Hightower Retort - 10/3/2003

The Hightower Lowdown: October 3, 2003

NATURE'S REALITY CONFRONTS BUSH

One of our more important environmental questions is this: How deeply can George W. stick his head into the thawing tundra before having to admit that, yes, global warming just might be a wee bit of a problem for us?

Hyperbole? Has Bush just ignored the entire issue of global climate change? You be the judge.

At issue is the thin layer of ozone that encapsulates our globe. This ozone is kind of important, since, without it, the sun -- how shall I put this? -- would burn us to a crisp, wiping out all life on Earth. Unfortunately, pollution from such things as our oil-guzzling cars is eating away this natural and essential sunscreen, causing everything from more cancer to global warming.

The Bushites, however, goaded by oil and chemical fat cats, are pretending that this isn't happening, so therefore there's no need to stop the pollution causing it. But nature has a way of rudely pricking political delusions with stark reality. Specifically, the frozen Arctic tundra is thawing due to global warming.

Mr. Hightower is probably talking about this. However, it is worth noting that not all scientists are ready to concede the common assumptions about global warming.

This is a problem for Bush -- not because it pokes an embarrassing hole in his "It's Not Happening" posture (after all, Bush has never let reality interfere with ideology). Rather, the thawing tundra is a political problem because it's interfering with the oil giants that are drilling in Alaska. Yes -- oh, cruel irony -- the very industry claiming that global warming doesn't exist is now stuck in it!

Definitely ironic! But since the industry must contend with the reality that our political system interfers in their business, they've taken the stance (so common among businesses in other industries as well) that the best tactic is to deny accusations, delay investigations, and defend their actions. It's a natural response to the way our system works.

An Alaskan regulation allows heavy drilling equipment on the fragile tundra only when it is frozen solid a foot deep and covered by at least six inches of snow. Thirty years ago, these wintry conditions existed 200 days a year, but global warming has now shrunk this window of opportunity by half -- too short of a period for profitable oil drilling.

How about repealing that law to allow the companies more freedom and discretion to operate? I doubt, however, that increasing the ability of these companies to operate is important to Mr. Hightower.

But the Bushites are remaining consistently delusional -- rather than facing up to the cause of the thawing, they want to allow the industry to drill even when the tundra is not frozen, thus producing more oil to cause more global warming.

This is a muddied cause and effect statement. Burning oil produces the pollutants that affect the environment, not producing oil. Similarly, the people who burn petroleum products are the ones who "cause" global warming. He may have had a different intent in mind, but this unnecessarily implies the companies have direct responsibility for what their customers do with their products, a stance I completely disagree with.

THE BIOTECH INVASION OF WASHINGTON

A GMO is not a hot new muscle car marketed to young drivers -- it's a Genetically Modified Organism, and these GMOs are being secretly sold to us through our supermarkets.

Shhh! The amoral capitalists are at it again, sneaking around and not telling anyone about their plans! The coverup is nationwide!

Thousands of the food products you bring home -- especially those made with corn and soybeans -- contain these genetically altered organisms, put there not by farmers developing new and better hybrid crops, but by the likes of Monsanto and other profiteers that have scientists in their labs recklessly moving genes among species, including from animals to plants. They are messing with the very DNA of our food supply without even testing the long-term impact of this manipulation on human health or on our ecology. And they're doing it without even telling us that it's in our food.

Mr. Hightower, unless you have gone on record stating you collect no profits on your work, I suggest you stop using the term "profiteer" as a perjorative.

How do you know these changes aren't done in order to improve current crops and create new ones? What does it matter if big business is doing this rather than smaller independent outfits as long as they are doing it voluntarily and not accepting government dis- or incentives?

Consumers concerned with their health and the impact of GMOs can take the initiative to find out if their food contains these organisms. If they company rejects their request, then they can decide whether or not to buy it's products. This isn't that difficult to comprehend, but I have a feeling Mr. Hightower believes people have a right to know and food companies have a duty to tell...and neither is the case.

In Europe, Japan, Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere, people have rejected these Frankenfoods, either banning them outright or at least requiring that they be clearly labeled. So why is our government allowing these corporations to use your family and mine as their genetic guinea pigs?

Because we respect private property and free market exchanges far more than Europe, Japan, Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere. This characterization directly contradicts what he just said a few sentences ago: if he truely believes we are being used as "guinea pigs," then doesn't that necessarily mean they ARE testing the long-term impact of their experimentation?

If a company decides to cover up or gloss over potential and actual health risks in the food it sells, then that company is engaging in fraudulent activity and should be prosecuted. In addition, once the truth comes out, that company is screwed commercially. It's reputation takes a hard hit and consumers will think twice about buying it's products. Natural market correction...a correction that doesn't require the wholesale banning of goods or their regulation.

But that would mean higher risk for consumers and, well, screw that, right? Such a scenario is unacceptable if you believe in the Nanny State.

Money, honey. The biotech industry knew that U.S. consumers, like those everywhere, would naturally recoil from such tampered foods, so over the last decade, it invaded Washington with its campaign funds and lobbyists. For example, just in the past five years, this industry poured $89 million into lobbying our Washington officials and put millions more into the campaign funds of the White House and Congress.

Monsanto alone, which now controls 70% of the global market for GMO seeds and has led the charge to prevent labeling of these food products, made $3 million in campaign contributions in this period. Eighty percent of that went to Republicans, and George W. dutifully named a Monsanto lobbyist to be the No. 2 official at the EPA.

The biotech giants haven't merely invaded Washington, they've captured it -- and that's why we're being kept in the dark by our own government.

Some data from recent survey confirms the general ignorance of Americans towards the extent of GMOs in their food, their desire to see more regulation, and their concern over the health effects. If companies labeled their products, then there would certainly be a shift in consumers' habits.

But so far, and especially given the sheer prevalence of GMOs in our diets, there is no GMO-derived health crisis. Would I consider changing my eating habits if it was proven some or all GMOs were harmful? Sure, and I'd be joined by many more.

However, this potential for harm doesn't justify stepping in and requiring food companies to label their products. It's their property to dispose of as they wish and by imposing these regulations, property rights are diluted. The additional costs are no trivial matter, either. Not in our current economic climate.

In the end, my concern is having people believe they can safely trust in the government to know what's best for them...government that is at the whim of political and budgetary processes and pressures. My safety is my responsibilty because I own my life and my body. I have choice in what I eat and it's up to me what criteria I use to filter my selection down. Companies own their products just as surely as I own myself.

I say let everyone be free to choose among the greatest possible options, unfettered by precautionary principles and government handholding.

Posted by Drizzten at October 28, 2003 09:56 AM