Greenpeace Activism Kills Kids


Greenpeace - none so blind as those who will not see

Bjorn Lomborg, head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, writes in his latest column, "A Golden Rice Opportunity," a terrific indictment of Greenpeace's homicidal activism against the development and deployment of vitamin-A enriched Golden Rice. Golden Rice is a genetically enhanced variety developed by Swiss researcher Ingo Potrykus and his colleagues with the aim of addressing the serious health problem of vitamin A defiency in poor countries whose citizens chiefly consume rice. Back in 2000, I asked, "Where is the Golden Rice?," and the answer was that it was being protected in grenade-proof greenhouses in Switzerland to prevent its destruction by anti-biotech vandals. As I noted 13 years ago:

Greenpeace is leading a global campaign against biotech crops, asserting that they are unhealthy and environmentally unsafe. A press release says that "Greenpeace opposes golden rice because it has all the risks of any [genetically modified] crop."

The lies and anti-science activism of environmentalist groups like Greenpeace have delayed for more than a decade the day when this life-saving crop could be offered to poor farmers in developing countries and the result is that millions of children have died who might otherwise have been saved by this technology. As Lomborg reports:

Three billion people depend on rice as their staple food, with 10% at risk for vitamin A deficiency, which, according to the World Health Organization, causes 250,000-500,000 children to go blind each year. Of these, half die within a year. A study from the British medical journal The Lancet estimates that, in total, vitamin A deficiency kills 668,000 children under the age of five each year.

Yet, despite the cost in human lives, anti-GM campaigners – from Greenpeace to Naomi Klein – have derided efforts to use golden rice to avoid vitamin A deficiency. In India, Vandana Shiva, an environmental activist and adviser to the government, called golden rice "a hoax" that is "creating hunger and malnutrition, not solving it."…

To be sure, handing out vitamin pills or adding vitamin A to staple products can make a difference. But it is not a sustainable solution to vitamin A deficiency. And, while it is cost-effective, recent published estimates indicate that golden rice is much more so.

Supplementation programs costs $4,300 for every life they save in India, whereas fortification programs cost about $2,700 for each life saved. Both are great deals. But golden rice would cost just $100 for every life saved from vitamin A deficiency…

Now, finally, golden rice will come to the Philippines; after that, it is expected in Bangladesh and Indonesia. But, for eight million kids, the wait was too long.

True to form, Greenpeace is already protesting that "the next 'golden rice' guinea pigs might be Filipino children." The 4.4 million Filipino kids with vitamin A deficiency might not mind so much. 

Shame, shame, shame on Greenpeace, Vandana Shiva, Naomi Klein and all other anti-science fellow travelers!

NEXT: Syrian Soccer Player Killed in Damascus

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hey, what are a few (million) dead kids we’ll never know against the terrible threat of FRANKENFOOD!


    1. Actually I’m waiting for the genetically-modified plants that produce AR-15 parts.

      1. I thought we’d have THC tomatoes and morphine-producing mixed wildflowers by now.

        1. So you basically want to give the cops the excuse to swat your house in the middle of the night, for having plants in your yard that look nothing like MJ or opium poppies? …. oh wait, they already do that…

          1. What about a MJ/Hops hybrid that you can then brew into a THC infused beer!

            Statist pols will piss themselves over that one.

            1. I’m sure that my state senatecritter is already on it.

    2. I think this falls under the eggs/omelettes clause.

    3. I think this falls under the eggs/omelettes clause.

      1. SQUIRRELS!!!! *shakes fist*

    4. You know if I remember the Frankenstein story correctly the Monster was not inherently violent but was rather driven to violence by the intolerance and fear of the villiagers.

      1. “A riot is an ugly thing…and it is just about time that we had one!”

  2. DDT! So spoiled westerners can feel smug and virtuous!
    Add one more.

    1. Use corn to make ethanol! So spoiled westerners can feel smug and virtuous!

      1. Ban Alar so spoiled westerners can feel smug and virtuous!

        1. I get the feeling we could do this all day.

          1. Limited only to the total amount of agricultural products now extant.

    2. Bed bugs are making a comeback. And modern pesticides are useless. Smug westerners will do a nice 180 on the DDT when the bed bugs bite them on their soft white butts.

      1. It’s almost as thought there was a reason people used chemical pesticides and harsh detergents.

      2. No they won’t. Bed bugs are usually more common in poor areas, not affluent neighborhoods where the smug little fuckheads live. Although your general thesis is sound in that until a problem actually affects them directly, the smugness will continue unabated.

        1. The reign of the SWPL crowd may be sufficiently grim for me to join a black separatist movement.

          1. Solid!

            /Black Power Salute

            1. My dad has 0.1% sub saharan african blood. I’m hoping that and a letter of recommendation from Heroic Mulatto will be enough to enlist and avoid the righteous purges. I’ll also happily quote Malcolm X’s wisdom about the snarling wolves vs. the smiling foxes.

