Why People Don’t Take the Anti-GMO Movement Seriously?

f

I hear, fairly often, from those who are against GMO technology, that they’re tired of all the mean “pro-GMO” people not being very nice to them, or not being willing to answer their questions. Now, some of the reason that people often reach that point is that they get tired of the same questions that depict a severe lack of knowledge of the topic, over and over and over again. Often, these questions are so easily answered with a quick google search, and it shows that the people asking haven’t bothered to research the topic. They typically spit off sound bytes that we’ve heard a thousand times.

Another big reason, however, is that people in the rational community, those who value logic and evidence, and understand science, often see the actions of these people akin to the actions of other extremist groups, as they have, as shown above, led to what can only be referred to as eco-terrorism. Groups that are vehemently anti-GMO have burned and destroyed GMO test fields all over the world, really helping to discredit their ideology even more.

g

Another all too common cliche is that most of the anti-GMO sites or postings all over the net use an image like this, tomatoes being injected with a syringe. First, there are no GMO tomatoes on the market. Second, this shows a huge lack of understanding of how genetic modification works at any fundamental level.

Then, of course, you get extremely disturbing, bizarre, fear-mongering, and fundamentally dishonest imagery like this.

e

c

a

b

When I see that, I see an ideology that doesn’t care about facts, logic, or evidence. They only care about spreading fear.

And let’s not forget that their protests look way too much like the Westboro Baptist Church.

d

Even with all this, however, that wouldn’t be enough to stop the conversation. The problem is that a large portion of those conversations involve an anti-GMO person ranting and yelling and throwing out cliche after cliche, while ignoring evidence and refusing to have an adult conversation. Don’t look at the following conversation and think that it’s a rare occurrence. This happens more often, by far, than civil discourse on this topic.

1

2

3

4

So, the next time you wonder why no one is paying attention to your anti-GMO message, well, remember that there are some very good reasons for that.

Contributor: Robert Sacerich

Robert is a Bioethics and Ethical Philosophy student at Cleveland State University, as well as blogger and science advocate/activist. He has worked extensively within the secular community for various secular nonprofit organizations and public communication causes. He writes about science, technology, politics, human rights, feminism, religion, and any other topic that catches his eye.

See his full bio!

Thank you for reading Rationality Unleashed! You can “like” us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @rationalityunle. For any questions, concerns, or comments beyond what can be placed in the comments section of the blog, email us at admin@rationalityunleashed.net.

Fraud, Misinformation, and the GMO Labeling Law in Vermont

the_great_monsatan_sticker_rectangle

In May of this year, Vermont passed a GMO labeling bill that flooded the national news media. It was such a huge event since similar legislation had been defeated in places like Washington and California leading up to it. Those opposing the genetic modification of seeds, who have found quite a bit of support in Vermont, began to celebrate, while hinting at the backlash they knew would come. Of course, they pointed at Monsanto, their usual target of ire, regardless of whether it’s deserved.

The bill, H. 112, titled AN ACT RELATING TO THE LABELING OF FOOD PRODUCED WITH GENETIC ENGINEERING, has several glaring problems that should be looked at from the start. Let’s take a look at the “Findings” section, which sets the premise of the bill.

U.S. federal law does not provide for the necessary and satisfactory regulation of the safety and labeling of food that contains genetically engineered ingredients, as evidenced by the following:

This part alone is demonstrably false, even before they list their reasons for coming to this conclusion. The process itself takes years just to get a new GMO to be approved by the FDA.

U.S. federal labeling and food and drug laws do not require manufacturers of food produced with genetic engineering to label such food as genetically engineered. As indicated by the testimony of Dr. Robert Merker, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Supervisory Consumer Safety Officer, theFDA has statutory authority to require labeling of food products, but does not consider genetically engineered foods to be materially different from their traditional counterparts to justify such labeling.

Alright, this is a very common argument used against GMOs, and it’s “not even wrong,” that is, it’s not based enough in reality to be wrong.

