What Are The Costs Of This Comforting Lie?
Last night, at my professional non-fic writers' group, two vegan writers went on an unscientific romp in describing their next books. The point wasn't to debate, so I kept my big yap shut, though it wasn't easy.
However, a friend -- like me, one of the Los Angeles libertarians on a pool of left (especially among writers) -- brought her Libertarian professor husband...a great guy, very smart, and also a friend of mine (along with the writer). I saw that he was nodding his head no at all the unscientific thinking on veganism vs. meat (which provides every nutrient the human body needs in pretty much the perfect proportion) and aligned thinking.
The head-nodding no got more vigorous (and I started laughing a little) when some other writer piled on with how unsafe glyphosate supposedly is. I had to stop looking at him, because I needed to keep from laughing.
But here's science writer Ron Bailey at Reason with the 2017 post, "The Deceptive Art of Confirmation-Biased 'Science': Condemning Glyphosate: With a little conflict of interest thrown in":
Anti-biotech activists hate the herbicide glyphosate, sold by Monsanto under the brand name Roundup. Those activists won a victory in 2015, when the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued a report classifying glyphosate as a "probable human carcinogen." That conclusion stood in stark contrast to the findings of every regulatory agency that has evaluated glyphosate over the past two decades, all of which have found the herbicide safe for people and the environment.How did the World Health Organization diverge so sharply from the scientific consensus? By suppressing extensive evidence of glyphosate's safety. This month Reuters acquired a draft copy the IARC's glyphosate report. In the chapter on animal testing, references to numerous studies that found no link between glyphosate and cancer had been systematically deleted. The IARC refused to explain how that happened other than to refer to its consensus review process.
Meanwhile, a subsequent analysis of how the IARC evaluated the animal testing studies found that "the classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen was the result of a flawed and incomplete summary of the experimental evidence." Many ongoing lawsuits against Monsanto allege that the plaintiffs contracted either non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) or multiple myeloma (MM) as a result of exposures to glyphosate. Researchers in a new review of human epidemiological studies reported that they "did not find support in the epidemiologic literature for a causal association between glyphosate and NHL or MM."
And check out the conflict of interest of former IARC chair Christopher Portier, who retired to go to work for activist group EDF...and then:
Earlier this month, the European statistician David Zaruk reported that "during the same week that IARC had published its opinion on glyphosate's carcinogenicity, Christopher Portier signed a lucrative contract to be a litigation consultant for two law firms preparing to sue Monsanto on behalf of glyphosate cancer victims." Portier also agreed not to disclose publically his consulting arrangements with the law firms.Over at Forbes, Albert Einstein College of Medicine cancer epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat concludes, "All of this points to a trusted agency redacting the evidence to suit its predetermined and preferred story-line." That sounds entirely correct. The IARC's evaluation methodologies need to be dramatically overhauled and its leadership changed.
The sad thing is, what are the costs of this damning of Roundup? There's rarely any thoughts for the unintended consequences of a biotech-damning near-religious belief like this.
There's a tendency among vegans and the whole 'organic' and anti-GMO crowd to believe that they have a superior understanding of everything from botany to metabolism, when they actually don't.
In fact what they 'know' is often wrong. But they insulate themselves from being corrected by casting anyone who disagrees with them as either an gullible idiot of a conspirator.
See: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/well/eat/gmo-foods-genetically-modified-knowledge.html
melmo at February 6, 2019 6:48 AM
There's rarely any thoughts for the unintended consequences of a biotech-damning near-religious belief like this.
Three words: Golden Motherfucking Rice. These Luddites are condemning countless poor individuals to blindness so they can feel good about themselves
Shtetl G at February 6, 2019 7:24 AM
As far as the Europeans go Shtetl that is more about refusing to change than feeling good. The way France and many other European nations have setup their crop subsidies the government pays more if the farmers produce more. Which means subsidy costs go up as productivity goes up. And those governments can't afford to change from outdated and inefficient farming methods to current ones. They would go bankrupt (or at least far more so than they are today). So their governments fight very hard against increasing farm productivity of any kind. . . . which is all really retarded. They need to change their farm subsidy scheme. But bureaucratic inertia has kept things the same since WW2. So I don't see much hope of change any time soon.
