A few notes on Paul Thacker, and a few new ones on Orac

Along with Eric Lipton he is a pseudoscientist on GMOs. (This is not to endorse them, but it's to oppose pseudoscience.)

In parallel with the anti-GMO stance, also apparently willing to believe the worst, or print the worse, whether fully true or not, on glyphosate. More on that article here.

And a 5G conspiracy theorist.

Anti-GMO and anti-5G nuttery led me to my first skepticism of the Green Party.

The reason I have compiled this? He is also apparently a "Deep Stater."

At the same time? Some of my links above are from The American Council on Science and Health, itself not perfect.

On the third hand? Thacker harassing and doxxing a 12-year-old is despicable.

 ==

Now, the latest brouhaha on one issue?

If not an outright antivaxxer, at least a fellow traveler. More here, which also touches on the anti-GMO issue.

Update: Via Orac, at his Substack, Thacker walks, quacks and acts like more than a fellow traveler. Of items of interest? To the degree that I've followed the details of CDC pronouncements on COVID, "it's news to me" that:

the CDC stated that prior infection was no different than being vaccinated.

Since his cite is a link to his own Twitter account and he's blocked me, it's time for teh Google. And, per Orac's comments, it's time to block him back.

Here's an update of an update from Orac on April 18.

The "walks, quacks and acts" is further shone by his full Substack feed. A recent post is an interview about masks with Jay Bhattacharya. There's more stupidity there like "citation sorcery," a pseudoscientific phrase that's a classical informal logic fallacy of appeal to emotion.

On the third hand, Orac, he IS right about online harassment cutting both ways, as Zeynep Tufekci has written about with the likes of Alina Chan. In her case, on Twitter, I've witnessed that myself.

To be more thorough, I searched Orac's site. He'd written ONCE about Chen, more than 18 months ago, a largely rhetorical, and tribalist, since Orac does that well, piece about "Is the lab leak conspiracy theory dead?" And, even with a no-follow, I'm not linking. First of all, it's not a conspiracy theory, dude.

Related? He's only written twice focused on Tufekci.

Speaking of her? Tufekci called out COVID-related tribalism relative early in the pandemic's origins and related issues progress. She did so before Orac committed tribalism not once but twice on this.)

The bottom line is that, just as much as Thacker appears to be a multiple-issue pseudoscientist, Orac has long presented himself as a multiple-issue tribalist. That also is damaging beyond wars of words. Re COVID itself, people with a certain microphone in the world of science, and a political tilt, calling the lab leak hypothesis a conspiracy theory can undercut national biosecurity discussions. Not standing firm against medical overtesting dings our economy. IMO, people like this are Tar Baby and Brer Rabbit to each other.)

The Genetic Literacy Project is not always perfect: Impossible Burger is a good example

The GLP does a lot of yeoman's work in combating the "Frankenfoods" perception of GMOs — work with which I agree.

It's even been honest enough, within this issue, to admit in the past that "Frankenfoods" blather was NOT the only reason so-called "Golden Rice" hadn't been commercially planted in Southeast Asia. (The big reason, which it noted, was GR yields were less than traditional conventional yields. Of course, an actual university noted that first, so the GLP couldn't totally dodge it. Making people healthy with Vitamin A while making them unhealthy with less food doesn't really work.)

But, it's not perfect.

That said, a recent issue was really a slip.

About two months ago, Consumer Reports wrote about plant-based burgers in general, including Impossible Foods' Impossible Burger, complete with its "fake blood" made from nodules on the roots of soybeans. CR said the FDA had never tested that. Impossible's PR claimed not true, to which CR replied that Impossible had tested it themselves, and submitted that to the FDA, which is a different critter entirely.

That's why it's disappointing that, AFTER CR issued that response to Impossible, the GLP called it out, including repeating all of Impossible's talking points. (I Tweeted the links to GLP before starting this blog post; in what's typical low signal-to-noise ratio on Twitter, and somewhat on social media in general, crickets.)