Currently, all seeds leaving the biotech firms to the farmers are clearly labeled. The FDA requires labeling on food only if the nutritional value of the food is changed. Since GMO is a process, and not an ingredient, no change in nutrition typically occurs. With the exception of Golden Rice and the new banana, most are engineered with traits to aid farmers in the growing process. They have no effect on the final product.

So, safety, again, is not at issue here.

No formal FDA policy on the labeling of genetically engineered foods has been adopted. Currently, the FDA only provides nonbinding guidance on the labeling of genetically engineered foods, including a 1992 draft guidance regarding the need for the FDA to regulate labeling of food produced from genetic engineering and a 2001 draft guidance for industry regarding voluntary labeling of food produced from genetic engineering.

The FDA regulates genetically engineered foods in the same way it regulates foods developed by traditional plant breeding. Under its regulatory framework, the FDA does not independently test the safety of genetically engineered foods. Instead, manufacturers may submit safety research and studies, the majority of which the manufacturers finance or conduct. The FDA reviews the manufacturers’ research and reports through a voluntary safety consultation, and issues a letter to the manufacturer acknowledging the manufacturer’s conclusion regarding the safety of the genetically engineered food product being tested.

The FDA does not use meta-studies or other forms of statistical analysis to verify that the studies it reviews are not biased by financial or professional conflicts of interest.

The FDA is not responsible for any safety testing. They rely on the science that has been done.  Currently, there are a substantial number of independent safety studies that have been done.

That said, this still represents a distinct lack of understand of how science works. Science self corrects for bias. When a study is done and submitted to a journal, it gets peer reviewed. This is an often brutal process, where any holes can and will be poked in your paper.

Even if a bad study somehow makes it through that and gets published, the scientific community continues to scrutinize the study, and other labs attempt to replicate it.

Whenever you look at making a scientific claim, you have to rely on a body of evidence, rather than a single study, for this very reason. In the end, the funding source makes no difference, because all of these safeguards are built into the process.

There is a lack of consensus regarding the validity of the research and science surrounding the safety of genetically engineered foods, as indicated by the fact that there are peer-reviewed studies published in international scientific literature showing negative, neutral, and positive health results.

There have been no long-term or epidemiologic studies in the United States that examine the safety of human consumption of genetically engineered foods.

The “long-term studies” assertion has been floating around for a long time. The studies done on genetically modified technologies are equivalent to those that have been done on other types of crops and have shown that they are just as safe as other types of agricultural goods.

As far as consensus, there are over 2000 studies thus far on GMOs. A massive review in 2013 showed the consensus clearly with the following: “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops.”

Independent scientists are limited from conducting safety and risk-assessment research of genetically engineered materials used in food products due to industry restrictions on the use for research of those genetically engineered materials used in food products.

                This is another very common assertion. There IS a seed agreement that farmers sign when they purchase seeds. The question is, when determining the safety of a food product, what lab is going to grow it from scratch? They can freely purchase the food products to conduct the studies, and they do, as is evidence on the previously linked body of scientific work on the subject.

Genetically engineered foods are increasingly available for human consumption, as evidenced by the fact that: it is estimated that up to 80 percent of the processed foods sold in the United States are at least partially produced from genetic engineering; and according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 2012, genetically engineered soybeans accounted for 93 percent of U.S. soybean acreage, and genetically engineered corn accounted for 88 percent of U.S. corn acreage.

That’s pretty accurate, as far as it goes, and only further reinforced the concept that we’ve been using GMO originated foods in abundance with no ill effects.

Genetically engineered foods pose potential risks to health, safety, agriculture, and the environment, as evidenced by the following:

Independent studies in laboratory animals indicate that the ingestion of genetically engineered foods may lead to health problems such as gastrointestinal damage, liver and kidney damage, reproductive problems, immune system interference, and allergic responses.

They do no such thing. No study that has not been retracted (Example: Seralini) has shown any such thing.

The genetic engineering of plants and animals may cause unintended consequences. The use of genetic engineering to manipulate genes by inserting them into organisms is an imprecise process. Mixing plant, animal, bacteria, and viral genes through genetic engineering in combinations that cannot occur in nature may produce results that lead to adverse health or environmental consequences.