        2. Smug little fuckheads use hotels more than poor people and that’s where the infestations are coming from. I had a good giggle at one of my liberal friend’s expense ’cause we both got bedbugs from the same upscale hotel six months ago. I was able to quickly eliminate my bedbugs because my grandfather was a hoarder and when we went to clean out his shed after his death, I snagged the old cans of DDT with joy. Liberal friend is STILL waging the battle. And I aint sharing my stash!

        3. My efforts for this spring will be to capture some stink bugs, when they start their yearly spring invasion in Maryland, genetically modify them into super aggressive battle bugs with killer laser beams on their head, then program them to march south into DC and unleash their reign of terror.

          1. Sounds like an awesome plan. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

        4. Bed bugs are usually more common in poor areas, not affluent neighborhoods where the smug little fuckheads live.

          Evidence for this claim?

          Rich people may be able to afford more extravagant measures to get rid of BBs when they appear, but there’s no reason to think the infestation rate is lower. Indeed it might even be higher, since hotels are common places to pick up bedbugs in your luggage, and rich people do more traveling.

        5. I don’t know… in NYC there’s usually some report on the growing bed bug threat. They don’t do that if it’s only a problem in the Bronx.

          I got the fuckers around this time last year. I only seemed to get rid of them for good around December. Fingers crossed, anyway. (I do live in a poorer area, though)

          1. They have much bigger problems to worry about in NY, than bed bugs. They are called politicians.

        6. Bedbugs are hitting posh neighborhoods in NY and SF pretty hard.

      3. I am staying in an upscale hotel in the D.C. area, so I know all too well about bedbugs making a comeback. When I get back home I’ll need to fumigate my luggage.

      4. Actually some of the bedbug populations are resistant to DDT as well.

        One benefit is that the pesticide-resistant bugs need to feed more often, probably due to whatever adaptation protects them from the pesticides, so they can be starved out easier. The original bedbugs could go up to a year without feeding.

        1. Thank the Gods mine weren’t!

        2. You all crack my shit up

  3. Lefty groups like Greenpeace would never lie, so YOU’RE lying, Ronald.

    *shuts eyes tight, covers ears with hands, chants, “LALALALALALALA”*

    1. Channeling Spacey Tony can cause you a lot harm Almanian. It’s like genetically modifying your brain. Don’t do it too often.

      1. “If you hold your mouth like that, one day it’ll stay that way”
        /momma Sevo

        1. “Hold your mouth like that, so one day it will stay that way”


    2. Greenpeace is beyond lefty. At least leftism is a (misguided and foolish) desire to make life better for people. Greenpeace is just anti-human.

      1. I met a guy who volunteered with Greenpeace back in the 1970s when the environmentalist movement actually had a point. He noted that even then the trust-fund kids had gotten in and ruined – and on the mission he was part of he ended up doing most of the work because he was the only one who knew how.

        The one Greenpeace founder who actually has a science degree has also railed against their descent into luddism and their crimes against humanity.…..deficiency

  4. I am still boggled at the glaring ignorance on display with the hate on GMO’s. Everything in our diet has been genetically modified at some point in time and I personally prefer the highly specific intentional modification possible now to the trial and error of traditional cross breeding.

    1. That’s because most people are scientifically as well as economically illiterate.

      1. I have a sister-in-law with a masters degree and she rails against GM food. It has nothing to do with the crops and EVERYTHING to do with a hatred of big business. I point out that there is nothing we eat that hasn’t been genetically modified I am told I am mistaken. It really is just one more item on the Progressive’s pages-long blind-hatred list.

        1. Actually it has nothing to do with either. It’s just a mindless conformity with what all the other Prog-tards think.

          Me good liberal! Good Liberal hate GMO! Me hate GMO too! Me be good liberal too! Hurr! Durr! *drool*

          1. No, they hate big business.

            I used to buy organic garden seeds from my local co-op (the Wedge). For years and years they sold the brand “Seeds of Change”. Damn good seeds, actually. A few years ago, they switched to a different brand. I asked why and was told it was because they had learned that Seeds of Change was owned by Monsanto. Big. Evil. Monsanto.

            So I just buy Seeds of Change seeds from their website.

            1. In other words they just liked “Seeds of Change” because it sounds like some prog-tard left slogan.

              1. Dense much? No, they liked “Seeds of Change” because they produced high-quality organic seed. They really are great seeds irrespective of whether or not one gives a fuck about organic.

