The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller
              FILE - In this June 15, 2007, file photo, a customer picks out fruit while shopping at the Hannaford Supermarket in Quincy, Mass. The United States and Japan have agreed to make it easier to import each other

Why India Is Right On Organics: Anti-GMO Activists Are Pro-Death Activists

Photo of Mischa Popoff
Mischa Popoff
Policy Advisor, Heartland Institute

India’s intelligence agency is targeting anti-GMO activists as a threat to the economy. But officials in America remain willing to hold “dialogue” with the enemies of progress, hoping to arrive at a “consensus.”

When Spock says “live long and prosper,” he’s not talking about banning technologies to preserve a cottage industry, or hinder the sort of agricultural growth that transformed India from an agronomic basket case into a food export nation in less than a generation.

But, having never experienced mass starvation as Indian policy makers have, American policy makers are rushing to negotiate with the same food terrorists who banned DDT in 1972, the only effective means of controlling mosquitoes that spread malaria, a regulatory coup that resulted in more deaths than both world wars.

Of course trendy cosmopolitans will object. Surely there’s nothing in the wholesome experience of shopping at Whole Foods or a state-sanctioned “organic” farmers market that smacks of terrorism. Is there?

Well, consider Golden Rice, genetically spliced with β-carotene over 10 years ago to prevent millions in the third world from going blind and dying. It remains in regulatory limbo thanks to organic activists who claim it will contaminate organic rice.

Because they reject genetic engineering, organic activists claim genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) represent a threat to organic crops and have gone to court and lost three times insisting on zero tolerance for GMOs. Even their own rules don’t support such a claim. Organic farmers are only prevented from using GMOs, with no point stipulated at which GMOs threaten organic integrity.

Imagine, claiming that a new form of technology “contaminates” an older form. Could anything be more absurd? Well of course it could. A whopping 43 percent of all certified-organic food sold in America now tests positive for prohibited pesticides.

Remember when organic activists used to worry about pesticides? Not anymore, they don’t even bother testing organic crops to discourage cheating. Instead, they have focused on keeping out GMOs even though, in stark contrast to pesticides, not a single health effect has ever been observed from GMOs on the environment, animals or on humans.

The GMO industry is now well-established, with 35 years of science and over 20 years of commercial success behind it. Even European farmers want to grow GMO crops, and European scientists agree it would be perfectly safe to do so (see here and here). And yet, people like Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo are rushing to give activists a national, voluntary GMO labelling system that will include a far stricter regulatory apparatus for new GMO crops and, crucially, a threshold level for GMO content, precisely what activists demand.

The City of New York tried limiting the size of soft drink its citizens could be trusted with, and the courts struck it down. But we’re about to see a threshold-limit put on GMO ingredients across America, with not a shred of evidence of any negative consequences from growing or consuming GMOs.

Pompeo is being driven by Vermont passing the first “clean” GMO labeling bill in America, and Oregon becoming home to the sixth county in America to ban GMOs. Rather than respond directly to such threats, and with support from some very high-profile public and private farm-and-food organizations, Pompeo seeks instead to abandon America’s leadership role with a rejigged version of Democrat Barbara Boxer’s failed 2013 GMO labelling bill.

So get ready to negotiate with people who claim GMO farmers poison our children and the environment, and who believe there are too many people on the planet, without any evidence for either claim. Some say it’s a green religion. But it’s far worse. It’s an unprecedented form of anti-human anarchy, the very worst of what Jacobins, Bolsheviks, Nazis, and Maoists ever imagined.

Every other anarchistic revolution was always restrained by physical limits. Whether it was how people could be beheaded in France, shot to death in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, gassed in concentration camps, starved to death, forced into slave labor or have their heads smashed in with rifle butts in communist Cambodia, every other revolutionary-horror inflicted by man upon his fellow man had hard, physical limits.

But what we face now is a genocidal horror-show that only nuclear holocaust comes close to approximating; the environmentalist horror of what Maurice Strong, the father of the Kyoto Protocol, refers to as a “glimmer of hope.” Here’s the full quote from his autobiography:

experts have predicted that the reduction of the human population may well continue to the point that those who survive may not number more than the 1.61 billion people who inhabited the Earth at the beginning of the 20th century. A consequence, yes, of death and destruction — but in the end a glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration.

1.61 billion. That’s the number of people who walked this planet before Fritz Haber – the brilliant German Jew – cracked the code in 1917 that allow us to pull a literally limitless supply of nitrogen fertilizer (ammonium nitrate) from the earth’s atmosphere, freeing humankind from the labor-intensive limitations of naturally-composted fertilizer. How telling that it was the rejection of Haber’s process that launched the organic movement in Germany in the 1920s. How telling that leading environmentalists see this as a turning point to return to.