First, no animal genes are currently being used in the genetic modification of seeds.

Secondly, they’re making an interesting assertion here. Let me explain the difference between choosing a trait through genetic modification versus choosing it through other methods, such as selective breeding or radiation.

Other methods equate to cutting butter with a club. It’s messy, and there is a LOT of room for error, because you can’t precisely control what you’re selecting for. This was evidenced in the case of the poison potato, long before GMO.

Using genetic modification is like cutting butter with a surgical scalpel. It’s extremely precise, and there is very little room where error can occur in what you’re selecting for. This makes it exponentially more precise than traditional methods.

The use of genetically engineered crops is increasing in commodity agricultural production practices. Genetically engineered crops promote large-scale monoculture production, which contributes to genetic homogeneity, loss of biodiversity, and increased vulnerability of crops to pests, diseases, and variable climate conditions.

Genetically engineered crops that include pesticides may adversely affect populations of bees, butterflies, and other nontarget insects.

All crops use pesticides, even certified organic. Here’s a chart showing organic approved pesticides, and their toxicity to bees.

Organic Pesticides

As for butterflies, there hasn’t been an issue of toxicity towards them. The issue is the destruction of milkweed, which again, has nothing to do with GMO. It has to do with agriculture in general not wanting milkweed in their fields.

Cross-pollination of or cross-contamination by genetically engineered crops may contaminate organic crops and prevent organic farmers and organic food producers from qualifying for organic certification under federal law.

Cross-pollination from genetically engineered crops may have an adverse effect on native flora and fauna. The transfer of unnatural deoxyribonucleic acid to wild relatives can lead to displacement of those native plants, and in turn, displacement of the native fauna dependent on those wild varieties.

Cross pollination can happen, yes. That said, there are simple ways to solve the problem for organic farmers, as evidenced in a Plos One paper in 2013.

Even then, however, this has nothing to do with labeling GMO foods. This is the organic industry complaining about a challenge they “might” encounter while trying to the marketing advantage that is a certified organic label. It shouldn’t be part of this bill, since it’s not relevant to it.

For multiple health, personal, cultural, religious, environmental, and economic reasons, the State of Vermont finds that food produced from genetic engineering should be labeled as such, as evidenced by the following:

Public opinion polls conducted by the Center for Rural Studies at the University of Vermont indicate that a large majority of Vermonters want foods produced with genetic engineering to be labeled as such.

Public opinion shouldn’t dictate scientific policy. Public opinion has zero bearing on scientific conclusions. Legislating science based on public opinion is poor policy.

Because genetic engineering, as regulated by this act, involves the direct injection of genes into cells, the fusion of cells, or the hybridization of genes that does not occur in nature, labeling foods produced with genetic engineering as “natural,” “naturally made,” “naturally grown,” “all natural,” or other similar descriptors is inherently misleading, poses a risk of confusing or deceiving consumers, and conflicts with the general perception that “natural” foods are not genetically engineered.

GMO based foods are as “natural” as any other food we eat. We’ve been modifying our crops from how they would naturally occur since the invention of agriculture, about 12,000 years ago. Labeling anything we eat as “natural” is meaningless, because all of it “natural.”

Persons with certain religious beliefs object to producing foods using genetic engineering because of objections to tampering with the genetic makeup of life forms and the rapid introduction and proliferation of genetically engineered organisms and, therefore, need food to be labeled as genetically engineered in order to conform to religious beliefs and comply with dietary restrictions.

There is no religious doctrine in any established religion that dictates genetic modification. Even if there were, it would then require that its adherents eat none of the food of the modern world, as it has all been genetically altered from its original form.

Requiring that foods produced through genetic engineering be labeled as such will create additional market opportunities for those producers who are not certified as organic and whose products are not produced from genetic engineering. Such additional market opportunities will also contribute to vibrant and diversified agricultural communities.

