On Earth Day, the Risk-Monger has decided to defend environmentalists. In this blog he will show that they are not criminals but merely social deviants and, unlike many Western politicians, feels that they should not be incarcerated for their campaigns.
As the European Commission DG Santé will soon review their disastrous precautionary ban of neonicotinoid pesticides (what the NGOs and activist scientists conjured up a bee crisis for), I only have one message to the man tasked with this re-evaluation: Farmers matter!
The recent International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) publication on glyphosate (a chemical found in Monsanto’s Roundup) once again illustrates how international scientific bodies continue to put politics over science, run anti-industry witch-hunts and have become the playground for environmental activist predators using the cloak of an international body to try to give their campaigns a resemblance of credibility.
The Risk-Monger was forced to watch the anti-industry lobbying film, The Brussels Business. That does not imply that he was forced to enjoy it.
Stupid legislation from Brussels leads to frustration, an inability to comply and the resort of having to turn to lawyers to continue to properly function. Rather than getting rid of bad regulators in DG Health, industry is left with no choice but to turn to the short-sighted and limited “Derogation Dance”.
Will negotiators in Brussels and Washington be able to agree on and push through a TTIP pact? Forget it. The anti-American, anti-TTIP campaigners inside the Brussels Bubble have sharpened their Eur-redneck knives and tongues to squash that gosling in its nest.
Are Naturalist Nutters showing signs of inconsistency or of a sudden logical outburst when they criticise those who do not vaccinate? Hardly – they are exhibiting a perfectly justifiable illogic that easily harmonises contradictory thinking. We need to accept that there is no logic to risk decisions and learn how to manage risks in an emotional, anecdotal world.
In today’s world beyond trust, there are calls for industry and government to adhere to codes of conduct. Why is it that those who scream the loudest for this, do not themselves have or adhere to codes of conduct? Are their values better than ours?
Five years ago, the world was on the brink of collapse from catastrophic climate change. As fear-mongers got rich, the Risk-Monger had a rich picking of ridiculous cases of abusive PR and scientific activism. The Environmental-Industrial Complex has evolved over these five years, but is showing no signs of weakening its hold on our media attention, fear levels or pocket-books.
The IUCN Taskforce on Systemic Pesticides has been set up essentially as a political front group – they do not do any original research, are not transparent on their membership or amount of funding and was formed to do PR and political activism. Their activism is damaging the reputation of science. They need to understand that rules matter.
As Christmas approaches, the Risk-Monger finds himself on Santa’s Naughty List. See how he tries to wiggle out of this one and presents three simple ideas for 2015!
The third and final activist bee science blog looks at how activist scientists have got into government panels like EFSA and are changing the way risk assessments are done. Laden with conflicts of interest, they have delegitimised the entire process and put the European Commission into a terribly compromised position. As the game plays out, nobody cares about the real victims – the farmers.
The IUCN Taskforce on Systemic Pesticides has surrounded itself with like-minded thinkers campaigning to ban neonicotinoids, receiving funds from organisations that want to hit industry hard and promote organic farming. They declare that they have no conflict of interest.
What if scientists got caught acting without scientific integrity? What if they formed a group with political ambitions to juice up the science so they could campaign against another group? Would they be credible? Would their science serve as the basis for policy? Only an idiot would accept that. Why then did we?
Not all scientists follow standard practices or operate according to agreed upon codes of conduct. Some are motivated by other ambitions. How can we determine who a credible scientist is? Is the science proposed by politically motivated and very vocal activists the best available evidence? Without a chief scientific adviser, how do we know?
Greenpeace risked the lives of its volunteers this weekend, leading to a 23-year-old woman being taken to hospital when Spanish authorities tried to stop their attack on an oil installation. Greenpeace has to learn to stop promoting acts of “environmental heroism” among its young recruits and then putting their lives in danger for cheap PR stunts.
Today is a sad day for the European Union. After a clever and persistent lobbying campaign, Corporate Europe Observatory and the Green 10 have succeeded in removing the post of a Chief Scientific Adviser. There is no longer a safety mechanism within the European Commission to ensure, better, more evidence-based policymaking.
I, the Risk-Monger, am a climate sceptic. There, I said it. I came out and it is a relief.
Supply chains are hardly the source of innovation and product development. As the soft spot of industry competition and dirty tactics, the lack of cooperation and coordination along the supply chain signify industry weakness and opportunity for others. It will only worsen.
While the latest outbreak of Ebola is certainly a tragedy, its use by the media and political activists is sadly opportunistic. This crisis should provide the opportunity for us to consider fast-tracking development programmes in these poor West African countries.