I have to admit to be amazed by Donald Rooum's seemingly inexhaustible ability not only to ignore key parts of my argument but also to move the goal posts in our debate on GM crops. I'm starting to think Donald has a spook in his head about GM and no amount of reasoned discussion or evidence will dislodge him from his position.
He seems intent on rewriting history, stating that he made no claim that the test of the GM maize proved its safety. His first letter (3/4/04) saw him state that the test proved "there was no reason . . . not to issue a licence" for it. Later he stated that "urging the state to ban something not known to be harmful is incompatible with anarchism" (1/5/04). Now, apparently, Donald says he means something else by his comments.
Quite amazingly, he reiterates the validity of the flawed test. Ignoring the fact that the test results were invalid as it used a soon to be banned pesticide, he repeats the claim that they "left the government with no reason not to grant a license." He also (yet again!) conveniently ignores the fact that even if the tests were valid, they would be meaningless as the biotech company will only sell its product if the test conditions are not enforced.
Apparently, according to Donald, I am not defending "an anarchist attitude" by being concerned about valid scientific analysis and testing. Ironically, in his Wildcat comic of that issue, Donald has "Free-Range Egg-Head" stating "anarchists choose between theories on the basis of evidence, not wishful thinking." I quite agree. Yet this does not seem to be Donald's position, as he continually asks us to accept as valid the results of flawed tests which will not be repeated in practice as the conditions which produced them would be ignored. So much for "the basis of evidence"!
To justify his position, Donald compares GM crops to "a machine, rockpile." Yet neither machines nor rockpiles cross pollinate with other plants. They do not contaminate surrounding organisms or evolve. But contamination is one of the many issues related to GM Donald is silent about. He has never answered my question why his support for GM is not authoritarian, given it's tendency to spread and contaminate other plants and, therefore, to eliminate my freedom not have a GM environment?
Donald says that "we can't be sure" is "of no practical value." Sorry, but when we are talking of turning our planet's ecology into a big laboratory for an unproven technology whose impact is non-reversible, I say that it is the only sensible position to hold. Particularly given the weakness of the evidence of its safety.
Let us have it out in the open, is Donald really asking us to join his worship of GM crops regardless of the evidence? Or their social and ecological consequences? On the evidence so far, the answer must be "Yes."
As always, I will look forward to Donald ignoring my points and repeating exactly the same comments on tests which were flawed and whose results are, ultimately, meaningless as the testing conditions will be ignored if this crop is ever grown commercially.
Iain McKay