GMOs are not fibre, fat or protein, so don't label them alongside fibre, fat and protein.

Recently, an article/blog post made its way online talking about how Canada's updated nutrition labelling requirements still do not require GMO-labelling and that Health Canada, which came up with the new requirements, ignored GMO activists demanding GMO-labelling as part of nutritional labelling requirements.

Health Canada was/is right. GMO labelling has no place in the category of nutrition labelling, or anywhere on packaging for that matter.

GMOs, as thought of in advocacy campaigns, are organisms whose DNA has been modified in a lab to introduce a gene that would give the organism an advantage in survival. For example, Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" canola contains a glyphosate resistance gene that makes the crop resistant to Roundup. DNA has 3 principal components: a phosphate backbone, a sugar (deoxyribose, the "D" in DNA) and a nucleic acid (the "NA" in DNA). What encodes genes in DNA are the nucleic acids, of which there are only 4: Adenine (A), Cytosine (C), Thymine (T), and Guanine (G). All genes in DNA, from male-pattern-baldness in humans to glyphosate-resistance, is made from different combinations of A, C, G and T.

Nutritional labelling refers to nutrition content of food, and its DNA is not a nutritional component of it. Nutritional labelling refers to physical components of the food that are metabolized and absorbed differently in the body. For instance, carbohydrates are different from fats, which are different from proteins. In each of those 3 major categories, there are subdivisions that extensive research has led to, such as saturated and unsaturated fats. Each of these components takes a very different route once inside the body. The source of fats, carbohydrates and proteins does not affect the route it takes in the body. Fibre from corn is not fundamentally different from wheat fibre, although the rate at which it's broken down may differ between the plants.

The same issue applies to DNA. DNA is broken down in the stomach into its individual nucleic acids or short strings of nucleic acids. In all cases, the broken down DNA is inert because only small parts of genes are taken up in the body. It works much like software installation: if you install 5% of a software program on your computer, the software won't work. You need 100% installation for software to work. The nucleic acids and polypeptides (short strings of nucleic acids) from a wheat plant become indistinguishable from those of a bacteria, so the route the DNA takes in the body is the same, irrespective of the organism the DNA came from. Whether our food is GMO or not does not affect nutritional routes in the body, so there is no place for GMOs on our nutrition labels.

The other issue with GMO labelling of food is the question of what constitutes non-GMO food. The anti-GMO campaigns are based on the idea that changing the DNA of a naturally occuring organism makes it a GMO. The fear comes from the lab-based nature of GMOs as a clear symbol of how unnatural the genetic modification is. Thing is, there are ways of genetic modification that we have done through artificial selection. In nature, natural selection ensures that only the strongest genes survive. Artificial selection ensures that the genes with the greatest benefit to humans survive. For instance, the domesticated Holstein cow (the black and white one we're most familiar with) was found to be an excellent milk producer. Over centuries of breeding, Holstein cows have become very good milk producers, because Holstein cows that produced a lot of milk were selected for breeding by the farmer, thus ensuring that genes responsible for higher milk production survived and became more common in the cow herd over the generations. As a result, the genetic make-up of a domesticated cow is very different from a wild cow, so the domesticated cow has been genetically modified through breeding. Recently, scientists have found a much more effective way of modifying the genetic make-up of organisms through modern lab techniques. The only thing that changed in genetically modifying organisms is that we do it in a lab setting now, rather than in a breeding setting. GMOs have really been around for centuries, through domestication and artificial selection, so most things we eat are GMOs, even if they haven't been modified in the lab.

GMOs are common and have been common for a long time. They are different combinations of 4 nucleic acids found in everything we eat, so labelling GMOs as a nutritional quality is misleading and flat-out wrong.

Canada's per-vote subsidy

In 2003-ish, Canada abolished corporate and union donations to political parties. To make up for the loss of revenue, a subsidy was created. During every election, each party would be given $2 for every vote it received. In 2008, and again in 2011, the Conservative party is trying to abolish this subsidy. Economic reasons for abolishing the subsidy are largely rubbish as only $30m is spent on this subsidy, so this argument is entirely ideological. Personally, I prefer the subsidy to remain as it is, how it is.

First off, there's an idea of money attraction. Certain ideologies appeal more to the poor and certain moreso to the rich. Not all parties attract the same proportion of people from all income categories, so a per vote subsidy allows these disparities to be partially neutralized. Parties whose ideology appeals more to the rich will undoubtedly raise more money, but this subsidy makes the "poor man's ideology" more viable and active on the political stage. Just because an idea is not economic doesn't mean it's not important. In the Canadian arts scene, subsidies are doled out on precisely this basis, with a fair amount of success, so a similar trend ought to remain in place in the political theatre.

