stellar idea. Both allow us to grow food with less environmental impact."
I've changed my mind about this. I read Ronald's book, and I have to say I was unimpressed by the alleged rapprochement between "organic" farming and GMOs that she proposes.
This is like saying that creationism and evolution can co-exist. They cannot. One system is anathema to the other.
"Organics," like creationism, is based on religion. The religion of "organics" is nature worship/human denigration. It's the Naturalistic Fallacy writ large.
The NOP standards say outright:
"In general, synthetic substances are prohibited unless specifically allowed and non-synthetic substances are allowed unless specifically prohibited."
"Synthetic" means man-made. There is no other possible definition. "Non-synthetic" means "natural." It can't possibly mean anything else. Look for a rationale for this "general" principle and you will find NOTHING. It is declared by fiat.
"Organic" means Natural = good, man-made = bad.
Except when it's not, of course, which is when we run into some real howlers and absurdities. Not only is this bullshit, it's inconsistently-held bullshit.
You may not, for example, spray your crops with nicotine sulfate, arsenic, lead salts, etc. even though it's "natural." And of course, who would want to? But then why have "natural" as a "general" principle?
You also may use such "synthetic" substances as isopronanol, atropine, and copper salts. So why rule out "synthetic" as a "general" rule?
Organics is a fountain of absurdity.
Take the issue of nitrogen. You can't grow anything without N, and there are only a few sources: lightning/rain (minimal), legumes/pulses, and synthetic ammonium based fertilizers.
Guess which one "organics" permits and which one it doesn't allow?
"But what about manure? Isn't that a natural source of N?"
"Organic" farmers like to convince themselves that this is true, but it's false, a delusion. Animal manures are carriers of N, not sources of N. The N comes from the plants the animals have eaten.
And what do the cows eat that provide the "natural" fertilizers for the organic farms? Why, plants, of course--from largely "conventional" farms!
An "organic" farmer is allowed to take the manure from animals that have grazed/fed on grasses/hay that have been fertilized with N from the ammonium factory and call that "natural, organic" fertilizer, but these "organic" farms are using "synthetic" N as much as the cow farmers were. No synthetic N, no organic farms.
"Organic" farmers are not allowed to use antibiotics under any circumstances, period, not even for therapeutic purposes. So if your cow gets pink eye or mastitis, your investment is up shit creek unless your cow gets better "naturally." Oh, wait: You can use herbs and homeopathy!
Don't believe it? Check here:
http://mofga.org/Portals/2/Fact%20Sheets/FS%20Raising%20Organic%20Livestock.pdf
Pam Ronald and her "organic" husband are wrong. The only way to win acceptance of genetic modification technologies is to ignore the organic religion.
Michael,
Not to get too off-topic with Kevin's post but I totally agree with you. I have a hard time understanding why science defenders would attempt to try to align Organic and GMO. I don't get it.
Michael & Pyth,
I can explain some of this. When GM crops were still in the lab, scientists thought the organic people would be totally in favor of them, due to the favorable environmental aspects.
Wow, were they ever wrong. The organic people latched on to GMOs as a new thing to be *against*. (Organic is marketed primarily by being *against* things, because 'healthy dirt' doesn't sell well.)
Still, there are die-hard hold-outs from that earlier age who insist that GMOs are compatible with organic agriculture.
You gotta admit, though, they're somewhat right. Organic and GMO are compatible, it's that the organic people refuse to play nicely with others.
Michael, you are correct on your points for the most part. "Organic" is a marketing tool and the standards are completely arbitrary. No doubt.
I'm thinking of this in a broader vision, and while I may not speak for Pam Ronald and others, I do think that we're talking about low-input agriculture when we think about organic cultivation. That's where I'm coming from.
It is not about a naturalist fallacy, which I completely recognize. It is about investigating techniques to produce more with less, or maybe better products with less cost and impact.
I'm on board with these efforts 100%. I also like that farmers can stay in business because they get a premium on crops just by growing them under different cultivation systems.
My long-term goal is to develop plants and production schemes that require less input and have less impact in the environment. Investigations into "organic" concepts may help with this goal.
There are some techniques used in organic ag that have significant benefit to the environment(well actually reduced impact). Zero tillage or reduced tillage (they often use hoes and back-strength) where GM crops use herbicides, both reduce the soil erosion problem. Multi-cropping has some benefits but is not good for large scale plots I think. Bt used in both.
When a variety of viral resistant GM crops are common the organic industry will decide to allow them (I think)
There is a difference between the organic farmer who wants to do right by the land and the obsessed organic activist who sees only bad with anything man-made(too funny as agriculture is 100% man made activity) and shuns all GM crops without any thought as to each crops potential.
Wow did I just right that?
Robert Wager
write=right Coffee first writing second :)
Post a Comment