Does Opposition To Genetic Engineering By Groups Like Greenpeace Amount To A Death Sentence For Millions?

The pop-environmental movement has a long history of supporting public policy approaches that, when implemented, end up causing irreparable harm to the environment, and, often, millions of premature deaths, especially deaths among children. 

As just one example, this blog examined, some time ago, the tens of millions of deaths brought about over several decades as the result of Rachael Carson’s misguided attacks on the chemical DDT and the subsequent soaring in the death rates from malaria in much of the tropical world. http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=8791618495827652206#editor/target=post;postID=7534575162541163376

In recent years a technology labeled “genetic engineering” has come to the fore as a weapon in the fight against hunger, disease, and other ills suffered by mankind.

Some think this will be the result of genetic engineering

Always a reliable rider on any environmental bandwagon with the capacity to create big dollar donations, the group, Greenpeace, has leaped aboard the anti-genetic engineering wagon with enthusiasm.  In New Zealand, where the discussion regarding genetic engineering has been spirited, in part because of a public relations campaign mounted by a number of organizations allied with Greenpeace, the organization’s website declares, “Greenpeace is opposed to the release of genetically engineered organisms (GE organisms) into the environment and the food chain. Greenpeace is also against the patenting of life.”http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/campaigns/genetic-engineering/

Others Think This Is An Appropriate Place For Genetic Engineering

On the other side of the discussion, a November 26, 2012 article published by National Review Online asks the question, “Is Opposition to Genetic Engineering Moral?  http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333980/opposition-genetic-engineering-moral-henry-i-miller

The subtitle to the piece comments that, “Sentiment and bad science are killing the world’s poor.”

As summarized by the National Center For Policy Analysis, a free market based think tank dealing with many policy issues, including the environment, the National Review Online article addresses a number of new advances demonstrating the potential for saving lives and/or creating significantly enhanced quality of life for the citizens of the world including (bold is mine): http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=22636

“Biopharming.

This is a new way to fight diarrhea, the number two killer of children under the age of five throughout developing countries, accounting for around 2 million deaths per year.

• Since the 1960s the standard care for diarrhea was the World Health Organization's formulation of a rehydration solution. However, this treatment does not lessen the severity.
• Research reflects that reinforcing oral rehydration solution with two proteins, lactoferrin and lysozyme, decreases duration and recurrence of diarrhea.
• Biopharming synthesizes the large quantities of necessary proteins.

Dengue fever.

• A British company, Oxitec, uses genetic engineering techniques to create new varieties of the mosquito species that transmits the disease.
• Oxitec's approach introduces a gene that produces a protein that stops mosquitoes' cells from functioning normally.
• The modified males, once released, survive long enough to mate with wild females, but the offspring die.
• This approach has reduced the infected mosquito population by 80 percent in the Cayman Islands and by 90 percent in Brazil.

The third example is the medical breakthrough called Golden Rice.

• Rice, a staple for billions of people, lacks specific micronutrients needed in a complete diet.
• Vitamin A deficiency is prevalent among poor people whose diet consists largely of rice.
• Every year, about half a million children go blind as a result of the deficiency, and 70 percent of those die within a year of losing their sight.
• The introduction of Golden Rice -- rice groups that are biofortified by the introduction of genes that construct vitamin A -- holds promise for public health.

Other examples exist by the dozens, if not hundreds.  In an article written by myself and soon to be published in an American magazine dedicated to crops a product called Bt is discussed as a natural substance allowing growers to avoid using much harder insecticides.  Bt is a natural bacterium important to the American corn and cotton industries.  Bt can be sprayed onto the surfaces of crops to provide temporary protection against insect pests or, can be genetically engineered into crops to protect plants for the lifespan of the plant. 

Bt has been in used for most of 100 years.

So, what is right, and what is wrong when it comes to genetic engineering? 

If millions of lives can be extended, hunger can be reduced, quality of life can be enhanced, and the environment improved, can it ever be right to withhold the results of genetic engineering from a world in harm’s way?  And, if millions die as the result of withholding the benefits of genetic engineering, who is responsible for those deaths?  Will we ever see Greenpeace stand up and say, in a forthright manner, “We think a world free of genetically engineered foods is worth giving up a few million lives for?” 

I doubt it.

More on this in a future blog.

The Triumph Of Emotion Over Science: Rachael Carson And Dixie Lee Ray

Hysteria vs Science
Despite well known evidence to the contrary, Carson's claim that bird populations were in danger of extinction due to the use of DDT led to bans on the use of the pesticide and, demonstrably, the death of millions as the result of insect caused disease  led Dixie Lee Ray to label Silent Spring, "an emotional, lyrical, and grossly unscientific book that became the Bible of the environmental movement." 

