Editing David Suzuki (section)

==Social commentary==
[[File:David Suzuki (book signing).png|thumb|Suzuki signing a copy of his work]]

===Genetically modified food===
Suzuki has been criticized<ref>{{cite web | url =https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/david-suzuki-canadas-science-guy-turned-eccentric-anti-gmo-chemical-scaremonger/ | title =David Suzuki: Canada's 'science guy' turned eccentric anti-GMO, chemical scaremonger? | date =5 January 2019 | website =Genetic Literacy Project | access-date =9 February 2020 }}</ref> for his [[pseudoscientific]]<ref name="Nicolia2013">{{Cite journal|url=https://www.pps.net/cms/lib/OR01913224/Centricity/Domain/3337/peer%20reviewed%20meta%20study%20on%20GMOs%20copy.pdf|title=An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research|first1=Alessandro|last1=Nicolia|first2=Alberto|last2=Manzo|first3=Fabio|last3=Veronesi|first4=Daniele|last4=Rosellini|journal=Critical Reviews in Biotechnology|volume=34|issue=1|date=2013|pages=77–88|doi=10.3109/07388551.2013.823595|pmid=24041244|s2cid=9836802|quote=We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.<br /><br />The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.}}</ref><ref name="FAO">{{Cite web|url=http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5160E/y5160e10.htm#P3_1651The|title=State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops|publisher=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations|access-date=August 30, 2019|quote=Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants - mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape - without any observed adverse effects (ICSU).}}</ref><ref name="Ronald2011">{{Cite journal|title=Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security|first=Pamela|last=Ronald|journal=Genetics|date=May 1, 2011|volume=188|issue=1|pages=11–20|doi=10.1534/genetics.111.128553|pmid=21546547|pmc=3120150|quote="There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010)."}}</ref><ref name="Also"><p>But see also:</p><p>{{Cite journal|url=http://gaiapresse.ca/images/nouvelles/28563.pdf|title=A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants|first1=José L.|last1=Domingo|first2=Jordi Giné|last2=Bordonaba|journal=Environment International|date=2011|volume=37|issue=4|pages=734–742|doi=10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003|pmid=21296423|bibcode=2011EnInt..37..734D |quote=In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.}}</p><p>{{Cite journal|title=An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment|first=Sheldon|last=Krimsky|s2cid=40855100|journal=Science, Technology, & Human Values|volume=40|issue=6|pages=883–914|doi=10.1177/0162243915598381|date=2015|quote=I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.}}</p><p>And contrast:</p><p>{{Cite journal|title=Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons|first1=Alexander Y.|last1=Panchin|first2=Alexander I.|last2=Tuzhikov|journal=Critical Reviews in Biotechnology|volume = 37|issue = 2|pages = 213–217|date=January 14, 2016|issn=0738-8551|doi=10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684|pmid = 26767435|s2cid=11786594|quote=Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm. <br /><br /> The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.}}</p><p>and</p>{{Cite journal|title=Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health|first1=Y.T.|last1=Yang|first2=B.|last2=Chen|journal=Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture|volume=96|issue = 4|pages=1851–1855|date=2016|doi=10.1002/jsfa.7523|pmid=26536836|bibcode=2016JSFA...96.1851Y |quote=It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA ''(citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011)''. Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.<br /><br />Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome.}}</ref> beliefs on GMOs. Suzuki has written that "[[Genetically modified food|products of biotechnology]] are being rammed into our food, onto our fields and into our medicines, without any public participation in discussions and with the complicity, indeed, the active support and funding of governments. But there are profound health, ecological and economic ramifications of this activity."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.davidsuzuki.org/david/downloads/David_Suzuki_Biotech_essay.pdf|title=Biotech Essay|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170722075126/http://www.davidsuzuki.org/david/downloads/David_Suzuki_Biotech_essay.pdf|archive-date=2017-07-22|url-status=dead}}</ref> In a 1999 CP Wire article, Suzuki is quoted as saying: "Any politician or scientist who tells you these products are safe is either very stupid or lying."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.iatp.org/news/suzuki-warns-of-frankenstein-foods|title=Suzuki Warns of "Frankenstein Foods"|website=www.iatp.org}}</ref> In an interview with CBC TV, Suzuki argues that the science showing GMOs are safe is "very, very bad science" and that the commercialization of GMOs is "driven by money."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/david-suzuki-speaks-out-against-genetically-modified-food|title=CBC Interview}}</ref> His foundation's website includes an "Understanding GMO" page which claims "the safety of GMO foods is unproven and a growing body of research connects these foods with health concerns."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/queen-of-green/faqs/food/understanding-gmo/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121223174829/http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/queen-of-green/faqs/food/understanding-gmo/|url-status=dead|archive-date=2012-12-23|title=Understanding GMO}}</ref>

