MONSANTO IS GOING TO MAKE US AUTISTIC BY 2050 ZOMG 911BBQ!!ONE!

[sabotabby]

It's almost New Year's! I don't do resolutions or year-in-review posts anymore; I guess I just don't see much of a point. I always end up roughly the same person, if drastically more hungover, on the 1st as I was on the 31st. Case in point: I'm up, drinking my morning coffee with a cat on my wrist, and arguing about conspiracy theories at The Other Place.

This is mostly a post about Monsanto, if you are going to be upset by my opinions about Monsanto and/or GMOs. A lot of people tend to be.

A fellow educator posted a link, with his added commentary, "Very disturbing."



The original post linked to an article from Health Impact News (no, I'm not going to give them the hits), a site which boasts that it brings you, quote, "News that Impacts Your Health that Other Media Sources May Censor!" Sounds legit, right? The headline, "MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide will Cause Half of All Children To Have Autism by 2025" sounds even more so.

Wake up, sheeple!

The cool thing is that I don't even need to read the article to know it's bullshit. I can just look at the headline. I read it anyway, but it was exactly what you'd expect. I posted a quick response last night, "On the plus side, it's almost certainly not true!"* and left it at that.

The fellow responded, Eeyore-like, "I hope you're right."

I replied that I was, because it was pseudoscience. The thing with the conspiracy inclined mind, though, is once they get a bone, they don't wanna let go of it.


Him: So are you of the opinion that Monsanto's claims are solid?

The stats reported from their CDC in the article are valid. The rate of autism in children born in 1992 was 1 in 150. Born in 2002 was 1 in 68. That's an astonishing change. Whether from round up or another cause it needs to be understood.


At this point, I was unconscious, but fortunately another woman had stepped in to point out various factors that have nothing to do with Monsanto that lead to a higher rate of autism diagnoses.

Him: Thanks ‪[Sensible Lady]. I've been considering that possibility also. But how do we know if the hypothesis you offer here is correct? What evidence is there to support this? And if it is correct does this increase represent a recognition of something that has previously existed but gone unrecognized or is it a manifestation of overzealousness in finding medical/scientific explanations for everything that is not considered "normal"?

Here you can see a fundamental contradiction in woo-mentality. They are fucking terrified of autism. But! They are also terrified of the mental health system and are against psychiatric drugs under any circumstances. You can see the gears frantically turning in opposite directions—on the one hand, our tampering with nature is causing mental health problems, on the other hand, mental health problems don't really exist. Um um BIG PHARMA something something.

Him: Additionally I find this article disturbing because of the reported increased use of round up in food production. This in itself is cause for concern in my mind. Monsanto's claims that it is not harmful are not reassuring to me.

Me: It's not that I trust Monsanto's claims about anything. It's that there's a booming industry devoted to making claims about Monsanto and health in general and I trust that even less.

There are a few ways to test claims made on online only sources. If the title is "X drastic thing will happen by X specific date," it is almost certainly exaggerated or fabricated. If I can't find corroboration on legitimate websites (this link appears to be from a conspiracy site), the information in it is likely questionable. And if it references something that intrinsically causes panic but is not all that well understood like autism, I'm going to feel very comfortable calling hoax.

What [Sensible Lady] said re: autism rates. Actually, there is a correlation between sales of organic food and autism:

THIS IS MY FAVOURITE CHART IN THE HISTORY OF EVER

Which is a neat explanation of why correlation does not equal causation.

I don't know if this particular pesticide is more harmful than those traditionally used or not. Pesticides generally are, which is why, unlike most lefties, I support more research into GMOs, which reduce the need for pesticides.

I do know, however, that autism-related scares are harmful in two ways. The "vaccines cause autism" belief, published in a fraudulent study and promoted by Jenna McCarthy, has killed children by allowing a resurgence of preventable diseases. It has also sent the message to people with autism that we, as a society, would prefer they die of polio than be non-neurotypical. That scares me so much more than anything Monsanto does. My favourite kid in the world has autism, and difficult as his life is, I'm not sure that anyone who knows him would want his weird little brain to be different. I guess that's why this issue resonates so much with me and scare articles send me into a rage; because I think they devalue unique lives like his.

Finally, here's a useful checklist on how to spot pseudoscience:

‪http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037‬



So, eh, don't know if it'll get through. But maybe I planted a little seed of critical thinking, there?

And since that seed is a GMO, science and skeptism will almost certainly triumph!

Happy New Year, sheeple!

* I'd take out the "almost certainly" if I hadn't been hungover at  the time.

Comments

[firecat]

Well said. Besides, I think the human race would be better off if more of us were autistic. I'm not aware of autistic people being particularly warlike, for example.

[sabotabby]

I know a few. :) No more so than the general population, though. In general, though, autism scares reek of eugenics and neurodiversity makes the world a better place.

[misslynx.livejournal.com]

I'm not aware of autistic people being particularly warlike, for example.

Er... pretty sure this varies a lot per individual, actually. My autistic 7-year-old is obsessed with weaponry of all sorts and wants to take over the world with an army of giant robots.