The FDA may have approved soy heme, but not because it did any original testing.

Should this be a matter of concern? Possibly, per that original CR piece.

Oh, if you'll read that, you'll note that ALL fake meat burgers are higher in sodium than beef, and have as much saturated fat.

Coconut oil, used as the fat base for all the fake burgers, isn't yet the palm oil grown as a plantation monocrop. But, who's to say it won't turn into that?

Update, Sept. 18, 2023 with sidebar: Veggie cheese is moderately lower on saturated fat than the real deal, but is higher sodium and is also basically just as processed. See here.

And, per getting downvoted on Reddit, it sounds like a lot of vegetarians don't like to hear this! And, I think I know why. Many people don't eat vegetarian, or vegan, for ethical reasons. Rather, it's another dietary magic bullet idea, in all likelihood. Seriously, the amount of sodium and saturated fats in this Double Quarter Pounder Veggie McCheese, along with the relative lack of fiber? Not healthy. Certainly not compared to what I posted over there that I was eating for lunch: A "base" of white/brown rice plus cracked wheat, lentils and split peas, with broccoli, chopped spinach and turnip greens, then za'atar plus extra Italian herb blend, sumac berries, fig-balsamic vinegar glaze diluted to a sauce, and some diced grapes.

In addition, there's too much protein in that photo, and yes, too much protein can be a problem. But, protein continues to be viewed as a "superfood," wrongly. In fact, too much protein can exacerbate kidney problems. (Maybe this, along with sweet tea, adds to the South's problem there.) It can also cause cancer.

Also, per CR's story, we don't know what the energy input costs are. (Ditto on lab meat, which is probably further away from the market than its defenders claim.)

The simpler answer is eating less meat. And, in working to make vegetables less expensive in the produce section if possible. Eating less meat by eating fewer veggie burgers and breaking that mindset. (I'm not perfect on this, I'll admit. I've probably trimmed my overall meat consumption by 10 percent in the last decade, and ditto on red meat. Not huge. But, considering I already ate below the US average a decade ago, not bad.)

Not eating techno-meat.

GLP?

I nailed it.

Scientism, or salvific technologism, is behind its mindset.

This piece, that claims that twin studies can tell us a lot about addiction, was the "trigger" for the lightbulb.

Nooo .... identical twins can still have somewhat different womb environments depending on exact time of split of the original embryo, first.

Second, this:

“Twin studies indicate that genes influence each stage from initiation to addiction, although the genetic determinants may differ,” stated Francesca Ducci and David Goldman in a review of twin studies published in Psychiatric Clinics of North America. Ducci and Goldman added that addictions “are in part volitional, in part inborn, and in part determined by environmental experience.”

I am sure that the authors are technically including traumas and other psychological influences as "environmental experience." Yet, you'll never find that stated in the whole article.

Good behavioral psychology knows that with many drugs, and definitely with the nation's most "acceptable" drug, alcohol — and yes, it is — addiction has only a modest to moderate physiological basis.  PsyPost, for example, notes mindfulness might help alcoholics.

Are GMO labels pandering to fear?

Well, if you're Food Science Babe, they are.

The idea that the difference in price between name brand and store brand OJ is largely due to name brand vs. store brand, can't enter the picture. The idea that people see the no-GMO label as signaling something else? Also not allowed in her thought processes. (And, on the Facebook post where this was discussed, I was far from the only person raising such issues.)

I've pointed out, in these pages, that artisinal cheeses, beer barley and other modern foodie foods contain GMOs. Related, I've pointed out that Rio Star / Ruby Star foodie grapefruit are made by radiation, that bananas contain radiation, that the USDA once allowed organic GMOs and more.

But I want good science, and good social science, on BOTH sides.

First, it is true, as I suspect, that many people identify "non-GMO" as meaning "organic," as shown here, and on that reason alone, are buying for non-fear reasons. (That's not to justify all reasons people buy organic, just explaning.)

