By James A. Kidney
While media focus was on Donald Trump and terrorism, there was little notice of a new report by the Department of Agriculture, citing new studies from the Center for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health, affirming that there is no scientific evidence to support claims that genetically modified produce and meats cause any harm. To the contrary, the report said, genetic modification will produce great benefits to health and increase substantially the food supply, leading to lower prices. “A real win-win,” the report concluded.
The reaction from organizations and members of Congress opposing genetically modified organisms (“GMOs”) was immediate. The Institute for Responsible Technology stated that the research “had to have been bought and paid for by Big Agra.” The Non-GMO Project demanded an inquiry into the Agriculture report and the sources it relied upon. Four liberal Democratic senators demanded that the Senate Agriculture Committee issue subpoenas for all information related to the reports and studies. “We want to see everything,” said Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., ranking member of the Committee.
OOOPS. Fooled ya.
There is no such report from the Department of Agriculture. But is there any doubt that had one been issued, the reaction from those opposed to GMOs would be as described above? Instead, we have a leading troglodyte of the Republican Party seeking evidence to contest a study issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) disputing claims published elsewhere that the rate of global warning has slowed in the last few years. Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican who is chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and a climate science denier, launched the investigation and issued a subpoena for basically “everything” related to the NOAA study.
NOAA, every science organization you can name and the editorial page of The New York Times lambasted Smith for seeking emails and other records of scientists and bureaucrats paid by the taxpayer to ascertain whether the NOAA report was biased in favor of climate change advocacy.