            2. Actually I think there’s a little cognitive dissonance going on. They feel obliged to conform to the herd mentality on GMOs, but then as soon as someone calls them on the pseudoscientific bullshit, they immediately lurch to the Hate Monsanto excuse. Really al they want is to avoid thinking thoughts that would put them in opposition to their religious beliefs.

              1. “I think there’s a little cognitive dissonance going”

                No shit, Sherlock.

        2. A masters degree in what?

          1. Some crap that isn’t science or engineering.

            1. That’s kind of what I was driving at.

              Any time I get berated about being “anti-science” it’s by someone with a “librul artz” degree or someone with a degree in soc-psych or some other soft science.

              For what it’s worth, I have no problem with those who question the “sustainability” of something, provided they’re doing it from a background in either economics or science.

              The problem is that there are plenty of people who simply don’t have a clue about how things work.

  5. reactionary conservatism

    1. Uh, what?

      1. They call themselves “progressive” but their stance on GMO’s is actually quite reactionary and straight dictionary “conservative” in nature.

  6. I am sure all the Reason free market zombies would have been all for the that wonderful sleeping aid Thalidomide. Others on this thread don’t seem to know the difference between cross pollination and Genetic Modification.

    1. And neither do you, it seems. Strawman troll is strawman. Yawn.

    2. Mitch52| 2.20.13 @ 11:30AM |#
      “I am sure all the Reason free market zombies would have been all for the that wonderful sleeping aid Thalidomide.”
      Translated from brain-dead:
      “See the free market isn’t perfect so we need government force to kill brown kids!”
      Got it, dipshit.
      “Others on this thread don’t seem to know the difference between cross pollination and Genetic Modification.”
      Oh, please tell us!

    3. Thalidomide

      Created, tested and approved by your European buddies, dipshit. It was never sold legally in the US.

    4. “Current role of thalidomide in HIV-positive patients with recurrent aphthous ulcerations.”

    5. Mitch, do you like gladiator movies?

    6. It begs the question, where exactly does Thalidomide fit into the GM vs. CP debate?

      1. It asks the question. The answer is “nowhere.”

        1. Obviously. I just wanted the OP to realize that (as futile as that task is). Besides, he doesn’t appear to be willing to actually encounter any discussion that may result in cognitive dissonance for him, so he really took hit und run as a literal instruction.

          1. I didn’t want it to be a headscratcher for him. You know them hippies got lice. That shit would have gotten all over the place.

      2. Non sequitur is non sequitur.

      3. Mitch52 is rather stupid, so you’ll have to forgive him.

        After 52 copies of the original model, signal loss is bound to creep in.

        1. After 52 copies of the original model, signal loss is bound to creep in.

          Not all AI can be constructed so perfectly on its first iteration as Anonbot.

        1. OK, I just noticed that Reasonable ignores the start-time specification for YT videos. The scene I’m refering to is at 5:35.

    7. Mitch, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

      1. Gee, and Mitch was so pleased to show how the ‘free market’ was, uh, well….
        Hey, Mitch! Go suck on a sewage pipe!

    8. Hmmm, hope that cross pollination creates the expressed phenotype you are looking for while not expressing a repressed gene sequence that is an unknown OR cut DNA at an EXACT point using restriction enzymes in the plant you want to modify, cut the sequence you want to be placed in your plant using restriction enzymes and put them back together with a little DNA Polymerase enzyme getting the EXACT phenotype you are looking for without expressing unknowns…

      Gee, I wonder what is safer? Not to mention you can modify the DNA to keep the modified plant sterile – something you CAN’T do with cross pollination…So IF you accidentally express an undesirable trait, it can’t outcompete or spread.

      Maybe you don’t understand the differences between cross pollination and GM and why GM is FAR safer…

    9. OMG! There was thing once created by scientists and it was BAD!!!

      Therefore we should hate and fear this other thing that has absolutely nothing to do with that thing except for that it’s a product of the Demon Science!

      Anything created by SCIENTISTS is automatically suspect!
      (Unless it has something to do with climate change in which case their word is law.)

      1. Don’t forget the pill. That is science being put to GOOD use.

      2. its only evil big business scientists though.

    10. And you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. Before people could deliberately modify genetics in specific ways, people used to irradiate a bunch of seeds and see if any interesting and useful mutations turned up in the few that would germinate. And these crops are apparently OK with the anti-GMO crowd. Also, genes naturally mutate and drift between species anyway. Why is it more dangerous for humans to do it in a deliberate way than to just let it happen randomly in nature? You don’t think that nature ever produces dangerous toxic substances?

      1. IMO GM is far safer than natural cross pollination… usually if you are cross pollinating you haven’t done gene sequencing and you never know what kind of nasties are hidden in genes that aren’t expressed. Cross them with the right species or get a random mutation and they become expressed. Not to mention you can prevent your experiments with GM from spreading by genetically sterilizing them.