[symbioid.livejournal.com]

"It has also sent the message to people with autism that we, as a society, would prefer they die of polio than be non-neurotypical."

This a million times. Many times this is one of the key points I bring up - though I don't know if I've put it in this term exactly, it's the "cooties" factor of it all that really annoys me, as if people with autism should all be burned with fire and what a horrible thing for society if people have autism, etc...

Yeah - I'll take more autism over polio, anyday, thanks.

*fistbump*

[sabotabby]

Thanks. Yeah, it just enrages me. This entire group of people (which happens to include some people I care a lot about)? Well, it would just be better for us if you guys didn't exist. Fuck that. It would be better if polio didn't exist.

[mle292.livejournal.com]

GMOs are necessary, and most specifically, GMOs are vital for the developing world.

BUT, The safety of nothing should be left to the whims of large corporations, GMOs included. Monsanto is no more evil than McDonalds, but their work is in a field not well understood by laypeople, so they get weird conspiracy theories surrounding their products. It's possible that some GMOs are unsafe, but fuckall if anyone can tell in a sea of extraordinary bullshit.

[sabotabby]

Agreed. I have issues with Monsanto for economic reasons, not science/precious bodily fluids reasons.

[ironed_orchid]

There are plenty of good reasons to distrust Monsanto, but the bad science conspiracy nuts make me unlikely to attend any protest against them in the foreseeable future.

[sabotabby]

I would just punch everyone in the face and that would be counterproductive.

[pofflewomp.livejournal.com]

Are they really vital for the developing world? I haven't read up on the issues involved since it all came out inthe late 90s so am behind the times, you see, so was just wondering what I have missed.

[mle292.livejournal.com]

Google the name "Norman Borlaug" to start finding out more information about this.

[misslynx.livejournal.com]

"Vital" is perhaps a bit strong, but potentially useful, definitely.

The thing is that the anti-GMO movement only ever acknowledges GMOs made by for-profit corporations for economic reasons - like making them more resistant to herbicides so that you can douse a field in herbicide to kill all other plant life without killing the main crop, which is touted as efficiency but is also, not coincidentally, a good way to sell a lot more herbicide. But there's also a lot of biotech research done by universities, NGOs, etc., for non-profit-oriented purposes, such as to make crops more nutritious, enable them to grow better on marginal land so that more food can be produced in arid areas, making them naturally more resistant to pests so that you can use LESS pesticides, etc. - all of which can be really helpful, especially in developing countries. But it all gets lumped in together as OH NOES EVIL GMOS POISON!

It wouldn't be as bad if it was just a case of affluent westerners wanting to avoid GMOs in their own food, because people can and do pay extra for organic/non--GMO/fair-trade/artisanal/etc. etc. etc. things depending on their values. But the climate of hysteria that has resulted from all this has led to projects with clear humanitarian aims being scrapped, delayed or otherwise interfered with, which has literally cost lives in the third world. Golden rice is probably the best-known example of this...

[pofflewomp.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I'm not convinced. I find Greenpeace's arguments more convincing, though of course I am not a food development expert so can't be certain either way.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/Greenpeace-and-Golden-Rice/

I find it hard to accept introducing new crops without long term testing (agreed though with the article's point about activists preventing such research and testing, though I think in some cases here in Britain the issue was that the GMO crops planted for research purposes were not in a contained environment so there was a risk of cross pollination) when many of the problems they intend to solve might be solved with sustainable farming techniques and political solutions.

[ironed_orchid]

You did well in the fight against unreason.

Especially considering you had a hangover.

[sabotabby]

I think I did well. He seems to have conceded. Whether this will lead to more critical thought in the future remains to be seen.

[pofflewomp.livejournal.com]

There are so many very good reasons to be against a lot of GMO stuff - the way it was introduced into our food without our knowledge by huge companies and with government's collusion, the bullying of third world farmers, the patenting of basic stuff like seeds or whatever (I have forgotten the details), the lack of the years of testing and research on the long term effect on ecosystems (a major issue) and also the spiteful ridiculing of those of us against it, making out we are "anti-science" for wanting scientific research to be conducted responsibly, openly and preferably not in the interests of large corporations.

From what I remember, the claims of how useful GM crops could be were greatly exaggerated and skewed. It isn't as if the world doesn't have a food surplus anyway, or as if organic small-scale farming has not been shown to have the potential for greater yields than massive scale farming.

But crazy headlines like that, hmm, yes - fudge the issue by being utterly stupid, as well as offensive!

I get the impression that we have much better regulation in Europe so the balance is different. When you mentioned "organic" not usually meaning organic over there it struck me that maybe we have tighter laws about what claims can be made, over here. You can't sell food here as "organic" unless the soil has been tested after a few years being non-organic free (er, I am not up on the science) and without sticking to strict guidelines. Some pesticides are allowed, which is not great but presumably necessary.

There was a big fuss when they wanted to introduce tighter laws regulating alternative medicines and stuff sold in health food shops. I'm not sure what happened about that.

[princealberic.livejournal.com]

The issue with organic farming is that, food surplus or no, farming for several centuries was "organic" and there were many issues with it, namely famines during years of bad weather and populations in areas with less forgiving climates having severe restrictions on what food they could access.

