National Geographic's Misapplication of GMOs

In the rhetoric of science, one of the following is not like the others: evolution, global warming, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The misfit is GMOs. That is unless the scientific rhetoric in question comes from National Geographic.

I recently took part in a panel discussion about the intersection of scientific rhetoric and environmental communication, and one of the topics that came up was National Geographic's most recent issue, which contains the cover story about why people have a distrust of science. (Check out the article here.) The article features an okay discussion about why so many people have doubts about things like evolution and global warming. However, in contrast to the principles of science, which seek to gain an ever-larger understanding of our situation, the article impedes and constrains itself substantially, particularly in regard to GMOs.

The article identifies the conflict between people's common sense and the scientific method as a key source of misunderstanding. That's certainly a valid point, but it's only part of the discussion. An important issue the article fails to address is that science itself created some of the distrust. As one of my colleagues on the panel pointed out, science enjoyed a "golden age," in which it aligned with industrial and political forces to create dangerous products (for example, atomic bombs and industrial chemicals) that harmed humans and the environment. Along the way, these scientific creations also harmed the reputation of science.

National Geographic says that the majority of scientific research holds that GMOs are safe for human consumption, and therefore, the case of GMOs is a defining example of people's irrational common sense trumping scientific consensus. With regard to the safety of eating GMOs, National Geographic may very well be right, but consumption is not the whole story, and the magazine does a disservice to science by leaving out key considerations.

It is in the history of science's malpractice that we find the difference between evolution, global warming, and GMOs. GMOs are scientific creations, not established theories about the planet's health and development. As scientific creations, GMOs are more like industrial chemicals and pesticides. In fact, they work in tandem with pesticides to create environmental problems. For example, the combination of GMOs and pesticides imperils monarch butterfly populations by eliminating milkweed, an important source of food for the insects. Pesticides like DDT were once said to be "safe" until we became aware of their larger environmental impacts (like the near extinction of bird species, including the bald eagle). And that is where the aspect of public doubt that National Geographic ignores comes into play. We have been misinformed about scientific creations before, and that led to the crash of science's golden age. Given that history, the control that GMO developers have placed on information regarding their products makes people even more wary.

By disregarding an important contributor to public doubt over science, National Geographic simplifies a complex issue, neglects important environmental considerations (like the possible extinction of species), and contributes to the cloud of mistrust people have for even firmly supported and comprehensive scientific facts like global warming and evolution.

I guess crop fields aren't the only places GMOs are misapplied.

Up in Smoke

I've found that being an environmentalist can be addictive.

This addiction stems from a desire to help protect something I see as immeasurably special. I felt that protective urge very early in life, and it grew until I wanted to protect every single mechanism of nature.

The story of the West Coast fisher provides a great example of my addiction. As I blogged about here, after being virtually wiped out from much of its original range, the fisher has started to make a comeback with the help of reintroduction projects. I first got excited about their return when a population was reestablished in the Olympic National Park. That success led to reintroduction programs in Washington's Cascade Mountains.

Success stories certainly add to the addictive nature of environmentalism, but nothing feeds the addiction more than success that is threatened. And now, all the work that has gone into bringing the fisher back is at risk because of the illegal use of rodenticide (much of which is used to protect illegal marijuana planting) and other factors. As a result, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing listing the West Coast fisher as threatened. Check out a video explaining the proposal below:



This proposal to protect fishers and support the previous work to keep them around further triggered my protective instincts. I submitted my comments in support of the proposed listing and would like to share the opportunity with others. For more information about the proposal and how to comment on it, click here. The deadline is February 4.

Yes, I'm addicted, and I see no end to my desire to protect nature from thoughtless destruction.

Bye-Bye Birds

We're not talking about just spring that could be silent.

Pesticides threatened bird species, and Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring. Global warming threatens birds on a whole other level by stripping them of habitat, and to communicate the issue, the Audubon Society has released a great new Web site. The site details and articulates how global warming is impacting bird species in the United States. It also contains interactive features and collaborative content.

Using data compiled with the help of citizen science, the site provides visuals of ways global warming affects bird habitat. It spotlights certain species and gives people the chance to see the impacts on their local area. (For instance, it was sad to see that the ruffed grouse, one of my favorite birds, is likely to leave the region of Washington state where I grew up.) Another cool aspect of the site is that it contains content that others have produced in response to the Audubon Society's report, expanding the conversation about the issue. Finally, the site also provides ways to help address global warming.

Perhaps the most startling part of the Web site is the information that 314 of the country's bird species are severely threatened by global warming. Considering that fact, it's vital we put this puzzle together and address global warming soon.

It's either that or we'll be forced to get used to the sounds of silence.

Source of Death

The problem of pesticides, especially the deadly neonicotinoids, killing off bees continues to grow.

