Daily Sitka Sentinel

February 2, 2015 Letters to the Editor

GMOs

Dear Editor: The Sitka Sentinel ran an AP story last Thursday titled “Poll: Gap Between Scientists’, Public View.” The premise of the article is that science and scientists make up a monolithic body that deals only with facts, and when the public disagrees with that body, then science is right and the public is wrong. 

The article quoted as evidence opinions gathered from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “the country’s largest general science organization. … In the most dramatic split, 88 percent of the scientists surveyed said it is safe to eat genetically modified foods, while only 37 percent of the public say it is safe and 57 percent say it is unsafe.”

Unfortunately, much of American-based science is bought and paid for by multi-national corporations. In 2012, GMWatch published an article titled “AAAS captured from the top down” which exposes the corporate bias of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The agri-business giant, Monsanto, is a regular major sponsor of the group’s annual gatherings. And yes, sponsorship has its privileges:

At AAAS’ 2010 annual meeting Robert T. Fraley (Monsanto’s chief technology officer and an AAAS fellow) delivered a half-hour keynote speech that was little more than a futuristic infomercial about how GMOs will soon feed the world and eliminate hunger. No one was invited to rebut Fraley, not even a representative from the Union of Concerned Scientists who was present in the audience, but instead was shunted off to the side, where all he could do was hand out a few leaflets.   

Best-selling author Michele Simon further implicates the AAAS for releasing a statement “on GMO labeling that sounds like it was drafted by Monsanto.”

Dr. John Ioannidis spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science. Not surprisingly, he found that corporate-backed science is tainted by corruption from start to finish. Ioannidis said, “There is an intellectual conflict of interest that pressures researchers to find whatever it is that is most likely to get them funded.”

The biotech industry claims that “The GMO debate is dead,” and “There is scientific consensus on GMO safety.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. Numerous scientific organizations and independent experts state that GMOs are not safe, and that they should be labeled or banned.

And no less important, countless moms report that their children have been cured of serious health conditions when they adopt a GMO free diet. 

Don’t expect Monsanto to change its tune any time soon regarding the dangers of GMOs. It still claims that Agent Orange “is not the cause of serious long-term health effects.”

The question of GMO safety is important, but so are many other questions that lie beyond the purview of science – questions regarding the ethics and morality of GMOs. For example: Is it ethical to patent and privatize nature? Is it ethical to contaminate nature (salmon, trees, corn, etc.) with GMOs? Is it ethical to sue farmers whose crops have been contaminated by GMOs? Is it ethical to turn food crops into pesticide delivery systems? Is it ethical to kill soils with repeated applications of Roundup and other chemical cocktails? Is it ethical to block state, federal, and international legislation to label GMOs? Is it ethical to bribe legislators and government leaders? Is it ethical to fill key positions in regulatory agencies with Monsanto employees? Is it ethical for the U.S. government to provide aid to foreign countries on the condition that they accept GMOs? Is it ethical to use war to replace Iraq’s bio-diverse agricultural system with a handful of patented GMOs? Is it ethical to declare seed saving to be a criminal act? Is it ethical to commercialize Terminator technology, the technology that renders seeds sterile?

On Jan. 30, 2015, Alaska Representatives Geran Tarr and Scott Kawasaki introduced a GMO labeling bill.

That means Monsanto lobbyists and propagandists will soon infest Alaska, and they will employ the same scare tactics and disinformation campaigns they used to narrowly defeat GMO labeling in California, Oregon, Washington, and Colorado. Last summer, the citizens of Vermont prevailed against the multi-billion dollar GMO industry to become the first state to mandate GMO labeling. Let’s become the second – the second of 50 states to label GMOs. But remember that GMO labeling is so much more than a safety issue; it’s part of our stewardship as human beings and Alaskans to protect the Earth, sustainable food systems, and this precious state we call home. 

Brett Wilcox, Sitka, author of

‘‘We’re Monsanto, Feeding the World, Lie After Lie’’

AN OPINION:

Obama’s ANWR Plans

Break Promise to State

By Gov. Bill Walker

Like many Alaskans, I remember the excitement in the air when Alaska became the 49th state in the union in 1959. We had achieved our long-held dream of self-governance. Since that time, we have worked to become increasingly self-reliant, and to steward our resources for the long-term benefit of our people. 

The Alaska Statehood Compact established the conditions for our entry. Through the compact, Alaska was granted 103 million acres of public land – less than one-third of our state’s landmass. The federal government reserved most of the remaining lands. 

Implicit in the compact is a directive to the state to develop its resources. The compact prohibits Alaska from selling our subsurface mineral rights – development rights can be leased, but ownership must stay with the state.

The message from Washington, D.C., to the new state was clear: we were to develop our mineral resources to establish a viable economy and support the costs of self-government.

Alaska has fulfilled our part of the compact. We have responsibly developed our resources – including our fisheries, often held up as the best-managed in the world. We have used our resource income to build roads and schools, and to provide basic services that Americans elsewhere take for granted – such as running water and electricity.

Knowing that resource revenue is volatile, we wisely built up our savings. And we have built the 49th state into a thriving region.

In fact, according to the nonpartisan Pew Charitable Trusts, Alaska is now less dependent on federal aid than a majority of states: federal funds make up about 20 percent of our state’s revenue, compared to more than 30 percent of the average state’s revenue. We have proven that if the federal government allows us reasonable access to our resources, we can and will be as self-sufficient as any other state.  

The federal government chipped away at this access with passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980. ANILCA designated more than 100 million acres of federal land as conservation areas. What brought some comfort to Alaskans was a clause in ANILCA providing that there would be no more conservation designations without an act of Congress.

Last week President Obama violated the letter and spirit of both the Statehood Compact and ANILCA’s “no more” clause by designating further wilderness within the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. While this will ultimately require an act of Congress to finalize, until Congress acts, federal agencies will manage this land as de facto wilderness.

For 30 years Alaska’s oil has fueled America’s economic development and helped reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil. As America looks toward renewable energy, Alaska is also working to develop our alternative energy sources, such as wind and geothermal. But America still needs oil, and Alaska is still the best place to get it. 

We have fulfilled our promise to develop our resources to provide for our own needs. We expect the federal government to uphold its promise not to further hamper our economic viability. Enough is enough.  

––––

Gov. Bill Walker (Independent) is the 11th governor of the state of Alaska.