Tämä liittyy myös taisteluun glyfosaatista:
Viewpoint: Is the predicted ‘Silent Earth insect armageddon’ the inevitable result of using farm chemicals — or is it alarmist activist propaganda? Insect scientists challenge the doomsayersGlyphosate tort extravaganza: recent roots of the crisis narrative
The hyper-focus on disappearing insects traces back to a 2017 study conducted by an obscure German entomological society that claimed that flying insects in German nature reserves had decreased by 76 percent over just 26 years. Most entomologists viewed the study warily. It focused on a small, protected areas, most of which had been encroached upon by urbanization. Many questions were raised about the areas chosen for study, time of year chosen to set out traps to collect insects, the focus on protected areas that were being encroached upon by expanding urban centers, and numbers other subjective decisions by the study authors. If this issue had not already been controversial, the study would have been seen for what it was: a sliver of information about a small geographic locations on the global map that should be weighed along with dozens of other more robust studies in much larger, insect-rich regions. Instead, with the aggressive support of European activist groups it helped crate a global a cause célèbre.
The study, co-authored by twelve scientists, lit a fire in advocacy circles committed to making a case that modern agriculture and its use of crop protection chemicals was bringing Earth close to an environmental reckoning. This framing of the paper was circulated through the loosely coordinated anti-biotechnology movement. Its influence was in decline as genetic modification and an exciting new tool called CRISPR to precisely gene edite crops was gradually being embraced by the general public, even in risk averse Europe. Looking for a way to revive their fading influence, campaigners turned to a proxy: switch the controversy from a losing focus on genetic engineering itself to what they believed is the central sin of modern agriculture: the use of crop protection chemicals, some used in tandem with GM seeds.
‘chemophobia strategy’ was birthed in 2015 after a then publicly obscure UN sub-agency, the International Association for Research on Cancer, issued a ‘hazard’ study claiming that there was“sufficient evidence” glyphosate causes cancer in animals and “limited evidence” it can do so in humans. IARC placed glyphosate in its catch-all hazard category “2A”: “probably carcinogenic to humans” — the same category occupied by drinking hot beverages, eating red meat, or going to a barber or hairdresser. It was judged far less hazardous than eating bacon or salted fish, taking oral contraceptives — or drinking the red wine served at IARC’s announcement.
Not surprisingly anti-GM campaigners spun IARC’s modest conclusion into a global fear campaign — and has largely been successful. Reuters later discovered that days before the release of its final report the IARC panel evaluating glyphosate had edited out the conclusion that glyphosate was non-carcinogenic. The change came, it was later learned, a the urging of scientist Christopher Portier, who had urged IARC to examine glyphosate. Within days after the IARC decision, Portier signed a lucrative contract to be a litigation consultant for two law firms; the point firm represented the Church of Scientology, which foresaw that glyphosate litigation was a multi-billion dollar tort extravaganza — they were right.
(lihav. HJ)
Euroopassakin päätöksenteko asiassa
on onnistuttu jumittamaan. Ja taustalla epäilemättä on tuo vastustajien onnistunut pelottelukampanja.