Really gives you hope for all those EU technocrats too, doesn't it. All so smart and so wise. Can't admit they screwed up something so obvious. Then the peons might find out they never were that wise.
Ben at February 6, 2019 8:15 AM
Oxymoron.
Patrick at February 6, 2019 8:30 AM
> Three words:
✔
Crid at February 6, 2019 10:24 AM
“Oxymoronic”
In some cultures/countries a nod means no, Greece I believe does this.
Joe j at February 6, 2019 10:38 AM
Bulgarian Patrick?
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2005/12/19/bulgaria-where-a-nod-up-and-down-is-no-and-from-side-to-side-is-yes/
Ben at February 6, 2019 10:40 AM
There is more to why they hate glyphosphate: it is the key herbicide that GMO crops are bred to be resistant to so you can spray a herbicide on your corn and soybeans without killing them. It allows billions of dollars in additional crops to be grown. No glyphosphate, no GMO crops (of this sort anyway). and they hate GMOs because they aren't "natural".
Imagine how their heads would explode if they discovered that all (and I mean all) the crops we currently have were developed by dosing seeds with high doses of radiation and chemicals and selecting for the good mutations that result. If you eliminate all the manipulated crops, productivity would drop to 1/5 or less of what we have and we would all starve.
cc at February 6, 2019 11:40 AM
This is America:
A head nod means "yes"
A head shake means "no"
donkeyrock at February 6, 2019 12:07 PM
"If you eliminate all the manipulated crops, productivity would drop to 1/5 or less of what we have and we would all starve."-cc
I tried organically growing non-GMO, heritage sweet corn last year. I ended up with worms in EVERY SINGLE EAR of corn that I managed to grow- and not very many actually grew. Also, all of the squash and pumpkin plants died, even though they started out very vigorous with lots of blooms. (I suspect squash borers.) I know that we're talking about herbicides, not insecticides, but my experience illustrates to me how difficult and time consuming it can be to grow non-GMO organic crops.
I realize plenty of farmers with different-sized operations are perfectly able to grow organically, but they have the time, labor, and processes down in a way that a hobbyist like me can't replicate. Luckily for me, if everything I plant dies, I can just go to the grocery store next door. But people who insist that all farming should be unaltered and organic and local are naive.
ahw at February 6, 2019 12:16 PM
he was nodding his head no...
Oxymoron.
_________________________________
Patrick, it's an old joke. At least 50 years old, if not a century.
I remember it from at least one well-known novel that old.
In Amy's case, since he was a friend, she KNEW he was being sarcastic. Chances are the vegan writers did not.
lenona at February 6, 2019 12:39 PM
Is there any other kind of nod?
Can you "nod" any other body part?
😜
Conan the Grammarian at February 6, 2019 12:47 PM
Glyphosate is a hormone that is produced naturally by many plants. If it causes cancer, then plants cause cancer.
Cousin Dave at February 6, 2019 3:38 PM
"In fact what they 'know' is often wrong. But they insulate themselves from being corrected by casting anyone who disagrees with them as either an gullible idiot of a conspirator."
I found that when researching the Rapiscan.
In other news, you should therefore know more about glyphosate.
Radwaste at February 6, 2019 8:18 PM
OMG there are so many people who are just obsessed with Monsanto/glyphosate! Back when I could still interact with acquaintances on Facebook I came across this phenomenon and honestly tried to understand why the obsession. Eventually I learned more about the cultural shift Left-wards and figured out that being against most corporations in general and Monsanto in particular is gospel to the Left. Along with a whole mish-mash of other positions which are NOT open for discussion, thank you very much.
RigelDog at February 7, 2019 8:55 AM
Don't be so quick to dismiss health concerns about glyphosate, based on industry supported research. We're not mice, but it's possible our guts react similarly: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29635013
Why is gluten intolerance increasing in our population? One theory: conventionally-grown wheat is sprayed with it to speed drying for harvest, and it doesn't have time to degrade before getting into the food stream.
I'd rather be safe than have a ruined gut!
Old sceptic at February 7, 2019 6:23 PM
"Is there any other kind of nod?"
Yes. Sanctimonious numbnuts.
Patrick at February 7, 2019 9:05 PM
Leave a comment