Canada's Answer to Bill Nye Gets Skewered by Newspaper

Article written by ROB BREAKENRIDGE, and published in the NATIONAL POST

Regardless of what you think of him, Canada needs David Suzuki. Or rather, we need the concept of David Suzuki.

We need great scientific minds who can serve as ambassadors and popularizers of science. We need those with the scientific literacy and communications skills to make science accessible and understandable for the masses.

That’s how David Suzuki has always been billed. His official bio at the David Suzuki Foundation describes him as someone who can “explain the complexities of the natural sciences in a compelling, easily understood way.” And clearly many Canadians still view him that way. An Angus Reid poll last October found that David Suzuki was at the top of the list when it came to the most admired Canadians.

Unfortunately, though, the reality of David Suzuki now seems completely at odds with the perception of David Suzuki. On a number of issues, he is not informing Canadians, but misinforming them. Rather than scientists getting their messages out through David Suzuki, they’re having to undo the damage his words are causing.

I witnessed a gross exaggeration of his more than 15 years ago, so this is neither news nor surprising to me, but it will be shocking to many Canadians.

We have before us now a perfect illustration of this, in the form of a reckless and irresponsible comment from three months ago that Suzuki only recently owned up to. It goes back to an Oct. 30 event at the University of Alberta. Although the focus was public water policy, Suzuki broached the topic of the tsunami-damaged nuclear power plant at Fukushima, Japan.

Suzuki declared, “I have seen a paper saying that if, in fact, the fourth plant goes in an earthquake … it’s ‘bye-bye Japan’ and everybody on the West Coast of North America should evacuate. If that isn’t terrifying, then I don’t know what is.”

Well, it certainly sounds terrifying, much like the sort of alarmist conspiracy theories found in the dark recesses of the Internet. But it isn't true, and the report Suzuki claimed to be citing makes no such claims. The lead author of the paper in question, France-based nuclear energy analyst Mycle Schneider, told The Province that he’s “really, really shocked about the way it’s being discussed in Canada. It’s just totally insane.” Moreover, he notes that he has “never seen any credible source for a scenario [requiring] evacuation of the West Coast of North America.”

This is the sort of anti-science fear-mongering that someone like David Suzuki should be rebutting and debunking, not perpetuating. Suzuki finally addressed the matter last month in an email to The Province. He expressed his “regret” for the “off-the-cuff response” and also expressed surprise that his comments were being recorded.

So a respected scientist is warning of Japan’s destruction and the possible abandonment of the entire North American western coast … and he sees it as a glib throwaway line that no one ought to have picked up on? Granted, he’s not a nuclear physicist, but that shouldn’t matter. He’s the guy who makes science understandable to the masses, remember? Shouldn’t he try to get it at least somewhat right?

This isn’t the first such incident. Last September, Suzuki took part in a question and answer session on Australian television. After being peppered with questions by climate skeptics, Suzuki pointed out that “I am not speaking on behalf of scientists. I’m just trying to translate their information so the public can understand and make up its mind … I’m just the messenger.”

That’s exactly what we should want him to be. Yet, when the discussion shifted to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Suzuki was quick to abandon this role. After it was repeatedly pointed out to him that his anti-GMO rhetoric was at odds with an overwhelming scientific consensus involving every major scientific organization in the world and based on literally hundreds of studies, Suzuki was left flummoxed.

So again, rather than Suzuki being the messenger for the scientific community on an important issue, the scientific community has to work to counter Suzuki’s message. The public is left confused, rather than informed.

If David Suzuki wants to be the sort of activist who’s willing to exaggerate, ignore, cherry-pick, or distort science to advance an agenda, then that’s a choice he can make. Unfortunately, what we’re left with is someone who loses credibility when it comes to conveying actual science and someone who can find an attentive audience when it comes to nonsense.

It’s time to find a new David Suzuki. 

The Monsanto Protection Act Quietly Extended

Had to find this on RT.com. RT stands for Russia Today...

A budget provision protecting genetically-modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks was extended for three months in an approved US House of Representatives’ spending bill on Tuesday evening.

Called “The Monsanto Protection Act” by opponents, the budget rider shields biotech behemoths like Monsanto, Cargill and others from the threat of lawsuits and bars federal courts from intervening to force an end to the sale of a GMO (genetically-modified organism) even if the genetically-engineered product causes damaging health effects.

The biotech rider first made news in March when it was a last-minute addition to the successfully-passed House Agriculture Appropriations Bill for 2013, a short-term funding bill that was approved to avoid a federal government shutdown.

The current three-month extension is part of the short-term FY14 Continuing Resolution spending bill.

The Center for Food Safety, a vocal opponent of the rider, released a statement expressing dismay that the measure once again avoided proper legislative process while usurping the power to challenge GMO products in court.

“The rider represents an unprecedented attack on US judicial review, which is an essential element of US law and provides a critical check on government decisions that may negatively impact human health, the environment or livelihoods,”  they wrote. “This also raises potential jurisdictional concerns with the Senate Agriculture and Judiciary Committees that merited hearings by the Committees before its consideration.”

Following the original vote in March, President Barack Obama signed the provision into law as part of larger legislation to avoid a government shutdown. Rallies took place worldwide in May protesting the clandestine effort to protect the powerful companies from judicial scrutiny.

“It is extremely disappointing to see the damaging ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ policy rider extended in the House spending bill,” said Colin O’Neil, director of government affairs for Center for Food Safety. “Hundreds of thousands of Americans called their elected officials to voice their frustration and disappointment over the inclusion of ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ this past spring. Its inclusion is a slap in the face to the American public and our justice system.”

Largely as a result of prior lawsuits, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is required to complete environmental impact statements (EIS) to assess risk prior to both the planting and sale of GMO crops. The extent and effectiveness to which the USDA exercises this rule is in itself a source of serious dispute.

The reviews have been the focus of heated debate between food safety advocacy groups and the biotech industry in the past. In December of 2009, for example, Food Democracy Now collected signatures during the EIS commenting period in a bid to prevent the approval of Monsanto’s GMO alfalfa, which many feared would contaminate organic feed used by dairy farmers; it was approved regardless.

The biotech rider “could override any court-mandated caution and could instead allow continued planting.  Further, it forces USDA to approve permits for such continued planting immediately, putting industry completely in charge by allowing for a ‘back door approval’ mechanism,” the Center for Food Safety said.