    11. Others on this thread don’t seem to know the difference between cross pollination and Genetic Modification.

      It’s the same thing, just that one means of production is more high tech than the other.

      Also, GM does not necessarily = evil.

      Greenies are luddites. In past times, they either would have been attacking tractors with pitch forks, or dawning hooded robes and burning witches.

      1. dawning hooded robes

        Another homophone for the Tow the Lion pile.

      2. We used to sit on the beach and watch the hooded robes dawn.

    12. You realize that thalidomide is still approved by the FDA for certain uses, don’t you? It’s very useful in certain circumstances, such as helping sufferers of painful leprosy get sleep and inhibiting new blood vessel growth in cancerous tumors; it just can’t be given to pregnant/possibly pregnant women.

    13. cross pollination is genetic modification.

  7. We have our new Lobstergirl!

    1. She does have those beady little lobster eyes.

  8. That is an immensely disturbing image.

    Almost as disturbing as the content of the rest of the article.

    1. It could be titled “The Fruit of Western Proggie Environmentalism”.

  9. Must the luddites always be among us? Oh, I forgot, where else would we get politicians from if not for that gene pool. Who would save us from ourselves?

  10. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – I get a sick delight when liberals’ ideals clash with each other. This one much less so, because of teh CHILDRUNZ, but it’s still there.

    1. Where’s the clash? They never cared about children.

      1. Gaia is the mother of all earth children.

        1. It always humors me how anti-religious the progs are and then subscribe all of the properties of the Western God to Gaia.

          1. ascribe. I’d say I feel as stupid as mitch52, but I’d be lying.

          2. They are the original religious fanatics.

            Earth worship was invented 10,000 years before some nekked dude looked up from the plains and said ‘hey look up there, gorg, at that shiny ball in the sky, it must be a god! All hail the sky god, we’re not worthy, we’re not worthy!’.

            This is how primitive the mama Gaia crowd is.

            1. Meh. Seems like as good a religion as any. Better in some ways, since it is actually connected to real stuff and not made up stories. But it’s still just a religion and not a good basis for public policy.

              1. Modern day proglodytes are just as fanatically religious as any fundamentalist religion ever invented.

                It’s just that they use government instead of an acting on behalf of an invisible sky god, to smith thee with, if you don’t obey their totalitarian demands.

                God is their government. Muslims may say that Allah don’t want you fornicating, so they must stone you if you don’t obey. Proglodyes just lobby their congress critters to oppress you.

                1. Yeah, pretty much. But it is hardly a new thing. Religion has been a tool of government (and vice versa) since day one. Difference now is that they like to pretend it isn’t.

                2. to smith smite thee with

                  Damnit H&R, edit feature!

                  1. Say, any of you boys smithies? Or, if not smithies per se, were you otherwise trained in the metallurgic arts before straitened circumstances forced you into a life of aimless wanderin’?

                    1. One of us is a smiter. I smite thee, LTC(ret) John.


          3. That’s because most progs have externalized the things they learned in whatever church they grew up in and, instead of doing the good deeds themselves, ask government to do it for them. They’re only anti-religious because they hate their parents.

            (The religious progs do the same thing, they just openly admit it is because of their Christian upbringing that they think the government should do this or that.)

      2. Every vision of utopia is built on a pile of bodies.

        1. But, never theirs. Funny that.

          1. Some animals always become more equal than others.

      3. THey claim to care about the poor and downtrodden in other countries.

        I do realize, however, that they really don’t care about anything other than feeling good.

      4. Sure they care about children. Some of them, anyway. Their ideas just happen to be very harmful to children anyway.

    2. Nah. Opposition to something like golden rice dovetails nicely with their population control/reduction agenda.

      Also, CONTROL. Never forget their totalitarian urges.

    3. I honestly don’t. This kind of bullshit makes my blood boil. Rich assholes who can’t imagine there are problems outside of their bubble.

  11. I have no problem with a Western prog deciding they don’t want to eat GMO food. They want to be “naturalistic”, fine. There are plenty of options to serve that segment of the market (thanks to libertarian pioneer John Mackey). But when we’re discussing a GMO crop that if introduced can save lives and needless suffering, this campaign to deny impoverished people a viable remedy for a clear need is disgusting. I’m reminded of an Oscar Wilde quote: “Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.”

  12. Western prog deciding they don’t want to eat GMO food

    Bwahhaahhaaaa! You make a funny, no? Western progs don’t give a shit about what THEY do, they only care about what YOU do.

  13. Feel free to upvote this on reddit r/politics. Help them to see!…..ills_kids/

    1. [?]TodaysIllusion 0 points 15 minutes ago
      Don’t read this K0ch spew.

      Right on cue.

