When Radical Becomes Main Stream: Part I

By Rich Kozlovich

Recently Jeff Stier and Henry I. Miller wrote an article titled; How Much Of Food Activism Is New Age, Airy-Fairy Nonsense.   I have followed their work for years, and both have done yeoman like work defeating the junk science that has become so common place.  The article deals with food and how it is prepared; how activist want it prepared; and whether or not it matters.  The title of this article is from this line in the article; “The campaign to demonize the food industry is at the same time both radical and mainstream, a recipe for trouble.”  I thought this was a great foundation to justify exploring the whole concept of how the radicals became mainstream in so many arenas. 

 

Since this started as a food issue we can start there with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) and farming as a whole. 

The ‘green’ movement insists that modern techniques used in agriculture are unnecessary and the world should turn to ‘organic’ methods exclusively.  That means not using pesticides - although organic farmers use pesticides.  It means using organic fertilizers such as manure and never using synthetic fertilizers – although this is the cause of most of the e-coli scares and recalls.  And it means never using Genetically Modified plants – in spite of the fact that these plants require less pesticides and have greater growing capacity and production, including those that can be used in soil that is unfit for plants that have not been modified.  

The thing that intrigues me is this; are any of these activists farmers?  Are any of these people responsible for feeding the undernourished millions in the third world?  If so, where were they when Norman Borlaug, who may have been the greatest man to live in the 20th century, was developing the Green Revolution; a system of agriculture which saved untold hundreds of millions of lives; a system which required the use of high yield plants, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.  He also believed that GMO’s were an important advancement in food production.

Even to the most casual observer there should be some obvious questions that should jump right out to everyone such as:

·         What system were they using before?

·         Was it an “all natural” or “organic system”? 

·         If organic is so great why is it that every poor society abandoned it as soon as they could for modern tools of food production? 

·         Finally; why is it that Borlaug and his supporters worked in the dirt and demonstrated how to do it allowing them to voluntarily choose for themselves to abandon ‘organic’ for modern practices, but the activist attempt to force everyone to adopt ‘organic’ via regulations and vile false claims about these life saving products?  Is it because ‘organic’ is a failure and will not be accepted ‘naturally’?

·         And finally and most importantly; if ‘organic’ is as great as they claim why don’t they just go out and do it and show everyone up?

I can answer the last question.  They don’t because they can’t.  Organic will never meet the needs of a hungry world.  We hear this claptrap that ‘organic’ can do it, it is sustainable, it is better for the land and for humanity,  and it is the future constantly from the media and many in society has accepted these radicals as mainstreamers.  Is that dangerous?  Are they dangerous?  You had better believe it. 

The “moderate” radicals of the environmental movement “only” want to reduce the world’s population by four or five billion people.  The “really” radical, which is a large minority, think that mankind is a virus that should be eradicated.  I have been criticized for saying this in the past by those who say that the “really” radical group is not representative of environmentalism’s thinking.  My response has always been the same; who amongst the green leadership has openly criticized and chastised them, and why is it that these people are applauded publicly when they spout this insanity if they are not representative of environmentalism?   If this radical mentality about agriculture ever becomes mainstream to the point that it is allowed to be imposed on the world then I can tell you absolutely what will happen.  The “moderates” of the green movement will be a long on their way to eliminating billions of people. 

They scoff at claims that the environmental movement is ‘conspiring’ to starve millions to death, but what they do is far more persuasive than what they say.  In 2002 fourteen million people faced starvation in southern Africa due to a terrible drought.  The U.S. offered tons of GMO food to save their lives, but it was rejected because European Union officials bullied African leaders into doing so because the EU is against GMO’s, and were threatened with a boycott of their agricultural products, and since the E.U is essential to their export trade they acquiesced.  

 Twenty six thousand tons …..tons….. of grain was shipped to Zambia where it sat in storage, unused by a population that was down to one small meal a day.  The president of the country - whose family wasn’t down to one meal a day I would be willing to bet - said, “We would rather starve than get something toxic”.   Yet the U.S. had been consuming those food stuffs for decades without harm of any kind.  And the ‘radicals’ who promoted lies to African leaders had to know that.  They spent 500 million dollars on their propaganda against GMO’s to the Third World when 175 million would have fed millions for months.   They claim they’re not conspiring to starve millions to death, but if starvation is the outcome of their actions does it matter whether they are conspiring or not?  It is the outcome of their ‘radical’ thinking that counts.  They are identified by what they do!   

Radicals always promise utopia, yet dystopia follows these radicals like Sancho Panza followed Don Quixote – a madman.  When 'radical' becomes 'mainstream' people die.  Who will answer for those lives?