The per-vote subsidy allows the partial neutralization of an inherent problem in Canada's first-past-the-post system. Canada is divided into geographical districts and that carries with it some voting trends. In the prairies, a majority of voters support the conservatives so almost every district in the prairies goes to the conservatives. While there is nothing wrong with voting conservative, the set up of this system disenfranchises non-conservative voters in districts where no change in party MP has happened in decade, which demotivates people to vote. Having a subsidy in place where your vote means your party of choice gets money as a result of your vote ensures that all votes "count". Your party will be poorer if you stay at home. With the abolition of the subsidy, that motivation to vote is removed, and voter turn out is worse off for it.

Although it may seem easy to vote and then give your $2 personally to your party of choice, that's not how all people work and it is unfair to punish those who do not individually contribute. Conservatives run on a basic psychological platform of individual responsibility rather than collective action, which explains why conservative platforms usually place more emphasis on uninterrupted economic activity (where the individual flourishes and is responsible for his own successes) and less on social programs (where the group takes care of an individual, even if he has "failed"). Progressive and liberal voters tend to be more the other way around, to varying degrees. The reason these characteristics matter is that abolishing the per-vote subsidy would create a system where party fundraising is dependent largely on individual responsibility, which unfairly favours the right. There are still tax breaks and a few other government mechanisms that contribute to party coffers, but those only kick in AFTER individual responsibility, whereas the per-vote subsidy kicks in BEFORE individual responsibility. Whereas private donations cater to individual responsibility, the per vote subsidy caters to collective action, so it is unfair to promote one group over the other.

In short, politics costs money, and $30m keeps this issue as ideological, not economical. While no subsidy is perfect, the per-vote subsidy does a lot of good to the Canadian political scene in that it gives all parties a minimum amount of spotlight potential (i.e. TV ads and radio commercials cost money, so some money is required), so it lets the left compete with the right on a more active basis. This subsidy does not harm the right, but aids the left. Since there is no net harm, this subsidy should remain in place.

Edmonton Civic Election 2010

On Monday (18 October), Edmonton had a civic election. Turnout, according to the Edmonton Journal, was 34%. I had a bit of a moral dilemma. As I'm currently trying to finish up my thesis, I have little spare time - yes, I realize the irony of saying this in my blog- so I didn't have as much time to educate myself on the candidates as I would have liked. I didn't go to any forums, so I was limited to candidate websites.

One of the unfortunate issues that flared up recently is the closure of the downtown municipal airport. Proponents of closing the airport argue that a downtown airport has much too valuable property to be used as an airport. Using it for residency and commerce would yield much higher revenue for the city. Further, with an international airport just outside the city, there is little need for an airport inside the city, so the argument goes. Advocates for keeping the airport open invariably point to the airport's historical value and the MedEvac planes that land there to take patients to a nearby hospital.

It's not that the arguments for closing the airport for development are incredibly strong, it's that the arguments for keeping it open are incredibly weak. If we stop development for the sake of preserving historical buildings, our downtown core would consist of a bunch of century-old 2-storey buildings without electricity or running water. Granted, this is an extreme argument, but the point is that preserving history doesn't require us to stop development. We can preserve history by creating historical musea. The university preserves history in its old horse barn, which has been physically relocated a few times, even though the barn itself closed long ago. Furthermore, the MedEvac argument is weaker than it seems. With an airport just outside the city, critical patients can get flown into the city with little extra hassle. Truly critical cases are choppered in, not flown in, so the downtown airport has little to do with truly critical cases. In the non-critical cases, an extra 20 minutes in an ambulance won't be the difference between life and death, so there is little point in keeping the airport open.

In spite of all this, the issue is still alive and a number of mayoral candidates voiced their support for keeping the airport open. I hope that, eventually, the city realizes the folly of keeping a downtown airport open with an international airport only 30 km away. In the meantime, here's to celebrating the victory of the one guy who didn't specify whether the airport should be kept open.

PS. Found this in my unpublished list from months ago, so this is probably outdated by now. Oops.

Intelligent Design Theory

Every once in a while, the subject of incorporating intelligent design theory in high school science curricula. At the root of the debate is some sensitive, and often misunderstood, information. To tackle the issue of intelligent design theory, it's important to analyze what intelligent design theory is and isn't, and what the limits of science curricula are and ought to be. I need to stress that I'm not talking about intelligent design - the idea that God created the world with an idea in mind- but am strictly talking about intelligent design theory - the idea that the world is too complex to not have an intelligent creator behind it.