Gardeners hoping to protect bees by not directly using neonicotinoids can end up unwittingly killing bees simply with their purchase of plants. Many plants are grown using these and other pesticides, which remain in the plant and continue to pose a risk to bees. Popular gardening stores carry the pesticide-laced plants but don't label them as containing the toxins. The following video from Friends of the Earth offers more explanation of the problem:



Neonicotinoids' prevalence stands out in the video. With 51 percent of plants tested containing these pesticides, gardeners who buy from stores like Walmart, Home Depot, and Lowe's have a good chance of planting gardens deadly to bees.

Despite the fact that neonicotinoids are in so many plants without warning labels, gardeners can empower themselves in the fight to keep bees alive. By applying pressure to stores and elected officials, we can work for the banning of neonicotinoids, encourage stores not to carry plants treated with them, or, at least, make sure the plants are labeled as containing these particular pesticides.

Plants symbolize life; they shouldn't represent death for bees.

Bee Mine

This Valentine's Day, show someone sweet how much you care, and by "someone," I mean bees.

Pesticides have had a devastating impact on bee populations. In response, Friends of the Earth is asking people to show bees some love on February 14 by taking a special valentine to Home Depot and/or Lowe's stores. The card calls on the companies to stop selling pesticides that kill bees.

To get a card and further instructions from Friends of the Earth, sign up here. Then, on Valentine's Day, make your move.

Love isn't all we need. We need bees too.

Bee in the Garden

Gardens are becoming the last-chance places for bees.

Honeybee declines have received most of the attention, but bumblebees are also disappearing. Pesticides and habit destruction, in particular, have had devastating effects on these insects, and we are only just beginning to understand the full extent of the damage.

Gardening provides an opportunity for learning more about and doing something to stop the disappearance of bumblebees. A Web site called Beautiful Wildlife Garden gives tips for how gardeners can do both. These suggestions include avoiding the use of pesticides, tracking and reporting bee sightings, and providing habitat for bees. To learn more, click here.

We've known for a long time that gardens rely on bees, but it's becoming clear that bees are growing evermore dependent on gardens for their survival.

Bee Minus

At least 50,000 bumblebees were killed in less than a week in a single Oregon parking lot. They died just because someone wanted to get rid of some aphids.

According to this article from The Xerces Society, which advocates for the conservation of invertebrates, an insecticide was applied to some non-native, flowering trees in a Target parking lot because the aphids were dripping a sticky substance. After the poison was applied (it is illegal to apply it when plants are in bloom), bees, not sticky aphid residue, began falling from the trees. And they just kept falling.

The Xerces Society is providing ways people can help, and it is also joining scientists in calling for bans on the cosmetic use of insecticides.

How ridiculous have we become? We indiscriminately throw around toxins to stop stickiness from trees that we introduce to habits. At every turn of this story (right up until it sped off the cliff), we see examples of humans' blindness to their impact on the environment. Such negligence gives us a failing grade in our responsibilities to the environment and should be treated as a criminal act.

Bittersweet

Most films have to create a buzz to draw an audience, but a recent documentary looks at an issue that people are already buzzing about.

More Than Honey examines the worldwide phenomenon of honeybee die-offs and the major implications they have for humans. To view the trailer and learn more about the film, click here.

The honeybee deaths force us to consider our connection with the environment. Pesticides have been identified as a major factor in the die-offs, and the possible extinction of bees threatens our food sources. In other words, we're deeply entwined at all levels of this issue.

By contributing to the buzz around the bee deaths, More Than Honey helps us explore this vital connection.

Time for Organics

Organic food may not be as trendy as it was a couple of years ago, luckily.

More than a trend, organic farming appears to have enough demand to sustain the industry even if individual organic farmers are subject to the same fluctuation in fortune as regular farmers. This news story provides insight into the world of organic farming in Washington state.

What stood out most to me in the article is that organics are no longer a novelty--the story is less about introducing the reader to them and more about checking in on their current state. That's encouraging. Another positive sign is that prices for organic produce are dropping. This suggests that more people are buying organics and that more people will have the chance to do so.

If you haven't made the switch to organic yet, now might be a good time to get your feet wet. You can start slowly by identifying the fruits and vegetables that are exposed to the most pesticides through regular farming. The Environmental Working Group ranks produce by pesticide content, a list topped by apples.

With the EWG list to acquaint you, organic produce might just become an old friend in no time.

Rethinking the Garden

Fertilizers and pesticides have become just another part of gardening, but such chemicals aren't always needed for a healthy, productive garden. In fact, more chemicals often hurt the health of your garden and you.

In the Pacific Northwest, King County and Thurston County in Washington state and Portland in Oregon have teamed up to make the Grow Smart, Grow Safe information guide to fertilizers and pesticides. The guide contains information on the chemicals in such products. It also offers alternative ideas for dealing with animals, insects, slugs and snails, weeds, and other things usually seen as problems for a garden.

Overall, Grow Smart, Grow Safe gives gardeners a little different way of looking at their gardens and the chemicals they might be putting into their plants. You can check out the guide by clicking here.