science that benefits people at least. Like the science of genetic modification of food crops. Golden rice is rice modified to produce carotene, which is metabolized into vitamin A. And enviro-idiots dont like it a bit. http://www.science20.com/timberati/blog/golden_rice_now_everything_else_is_noise-136084 quote: In the U.S., where about 70 percent of the food in our supermarkets contains ingredients from genetically engineered crops, life expectancy has increased from 76 years in 1996 (when large-scale cultivation of GE crops took off) to nearly 80 years today If we're less healthy, we sure are coping with it more effectively. In the four minutes it took you to read this, two, three or four children lost their sight due to Vitamin A Deficiency, and, in the same four minutes at least one child died. Everything else is noise.
The biggest issues with this topic are the labeling of the products and to some extent, the effect its having on smaller farmers. I don't think many are actually arguing that the science is bad.
GMO like most liberal issues, is an issue with capitalism in general. It doesn't matter if crops are engineered to use fewer resources, pack more nutrients, or reduce the need to use harmful chemicals. What matters is that Monsanto makes a lot of money doing it. Therefor in the liberal mindset, they are evil and must be stopped.
The environmental movement was co-opted by the anti-capitalism, anti-business, anti-US people a long time ago.
That may be the STUPIDEST jump of logic I've seen anywhere and any CLOWN, anywhere to state without data or post. First and foremost, 2 factors your parsed sentence doesn't even address--QUITTING SMOKING--the BIGGIE for changing life expectancy as a 'stand alone' cause. And depending on the MEASUREMENT YEAR, for which the expectancy # was derived, we had a drop in infant mortality rates through the 70's and 80s' when YOUNG WOMEN were encouraged, mandated to GET PRE NATAL CARE. PS Who/what the hell is science20.com?? A RW blog to COUNTER real science?? Several stories posted on their site today... 1.Take That, Peaceniks: Facial Shape Evolved For Violence, Not Chewing 2.Concerned About Increasing Levels Of Doubt Over Climate Science? Thank Journalists 3.Will Anyone Ever Own Their Own Land In Space - And May We Get Wars In Space In The Future? 4.Answer To Where Are The Parallel Worlds 5.Lubos Motl, Prospective Winner Of Higgs Challenge ? 6.Almost Human? Rats Show Regret, Says Study 7.Glaucoma May Be A Brain Disease Rather Than An Eye One
There are legitimate concerns with certain GMO's (not just food), but it's also true that there is a very zealous group out there who know very little about the topic and rant and rave about it.
Knee-jerk GMO rejection is a huge problem. Most folks don't realize that ruby red grapefruit and most mint plants are the result of genetic modification via nuclear gardening from the '50s. They don't realize that selective breeding is genetic modification. Seedless watermelon? Genetic modification. But "genetic modification" sounds scary. "Mutant food? None of that for me, thanks." The movement to label GMOs is driven largely by the "natural food" industry. They're well aware that if Monsanto has to put a label on their food, it will scare people towards "organic" products. This and the anti-vaxxer garbage are prime examples of how the right isn't the sole source of crazy, anti-science folks.
Yours was an intriguing question so I poked around on the sight and it appears to me that it is indeed a blog sight where individuals give opinions and insight into studies published in respected peer reviewed journals. Many of the blogs seem to very nicely 'dumb down' the scientific jargon used in the journals. They take a few liberties with their blog titles "Take That Peacenicks" but for anyone with the intellectual interest to read past the titles there are some interesting information.
Organic products require more resources to bring to market, still use pesticides and chemicals, and produce less usable product that has a shorter shelf life. Such a deal, right? Want to reduce access to quality nutrients? Force out the industries that create them for the least expense... On the other side of the coin, the best way to ruin the organic movement is to let the government regulate it.