      1. It’s so much easier to attack the messenger than examine data.

  14. God, I hate Green-tards. I hate them with the power of a thousand suns.

    1. Shooting baby seals out of a cannon mounted to the top of my giant gas guzzling SUV, always makes me feel more calm when I have full greenie hate rage going.

      1. “I’m gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac Eldorado convertible, hot pink, with whale skin hubcaps and all leather cow interior and big brown baby seal eyes for headlights. Yeah! And I’m gonna drive around in that baby at 115 miles an hour, getting 1 mile per gallon, sucking down quarter pounder cheeseburgers from McDonald’s in the old-fashioned non- biodegradable Styrofoam containers!”

        1. While you’re driving, you get bonus points for every rare bird that gets smashed against the windshield or stuck in the giant chrome grill. Triple points for spotted owls.

      2. Should be a plutonium cannon.

        1. Do you get more range with that one?

          1. No. But ohmygoditsradiation!

            1. Radioactive flying baby seal projectiles? I like it!

  15. Anti-Science is pretty misleading. I’m pretty sure they aren’t anti-science, just anti-implementation of GM crops. Those are two very different things.

    Here is the reasoning for the stance against golden rice from one of the people mentioned in the article:…..ehoax.html

    Here is an article which highlights reasons why GR1/2 is not all it’s cracked up to be, using science to make it’s claims:…

    So, unlike the title suggests, GR2 (the new strain) and GM crops in general aren’t silver bullets to solve the worlds hunger/vitamin issues. Could they be used to do good and increase crop harvest sizes and resistance to pests? Yes. Is the cost of farmers not being able to re-seed, corporations owning the seeds in farmers fields, subjugation of non GM strains, and ever increasing pesticides laced into our food worthwhile trade offs? Those are the questions that we are struggling with right now, and an article like this which simplifies the arguments and only presents one side doesn’t do any good to further the conversation.

    1. And if I want to buy it, it’s none of your goddamn business.

      Fuck off slaver.

    2. What’s this “we” shit? If a farmer wants to buy GM seed, that’s between him and whatever agricorp he decides to buy from. It has nothing to do with you.

    3. Why don’t “we” leave the option of buying or not buying GM seedstock up to the people who face starvation and vitamin deficiencies???

    4. How many people should die during the conversation?

    5. It might not save the life of every starving child, therefore we need to prohibit it and make sure lots of children die. Fuck off and kill yourself, you dishonest prick.

      1. ^THIS

        Especially on the part about fucking off and killing himself.

        This person isn’t just dishonest. He’s willingly sold his soul to the service of an evil philosophy.

      2. Wait, I thought if we could only save the life of one child, we have to ban stuff? I’m confused.

        1. The number of children that need to be saved is equal to whatever number you say will be saved by giving the state more power.

          What’s confusing about that?

    6. OMG! Golden Rice might not solve all the worlds problems in one fell swoop. I guess we should ban it!

      Unless there is ironclad proof that this miracle drug cures cancer 100% of the time, we shouldn’t approve it.

      After all, there’s a miniscule chance that there’s something we don’t under stand about it that might harm someone, somehwere, at some undtermined point in the future that we can’t predict.

      Safety first!

    7. Is the cost of farmers not being able to re-seed, corporations owning the seeds in farmers fields,

      All of which are the decision of the farmer who buys the seeds.

      subjugation of non GM strains

      I don’t know what you mean by this. If you’re concerned that non-gm strains will disappear from the earth, start a seed bank to store seeds from non GM strains.

      ever increasing pesticides laced into our food

      Actually GM allows reduced pesticide use.

      this isn’t science, it’s a bunch of falsehoods, non sequiturs, and red herrings.

      1. I don’t know what you mean by [subjugation of non-GM strains].

        You quite clearly don’t have a clue. Yet you have a strong opinion uninformed by fact (IOW, typical Tulpa).

        What this means, Tulpy-poo, is that the farmer growing non-GM rice next to the fields of the farmer growing GM rice is going to have some of his non-GM rice pollinated by his neighbor’s GM rice and thereby be liable for growing unlicensed GM crops.

        While many of the claims of the anti-biotech crowd are hysterical and unsubstantiated this one is not.

        1. please show one verified example of accidental pollination leading to a lawsuit. And don’t even bother with that douchebag Schmeiser.

      2. Tulpa (LAOL-PA)| 2.20.13 @ 12:37PM |#
        “Is the cost of farmers not being able to re-seed, corporations owning the seeds in farmers fields,
        All of which are the decision of the farmer who buys the seeds.”

        It is exactly the same with current chance hybrids; they don’t reseed. The claim of ownership is lefty lies; nothing other. Just flat out lies.