Second, among mandatory or non-mandatory food labels and descriptors, "non-GMO" is NOT, not in the top 10 of buying influencers. So, whether no GMOs invoke fear, food quality, food safety, something else or all of the above, they're not that significant of a "mover." (She halfway accepted that, halfway didn't.)

Third? People generally won't pay a bunch more for non-GMOs. That ties to No. 2.

Fourth? I'm unaware of any reasonably scientific study (self-reporting by the two polarity sides here doesn't count) as to what percentage of consumers regularly look for the GMO labels. Given point the second, this has to be "look for" and not just "notice out of the corner of one's eye."

If I were to guesstimate (as I now am) I would say that the issue is 55 percent fear, 25 percent (per link above) perceiving "non-GMO" as "organic" (setting aside myths, realities, realities that cut both ways, Big Organic and the five or more sides involved with all of the above), 15 percent general "purity" or "less processed" issues and 5 percent miscellaneous other.

I finally left the conversation on Book of Face, hinting that I thought she was engaged in motivated reasoning, and didn't have survey evidence on the fear factor. (That's when I produced the links above.)

And, contra Chris Mooney, liberals and leftists as well as conservatives, intelligent as well as non-intelligent, and scientists as well as non-scientists, all engage in motivated reasoning.

I do, too. With the help of Idries Shah, I've worked to lessen that.

Recognizing there's "more than two sides" is to me a BIG issue on this whole GMO kerfuffle. That has started with GMOs as science vs. BigAg GMO product makers as biz. But, it goes beyond just thast.

And this one from Shah is good, too. I am working to apply it more and more to myself.

And I really mean that. The older I get, beyond "twosiderism," the more I know the world is not blacks and whites and the more I consciously work against that in myself as well as with others.

Now, it's true that we're not always perfect observers of ourselves. I accept that, too.

Sidebar: I think GMO labeling is good for people who have religious dietary rules. Yeah, a pork gene in bread sounds weird, but if it ever happens, if not a GMO label, then it needs to be labeled as "contains pork."

Maybe a Science Food Babe would laugh at that. Or others even more into scientism. If so, that's part of the problem. It may be part of the problem here. To the degree the no-GMO label IS a fear motivator for some, laughing at said fears won't reduce them.

I've also, on the more than two sides, noted that some claims for the benefits of GMOs have been overstated, and that this generally seems related to the Big Ag side of the coin — but isn't guaranteed to fall just on that side of the three or more out there.

The GMO issue, per David Hume's observation that "reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions," has a lot of passion from people concerned, from companies trying to make money, and from scientists and science advocates trying to prove their chops.

Green New Deal vs Green New Deal Part 4: Agricultural technology as part of the solution

This is something I have not discussed in Part 1, Part 2, or Part 3 of comparing the Green New Deal of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a few other venturesome Democrats to the 2016 Green Party proposal.

Now, I'm on longstanding record as rejecting the idea of "salvific technologism," as I call it in a blog tag. In other words, I do not believe that Silicon Valley, or other technology, is guaranteed to save us from our big problems.

At the same time, I'm not a Luddite, either. Nor am I a conspiracy monger or similar over agricultural technology.

I'm talking above all about GMOs, along with CRISPR and other things.

And here? Today's Green Party is behind the curve and remains behind the curve. Modern agricultural technology indeed has a role to play in a Green New Deal that wants to reduce agriculture's share of contributing to greenhouse gases in particular and environmental degradation in general. I don't know what AOC thinks, and given that she's been a hypocrite on hamburgers, I really don't care what she thinks out loud anyway.

But, on this one,, specifically on GMOs I almost certainly disagree with many members of the Green Party. And I also disagree with the official stance of the Green Party. We do NOT need a moratorium on GMOs. And, should the party try something pre-emptive here, we certainly don't need one on CRISPR technology. The SPUSA is OK with GMOs, as long as they're labeled.

