Connecticut legislature makes anti-science history

Once again, the progressive contrarian hits the nail on the head. The fall-back line of the antis (as Mark Lynas refers to them) is that 64 other countries also have banned them (or not yet approved them) GMOs, therefore, we should too! But, again and again, the obvious goes in one ear and out the other; it matters zip ditty nada how many other countries banned them. Mooney finishes off his post with a brilliant argument to conclude: 74 countries also have laws against homosexuality, so should we follow their lead? Should we restrict free speech and woman’s rights because Saudi Arabia, and who knows how many others, have done so? No, they have bad reasons for doing that, as do these 64 countries that have banned GM.

It doesn’t matter who said what when under any circumstances past, present–and future. The only thing that matters is what evidence is given for that position and given that evidence, is that position then justified? The fact that this legislature had Jeffrey Smith, a former yogic flying instructor testify instead of a molecular biologist, biochemist, or science organization doth bring shame, and hopefully a pox, to their house. As Christopher Hitchens would say: “For shame!”

Contrary to popular belief

Today’s post is a version of an op-ed that was quickly and roundly rejected by the Hartford Courant with a curt,  No Thanks, response.

courant

The Connecticut legislature made history recently when it overwhelmingly approved a gmo labeling bill. They made history by giving credibility to the anti-science views of crackpots, frauds, and charlatans.

In 2012, the Assembly’s GM labeling task force had one Jeffrey Smith testify.  Readers of this blog are well acquainted with him. He is the go-to-guy and is considered an “expert” on gmos. Unfortunately he is not a scientist and has no agricultural experience. He is considered a joke among the scientific community.

His bio and resume are vague. What is known is he was a member of the Maharishi Natural Law Party in Iowa, whose solution to the national crime problem was “yogic flying.”

In 1996, the Daily Illinni wrote, “Smith presented charts with evidence of a correlation…

View original post 454 more words

2 comments

  1. There is a fatal flaw in the Mooney argument about laws restricting gay and women’s rights and free speech. These are legacy errors that have been compounded over time and are very difficult to get rid of. GMOs cannot be hung on the same nail because they are being considered de novo without all the old repressive baggage. The world is hesitating…so should we.

    1. No, Producto, you’re looking at it wrong. The legacy errors are still faults in reasoning. There’s nothing about gays, women, or restriction of speech that benefits society, gays, or women, along with everyone else. These laws were enacted based on gut instinct and hysteria and the society was worse off as a result. This legislature, as well as all others such as the EU, in enacting such laws, ignore all–absolutely all of it–the empirical evidence that these foods aren’t harmful, are functionally equivalent, use less inputs than other types of farming, and is lighter on the environment. They, therefore, are reacting on gut instinct and use hysteria to convince the public to pass them, i.e., it is reactionary thinking. His argument holds.

Hit me where it hurts...

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s