This is key, right here. This states explicitly that they are legislating GMOs to aid competing parts of the industry in gaining a higher market share.

Labeling gives consumers information they can use to make informed decisions about what products they would prefer to purchase.

It gives them no information that is relevant to the health, safety, or content of a food. It only tells them that a specific process was used prior to the food being grown.

Because both the FDA and the U.S. Congress do not require the labeling of food produced with genetic engineering, the State should require food produced with genetic engineering to be labeled as such in order to serve the interests of the State, notwithstanding limited exceptions, to prevent inadvertent consumer deception, prevent potential risks to human health, promote food safety, protect cultural and religious practices, protect the environment, and promote economic development.

This final statement just reiterates the points addressed above.

crops-_2529116b

So, we’ve established here that the premise of the bill is entirely faulty. There isn’t anything in it that is relevant to enforcing labeling. Given this fact, it’s no wonder that a lawsuit HAS in fact been filed against the state of Vermont over the constitutionality of this piece of legislation. Only…it wasn’t filed by Monsanto.

Let’s look, first, at the plaintiffs.

GMA – Grocery Manufacturers Association

The GMA is an organization representing the interests of the food and beverage companies of America. They have initiatives such as The Healthy Schools Partnership and Keeping the Industry Green.

Of course, since members of theirs aided in defeating the labeling initiative in Washington, they’ve already been demonized.

Mercola names then the “Most Evil Corporation on the Planet,” which, you know, isn’t hyperbole or anything. Occupy Monsanto asks you to boycott their entire membership list, which does include Monstano, as one of hundreds of companies.

 

NAM – National Association of Manufacturers

NAM is an organization that represents small and large manufacturers in America. They include a huge membership all over the country, in many industries. They’re a pretty active organization on the national stage, and are transparent to the point of publicly stating their positions on a myriad of issues.

 

IDFA – International Dairy Foods Association

The IDFA is comprised of the Milk Industry Foundation, National Cheese Institute, and the International Ice cream Association. They’re members are entirely dairy producing companies.

 

SFA – Snack Food Association

The SFA resents about 400 companies worldwide that are snack manufacturers and suppliers. They’re active in education and research globally, and reputable.

download

So, looking at these four plaintiffs, aside from membership in one (amidst hundreds of other companies), Monsanto isn’t even an aspect. They are certainly not suing Vermont, as the headlines are continuously claiming.

This is pretty telling, actually, because a non-profit by the name of Sum of Us is currently raising money to fight against Monsanto. They’ve gotten over 21,000 donors so far, to help them fight the evil Monsanto.

Now, there are a couple of interesting things to this.

First, Monsanto is one of thousands of companies represented by the four plaintiff organizations, yet they are using Monsanto as the focus of their fundraising, but naming them as the company leading the charge. They’re essentially lying to their donors to raise money, which constitutes willful fraud.

Also, they are a non-profit actively raising money to aid in the legislative process. While a non-profit is allowed to lobby, they aren’t permitted to financially influence the legislative process.

OK, so let’s look at the lawsuit itself.

They’ve filed it based on the following.

Vermont passed Act 120 to require food manufacturers to change the way they label and advertise foods containing ingredients derived from genetically engineered crops. Plaintiffs represent manufacturers who are subject to the Act, who fundamentally disagree with the message it forces them to convey, and who must now take immediate steps to change their labeling and advertising to comply with the Act’s enforcement deadline. Plaintiffs bring this suit to declare invalid and enjoin Act 120 on the ground that it violates the United States Constitution.

That’s pretty pointed. Do they have justification for it?

                The operative provisions of Act 120 take effect July 1, 2016. That is a difficult, if not impossible, deadline for Plaintiffs’ members to meet. They must revise hundreds of thousands of product packages, from the small to the super-sized. Then, they must establish Vermont-only distribution channels to ensure that the speech Vermont is forcing them to say, or not say, is conveyed in that State. To comply by the deadline, some companies may have no choice but to revise labels for all of their products, no matter where they might be sold in the United States.

