Hello there Kossacks. Forgive me blogfather, for I have sinned. It has been 2 years since my last diary....
Yeah, it's been a while. I still poke my head in from time-to-time, as my twitter feed is full of old fogies from the early DK days and they reference or write things I'll look at. And I've been thinking about coming back, because we are going to have a race for the Oval Office that will begin to consume much of our remaining oxygen soon.
But it's not looking very attractive to come back here and advocate for science and evidence-based policy. And that, Houston, is a problem. For everyone.
I stepped away a while back because it was clear that my science advocacy was not well received here. The name-calling and troll-rating on items of fact were flung at me and made conversations on the actual issues futile. Environment-related diaries I wrote were not welcomed into the round-ups. Questions to management about these things were dismissed.
So I chose to work on science and evidence-based policy elsewhere, where it might be welcomed and supported.
Lately, though, I had begun to see some folks in my science circles posting here--on vaccines, and GMOs. I thought maybe it was time to look in again, and see if the climate had changed.
'Fraid not. I recently arrived after hearing about a diary on twitter, and found out this smart woman in my science circle had been called a shill repeatedly and a Monsanto fluffer. For those of you who don't know what kind of a misogynistic slur that is, you can see the definition here [NSFW]. That got a bunch of recs.
Alas. So much for the environment. Charming.
But I was told in the threads that false shill claims were now addressed by management. So I thought that was nice to hear. Turns out, that wasn't the way it played out. Instead this smart woman was asked to change her profile. That's right, the victim was the one at fault. Nice. (Except, of course, it's still false that she's a Monsanto shill. But management is going to let that falsehood stand.)
If that's the way this community wants to abuse women who support the scientific consensus on plant biotechnology, ok--it's up to you. Can you imagine treating a woman who aligned with major scientific organizations on climate change being treated like that? Maybe on Republican blogs, ironically.
But here's your upcoming science problem.
Hillary Clinton's recent appearance at this BIO conference made her position clear on this issue. She also aligns with the scientific consensus.
“I stand in favor of using seeds and products that have a proven track record,” Clinton said, adding that biotech professionals need to continue to try to make the case for GMO-skeptics. “There is a big gap between what the facts are, and what the perceptions are.”
And:
Clinton noted that there are unwarranted fears surrounding GMOs because many people do not understand science or biotechnology and are easily swayed by code words and misguided perceptions. “Genetically modified sounds ‘Frankensteinish’ – drought resistant sounds really like something you want,” she said.
And:
Clinton emphasized the need for a comprehensive educational effort to help farmers, governments and the public accept genetically modified crops.
Whether you support Hillary Clinton or not at this point, I don't care. It's a ways out, and I haven't committed to a candidate and won't until we see the field. But it is likely that the positions of Clinton will begin to become an issue of discussion.
I am aware that the misinformation and fearmongering on GMOs (and vaccines) is not unique to the left. But the left claims the mantle of adhering to science, evidence, and reality--while mocking numerous Republicans who make the same types of wild claims unpinned to science fact.
There could be 2 outcomes of this unhinged behavior on science policy for the Democrats. 1) If Hillary Clinton becomes a leading candidate, Dems will have to decide if they are with her on this evidence-based policy or not. 2) If you find another candidate who is not aligned with the scientific consensus on this issue, that's going to open you {the collective you} up to charges and mockery from the right on the hypocrisy.
And don't try to give me a petition signed by a bunch of fringy contrarians on this issue. You look just like climate deniers and creationists when you pull those sorts of stunts.
And I understand that you hate corporations. But unfortunately the conflation of issues on this topic that are related to corporations--such as patents and co-marketing of products--is not unique to GMOs. If you banned GMOs tomorrow--would you remove patent problems? Nope. Would you reduce herbicides? Nope.
And the labels. The rhetoric on this is just as bad as Republicans trying to set barriers to women to want to access reproductive care by requiring them to read something written by opponents, or putting a label on a textbook. Similarly, this philosophical issue should not be handled by government mandated speech--but a third-party system like Kosher. All of the current label proposals so far have been simultaneously misinforming consumers while not providing actionable information for decision-making. Don't make government policy on fear and junk science, it's a terrible foundation.
Liberals are going to have to come to grips with the facts on this issue. Aligning with the fringiest anti-science cranks to make policy as Vermont just did is a terrible idea. Here was a good take on that:
1. Excommunicate Jeffrey Smith — i.e.: the Anti-Science Conspiracy Theorists
The Earth is 4.54 billion years old. Humans evolved from monkeys. The climate is warming. And the genetically engineered foods that have been released over the past 20 years don’t pose a human health risk.
How do we know all these things? The weight of evidence.
I would also recommend that you
excommunicate 9-11 Troofers who drive around in fishy-beet cars. And don't ever cite
NaturalNews or
Mercola as evidence for anything. Ever. Anti-GMOers have very terrible judgment of sources on the whole. A few veil their cherry picking with a science veneer--but those of us who understand the data recognize the deception.
I know a lot of smart women who can help educate people on this topic. Pam Ronald has written great stuff on both science and labels. This farmer and registered dietician Jennie Schmidt has talked about GMOs on her farm, the costs of labeling, and the myths of seed choice, among other great stuff.
But if you are going to call smart women misogynistic names, hurl false shill accusations, or troll rate them, when they try to talk to you about evidence-based policy, you're gonna have a problem finding educators and allies. I wouldn't invite those women here if they are gonna get treated like that. Who needs allies that call them corporate cocksuckers? But if that's what the policy here is going to be like here and I get called that below, we'll get the message.
But you might have trouble finding candidates too.
Disclaimer: I do not now nor have I ever, worked in agriculture. I have never been paid by any aspect of "Big Ag". I do not hold any Monsanto stock, and never have. Any claims of "shilling" will be false, and they will be reported to management who will do nothing. They may, however, then proceed to tone troll me.
