Last week I wrote about the statement of scientists refuting the self-evident lie that there’s any kind of “scientific consensus” in favor of GMOs. The fact that GM proponents so often feel the need to tell this lie is proof of how desperate they are to fraudulently represent their position as the “scientific” one, and the fact that this go-to lie is so flimsy is strong evidence of how flimsy their case is in general.
The statement was drafted by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), but not all the signatories are members of ENSSER.
By the latest count, the number of scientists formally signing the statement has climbed to 231. This is impressive in light of how viciously any scientist who expresses even the slightest skepticism about GMOs, or who merely asks for more testing, is attacked. Many have had their careers derailed by the establishment persecution. Those who have gone public with their concerns have said that for each of them there are many more who agree but are afraid to speak up for fear of slander and retaliation. So this list of formal public adherents is just the tip of the iceberg.
In stark contrast, there are no scientists who support GMOs in any way. Without exception credentialed GMO proponents are being paid by the cartel for their support, or are ignorantly moonlighting as laymen outside their own disciplines. This, of course, is an unscientific position.
But then, to support GMOs as such is clearly an anti-rational, anti-scientific position, for the following reasons. Given any dubious and expensive new technology, a rational person asks:
1. Do we need it? Does it serve any real purpose? This is the Need Principle.
2. Are there better, less questionable, safer alternatives? This is the Alternative Principle.
3. Is it safe? This is the Precautionary Principle.
A rational person would need to ask these questions and honestly answer them : Yes, No, Yes, before supporting deployment. In the case of GMOs, the system never asked any of these questions, so support for GMOs is on its face an anti-rational position, even prior to the evidence.
By now the evidence is incontrovertible that GMOs were never needed and serve no constructive purpose at all. Compared to both organic and non-GM conventional agriculture, they yield less, require vastly greater use of poisons, generate poison-resistance superweeds and superbugs, contaminate crops and the environment, and have malign political and socioeconomic effects like escalating seed sector and general agricultural corporate monopoly. As for the Big Lie that GMOs are needed to “feed the world”, right now the world produces enough to feed ten billion people, yet out of 7 billion on earth 1 billion go hungry. This is mathematical proof that corporate agriculture does not and cannot feed the world. The fact is, corporate agriculture has proven for decades now that it cannot and does not want to feed the world. There’s no problem with food production or availability. The only problem is distribution. It’s impossible to fix distribution by trying to double down on a system that, by its very nature, maldistributes. GMOs represent doubling down on this already failed system.
It’s clear that GMOs have zero benefits for farmers or consumers. They have never benefited anyone but a handful of corporations. The answer to the Need question has been given once and for all: No, they serve no purpose, and we don’t need them.
Similarly, the evidence record is complete, after decades of performance, that non-GM conventional agriculture is superior to GM agriculture. Non-GM outproduces GM and uses far less poison. It’s also proven that even during the soon-to-end era of cheap fossil fuels (upon which all of industrial ag including GMOs is 100% dependent), decentralized polyculture organic agriculture outproduces industrial, acre for acre, in terms of calories and nutrition. Once the cheap oil runs out, this difference shall become infinite.
It’s clear that there are far better, much less expensive alternatives to GMOs. Once again, the shoddy, poorly-producing, high-maintenance, more complex, vastly more expensive GMO regime benefits no one but a handful of corporations. The answer to the Alternative questions is: Yes, both organic and non-GM conventional are far better and less expensive for farmers and consumers.
Finally, as the work of many of these signatories has documented, there is such ample evidence of the health and environmental risks from GMOs that any rational person would demand independent long-term safety testing of any GM product before commercialization, and to demand a recall of existing approvals and a moratorium on field testing and any further deployment until this necessary safety testing has been done.
This sums up the rational, scientific position on GMOs, even before we get into the political and socioeconomic aspects.
One new thing I learned in the latest ENSSER press release was that a conference twenty years ago ecologists and molecular biologists agreed that their disciplines were complementary and that specialists in each should consult with the findings of the other. We’ve since seen how molecular biologists working for the GMO cartel have flouted this scientific agreement and expressed their contempt for ecological science, and indeed for any and every kind of scientific or rational thought, other than the most narrow, nihilistically instrumental concern with the “how” of their own discipline.
Far from constituting “science”, this instrumental nihilism, which dresses itself up in a scientistic religion and a technocratic authoritarian political ideology, is radically anti-scientific. On the contrary, it degrades the name and practice of science to that of being a hired triggerman for the worst kind of corporate gangsterism.
To find the real exponents and practitioners of science, we must look to the signers of the ENSSER statement, and to similar scientific workers around the world. These are the people of integrity who know their duty as scientists and as citizens of democracy. These two duties are always in harmony.