    8. It is perfectly legitimate to question the actual utility of something like this. But absent any evidence that it poses any particular danger, why should it not be grown.

      I also have problems with patents on organisms, but that is a completely separate issue and applies to conventionally bred cultivars as well.

      1. And the patented organism thing gets super-complicated real quick. And it’s not a completely separate issue, see my 1:52 PM above.

        1. Tonio| 2.20.13 @ 1:56PM |#
          …”see my 1:52 PM above.”

          See the request for evidence. Put up or shut up.

    9. No, if you’re against GM crops you’re anti-science and anti-human. You can dress it up and justify it however you feel you need to, but you’re a fucking Luddite and want people to die so you can feel good about the choices you’ve forced onto them.

      In conclusion, you’re hateful scum and should die in a fire. Have a nice day!

      1. That’s humorous, T. Libertarians often complain loudly that we’re not anti-whatever that we have a principled objection based on other criteria, and you turn around and commit the same fallacy. TFTL.

    10. I scanned the Dr. Shiva article (insert obligatory reference to The League) and found this gem towards the start “Herbicide resistant and toxin producing genetically engineered plants can be objectionable because of their
      ecological and social costs,” but was then surprised to see no evidence substantiating the claims of toxin producing or herbicide resistant.

      Moreover, the cut of her jib seems to be that the golden rice will not produce enough Vitamin A to sufficiently meet the threshold necessary to avoid VAD. She estimated that at most, golden rice would provide about 4.5% of the daily value of Vitamin A required. She then goes on to state that the efforts should be coordinated to raising crops rich in A and attempting to get those into the diet. This ignores some basic agricultural and economic realities (not to mention social realities of rice being a staple food and certain foods being foreign to the traditional Indian palate). Rice is the most widely consumed foodstuff there is and is a staple in Indian cuisine. It is also one of the cheapest and easiest crops to produce, thus making it a beneficial transmission device for A.

      1. It’s also worth noting that while Golden Rice may be insufficient to fully satiate a person’s Vitamin A needs, absent some proof of toxicity or other damages, it doesn’t hurt to take a multi-pronged approach to meeting Vitamin A needs. Sure, attempt to get more alternative sources of Vitamin A in the diet (and it is noted that most of the people in question lack the economic ability to afford more labor and capital intensive foods that feature higher Vitamin A levels), but that doesn’t give any rational basis for denying one of the many tools in the toolkit.

        1. also, once you get the genes in there, conventional breeding or further biotech modification can further the yeild of the vitamin.

      2. Regarding herbicide resistant crops. I haven’t RTFA, so don’t know if she substantiates the claim, but the existence of crops deliberatedly engineered to be herbicide resistant (ie, Roundup Ready, see paragraph 4) is well known.

        1. what do herbicide resistant and insecticidal protein expressing crops have to do with a gmo that was engineered to produce vitamin a?

          absolutely nothing that’s what.

          so the social costs of round up ready soy is irrelevant to the dicussion about the adoption of golden rice.

    11. JacobM| 2.20.13 @ 12:18PM |#
      “Anti-Science is pretty misleading. I’m pretty sure they aren’t anti-science, just anti-implementation of GM crops. Those are two very different things.”

      No, dipshit, you just proved they are exactly the same.
      Go suck “natural” sewage, lefty twerp.

    12. JM: The “research” you link to is from the Cornucopia Institute which describes itself thusly:
      The Cornucopia Institute, through research and investigations on agricultural and food issues, provides needed information to family farmers, consumers and other stakeholders in the good food movement and to the media. We support economic justice for the family-scale farming community ? partnered with consumers ? backing ecologically produced local, organic and authentic food. (emphasis added)

  16. It’s like the folllowing scenario, this is the way that all progressives think, despite their different personal fetish, such as green activism, feminism, whatever their particular mental disability is, it’s all the same for them.

    Giant corporation develops strain of super yielding tomatoes, with sterile seeds, so that they can only be produced by lab cloning. Then giant corp proceeds to 99.9% monopolize market on tomatoes, and starts suing anyone who grows a high yield tomato, forcing all small tomato farmers out of business.

    Proglodyte solution? Ban tomatoes.

  17. I’m pretty sure they aren’t anti-science, just anti-implementation of GM crops.

    So you would agree that global warming skeptics aren’t anti-science, just anti-implementation of CO2 reduction schemes?

    1. Don’t be silly. Anyone that denies global warmin climate change is an anti-science redneck rethuglican.

    2. Denier! Heretic! We’re pure science here, buddy!

      Now let us all pray to the Mayan Moon Goddess that you deniers will be smitten.

    3. So you would agree that global warming skeptics aren’t anti-science, just anti-implementation of CO2 reduction schemes?