Your snooty French bread: Full of GMOs by some definitions

That said, per Grist, just what is a GMO, if do want to label them, let alone indefinitely ban them? (Let's be honest, that's what the GP's moratorium aims for.) Depending on how you define what a GMO is, especially for lower-case greenies who want their baguettes, they're already eating GMOs.

And, it's easy to demonize Monsanto if you have an advance mindset of wanting to demonize it, whether on GMOs or on glyphosphate.

Bananas: More radioactivity than
a basement full of radon, plus chemicals!

This is the same Grist that, a number of years ago, wrote the excellent series "Panic free GMOs." Per my take at the time, it says that 2/3 of Greenie-type fears of, or even just concerns about, GMOs are totally unfounded. Another 1/4 of the concerns, per Grist, are legitimate mild to slight concerns. One-twelvth and no more rise to the modest/moderate level and none go higher than that. I basically refuse to talk to Greenie types who haven't read the Grist series, and I block on social media those who say they have and claim Grist is on the take or something. Grist allowed multiple comments and even did some follow-up pieces in the series about them, among other things. NOT on the take and NOT closed-minded.

On the other hands, both parties are Luddites on opposing antimicrobial irradiation of food. Beyond just being Luddites, they ignore, in fearing "chemicals!", that bananas are naturally radioactive. And loaded with "chemicals"!

Also depending on what definition of "GMO" you use, Greens who eat Rio Star / Ruby Star grapefruit and drink modern beer with modern beer barley are being hypocrites because these are mutagenic plants — genes modified by .... wait for it, wait for it ...

RADIATION!

Are there concerns we should have about "Big Ag" as an industrial sector? Yes, and they should be just as real and accurately informed as concerns about "Big Pharma." We don't need fear-mongering about GMOs any more than about vaccines.

Patrick Moore, Greenpeace and climate change denialism And ... the issues of nuclear energy, GMOs, etc.

In case you're not up to speed on Twitter hot takes, Donald Trump unshockingly had taken at face value Patrick Moore's climate change denialism, as well as the lies about Moore helping found Greenpeace.

Greenpeace has the truth on this. So does Wikipedia, there on Moore's page and again on Greenpeace's page.

For wingers trotting out a Wayback Machine version of Greenpeace's website? A self-owned fail, as that website lists Moore under "founders and early members." NOT "founders."

A list two paragraphs below that? "On board" is not "on THE board." Rather, it's on board the ship Phyllis Cormack when it went to Amchitka, Alaska in silent protest of a U.S. nuclear weapons test.

For wingers trotting out a Google search which allegedly shows Moore among Greenpeace's founders? Dudes, this is Twitter. And, that's not what MY Googling shows.

My first assumption is you, or another wingnut, is OK with Photoshopping 101.

So, put a sock in it.

===

Moore is generally a pretentious twat, such as bitching about enviros for saying "carbon" instead of "carbon dioxide."

Second, before he became a pro-nukes mouthpiece, he was a British Columbia timber industry mouthpiece, supporting forest clear-cutting, among other things. He ceased to be an environmentalist decades ago, as soon as he made that devil's bargain.

More on his background here.

===

That said, is nuclear power the devil?

Not in my book.

We need to approach it cautiously. We need to fix the long-term waste disposal before building any more nuclear plants. We need to correctly carbon-price nuclear power plants, including mining costs of carbon dioxide emissions.

AND, we need to do the same with wind and solar, including mining costs.

We also need HONEST answers on how much wind and solar we would need not just to replace the current electric grid but to allow us to go to a 100 percent electric car fleet.

And, so far, environmental groups have generally shied away from that.

IF we can do that (and reasonable estimates only, please) without nuclear power, fine. If we can't? Well, we need to start talking, then.

And, I'm far from the only environmental to feel that way.

I'm also not the only environmentalist who is OK with GMO crops. And, I've said that for years, too. Read Grist's "Panic Free GMOs." Let's talk reality, not bogeymen or Frankenfoods. Or "chemicals" in your food. (Which is also radioactive.) Let's also not ignore how "Big Organic" has a vested interest in running down GMOs.

