Progressives shriek "false equivalence!" every time the numerous anti-science positions of people on their side of the aisle are mentioned, but that is a reactionary defense mechanism - a large part of their world view and identities are tied up in the belief that they are on the side of science while people on the right are not so they can be forgiven for panicking a little as the mounting evidence and examples continue to pile up.
But to people in the middle, the recent fetish with attaching special labels to genetically modified food seems a lot like clever abortion 'awareness' laws couched in language to do lots of other things; namely, a way to do with subtle legislative finagling what they cannot do overtly.
Why is it anti-science? There is not a single instance of GMOs harming people and persisting in a belief when the opposite has been proven true is the definition of anti-science. The Frankenfood hysteria was created by a British scientist who claimed a genetically-modified potato harmed the immune system of a rodent. It was not published, it was not peer-reviewed but, as with Andrew Wakefield and his vaccine/autism link, it mostly showed the 1990s were not a good decade for progressives or British culture when it comes to science.
Both the vaccine/autism link and GMOs are bastions of the left. If you look at a map of where laws requiring 'labeling' of GMO foods creep up time and again and overlay it with the lowest vaccine levels for children in the last 10 years, they match up quite nicely. Seattle, huge swaths of coastal California, etc. Like with people on the right, the left's anti-science beliefs are across the board.
Anti-science progressives say it is just about 'awareness' and 'options'. What is the claim of people who have steadily added in restrictions on abortion over the last few years? 'Awareness' and 'options'. Just information, no harm done. Yet pro-life people recognize exactly what 'awareness' is intended to do and anti-science progressives instilling fear and doubt about GMOs are doing the exact same thing.
Will mainstream science journalism call out the obvious political Big White Elephant In The Science Room? Maybe. Journalists like to tell new stories, though this one cuts against the grain of their personal beliefs so they have been far more skeptical of the anti-science tenets of the left than they ever were of the 'conservatives are anti-science' (Evolution! Global Warming! Stem Cells!) stuff that flowed so easily from their keyboards.
Big Organic is spending millions on these initiatives - no one is surprised, any more than anyone is surprised if Exxon spends millions shooting down climate legislation. The only surprise is when people claim there is a wholesome, rational motivation for Big Organic to do so while Exxon is an evil corporation trying to instill doubt about science. It simply tells you how they vote. Big Organic knows if they put labels on GMO food, their feel-good fallacy food business spikes, the same way anti-abortion activists know requiring 'counseling' before getting an abortion will lead to fewer of those.
The logical problem food segregationists face is how they will rationalize putting labels on something that does not materially change the food without labeling all foods that have ever been genetically modified in any way. Every tomato in every store in America, including organic ones, have been genetically modified. How was it superior 20 years ago?
The answer to that is subtle - and inherently anti-science. And therefore scientists should be a little nervous as this movement gains steam.
“This is an issue of transparency, truth and trust in the food system,” Gary Hirshberg, chairman of an organic yogurt company, told the New York Times.
Chairman? Why would an organic farm need a Chairman? Oh right, because they are not just a farm, they are a giant agri-business seeking to do with fear and legislation what they can't do in stores. They are a food factory engaged in capitalism and making a profit using marketing, like any other farm.
This is one milk tank. The imagery of the wholesome small organic farmer is just that, marketing. Credit: Stonyfield
The transparency argument is popular - heck, I love transparency, Science 2.0 is all about transparency, but the difference is we don't pick what deserves transparency and full disclosure based on how it will impact a presidential candidate. Meanwhile, people against abortion counseling have claimed increases in suicide rates and child health problems because women were required to have "transparency" regarding what an abortion is. What is the biggest health problem children will face when GMO foods are eliminated? They will starve.
The anti-science misinformation campaign has been effective, to be sure - that doesn't make it less anti-science, it simply means it works. 93% of people are okay with labeling GM foods. That's even more than the 62% who are against abortion and the 51% who are against gays - not against gay marriage, that percentage is far higher, but actually support making being gay illegal. In other words, having a majority is not always a good thing.
Are the National Academies of Science in the pocket of Monsanto? No, they are in the pocket of science. Like every other study has found, they note that GMOs have no health risk and that they further provide substantial benefits to health.
Basically, you can be with the anti-GMO food segregationists or you can be with science - you can't be both.