===Fukushima===
In a 2013 speech on water policy at the University of Alberta, Suzuki claimed that a second emergency at the [[Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant]] would require the evacuation of the North American west coast. Three months later, he admitted that his comment was "off-the-cuff."<ref name="auto">{{cite news
 | url =https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/david-suzuki-regrets-claim-that-another-fukushima-disaster-would-require-mass-evacuations-in-north-america
 | title =David Suzuki 'regrets' claim that another Fukushima disaster would require mass evacuations in North America
 | last =Hopper
 | first =Tristin
 | date =25 January 2015
 | website =National Post
 | access-date =9 February 2020}}</ref> However, Suzuki still speculates that another earthquake could trigger a new nuclear disaster in Fukushima,<ref>{{cite web |last1=Suzuki |first1=David |title=David Suzuki: Citizen scientists can fill info gaps about Fukushima effects |url=https://www.straight.com/news/574866/david-suzuki-citizen-scientists-can-fill-info-gaps-about-fukushima-effects |website=straight.com |date=January 28, 2014 |access-date=July 7, 2021}}</ref> as the [[Japanese Atomic Energy Commission]] paper he cited in his aforementioned speech at the University of Alberta states that such a disaster could call for the evacuation of over 10 million Japanese residents.<ref name="auto" />

===Immigration===
In 2013, in the French news magazine ''[[L'Express]]'', Suzuki called Canada's immigration policy "disgusting" (We "plunder southern countries to deprive them of their future leaders, and wish to increase our population to support economic growth") and insisted that "Canada is full" ("Our useful area is reduced").<ref name="theglobeandmail.com">{{cite news
| title = David Suzuki and Jason Kenney amplify each other
| url = https://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/david-suzuki-and-jason-kenney-amplify-each-other/article13205288/
| work = The Globe and Mail
| access-date = 2013-10-04
| location=Toronto
| date=2013-07-15}}</ref>

===Canadian justice system===
While being interviewed by [[Tony Jones (news journalist)|Tony Jones]] on Australia's ABC TV network in September 2013, Suzuki repeated the claim from Canadian media that the [[Premiership of Stephen Harper|Harper government]] was building prisons even though [[Crime in Canada#Statistics Canada data|crime rates were declining]] in Canada.<ref name="An Audience With David Suzuki">{{cite web
| title = An Audience With David Suzuki
| url = http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3841115.htm
| work = ABC Q&A
| access-date = 2018-04-06
| date=2013-09-23}}</ref><ref name="Toronto Star">{{cite news
| title = Critics say Harper government throwing prison expansion money away
| url = https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2011/01/10/critics_say_harper_government_throwing_prison_expansion_money_away.html
| work = Toronto Star
| access-date = 2013-12-02
| date=2011-01-10}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| title = Canada's crime rate: Two decades of decline
| url = http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015001-eng.htm
| work = Statistics Canada
| access-date = 2018-04-06
| date=2017-03-03}}</ref>
He suggested that the prisons might be being built so that [[Stephen Harper]] can incarcerate environmental activists.<ref name="An Audience With David Suzuki" /><ref name="torontosun.com">{{cite news
| title = Suzuki: Harper is building prisons for eco-activists
| url = http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/25/suzuki-harper-is-building-prisons-for-eco-activists
| newspaper = Toronto Sun
| access-date = 2013-10-04 }}</ref> Jean-Christophe De Le Rue, a spokesman for Public Safety Minister [[Steven Blaney]], denied the claims, emphasizing that the Canadian government is not building any prisons, nor do they have plans to build any.<ref name="torontosun.com" /> However, in 2011, the Harper government did announce a 5-year, "$2-billion federal prison-building boom" to add "over 2,700 beds to men's and women's prisons across Canada" with $517-million already "spent on prison construction" in 2010–2011.<ref name="Toronto Star" /><ref>{{cite news
| title = Harper government to announce more prison expansions
| url = http://www.ipolitics.ca/2011/01/10/harper-government-to-announce-more-prison-expansions/
| work = iPolitics.ca
| access-date = 2013-12-02 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| title = Prison costs soar 86% in past five years: report
| url = https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/prison-costs-soar-86-in-past-five-years
| work = National Post
| access-date = 2022-12-12 }}</ref>
===Relationship with Justin Trudeau===
According to Suzuki, Canadian Prime Minister [[Justin Trudeau]] called Suzuki to ask for Suzuki's endorsement of the Liberal platform on climate change. Upon pointed questioning by Suzuki, the conversation turned "nasty", with Trudeau saying "I don't have to listen to this sanctimonious crap", at which time Suzuki "proceeded to call him a twerp".<ref>{{cite web | url=https://macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/why-david-suzuki-called-justin-trudeau-a-twerp | title=David Suzuki vs. Justin Trudeau | date=26 September 2015 }}</ref>