      I’d say that depends on whether they reject the whole idea that humans can contribute to global warming, or if they just reject the proposed solutions, or the idea that a solution is even necessary.

  18. At the risk of igniting an IP shitstorm, I’d be interested to know what everyone thinks about patents on organisms. I think that if I grow a plant, then the plant is mine and I can do what I wish with all of its produce, including propagating new plants from seeds or cuttings.

    I’m generally pretty weak on support for IP protections, so I’d be interested to know what those with more regard for IP think about it in this area.

    1. Off the top of my head, it seems like trade secret law is a better fit than IP law.

    2. It’s an interesting debate to have. I’m generally not big on IP issues, as they make my head hurt. I can see arguments on both sides and am not really sure where I’d land.

    3. Can I patent a dog? I mean, if I cross breed some dogs and I patent a new breed, can I stop everyone else from breeding and selling one?

      Maybe NFL owners will start doing this one day with genetically modified players.

      1. I don’t think you can patent traditionally bred organisms. In your case, you would want to trademark the name of your new breed so if it didn’t come from you, it’s not a real Hyperion Hound?.

        1. Fuck! Now you have given me a new evil idea! You should be careful about that.

          The all new ‘Hyperion Tactical Death Hound’ with poisoned titanium fangs, and death laser eyes!

          I have to get to work…

          1. Are you accepting advance orders?

        2. I’m not sure if it is patent or what, but there are IP protections for traditionally bred organisms too. Look at the tags on potted plants. A lot of them say that it is forbidden to propagate the plant as the particular cultivar is owned by the company which developed it.

          1. Huh. Okay, my store of knowledge has been expanded. I had no idea there were IP laws specific to plants.

            As you noted below, somebody has patented several varieties of mice. I was thinking in particular of nude mice, which I would link to but my work filter prevents because apparently the word nude means pr0n. On this note, there’s even mutant mice labs.

          2. This is true. I’m an avid gardener and I have been ignoring that for years.

            Ever heard of anyone getting busted for giving their neighbor a propagated petunia?

            If you market them under the same name, then yes, you might have a problem. But for just propagating them? Meh, a statist wet dream.

            1. Sure. And I’ve never gotten in trouble for copying a CD that I didn’t pay for either.

        3. T| 2.20.13 @ 1:02PM |#
          “I don’t think you can patent traditionally bred organisms”…

          Henry Wallace:
          “As a student at Iowa State College he studied plant genetics and crossbreeding. He discovered and patented a successful strain of corn that produced a greater yield while resisting disease better than normal corn.”

      2. I think someone has patented a mouse.

        1. My RAT7 recently ate my wifes wireless Apple Magic Mouse. I told her not to leave it on my desk.

          1. I’d sue Apple for marketing a “Magic” mouse which actually has no magical properties.

            1. Disney is already on it. Everyone knows they are the only ones in possession of a magical mouse.

    4. I mean I’m generally against IP but the idea that you can patent an organism is completely ridiculous.

      If my neighbor buys your seed and plants his field, barring some kind of force field that completely separates my field from his, some kind of pollination is bound to occur. To then think you can sue me because of a natural occurrence is bullshit.

      1. To then think you can sue me because of a natural occurrence is bullshit

        I would have to be one of the federal governments currently favored cronies to pull that off.

      2. But what about the knowing distribution of a genetically engineered crop? The law can be structured in such a way where simple cross pollination is not prosecutable absent a showing of intent and effort. But without some level of IP, you can sell a single seed that required significant investments and if the farmer who buys that seed manages to clone an entire crop out of it and proceeds to sell seed from that crop to neighbors at a price that undercuts what the developer can reasonably charge in order to recoup investment, you’re pretty much damning that entire industry to failure and discouraging any investments for profit (thus making any and all GMO development the sole sphere of NGOs, not necessarily a bad thing, but will certainly cut down on innovations).

        1. Knowing distribution could be handled another way, couldn’t it?

          (I do agree that would be a problem though)

        2. So don’t sell your seeds, buy your own farms and grow the crops yourself.

          Also the fact that the gene can be inhereted via cross pollination completely obliterates the economic necessity argument because the minute your gene mutation moves to a neighboring farm THEY could resell your seeds with all the same benefits for next to nothing and you have no reprocussion.

          Not allowing them to prevent cross pollinated seeds from existing or being sold is exactly the same thing as not allowing them to have any IP rights on their crop.

    5. While I generally oppose patents in general right of first sale doctrine would generally prevent the types of abuses that Monsanto and company pull with enforcing their patents so one could still allow them and outlaw crap like suing a farmer who kept the seeds or whose field got cross pollinated from a neighbors field and inhereted the patented gene as a result.

      The problem with patenting the organism’s is that somehow they are treated as IP patents and not in the way a patent on a physical machine is treated in how you can defend them.