Nearly 20 years ago I had the honor of visiting Dixie Lee Ray at her Fox Island, Washington home for the purpose of interviewing her for a magazine article.  I believe I was the last to interview her before she passed on in 1994.

Dixie Lee was one of the great minds of the 20^th Century but she had a couple of great failings.  She insisted on accuracy in science and, she spoke her mind no matter the cost.  Both are deadly sins in the world of the pop-environmentalist.

The quality of Dixie Lee’s mind is unquestioned.  Her accomplishments demonstrate the capacity of the woman.  Dr. Dixie Lee Ray was a marine biologist by training, a professor at the University of Washington.  She earned her way into becoming director of Seattle's Pacific Science Center. In 1972 she was appointed to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission by President Richard Nixon.  She eventually chaired the commission then was appointed to serve her nation as Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs; in charge of pursuing the nation’s interests regarding most scientific endeavors.  In 1976 Dixie Lee became Washington’s first female governor. 

As governor Dixie Lee quickly ran afoul of the pop-environmental movement for her outspokenness regarding a whole range of environmental issues.  Her party dumped her when it came time to run for a second term for a variety of crimes and misdemeanors including honesty, scientific accuracy and a forthright outspokenness. 

Dixie wrote two books after leaving office.  Trashing The Planet and Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened To Common Sense? ought to be textbooks in any library oriented to environmental issues.

Perhaps more than any environmentalist in recent history, the life of Dixie Lee Ray points to the excesses of the pop-environmental movement and, unfortunately, the probability that a true environmental ethic will rise anytime soon.

Dixie saw the triumphant rise of emotion based science as it overwhelmed the environmental movement.  In her conversation with me she pointed to a couple of sentences in Trashing The Planet as exemplifying what the movement had become; “It is complex in that it incorporates a strongly negative element of anti-development, anti-progress, anti-technology, anti-business, anti-established institutions, and, above all, anti-capitalism.  Its positive side, if that is what it can be called, is that it seeks development of a society totally devoid of industry and technology.”

In her introduction to Trashing, Dixie laid out her personal philosophy regarding science; “One of the most profound obligations of scientists is to provide factual information about basic science, technology, the environment, and human health in a manner that can be understood by policy makers and the public at large.”

Standing in sharp contrast to Dixie Lee Ray is Rachel Carson, the author of one of the most influential “environmental” books of all time; Silent Spring.

Silent Spring was published 50 years ago and has become one of the most cited works, in terms of the environmental movement, of all time.

As described by Dixie Lee, Carson’s work is, “…an emotional, lyrical, and grossly unscientific book that became the Bible of the environmental movement.”

Silent Spring was responsible for the banning of a pesticide, DDT, that had almost eradicated malaria in the world.  As Dixie pointed out, “DDT, the most effective insecticide ever produced, could have saved millions of lives from malaria and other insect-borne diseases had not political pressure brought by environmentalists like Rachael Carson banned its use in the U.S. and reduced its use worldwide.”

Ray details the beneficial effects DDT had on human health pointing out the chemical was used to control body lice on soldiers in World War II with the effect that for the first time in history no Allied soldiers were stricken by typhus, a disease that had killed more soldiers than bullets had in the First War. 

In Sri Lanka, she pointed out, 2.8 million cases of malaria were counted in the years before DDT.  By 1963 only 17 cases were known to exist.  By 1969, after the banning of DDT the number had once again risen to 2.5 million cases.

Two months after hearings in 1971 resulted in findings that the science did not support the banning of DDT, the U.S. Department of Ecology banned the chemical.  The head of the agency at the time, William Ruckelshaus later admitted, Dixie pointed out, that, “decisions by the government involving the use of toxic substances are political…the ultimate judgment remains political.”

In insisting that decision making regarding environmental issues be based on sound science and rational thought Dixie Lee Ray was swimming against the current in the 1990s.  Rachael Carson had demonstrated to the pop-environmental industry that emotion can trump science.

Some believe Rachel Carson was simply careless in her work regarding pesticides.  Others point to the possibility that self-aggrandizement and increased sales may have played a part in her approach to science.  What is assuredly true is that her work has been pretty much discredited to no effect. 

In the world of the pop-environmental industry in 2012, emotion has triumphed over fact in terms of science.  That's good for fund raising but bad for the environment.