That’s pretty important. They’re requiring actions from out of state companies that may be forced to affect how those companies operate in other states.

The proscriptions in Act 120 are beyond Vermont’s power to enact. The State is compelling manufacturers to convey messages they do not want to convey, and prohibiting manufacturers from describing their products in terms of their choosing, without anything close to a sufficient justification. The State is forcing the costs of this experiment on out-of-state companies and citizens to which it is not politically accountable, and it is undermining and impeding the federal government’s interest in uniform, nationwide standards for food labeling prescribed by duly authorize expert federal agencies.

                In each of the above respects, the Act exceeds Vermont’s authority under the United States Constitution. The Act should be invalidated and enjoined in its entirety.

                That’s the key to it right there. You have the state government legislating companies and people in other states, affecting interstate commerce, and overriding the federal government’s authority. It’s feasible that this could even ripple internationally, with our exported goods from these companies as well. By all appearances, Vermont has well overstepped its authority.

As James Cooper points out aptly in his article on the subject, “since this is much the same law as was overturned in International Dairy Foods v Amestoy case, it is likely to be overturned as well.”

So, we’ll keep watch on this legislation and subsequent lawsuit, and for those of us that follow the science, we’ll hope that more rational minds will prevail, and the law will be summarily overturned.

Rows of a Carrot Field

References

“A Built-In Strategy to Mitigate Transgene Spreading from Genetically Modified Corn.” PLOS One. 6 Dec. 2013. 18 Jun. 2014. <http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.137&gt;.

“PDF: Lawsuit vs. Vermont GMO law.” Scribd. 12 Jun. 2014. 18 Jun. 2014. <http://www.scribd.com/doc/229432405/PDF-Lawsuit-vs&gt;.

Vermont State House. State. 2013. 18 Jun. 2014<http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/bills/House/H-112.pdf&gt;.

Chaussee, Jennifer . “California GMO Labeling Push Fails A Second Time After Lawmakers Reject Bill.” Huff Post Food for Thought. 28 May. 2014.<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/californi&gt;.

Cooper, James . “Vermont sued for its GMO labeling law.” Examiner. 16 Jun. 2014. 18 Jun. 2014. <http://www.examiner.com/article/vermont-sued-for-i&gt;.

Entine, Jon . “After GMO Labeling Bill Defeat In Washington, Will Anti-GMO ‘Witch Hunts’ Escalate In Next Battlegro.” Forbes. 6 Nov. 2013. 18 Jun. 2014. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/11/07/a&gt;.

Ford, Dana . “Vermont governor signs GMO food labeling into law.” CNN Health. 8 May. 2014. 18 Jun. 2014. <http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/08/health/vermont-gmo-l&gt;.

Novella, Steven . “The Seralini GMO Study – Retraction and Response to Critics.” Science-Based Medicine. 4 Dec. 2013. 18 Jun. 2014. <http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-seralini-g&gt;.

Pomeroy, Ross . “Massive Review Reveals Consensus on GMO Safety.” Real Clear Science. 1 Oct. 2013. 18 Jun. 2014. <http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/10/massi&gt;.

Rebgetz, Louisa . “Genetically modified Queensland bananas to join fight against catastrophic results of vitamin A defi.” ABC News. 15 Jun. 2014. 17 Jun. 2014. <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-14/genetic-bana&gt;.

Stockstill, Ellen . “Agricultural Biotechnology.” Curiosity from Discovery. 18 Jun. 2014. <http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/GM-crops-h&gt;.

Wendel, JoAnna . “With 2000+ global studies affirming safety, GM foods among most analyzed subjects in science.” Genetic Literacy Project. 8 Oct. 2013. 17 Jun. 2014. <http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/w&gt;.

 

Contributor: Robert Sacerich

Robert is a Bioethics and Ethical Philosophy student at Cleveland State University, as well as blogger and science advocate/activist. He has worked extensively within the secular community for various secular nonprofit organizations and public communication causes. He writes about science, technology, politics, human rights, feminism, religion, and any other topic that catches his eye.

