Parties need to move on GMOs
Grant Jacobs at Sci Blogs writes:
Recently more than 150 post-graduate students and young scientists presented an open letter to the Green Party via The Spinoff, encouraging them to reconsider their position on genetic modification. Their target is tackling climate change issues.[1]
Can any party continue to be dismissive about genetic modification (GM) contributing to better agriculture?
We all want safe food, and the environment and climate change are important issues to tackle. New varieties can contribute, including those developed using GM.
All political parties have quietly let the GM legislation slide, not just the Green Party. It is unimpressive no party has moved the temporary legislation on. (Such outstanding timidity! Such an excellence of hand-sitting![2])
It’s an issue politicians avoid, I believe, because the core of opposition to GMOs is about some people’s beliefs, not science, and politicians are reluctant to deal with beliefs.
Jacobs is right that no party has pledged to update the law. They should. We need to use science, not be scared of it.
In response to the ESCA’s letter, the Green Party science and technology spokesperson opted to tread water. The party offers that they (paraphrasing) “follow the science”, but in my experience—across many different issues—is they only seem to “follow” chosen subsets of science that fit an ideology appealing to their members. That’s not how following science works.
Exactly.
To a biologist, the worry-warting about GMOs is often badly misplaced. It’s forgivable and understandable that people worry about things they don’t understand and projects ideals on them, but that doesn’t make it right. In this opposition to GMOs is like opposition to vaccines, 1080, water fluoridation and more.
Today we have a large problem to solve: to keep our way of life on this planet. (The planet will live on, but how we live on it is another matter.) Pre-emptively throwing away useful options is a lousy idea.
You can’t claim climate change is an existential threat and an emergency and then claim we don’t want to use science to mitigate it.