I agree that the usage and research of GMOs shouldn't be subjected to the whims and profits of huge companies, but then again, that's probably true of most things. Other than the knowledge of how GMOs may or may not affect people's health (which, no matter how unbiased the research, is probably something we could only know with certainty in the long run), most of the issues you've mentioned are more related to structural problems than the usage of GMOs. The bullying of farmers in "third world" countries, the bad distribution of food among the world's population, and so on would still happen in a world with no GMOs but the same big companies or equivalent interests. It's nothing new (see: tea, opium, and sugar in previous centuries, to name a few). If we had GMOs that improved that the ability of people in various locations to have food year-round and those weren't subject to the interests of big companies, the world wouldn't be objectively worse.

My main issue with GMOs themselves is the way it could affect biodiversity, but I don't think it would have to be necessarily impossible to have both.

[pofflewomp.livejournal.com]

I agree with you, though I think long term research (by which I mean pretty long term - you get people now claiming that as it's been ten years or so that's enough!) would be needed to be sure of the effects on ecosystems.
I don't think when people talk about organic farming they mean pre-technology or up to date scientific knowledge, of course - I don't know enough about it (I have a master's degree in environmental issues but more in community, energy and building systems, and I have done courses in and worked in food poverty issues, so have read and heard lots about the subject but am not educated in it first hand), but knowledge is increasing all the time. If land management, crop rotation and companion planting are used there should be less use for pesticides anyway (whether or not the farming is certified organic).

I read an interesting thingy here but haven't had time to read links etc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/agroecology-and-the-disappearing-yield-gap_b_6290982.html

[sabotabby]

I admittedly don't know all that much about the various technologies involved, but from a social policy perspective, concerns around sustainability and exploitation need to be actively decoupled from concerns about PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS.

If a majority of people who spend time campaigning for GMOs to be labeled worked half as hard to get food made through the indentured servitude of migrant farmworkers labeled, I would respect them much more.

[pofflewomp.livejournal.com]

I think again this must be a difference between our countries/cultures, as the anti-GM groups and people I have come across here have seen the issues as linked and have campaigned for the rights of farmers in the developing world and been linked to food poverty and development organisations as well. Not that I have been involved in it n depth, but I haven't come across people campaigning against GM foods for fear-of-technology issues so much as for political and ecological concerns.

[pofflewomp.livejournal.com]

Also, over here we have the opposite problem in the form of intensive lobbying to stop GM food labellling!

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/05/eu-gm-food-imports-us-canada

[sabotabby]

It's quite different here. The original opposition to Monsanto was around Third World farmers' rights, which obviously I agree with, but that was a fringe group of labour activists and the bulk of the movement is about PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS. It's mainly the companies that don't want food labelled; the vast majority of people do. I personally have more immediate hills to die on.

[pofflewomp.livejournal.com]

I see ecological concerns as pretty urgent - more so than relatively minor concerns like my own destitution and the ruin of my life, though of course I am too stressed by the latter sort of stuff to get heavily involved campaigning for wider issues! That is why the green Party and green movements here are pretty good - they recognise the links and campaign for sustainable, long-term solutions, connecting capitalism with unsustainable consumption and poverty. I would see something like "golden rice" as an obvious means of protecting the status quo, keeping people in such poverty that they rely on rice rather than a good, varied diet, but I'm not an expert - it just sounds very much like that!

[misslynx.livejournal.com]

There was a big fuss when they wanted to introduce tighter laws regulating alternative medicines and stuff sold in health food shops. I'm not sure what happened about that.

That one comes around every few years here... There will be some government initiative or proposal to try and implement some kind of actual safety and effectiveness testing for alternative medicines, nutritional supplements, etc., and proponents of these remedies, despite constantly claiming that they're safer and just as effective if not more so than conventional medicine, invariably lose their shit and start screaming about how Big Pharma and/or Big Government want to take their herbs away. They never seem to realize the contradiction in claiming, on the one hand, that alternative remedies are perfectly safe and effective, and on the other, that if they had to be tested for safety and effectiveness it would inevitably result in their being taken off the market. I guess that's where THE CONSPIRACY comes in...

[princealberic.livejournal.com]

There is probably a correlation between literacy rates and diagnosed mental illnesses. It does not mean that being able to at least know how to read will make you mentally ill.

[sabotabby]

It probably does, though.

[numb3r-5ev3n.livejournal.com]

I had a discussion with my roommate about this, earlier. He is kind of knee-jerk/hairtrigger on any criticism of Monsanto, because the criticism tends to come from woo-ists and people with an agenda. But! I'm totally in favor of genetically modified food, but I think that Monsanto employs questionable business practices and deplore that they were responsible for Agent Orange. We can criticize them and companies like them for the things they are actually responsible for without resorting to scaremongering tactics and woo.

[sabotabby]

Exactly. The issue is that food security and agriculture issues tend to attract more people from woo/conspiracy corners of the political spectrum, and their voices are louder than those of people on the labour/anti-capitalist corners of the political spectrum. They're against the science, we're against the exploitation, and contrary to what many of my acquaintances seem to believe, this is not actually the same thing.