And, for that matter, has Greenpeace ever apologized for its 2014 cultural desecration and cultural imperialism?

Overall, I see Greenpeace as about 50 percent Gang Green, 20 percent stuntmakers for stuntmaking's sake, and 30 percent trying to hold on to original roots. (Most Gang Green and non-Gang Green enviro groups alike are anti-GMO, with The Nature Conservancy being the one major exception. (OTOH, TNC takes donations from Monsanto; I agree with their stance but they leave themselves open to challenges there.) They're afraid of losing donors, and within non-profit groups, enviros in general and Gang Green in particular have a high "churn" rate on donors.)

That said, per one of the tags for this post, I reject the idea of "salvific technologism" — that is, I do not believe the tech world, whether in ag or elsewhere, is the cavalry always riding over the hill and guaranteed to save us. But, I'm not a Luddite, either. And, I think most non-Gang Green environmental orgs and activists are. I like a lot of Wrong Kind of Green, for being post-capitalist (that's me, but not anti-capitalist). But ... it too is on the Luddite wagon of most anti-GMOers. GMOs and Big Ag? I'm willing to talk, though I have in the past passed on that Montanto's market capitalization is smaller than that of Starbucks. But, pseudoscience, like WKOG swallowing whole cloth Arpad Pusztai? No.

Jill Stein, closet #antivaxxer? (Versus uncloseted #Hillbots, #Hillary woo-loving)

Editor's note: This is one of those blog posts that I start a full week in advance, to give me time to research.

I'm not sure which is worse, that Dr. Jill Stein, in this statement, put out a mix of political pander and pablum worthy of a Republican or Democrat, or that that triple-P led to accusations she is  hiding being an antivaxxer. (She's not; the images is from her FB site.)

Or that a self-described Hillbot is mischaracterizing part of her stances.

But the triple-P still has scientific issues and problems, as well as other issues, setting aside that Stein is not an antivaxxer.

Let's talk the actual medical side, first.

EVERY STATE has some sort of medical exemption. contra her implication that such things don't exist in the US. She may not be an antivaxxer per se, but she's either willing to pander to them or else GROSSLY under/misinformed for someone both an MD and a presidential candidate. 

And, a number of other countries either have modified mandatory vaccination or else cash incentives.

(Update, Feb. 13, 2022: In the midst of a Twitter threat about a Movement for a People's Party kerfuffle over vaccines, the Green Party's stance arose, as I noted it's had problems with this issue, and mentioned Stein's pandering on the issue. Dave Schwab, but of course, pointed to the Snopes article that claimed to exonerate her. Well, Dave, you're strawmanning, like it kind of did, though not totally. Amanda Marcotte (yes, Hillbot and I know that) addressed that at Salon. Claims never were that Stein was antivaxx, but that she was pandering, or playing footsie as I phrased it to Schwab. Marcotte notes that.)

Next, yes, funding for the FDA isn't perfect. But, you know what, Stein? (I'm dropping the "Dr." for right now.) But? The supplements industry isn't regulated AT ALL. People die from tainted supplements, from supplement overdoses and from mixing supplements.

Know what else? The supplements industry is big money itself Ask Orrin Hatch. Let's hashtag #BigSupplements just like #BigPharma. No, Sundown or GNC aren't as big as Pfizer, but they're not nothingburgers, and I haven't even mentioned wingnut cult supplements shiller Amway.

Here's the bottom line, on reality, on what's problematic about Stein bashing #BigPharma while turning a blind eye to #BigSupplements. Note two quotes.

"Drugs are considered unsafe until proven safe."
"Dietary supplements are considered safe until proven unsafe."

Waiting for somebody to call the American Cancer Society a shill for #BigPharma. (And on one thread, seriously or facetiously, somebody did.)

Orrin Hatch pushed for supplements regulation to be weakened, and it was in 1994, with the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. Besides lobbying bucks, this was good general business for Hatch's Utah. Ever since they discovered the ephedra in Mormon tea made a good church-legal replacement for caffeine, Mormons have been big on supplements.