See his full bio!

Thank you for reading Rationality Unleashed! You can “like” us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @rationalityunle. For any questions, concerns, or comments beyond what can be placed in the comments section of the blog, email us at admin@rationalityunleashed.net.

The Folly of GMO Field Mapping

grains-world-630

Well, Oregon is at it again. They’ve decided that it is their place to map out GMO test fields, in hopes of the entire country following suit. The claim is that it is to minimize cross-pollination potential between GMO and non-GMO fields. Cross pollination is really less of an issue than people try to make it out to be, however, there is that potential, and there are ways to avoid it. The major Biotech firms, as well as conventional farmers, are coming out against this, due to worries of sabotage.

A site called takepart, another one of those online resources that no rational person would ever cite as a source, is making some pretty fun accusations regarding this push-back. They’re claiming that the “evil corporations” are trying to avoid transparency. They claim it’s a matter of hiding their business practices.

So, all that said, let’s take a look at some fantastic reasons why no one should want test fields mapped out while the level of fear mongering and misinformation in the public is as high as it is.

Activists Destroy ‘Golden Rice’ Field Trial

Golden-rice-attack-628x325

Germany: 5 gmo fields sabotaged in 3 weeks time

GMO-756736-676x450

GMO test field destroyed by protesters

Kartoffel, Potato field

These are just a few examples of a growing problem of violence and sabotage against conventional farmers and test fields. Any movement that claims that there isn’t enough testing, then destroys test fields, is inherently dishonest and destructive.

In the end, there are definite consequences to the fear based anti-GMO actions being taking around the world. I just wish the anti-GMO activists payed attention to them.

Contributor: Robert Sacerich

Robert is a Philosophy of Science and Bioethics student, as well as blogger and science advocate/activist. He has worked extensively within the secular community for various secular nonprofit organizations and public communication causes.

See his full bio!

Thank you for reading Rationality Unleashed! You can “like” us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @rationalityunle. For any questions, concerns, or comments beyond what can be placed in the comments section of the blog, email us at admin@rationalityunleashed.net.

Pesticides in Organic and Conventional Farming

pesticide

If An Article Says “Study” It Must Be True! Collective Evolution, and other websites that no rational person would ever take seriously, are reporting with the headline of New Study Finds Organic Diet For One Week Drops Pesticide Levels By 90 Percent In Adults. Let’s break this down piece by piece.

I constantly come across individuals not knowing the difference between organic food and food that’s riddled with pesticides, that’s why awareness is so important. A recent study conducted by researchers from RMIT university, published in the journal Environmental Research found that an organic diet for just one week significantly reduced pesticide (commonly used in conventional food production) exposure in adults. (1)

Here they link a study from Environmental Research. They also make an interesting claim. They make a false dichotomy between organic food and food that’s “riddled with pesticides.” The irony is that they’re accusing others of not knowing the difference, when they themselves don’t seem to have a clue. Organic farming, like all farming, utilizes pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc, of varying degrees of toxicity. These are all organic approved substances.

Organic Pesticides

Note: Toxicity chart shows toxicity to bee population

Now, let’s look at some of their claims regarding the study, and the study itself.

Thirteen participants were randomly selected to consume a diet consisting of at least 80% organic or conventional food for precisely 7 days, afterwards crossing over to the alternative diet from which they started. Urinary levels were used for analysis. The study found that urinary dialkylphosphates (DAPs) measurements were 89% lower when they ate an organic diet for seven days compared to a conventional diet for the same amount of time. (1)

Did I just read that correctly? Does it says “thirteen participants?” How can any meaningful conclusions be determined by 13 participants? Now, this site, and the others, are reporting on and citing the abstract of the study, as the full text is behind a paywall. That being said, how do we know what the diets they even fed the 13 people were? Were they eating  specific foods that aren’t grown with the pesticides they were testing for to make organic come out on top? How biased in the study? None of this is reporting on or mentioned because the author of the article doesn’t know, and isn’t likely to care, since it’s all about confirming bias.

