Every year, my wood burning stove stinks powerfully after the burning months due to downdrafts, and the scent was completely gone after only a few hours of use. I grew up in a house with a dad who smoked a pack a day and it bothered me back then, before we heard about second-hand smoke.
Ladies and gentlemen, In just about three weeks from now, on November 5, Washington State will likely pass a ballot initiative to label GMOs. Those numbers may come down a bit, but my hunch is this particular battle is lost. But as Churchill once said, it is certainly the end of the beginning.
The strategy of fighting labelling state by state will have failed, and something new will have to take its place. Today I want to outline to you some ideas about what this something new might look like. I strongly believe that biotechnology is an essential part of the toolbox to feed the world sustainably in the future.
We need crops that are resistant to new diseases, that can cope with a changing climate and that enable us to feed an increasing human population while minimising the environmental impact of agriculture.
GMOs can deliver on some, though by no means all, of this challenge. They can increase nitrogen use efficiency. They can deliver disease and pest resistance without the need for large-scale applications of agrochemicals.
They can increase productivity and thereby spare land for nature even as we work to double food production by mid-century. And they can address challenges coming at us from global warming such as thermal tolerance limits and drought and flood problems also.
Foods containing GMOs or GM-derived products are no less safe than their conventional alternatives — there is as strong a scientific consensus on this issue as there is on many comparable issues like the science of climate change. There is no safety case and no health case against the current GMOs which are available.
Indeed, GMOs may well be more safe than their conventional alternatives. There is a lot of published science which shows, for example, that GMO Bt corn — because it has less insect damage — is typically lower in carcinogenic aflatoxins mycotoxins than the alternatives.
Organic corn may be very high in terms of this particular risk, in contrast. We will have denied our plant breeders the use of a powerful technology for sustainability and food security, and we will have foreclosed an important and growing area of human knowledge.
This cannot and must not be allowed to happen. And let there be no mistake: They talk about consumer choice, but what they actually want is to remove all choice.
They want what I call prohibition based on superstition. Now, as we know, much of the funding and drive behind these GMO labelling campaigns has come from the organic lobby. And I have to hand it to them: They want to wreck biotechnology, and any collateral damage is just fine with them.
Affordable food is no priority for the anti-GMO lobby. The reason is very simple.Time to push back against the global warming Nazis February 20th, by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. The Associated Press delivers in-depth coverage on today's Big Story including top stories, international, politics, lifestyle, business, entertainment, and more.
The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. It occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted.
The politicization of science may also negatively affect academic and scientific freedom. Ladies and gentlemen, In just about three weeks from now, on November 5, Washington State will likely pass a ballot initiative to label GMOs.
Polling I’ve seen suggests two . Quibble: The term “meritocracy” was initially coined as a negative term in a dystopian science-fiction novel criticizing streaming in British schools. It subsequently was adopted as a positive term, which the author in question rather disliked.
For instance, in the argumentative essay on smoking in public places, the writer should explain what the consequences are for not setting up smoking zones.
The reason is that some people may argue that smoking in public places has no negative effects that warrant its ban, while others may argue out that smoking in public places is so bad and .