The recent WTO ruling that European discrimination against GMOs violates international trade rules was a surprise to me. I expected they would get away with it. Part of that ruling was the assertion that European discrimination wasn't based on science.

Some argue that science isn't the issue, that democracy is the issue. If they want to ban GMOs then that's their choice and the WTO shouldn't force them down their throats. But, this isn't a democracy issue. You don't get to pick and choose which rules you will follow in a democracy, you get to work to change them using democratic processes. Alternatively, you can move to a different location with different rules or, as in this case since it is a world institution, withdraw and pay the price of your convictions.

Others argue that though GMO opposition isn't scientific that it is none the less valid in some sense because people are alientated from science and modernity for understandable reasons.

. . . the fruits of science often fail to reach the poorest levels of society. Think of the lack of even basic drugs in many parts of Africa, and the widespread problems of disease that result.

it is often the poorest communities that suffer most from the side-effects of technology-based growth. Think of farmers falling ill or dying after exposure to chemical pesticides. . .

faith in scientific solutions may clash with the comforting certainties of traditional belief systems. This in turn means that these solutions may undermine not only the social practices that belief systems support — the most obvious example being traditional medicine — but also the social cohesion they generate. . .

for all its promises, modern science often generates a sense of alienation, rooted in feelings of a loss of control. . .

Nowhere does this alienation appear more strongly than in the public opposition to genetically modified (GM) crops. Critics frequently label this opposition as 'irrational' or 'anti-scientific'.

Such thinking is reflected in yesterday's verdict by the World Trade Organisation, which overturned European opposition to imports of GM crops from Argentina, Canada and the United States on the grounds that Europe lacked a sufficient scientific justification fior taking such action

If Europe was an under developed region like the examples from Africa etc. this might make some sense. But they aren't and it makes no sense at all. It is an irrational argument seeking to justify irrational arguments, a clumsy twirl of the cognitive kaleidoscope:

Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted -- not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.

None of the arguments about scientific alienation make any sense for Europe, and none of the arguments are scientific.

To some extent, the critics are justified. The 'science' that opponents of GM crops quote to support their cause is often misleading, incomplete, or just wrong. Think of the mileage given to the work by immunologist Árpád Pusztai, whose claim that eating GM potatoes can weaken the immune system is contested by most experts in the field, but remains widely quoted by GM opponents.

Or look at the claim that GM food can trigger allergies. The evidence is no stronger than data supporting claims that carbon dioxide emissions do not accelerate global warming. Yet those who readily reject the second claim often have little difficulty in accepting the first.

Imagine that. Public views about hot issues have no basis in science. Who is surprised by this?

To start with, intervening directly with the genetic make-up of plants (and animals) is widely seen as a form of interference not only with natural processes, but also with traditional farming practices developed around these processes over centuries.

This is complete nonsense. Plants and animals have been in continual flux for all of the history of agriculture. They were crossbred, intentionally mutated, culled and selected to the point that it sometimes seems that every village had its own breeds of chickens, cattle, and grain plants. During the age of discovery exotic flora and fauna were imported from every corner of the world and subjected to the same processes. In the twentieth century - not that long ago - even people were the subject of eugenic experiments. Europeans were comfortable with any and all of these techniques.

There are other wheezy arguments made to justify opposition to GMOs, but they are all kaleidoscope twirls and it is intellectually dishonest not to say so. Worse, it is instrumental, a ruse to sell an agenda.

. . . as with any other application of science, careful regulation can ensure responsible use of GM technology.

No, it won't. Regulation does not reduce risk or ensure anything except jobs for regulators and power for politicians. It is pious feel-good wanking. Nothing we can do reduces the risks. It is always the unknown unknowns - the black swans - that get you.

European fear of climate change and GMOs are two instances of the same problem. In neither case does science play a role - it's all politics all the time. People are, and always will be, rationally ignorant of the issues, and will always support irrational ideologies. European opposition to GMOs and hysteria about climate change are perfect examples of these truths. Venal politicians are not so stupid that they don't realize that this is so and exploit it for their own advantage.

There is no solution. There never has been. Europe has always strugged with this. The urge to regulate is the same urge that once forbid any but "persons of quality" to own and use swords, and later guns, unless they were conscripted into some armed group by a "person of quality". The rulers feared that an armed populace skilled with weapons would rise up and slit their throats, and in the end they did just that. Of couse criminals don't obey laws. Then as now criminals have weapons even if the solid citizens don't.

Will criminals, even terrorists, use biotechnology for their narrow purposes? Certainly. Will rogue regimes intentionally despoil the environment and fill the sky with climate changing gasses? They already have. Google Saddam Hussein. There is no solution.

But there are rational responses to these obvious and eternal truths. Ever since humans learned to use fire they have been burning themselves out of house and home, killing themsleves and others, but that hasn't stopped them from using fire to their net benefit. The same is true for every technology. Caution is approriate but inadequate. Everyone needs firemen. But firemen can't prevent fires or even put them all out before great harm is done. Life is hard. And dangerous. And phun. You will (probably) die but that's no reason not to live joyously while you can.

» WTO and GM foods from Biopolitical
Europeans who do not want GM foods will be free not to grow or eat them. Thanks to the WTO, the rest of us will hopefully be free to grow or eat them....[read more]
Tracked: February 10, 2006 03:42 PM