First, intelligent design theory. The fundamentals of intelligent design theory rest on the argument that some things are too complex for us to wrap our heads around (e.g. DNA methylation, orientation of DNA, etc.), therefore they couldn't have arisen by chance. In other words, the things we don't understand are of God's doing. Such an approach makes God a "fill-in-the-blank" God, whose being begins where our knowledge ends. There are dangers in having such a definition of God as the boundaries of our knowledge are constantly shifting with new discoveries. Our body of knowledge now is vastly different from a century ago. Western society used to believe God lived above the sky and that diseases such as cholera or Bubonic plague were God's punishments for our wickedness. Space programs showed God to be invisible above the skies, while advancements in microbiology showed bacteria to be the culprit behind cholera and Bubonic plague. If our definition of God is to fill in the blank of everything we can't explain, science will eventually destroy God as less and less blank space exists in our knowledge of the natural order. Intelligent design theory therefore will continually have to redefine its idea of God and cannot survive lon-term if the limits of our knowledge are used as a basis to define who or what God really is.

The other spin on intelligent design theory is that the inherent complexity of life points to an intelligent mastermind, but complexity is not conclusive proof of God's existence. Complexity in the natural order can exist without God's presence and God's presence can exist without complexity in the natural order, so God and complexity are mutually exclusive. If we expect complexity to be a prerequisite for God's existence, then we are creating our own God by setting arbitrary standards. This is improper because then God becomes a figment of our mental creation, rather than an independent entity, which violates the assumptions of Christianity. Christianity is based on the idea that God exists and we are a result of his existence, not the other way around. It is therefore crucial that we not use complexity as an arbitrary standard of proof for God's existence but actively search conclusive evidence for God's existence.

Should intelligent design theory be taught in scientific curricula, then? The answer is a clear no. Science curricula should only contain scientific theories. One of the main pillars of intelligent design theory is that complexity cannot come about on its own, therefore it must be God's doing. Scientifically, this is riddled with inaccuracies. There is no objective, conclusive evidence presented of the inability of complexity to exist on its own. More importantly, the link between complexity and God is unproven and is based on artistic feeling rather than objective reasoning. The scientific method is based on evidence and deductive reasoning, which is clearly absent in intelligent design theory, but not in evolution theory. This is why evolution theory, based on fossils, dating, red shift, etc., is objective and deserves a place in scientific curricula, while intelligent design theory does not. What science curricula ought to do is to include evolution theory, exclude intelligent design theory, while emphasizing that evolution theory by itself does not prove or disprove the existence of God. Just because evolution flies in the face of a 5000 year old scientific theory doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It may just mean that our scientific capacity 5000 years ago isn't as enhanced as it is now. The point of science curricula is to teach science, not religion. Schools should stick to that.

Build the Cordoba Centre

I recently read an article about a proposed mosque or Islam centre (Cordoba Centre) to be built at ground zero in New York. There is considerable opposition to this centre, mostly centering on a "don't-let-the-terrorists-win" argument. While ensuring that we do not send out signals or symbols that would show the superiority of terrorists, opposition to the Cordoba centre is misguided and will more than likely backfire.

First, there are the extremists. While building a mosque is likely going to give them some fuel for a "we won" argument, denying permission to build the mosque has far graver consequences. It would fuel the idea that western countries are intolerant of Islam and thus those citizens are a collection of infidels that justify a jihad. In other words, it would exacerbate an existing problem. Building the mosque, on the other hand, would not work to the extremist advantage. While extremists certainly would gloat about having a symbol of Islam at ground zero, the very same symbol would also serve to highlight that there are Muslims who are genuinely devastated at 11 September attacks, thus bringing the contrast between the extremists and mainstream Islam to the spotlight. Highlighting the fact that extremists do not speak for the vast majority of Muslims would reinforce the image that mainstream Muslims are peace-loving, respecting individuals much like the rest of us. The more the mainstream image is promoted, the worse the extremists look and the more isolated they become. Thus, any positive effect that an Islam symbol would have on promoting the jihad movement is completely destroyed by the negative effect of isolation.

The second reason why we should build the mosques are our values as a democratic society. Freedom of religion allows for mainstream religions to exercise their faith so as long as there is no hate speech. The people behind this centre are attempting to promote interfaith understanding and respect, so it would be extremely improper for us to group them in with a handful of extremists just because they belong to the same religious umbrella. If a Christian centre or a Jewish centre were built, this controversy would not exist, so the pleas for respect for the 11 Sept. victims' families is the result of stereotyping. These pleas should not be heeded. The Cordoba Centre is not an attack on the victims, the US government, or Western society as a whole; it is a religious centre and should be free to exercise its freedom of religion.

Having a mosque at ground zero does not wave a white flag; it emphasizes our tolerance of different religions and opinions and highlights the ideals of our democracy. If anything, the Cordoba centre would be a beacon.