Let’s move on to the next bit.

The research was conducted by Dr. Liza Oates as part of her PhD project and supervised by Professor Marc Cohen from RMIT’s School of Health Sciences. It was supported in part by a donation to RMIT University from Bharat Mitra, co-founder of Organic India Pty Ltd..

So, it’s always ironic when the organic advocates say that all of the thousands of studies affirming GMO safety must be somehow biased, and then they put out stuff like this. The study was done on a donation from an organic company founder. It was  conducted by a researcher whose professional work consists of:

National Herbalists Association of Australia
Australasian Integrative Medicine Association
Australian Register of Naturopaths & Herbalists (Victorian Board Member)

So, this is a terrible source to come to any conclusions. It’s a tiny, biased study, with biased funding, and a biased researched, with no controls and no good, detailed information on the specific diets used in order to replicate or fact check it.

The rest of the article is just more fear mongering about pesticides and herbicides and some “OMG Monsatan!” type of rhetoric, while linking to other terrible articles on the same website. There’s nothing of substance there to even address.

Remember, a single study is NEVER a good resource to make definitive claims. You ALWAYS want a body of evidence. If you are, however, going to make a claim based on a single study, make sure it’s at least a decent one.

Contributor: Robert Sacerich

Robert is a Philosophy of Science and Bioethics student, as well as blogger and science advocate/activist. He has worked extensively within the secular community for various secular nonprofit organizations and public communication causes.

See his full bio!

Thank you for reading Rationality Unleashed! You can “like” us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @rationalityunle. For any questions, concerns, or comments beyond what can be placed in the comments section of the blog, email us at admin@rationalityunleashed.net.

Trendy Activism

10251232954_bd335c5390_b

 

There are a lot of activists for a lot of causes. The problem is that many of them don’t actually believe what they’re advocating. Let’s look at a few activist causes that really illustrate this problem well.

Pro Life

The pro life stance is that a fetus or zygote is just as human as a baby.

I promise you, most of them don’t truly believe that. You see, if you believe that the guy down the street is killing children in his basement and the police won’t do anything about it, you don’t picket his house. You do everything in your power to save those children. If you believe a fetus is the same as a child, then you don’t picket a clinic. The ones blowing up abortion clinics and killing the doctors are the only ones who truly believe what they’re advocating. The rest are on the bandwagon of ignorance because it lets them fit in with their “crowd.” Deep down, they know that there is a big difference. They just refuse to either admit it or take the steps someone would take if they truly believed that.

Anti-GMO

The contention of the anti-GMO crowd is that genetically modified foods, or genetically modified anything for that matter, is inherently harmful and is killing us all.

I guarantee that most of them don’t believe that. If you believed that the food supply was killing people, you wouldn’t protest one of the many biotech companies. You wouldn’t sit around complaining about it and ranting on the internet. You’d be taking real action. The Greenpeace eco-terrorists who are burning golden rice fields believe what they’re advocating. The rest most certainly do not. They’re advocating it because it’s trendy. It makes them hip with the “green” crowd.

Chemtrails

This is a personal favorite due to the sheer absurdity of it. The government is using aircraft to dust the population with poisonous and/or mind controlling “chemicals.”

Aside from how incredibly ignorant it is to begin with (with the other two, I can at least see where their fear and ignorance is coming from. This has to be drug induced.), they don’t really believe that. The ones hiding in bunkers in the woods surrounded by firearms believe it. The rest do not. They talk about their conspiracy theory with everyone they can find who will listen. If they really though the government was doing such a thing to them, then they’d be running like hell or revolting.

And so…

People join these “causes” because they are trendy. They’re like the Kony campaign. They don’t care about facts. They don’t care about being intellectually honest. They only care about the bandwagon ideology that they’ve jumped on and makes them sound “real” in front of their friends. This is the sort of thought process that those of us in the rational community are up against every day.

As Sam Harris said…

“If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that proves they should value evidence.

If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument would you invoke to prove they should value logic?”

