Sure, he looks cute — just don’t let him near your broccoli. Photo by J. Ogrodnick
The diamondback moth catterpillar (Plutella xylostella) may not look like much, but don’t be fooled by its generic caterpillar-y appearance; these larval lepidopterans are one of the world’s worst insect pests. Diamondback caterpillars gorge their way through cabbages, canola, broccoli, cauliflower, and kale, costing farmers $4-5 billion annually worldwide. The worst part is that these hungry beasts always seem to be a step ahead of pest management strategies, readily evolving resistance to every organic and synthetic chemical that farmers attempt to wipe them out with. But now, scientists have created a secret weapon that the bugs cannot resist: genetically modified males whose genes kill their female offspring. Continue reading “Genetically Modified Moth Passes Greenhouse Testing With Flying Colors”
For four years, the state of California has experienced a devastating drought. It’s not just a little dry—according to scientists, it’s the worst drought in over a millennium, fueled by global climate change. Cali is in such dire straits that Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. just signed two emergency measures to funnel another $1 billion to drought relief and critical water infrastructure projects. No sector is feeling the hit more than Golden State’s agricultural industry, where the shortage of water has already cost farmers billions. And California’s drought is just the beginning; scientists predict severe and widespread droughts globally in the next 30 to 90 years. Given that the world’s farmers account for 75% of our freshwater use, these droughts will cause massive losses in crop production unless the agricultural industry as a whole can find a way to maintain production with less water input.
The midterm elections are over, and a number of significant changes lie ahead. Marijuana has taken several key steps towards legalization, more women than ever are in congress, and the Republican party has taken control of the senate—surely, it will be an interesting couple of years. But one thing hasn’t changed: GMO foods will not carry special labels, as the ballot measures in Colorado and Oregon followed suit with the failed propositions from California in 2012 and Washington in 2013.
GMO labeling initiatives in Oregon and Colorado fail to pass.
The real question is, which side of the line are studies that lack scientific rigor on? Image credit: silent47
Recently, Kara Moses asked Guardian readers: “Should we wait for conclusive scientific studies before becoming concerned about an issue?” Her personal answer was no; that special interest groups should perform and publicize their own findings. “I believe they should be given a voice,” she concluded, “not dismissed out of hand for lacking the scientific rigour demanded by professional scientists.”
Quick to support her was Treehugger writer Chris Tackett. “The point here is that scientific proof matters in science, but it shouldn’t necessarily be what determines our actions,” he wrote. “We can intuit that some things are unwise or dangerous or against our values without needing reams of scientific data to back up our concerns.” While Kara’s piece talked only about the use of glyphosate (the pesticide known by its brand name RoundUp), Chris used it to attack both the pesticide’s use and Monsanto GM crops.
I understand where they are coming from, but the hair on the back of my neck bristled reading those words. I think they’re both getting into very dangerous territory (or, in the case of Chris’ comments later, happily dancing around in it). The trouble is, it’s one thing to notice a potential danger and raise a few alarm bells to get scientists to investigate an issue — it’s a whole other to publicize and propagandize an unsubstantiated fear despite evidence against it. The former is important, as Kara suggests, and should occur. I have no problem with non-scientists raising honest concerns, if their goal is to have the concerns considered — so long as they’re actually willing to hear what the evidence has to say. The latter, on the other hand, is denialism. You see, once scientists have weighed in, you have to be willing to listen to them. Continue reading “The Very Thick Line Between Raising Concerns And Denialism”