      Fix that and patenting the organisms would be no more problematic than patents in general.

      1. I’m pretty sure that the cases that Monsanto has won were against farmers who deliberately kept seeds from GM crops that had been grown from GM seeds.

        1. Whether or not they won the cases is irrelivant, very few small farms have the financial means to defend themselves in court against Monsanto and it is an undeniable fact that they have sued farmers who have never purchased or planted Monsanto seeds when their crops were found to have been cross pollenated by farms which have planted them.

          Furthermore there is no internally consistant patent law which would allow Monsanto to prevent farmers from keeping the seeds and call that a violation of IP law.

          At best they could structure their sales contracts such that the farmer agrees not to keep the seeds and farmers who did so would be in breech of contract. Problem is if they did that their specific remedy for violating that clause would have to be spelled out in the contract and clearly agreed to by the farmer to be enforcable which would have a significant negative impact on their sales, not to mention placing a greater burden of proof on them to successfully sue and the very likely result that the court would downgrade the contract violation award based on the farmers ability to pay.

          1. “it is an undeniablefact that they have sued farmers who have never purchased or planted Monsanto seeds when their crops were found to have been cross pollenated byfarms which have planted them.”

            Really? That is going to come as quite a surprise to the judge that threw out a lawsuit by organic farmers against Monsanto in which they argued that but could not provide a sigle shred of evidence to support their claim. Your udeniable fact is utter bullshit.

            1. Incorrect, the judge threw out the case because Monsanto had not yet even threatened to sue any of the farmers involved in the suit and therefore they could not prove any harm that Monsanto had caused them, they have sued other farmers and been successful in at least one case that I know of although generally a farmer who is probably only making a q.

              Perhaps you should google Percy

              1. Sorry, that first paragraph got cut off, that should have read…

                generally a farmer who is only making a Quarter of a million or less in profits annually and is faced with the prospects of a multi billion corporation with powerful political connections suing them for millions of dollars they almost always agree to settle out of court, something which Monsanto requires them to sign a gag order before they will accept so we can never hear about more than those handful of cases where the farmer decides to risk it all to fight.

              2. Sorry, Percy Schmeiser’s case is a perfect example of someone who obtained Roundup ready seeds fraudulently and then argued that his “organic” crop had been “polluted”.

                1. …[and then argued that his “organic” crop had been “polluted”] after Monsanto demonstrated that his fields were planted with Monsanto seeds far beyond anything that was possible due to “accidental” cross pollination.

      2. The practical problem with that, Kreel, is that a lot of these third-world farmers may not have a robust understanding of the western thought construct of intellectual property rights. They may also lack an understanding that it’s possible to differentiate GM seed from non-GM seed so may not be able to visualize getting caught.

        1. Tonio| 2.20.13 @ 2:11PM |#
          “The practical problem with that, Kreel, is that a lot of these third-world farmers may not have a robust understanding of the western thought construct of intellectual property rights…”
          Uh, want to state that in a way that doesn’t make you look like some lefty claiming ‘brown people aren’t ready for self-government’?

        2. Tonio, farmers in the “third world” are violating the luddite policies of their governments to buy GMO seeds because they want higher more dependable yields.

          Long before Henry Wallace’s Hybrid Corn farmers bought hybrid seeds (which are generally sterile) rather than saving them.

          I, for one am not convinced that “third world” farmers are lesser races people of lower intelligence.

    6. propagating new plants from seeds or cuttings

      Which I have no trouble with, but the impossibility of controlling airborne pollen is the real issue here. See my posts above.

      I’m uncomfortable with anyone owning an entire species. There’s a real easy path to slavery there.

      1. Shorter: Hey, I see your tribe is using Fire(tm). Fire(tm) is the intellectual property of the Monsanto clan. In order to continue using Fire(tm) you must give us…

      2. how exactly does owning a species, say a mouse lead to the humans owning other humans?

        1. Define human in a way that will always and unquestionably be valid.
          Suppose that some day we are capable of engineering an organism that is almost as intelligent as a human. Where do you draw the line between what is an animal that can properly be owned as chattel and a being with individual rights?

          1. Human: of the species Homo sapiens.

            1. Now throw genetic engineering into the mix, is it possible for a corporation to modify a few embryonic genes and create a new species of slaves who aren’t quite human?

              1. Pretty worried about those KORPURATIONS, are you?

  19. Will our cry be changed to “Fuck off, plant slaver”?

    1. Efutue serve domine!

      1. dammit forgot the plant bit.

  20. Mao – 50 million
    Hitler – 11 million
    Greenpeace – 8 million
    Stalin – 6 million

    1. Pretty sure Stalin has got to claim 30m, but, regardless, the lefties are #1!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.