Contributor: Robert Sacerich

Robert is a Philosophy of Science and Bioethics student, as well as blogger and science advocate/activist. He has worked extensively within the secular community for various secular nonprofit organizations and public communication causes.

See his full bio!

Thank you for reading Rationality Unleashed! You can “like” us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @rationalityunle. For any questions, concerns, or comments beyond what can be placed in the comments section of the blog, email us at admin@rationalityunleashed.net.

 

 

Anti-Technology On The Rise

dco0045l

 

Reason.com reported in 2001 that an anti-technology movement was on the rise. They discussed people’s fear of technology, especially nanotechnology and biotechnology, two very present and topical new technologies that are carving out a place for themselves worldwide. What I found very telling, however, is something I’ve noticed and written about in the past. The anti-technology sentiment is intrinsically linked to anti-corporation ideologies.

We see this a lot today with the anti-biotechnology movement in particular. There was always the anti-corporation undertone, but post-occupy it’s become a loud mantra for those against technological advances. It’s become so ingrained that people will make up their own “facts” to support the rhetoric and ideological stance against large corporations that produce new technology.

Even when you go back not long ago, people were protesting turning on the Large Hadron Collider because they were sure it was going to start creating black holes and destroy the planet.

Today, people insist that biotechnology is poisoning the population.

It’s no different. This is a good illustration of the fear induced rhetoric that can come from holding to ideologies instead of facts and evidence.

What I’d like to see is a move towards better public education of new technologies and the discarding of political ideologies to make way for a more evidence based worldview for the general population. Well, I can hope at least.

Contributor: Robert Sacerich

Robert is a Philosophy of Science and Bioethics student, as well as blogger and science advocate/activist. He has worked extensively within the secular community for various secular nonprofit organizations and public communication causes.

See his full bio!

Thank you for reading Rationality Unleashed! You can “like” us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @rationalityunle. For any questions, concerns, or comments beyond what can be placed in the comments section of the blog, email us at admin@rationalityunleashed.net.

Those Evil Chemicals!

img2

 

Lately, I can’t get through a day without someone talking about harmful chemicals in our food. People are in an uproar over a harmless chemical in Subway rolls. People go nuts over GMOs. People even get in an uproar about flouride in the water. So, I think we should look at some of these chemical filled foods.

Let’s start with this incredibly dangerous cocktail of horribly dangerous chemicals.

sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, manganese, iron, copper, zinc, phosphorus, chlorid, flouride, iodine, slenemium, ncotinamide, pantothenic acid, frolic acid, leucine, lysine, valine, isoleucine

Wow, that’s some scary stuff. And to think, we let schools feed these “apples” to our children.

OK, now that we’re terrified, let’s take a look at another poisonous compound that we feed our children.

iron, sulfur, potassium, sodium, chlorine

Wow. Sulfur?!?! Chlorine?!?! We should ban eggs from the shelves.

OK, but surely we eat something that isn’t chemicals? What about something free ranger and organic?

Actin, myosin, moglobin, elastin, reticulin, collagen, nucleoprotein, hemoglobin, albumin, globulin, fibrinogen, citrate, lactate, niacin, glycine, proline, serine, tyrosine, hydoxyproline, potassium, phosphorus, sodium, chlorine, magnesium, calcium, iron, zinc

Woah. That’s a deadly steak!

Now, let’s look at reality. Every single thing is made of chemicals. It doesn’t matter how “clean” or “organic” or whatever other buzzword you choose to use it is. Picking out a chemical you don’t understand and making claims that it’s somehow bad, regardless of what the science says is absurd, to say the least. I can only really say…

Dude, do you even science?

Contributor: Robert Sacerich

Robert is a Philosophy of Science and Bioethics student, as well as blogger and science advocate/activist. He has worked extensively within the secular community for various secular nonprofit organizations and public communication causes.

See his full bio!

Thank you for reading Rationality Unleashed! You can “like” us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @rationalityunle. For any questions, concerns, or comments beyond what can be placed in the comments section of the blog, email us at admin@rationalityunleashed.net.