Modern environmentalism is more about promoting distrust and fear than it is protecting the environment. Even when it comes to something basic like Golden Rice, activist groups take the demonize and ban approach. They hate science more than they love children.
In the apolitical segment of science media - yes, it exists, albeit smaller than its corporate face leads people to believe - the running joke is that the only science environmentalists accept is climate change, and only then because it feeds into their Doomsday narrative and says that humanity stinks.
Mark Lynas is a famous environmentalist who had to walk away from a lot of his friends because of that double standard - scientists must be dismissed as "tinkerers" or corporate shills or stupid, except about global warming. It happened because he set out to actually learn the science behind GMOs and not just demonize it.
He notes that it wasn't wrong to be concerned in the early days - and he's right, so was I. Genetic modification prior to precise methods in use today were things like mutagenesis, which are far riskier than GMOs. Yet, strangely, a lot of countries in Europe, where GMOs are banned (except in food for animals, which makes as little sense as most environmentalists about biology), have gone backwards to more dangerous mutagenesis because it does not fit the legal definition of a banned GMO. If GMOs were just more mutagenesis, the slippery slope said it was a bad idea.
Hundreds of studies over decades have found no problems, so there is the precautionary principle and then there just being loony because paying donors need to be terrified into giving and that is where environmentalism sits now, always searching for the next way to raise money.
Writing in Cosmos, Lynas sums up both the anti-science mentality and the political demographic that is common, though corporate media tends to focus on positions where the American Republican party is against evidence: "Anti-GMO environmentalists are thus betraying not only progressive values, but the same environmental cause they are pledged to defend."
Environmentalists’ double standards By Mark Lynas, Cosmos
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Kudos To "The Independent" Newspaper For Debunking Nibiru "Blood Moon" Hoax
- USDA Microbiologist Warns Bacteria In Vaping Products May Be A Health Concern
- Your Microbiome Did Not Cause Your Weight Problem
- Control Cancer By Making The Tumor Cell Environment Hostile
- 20 Cent School Intervention Stops Unhealthy Weight Gain In Children
- Sudden Death In Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy - The Exercise Didn't Do It
- A Great Blitz Game
- "Kent - thanks, glad to have helped :)...."
- "Robert- Thank you for your patience and insight on this matter. I had just heard about this apocalyptic..."
- "Michael (reader who just commented) - I hid your comment as spam for trolling. I have a no trolling..."
- "Hi Robert. Thank you for responding to my comment and the information you kindly provided. I consider..."
- "Yes, it's just totally silly and no-one with a decent background in astronomy would give it any..."
- Breast Cancer: Genomics May Show Where Chemo Might Not Be Needed
- Gallup Poll: Great Example of How to Bias a Social Science Study
- Another Kardashian Craze Debunked
- Fad Friday: Ditch The Body Wrap!
- Commonly Cited Stat of 10 Bacteria for Every 1 Human Cell Is Wrong
- Why The EpiPen And Other Generic Drugs Are So Expensive
- Heart failure in the elderly set to triple by 2060
- Up to 80 percent of heart failure patients denied therapy to reduce hospitalization and death
- Increased risk of death for heart failure patients with each NHS hospital admission
- Nebivolol prevents anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity
- Traffic accidents increased by 50 percent in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator