Despite all science showing it is unjustified and a French court overturning a moratorium that had no legal or scientific basis, the Prime Minister of France, Jean-Marc Ayrault, has declared that France will continue to ban any genetically modified food despite objections from its own scientists and those across the EU and the world.
The French know their own courts, of course. When one ban gets overturned they just introduce a new 'temporary' one and attempts to overturn it will take years to make its way through the system. France is Europe's biggest agriculture producer and, percentage-wise, the biggest subsidizer of food in the entire world. A French cow gets twice as much money per year from its government than farmers in sub-Saharan Africa make under capitalism. By allowing GM foods, farmers in regions which lack France's climate, and therefore benefit from the increased fairness science provides, are blocked from competing in the French marketplace, which keeps the French government from having to spend even more money in subsidies.
Anti-science mentalities are never about science, they are often about the scientization of politics or, in this case, scientization of economics. The French are all for economic fairness, as long as it is only fair for people in France. Science, as often happens in Europe, gets left behind.
The EU has rattled its blade-less saber and claimed they might 'force' France to stop banning science, but no one listens to the EU unless the EU is cutting a check and even then only until it clears. France writes more checks than it gets so they can ignore EU concerns.
France is also banning crop dusting unless there is 'no viable alternative'. Who do you think will get that 'no viable alternative' designation? Small farmers or giant agriculture companies who are big donors to politicians? The problem with subjective legal loopholes is that they are rigged to penalize the small farmer without the wealth to hire lobbyists. GMOS make the playing field more egalitarian for everyone, ironically something socialist France is against.
Famous for its wine, France is being a little bit hypocritical claiming its way is better for the environment. As shown in Science Left Behind, grapes for organic wine requires 80X the chemical additives of traditional wine production and that is hardly a win for Gaia.
France also wants to reduce nuclear power from its current 75% ratio. If you are old enough to recall, during the Kyoto negotiations of the 1990s, France criticized the anti-science stance of the left in the US for denying the science of nuclear power and declared they could easily eliminate CO2 emissions their way.
Now the anti-science tables have truly turned.
The French know their own courts, of course. When one ban gets overturned they just introduce a new 'temporary' one and attempts to overturn it will take years to make its way through the system. France is Europe's biggest agriculture producer and, percentage-wise, the biggest subsidizer of food in the entire world. A French cow gets twice as much money per year from its government than farmers in sub-Saharan Africa make under capitalism. By allowing GM foods, farmers in regions which lack France's climate, and therefore benefit from the increased fairness science provides, are blocked from competing in the French marketplace, which keeps the French government from having to spend even more money in subsidies.
Anti-science mentalities are never about science, they are often about the scientization of politics or, in this case, scientization of economics. The French are all for economic fairness, as long as it is only fair for people in France. Science, as often happens in Europe, gets left behind.
The EU has rattled its blade-less saber and claimed they might 'force' France to stop banning science, but no one listens to the EU unless the EU is cutting a check and even then only until it clears. France writes more checks than it gets so they can ignore EU concerns.
France is also banning crop dusting unless there is 'no viable alternative'. Who do you think will get that 'no viable alternative' designation? Small farmers or giant agriculture companies who are big donors to politicians? The problem with subjective legal loopholes is that they are rigged to penalize the small farmer without the wealth to hire lobbyists. GMOS make the playing field more egalitarian for everyone, ironically something socialist France is against.
Famous for its wine, France is being a little bit hypocritical claiming its way is better for the environment. As shown in Science Left Behind, grapes for organic wine requires 80X the chemical additives of traditional wine production and that is hardly a win for Gaia.
France also wants to reduce nuclear power from its current 75% ratio. If you are old enough to recall, during the Kyoto negotiations of the 1990s, France criticized the anti-science stance of the left in the US for denying the science of nuclear power and declared they could easily eliminate CO2 emissions their way.
Now the anti-science tables have truly turned.
It would be no different than looking at our politicians to somehow be "scientific" leaders. They are politicians and "science" is simply another tool in their toolbox from which to rationalize policy decisions that they support.
However, I do agree with your larger point that people are being foolish when they attribute scientific saavy to any political party or affiliation.