tisiwoota

Via InfoServe, AllAfrica has an overview of the GM debate in Zambia:

“In 2002 the Zambian government shocked many by returning emergency food aid just when million of Zambians faced starvation. The reason: the package contained potentially unsafe GM maize. Three years on, an audit of the manner in which the GM ‘debate’ was played out in the national media offers important insights.”

According to the article, the government based its decision not on local health or environmental concerns, but was rather swayed by agricultural export lobbyists. That’s a real shame, and not something anti-GM groups should hold up proudly as a victory. On any other issue, I would think that members of such groups would be appalled if European business concerns were to drive a developing country’s decision about how to respond to an emergency situation.

I respect that there are legitimate concerns about GM food, and am skeptical about claims by GM producers that their technology will put an end to hunger (since hunger is more often a problem of distribution than supply), but still, it’s worrisome when a movement is willing to put its principles above more basic ones and immediate human needs.

…

In regards to the wider context, my opinions on the GM debate are mixed: On the one hand, the integrity of science has suffered greatly from the conflicts of interest posed by corporate funding, and the impartiality of internal reviews is often dubious (think, for example, of GlaxoSmithKline’s decade-long suppression of findings about the lethal side-effects of Paxil). On the other hand, the environmental movement tends to suffer from unfounded, reflexive suspicion of new technology, and has a bad habit of sensationalizing and extrapolating negative results out of proportion.

While in Geneva, I happened to have dinner with Professor Terje Traavik of the Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology, who last year made a controversial decision to publicize findings of possible adverse health effects of GM Bt corn crops before his work had been published or reviewed by the scientific community. I don’t know whether his initial findings will be borne out or not, and it certainly may not have been the wisest course of action to publicize the findings so early on (though having spoken with him, I should at least convey my impression that his decision was sincerely motivated out of good conscience).

But I do very much agree with his contention that we’re not investing enough in risk assessment research. (more…)

Then don’t look here. I have no idea what the going rate is. Apparently someone thought I did though, since my ‘Referers’ list tells me someone found this blog by googling price of bear in costa rica. That query led the unsuspecting ursine-seeker to learn about CAFTA’s adverse affects on the price of medicine in Costa Rica. Naturally, this leads to two questions:

1) Why would someone want to buy a bear in Costa Rica? Google seems to think they meant bear market, as in poor stock performances, but their choice of phrasing seems to indicate that no, they were looking for an actual literal bear.

2) Are there bears in Costa Rica? A quick Google search suggests not. There is one tourist site which mentions “anteater bears”, but seeing as that pairing doesn’t come up on any other sites, I’m skeptical that such things actually exist.

The most logical explanation for all of this, of course, is that the search was performed by a time-traveler from the future, who remembered me having written a post about the price of bears in Costa Rica. Considering that this post itself wasn’t all that witty, I predict that what they were in fact searching for was your comments in reply to the question I am about to ask:

What strange Google searches have led people to your blogs?