Don't believe me that this weakened regulation, and badly so? Read then-FDA commissioner David Kessler.

Stein either knows all this, and is sadly pandering AGAINST consumer safety and FOR hypercapitalism to satisfy fringe (or not-fringe?) Green voters, or else she's horrifically clueless. I know she's carefully dodged both regulatory and testing issues on a variety of pseudomedicine, including homeopathy, and the aforementioned supplements industry.

Related to this is that Stein doesn't separate health safety issues from business issues. We could allow reimportation of drugs from Canada or other things to lower prices.

Besides, the CDC showed last week that it's NOT in the pockets of #BigPharma by yanking a nasal flu vaccine from shelves. (Yes, it's not the FDA, but it is a federal agency with some regulatory powers in the health world.)

As for the degree of mistrust people have of the FDA, the Green Party platform contributes to that rather than fighting it. Individual Green voters, many of who ARE antivaxxer, irrationally contribute even more. And Stein, with her political pander and pablum, at a minimum, doesn't help fight the trust issue in a good way.

And, for good measure, let's hashtag #BigOrganic, which funds a lot of opposition to #GMO crops. Which crops, by the way, the USDA allowed to be called organic, if farmed in organic fashion, until the early 1980s.

Oh, and Jill, it's lobbyists paid by #BigSupplements and #bigOrganic that have lead to that.

And, if you actually do think GMOs as food (not talking the Big Ag business model) are evil, Frankenfoods or whatever, I suggest you read with an open mind the set of brief pieces by liberal environmental magazine Grist, collectively entitled "Panic-Free GMOs." Again, I'm seeing Greens who either haven't read it or else refuse to read it — which is sadly nothing new.

Beyond that, on GMOs, many individual Greenies smack of upper-middle-class type white elitism. (Some are also among the types, I'll venture, that didn't know, until Obamacare, that Whole Foods is owned by a thoroughgoing libertarian.) Co-op farms can't raise the same amount of produce as modern commercial truck farming. What they do raise is more expense. Urban poor and working class, largely of color, can't afford most of that, can't find it in their groceries and don't have the time to hunt for farmers' markets. Even if we worked to partially address 2 and 3, 1 will still be an issue.

That said, I've long been aware, and blogged about, the Green Party's pro-homeopathy stance, as well as its anti-GMO one. I've cut it slack on both.

Another blogger claims she opposes homeopathy. Rather, to me, the changes she got the party to make look more like PR than opposition. Sorry. I can't honestly say whether she's anti-homeopathy or not. At a minimum, nobody's shown me a link to something clear and unequivocal.

But, antivaxxerism, unless Stein clarifies just what she believes or not, may well be a bridge too far. And, even if Stein's not an antivaxxer herself, I honestly doubt she'll pull back from the political pablum pandering of that Reddit piece. (A good anti-hypercapitalist would also, like me, recognize her narrow-/simplemindedness on only Big Pharma.)

Sadly, many Greens are turning as tribalist on this issue as Hillbots.

Otherwise, outside the actual medical issues, the mix of pablum and pandering in her statement is something I expect from Democrats and Republicans, but definitely don't want in third-party candidates.

Otherwise, I blogged about my reservations about the Green Party's platform in some depth in 2008, and shorter in 2012. I called for a Science and Reason Party a full decade ago.

I've cut it more slack, as a third party in a duopoly-driven system and because no Socialist party has ballot access in Texas. But I have limits and boundaries.

If Stein's even "half an antivaxxer," she needs to be honest so I can cut my ties now rather than dangle.

On the third hand, at least one self-identified Hillbot (same link as first reference near top; read to bottom of piece and laff) is doing shit-stirring over this. I'll vote for Stein, personal and party imperfections included, just to piss off someone like that, for reasons I explain here.

On the fourth hand, another Patheos blogger is in Stein spin mode.

