The Risk-Monger

Archives for GMOs

This is the second part of yesterday’s blog. After reading a pro-organic campaigner come up with 10 rather weak reasons to feed your family organic, I challenged myself to do the same for why you should not, and within minutes, found myself with almost 20. Here are the second ten – you do not need to accept all, but if you accept more than three, then you should not consider yourself as pro-organic.

Posted by David Zaruk

After reading a pro-organic campaigner come up with 10 rather weak reasons to feed your family organic, I challenged myself to do the same for why you should not, and within minutes, found myself with almost 20. Here are the first ten – you do not need to accept all, but if you accept more than three, then you should not consider yourself as pro-organic.

Posted by David Zaruk

The organic lobby’s war on science and biotech follows a Neo-McCarthyist path of intimidation and propaganda. It is a dark day for research when individual liberties are sacrificed for a political argument.

Posted by David Zaruk

The Great Plague of London showed the precautionary principle at its worst when they killed the cats. Today environmental zealots seem to find delight in “drowning kittens”.

Posted by David Zaruk

A recent BBC Panorama report shows the evident lack of science in Greenpeace’s position on GMOs. Former head of Greenpeace UK calls their position “morally unacceptable”. Kumi Naidoo needs to show leadership and accept the science on GMOs.

Posted by David Zaruk

Precaution as a policy tool has been manipulated to meet activist agendas. On climate and GMOs, we see two different, contradictory perceptions of precaution applied. How can activists deal with this contradiction?

Posted by David Zaruk

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?

Posted by David Zaruk

Bjørn Lomborg shows how environmental activist groups like Greenpeace have held up trials on Golden Rice for twelve years for no good reason, arguing they should be held in part responsible for the loss of around eight million lives in that time from vitamin A deficiency. The Risk-Monger has a problem with a basic premise underlying Lomborg’s conclusion: that to blame NGO activists, you would have to assume that these campaigners are in some way responsible for their actions.

Posted by David Zaruk