On the fifth hand, California's Democratic Party (shock) also supports pseudomedicine:

California Democrats will…support generally accepted holistic healing practices and alternative medicine, particularly those areas licensed by the state such as acupuncture and medical cannabis and utilized to relieve intractable pain without the side effects of conventional controlled drugs.

Acupuncture has no scientific support. (I will note that Big Pharma is probably going to double down on its fight against pot.)

And Hillary's own medical guru is a celeb doctor who flirts with quack ideas and has also worked with Rick Warren.

On the sixth hand, Stein has a surprisingly sexist view of motherhood.

I'm near the point of either:
A. Voting Green for the primary purpose of pissing off Hillbots and little else, or
B. Not voting, to piss off BOTH Hillbots and the lunatic fringe, or maybe lunatic semi-mainstream, of Greens.

However, Option A is better.

This all said, I feel kind of sad for Stein. She's a semi-true believer on a fair amount of Green woo, I think, but not a total true believer on all of it. And now, she's trying to straddle two horses.

As for the Green Party? It might do well recruiting "Berniecrats," given the percentage of conspiracy theorists in both groups.

#GMO #Frankenfood folks? It's in your cheese, your baguette, and more

A couple of years ago, GMO peed in ant-GMOers organic cornflakes with its series of mini-articles entitled "Panic-free GMOs."

A fancy, stinky cheese? Full of GMO-made enzymes. /Grist

The gist of the series is that two-thirds of what anti-GMOers claim about GMO safety, inspections, etc. is totally wrong and of no concern, one-quarter is of minor concern and one-twelfth is of modest-moderate concern.

In fact, for me, the piece is a litmus test of how open-minded anti-GMOers are. I point out when I post the link that it's from "noted, respective environmental magazine Grist." If they still write it off, I mark them as not very open-minded. If they mark it off and for bonus points, claim Grist is on the take or whatever, they're the type of people I'll then block on Facebook or something.

Anyway, Grist is at it again. This time, with what can only be called a bitch slap for the anti-GMO wing of foodies.

Your organic, pesticide-free French baguette flour?
Full of mutagenic, irradiated wheat. / Grist

Artisinal cheese and GMOs? French organic wheat in Parisian baguettes and GMOs PLUS mutagenesis? Quelle horreur! But, yes, and yes and Grist has the details.

Beyond that, as Grist notes, the real issue is that depending on exactly how you define the phrase "genetically modified organism," you could kill almost the entire modern food supply.

And, by "modern," for people who lament the lack of simplicity in today's Big Ag, I mean all corn of the last 80-90 years, for example.

Unfortunately, until 1992, the US allowed many of the same genetically modified organisms in the organic-labeled food supply that the EU still does. Unfortunate in general, because despite myths here in the US, the EU is not some anti-GMO bastion. Unfortunate in particular, because US anti-GMOer foods can't be hoist over a petard while eating a baguette. (They still can while eating a fancy cheese, whether from France or Merika.) I've already covered the petards hoist with mutagenic crops, like Rio Star grapefruit and beer barley.

And, beyond close-mindedness, and a wish for a "good old days' agricultural simplicity that's as much naivete as reality, anti-GMOism in general, to me, is getting closer and closer to things like the gluten-free world. Food snobbery combined with food porn.

That said, for people who aren't snobby but who are in the nutbar wing of greens, whether small-g or capital-G of certain members of the Green Party (which is why I'm not a registered member), stances on this issue, like on vaccinations, undercut claims to be in the reality-based community, or decrying climate change denialists for not following the science.

As Grist goes on to point out, following the science shows genes jumping species boundaries on their own. That's the way evolutionary biology works; it's weirder yet that the original Darwinian version, as the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis has noted.

And, THAT is the reality-based community.

Oh, and beyond genes, plants are full of chemicals, too. And, lab-created meat is not yet "just around the corner," but it's getting closer. And, yes, I'd eat it. And, anti-GMOers, yes, I'll use it as another petard against you as needed.