Greenpeace

100 Nobel Laureates Demand that Greenpeace Stops Killing Poor Children

The scientists denounce Greenpeace's opposition to modern crop biotechnology as a "crime against humanity"

|

BlindKidUniversityofIowa
University of Iowa

An open letter today signed by 100 Nobel Prize Laureates calls upon the anti-technology activist group "Greenpeace to cease and desist in its campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general." The laureates point out that "scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity."

The laureates specifically demand that Greenpeace stop its attacks on Golden Rice which has been genetically enhanced to produce a vitamin A precursor as a way to prevent millions of deaths and cases of blindness annually in poor countries where the grain is the chief food staple. Vitamin A deficiency causes blindness in between 250,000 and 500,000 children each year, half of whom die within 12 months, according to the World Health Organization. A study by German researchers in 2014 estimated that activist opposition to the deployment of Golden Rice has resulted in the loss of 1.4 million life-years in just India alone.

Among the signatories are David Baltimore, Paul Berg, Elizabeth Blackburn, Steven Chu, Daniel Kahneman, and Harold Varmus.

The laureates' letter states:

WE CALL UPON GREENPEACE to cease and desist in its campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general;

WE CALL UPON GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD to reject Greenpeace's campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general; and to do everything in their power to oppose Greenpeace's actions and accelerate the access of farmers to all the tools of modern biology, especially seeds improved through biotechnology. Opposition based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped.

How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a "crime against humanity"?

Actually, Greenpeace and other anti-biotech activists such as Naomi Klein and Vandana Shiva have long surpassed that threshold.

NEXT: Hillary Clinton's Tech Platform: Government Meddling for Some; Incentives and Deals for Others

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A proggie fight?

    *grabs popcorn*

    1. Careful, it may be genetically modified.

  2. Consensus! The science has spoken, and the left fucking loves science!

    1. And the list of signatories is very, very heavy with laureates in Chemistry Physics and Medicine. A few economists, one literarature and one peace.

      1. Do they have separate ones for chemistry and physics as well as the one for chemistry physics?

        1. There should have been a comma between “chemistry” and “physics.”

          1. NEVER ADMIT ERROR OR APOLOGIZE!

            *waves fist defiantly*

      2. It’s the first thing I looked at: people who earned Nobel prizes for science and not the Swedish bankers’ prize or the popularity contest (peace) prize.

        Let us not forget that President Increase-the-drone-strikes Obama got one for peace before he’d even done a thing.

        1. Well, he wasn’t Bush, so that was enough.

          1. So what you’re telling me is that the peace prize isn’t even a popularity contest prize anymore. It’s a participation medal given out so long as the progs don’t completely hate you.

    2. They are all just shills for Monsanto and big agriculture.

      /prog

  3. Next up: Letting them spray for mosquitoes in Africa.

    1. The horror, the horror, the horror…

  4. Maybe their next gambit should be a letter to Vermont suggesting that GMO labels are unnecessary,

    1. Of course. Everyone knows that science means shutting up and never questioning anything.

      1. You could get your ass dragged to the Star Chamber if you dare ? dare, I tell you! ? question the Proggie orthodoxy.

      2. Alfred, give AlmightyJB a grant.

  5. Isn’t it acceptable to drone strike terrorists? Shouldn’t take more than one shot to sink their battleship.

  6. So when do we start dousing Greenpeace members in buckets of red paint symbolizing the blood of the 1-2 million people dead from VAD?

    1. I only have brown. Can that symbolize the color of the eyes forever dimmed of the beauty in nature around them?

      1. Or the shit these anti-GMO activists are full of.

    2. Shaming only works on people who are capable of feeling shame.

      Hiding in the golden rice fields and shooting any “activists” who attempt to burn them might be a more effective solution. If it works for feral hogs, it should also work for watermelons.

  7. How about they denounce socialism while they’re at it.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..uela-have/

    1. Yeah, I was thinking just that. Socialism is responsible for a few orders of magnitude more deaths. Kind of a more important crime against humanity.

    2. Dude, they just did it wrong. Socialism done right would work. It’s just that it has never been tried! We have to try it the right way in the U.S. so we can show the world that our politicians are beyond reproach and have crystal balls that perfectly predict the needs of the populace.

      Or we could just stick with capitalism. That mechanism works, but it sometimes leads to bad outcomes, and we can’t have bad outcomes ever.

      1. Imaginary perfect socialism hardly kills anyone, it’s state capitalism that kills millions.* Now, let’s implement this plan whereby the state has complete or near-complete control of all capital.

        *Socialists would object to criticism of “falling to death” by pointing out that falling is rarely fatal; it’s when people suddenly stop falling that they die. Boo austerity.

  8. speaking of idiots, the last CA nuclear power plant is now scheduled for shutdown. To be replaced with… nothing really.

    http://spectator.org/brexit-co…..alifornia/

    1. hey, same here across the river in Illinois.. not sure wehre the area will get power but whateves! http://qctimes.com/news/local/…..7cb5a.html

      1. Wow – shuttering a nuclear power-plant that isn’t fully depreciated – just because.

        Without the depreciation and regulatory costs, nuclear power is next to free. Once a plant is built and running well, shutting it down is crazy talk.

        Where’s Smokin Joe Fusion when we need him?

      2. Hey, IL still has working nukes! Byron, etc.

        1. Even New Jersey has four working nuclear plants.

    2. The local rag is printing the press releases concerning the closure, including the laughable claims that the power will be replaced by ‘green’ sources and it won’t cost much.
      No one at the newspaper is so much as lifting an eyebrow.

      1. Nuclear means BOOM and such.

        1. And…DO YOU WANT ANOTHER CHERNOBYL? Well do you PUNK?!

          1. Yeah, and I hate the chillenz, too!

          2. I do. So then I can fulfill my dream of joining Freedom in the eternal struggle against Duty.

            1. Get out of here, stalker!

          3. You mean the accident that killed about 57 people and created a wildlife refuge? Sign me up.

            1. Trollin’, trollin’, trollin’, get those doggies trollin’…..who knew Hazel and Alice Bowie were one and the same.

        2. When I worked as a nuclear engineer, the Greenpeacers would carry signs that said “Did you know you have X number of critical nuclear reactors running off your shores?” Critical is a scary word to the layperson, of course, except it only means that the same number of neutrons are being produced and consumed. As in, “stable”.

    3. Don’t worry, they’ll bring in portable coal plants to make up for the loss in ‘lectricity…

  9. Those AGs suing easy targets like Exxon ought to be charged with crimes against humanity too when there’s real targets like Greenpeace actively assisting in mass murder on these scales.

    1. Greenpeace would be the easy targets in this case.

      The Progressive ideology is a crime against humanity and the death toll continues to mount.

      Here they have the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is and let the Golden Rice flow, possibly ending, or at least helping to reduce, blindness in the world’s most vulnerable populations and they are refusing to support it. A trial for crimes against humanity is more than these vile people deserve (but I will still support having one).

  10. Golden Rice has been a viable product since 2005, more than ten years later it still has yet to be produced commercially because of Greenpeace et al.

    1. It’s not commercial because the yields are too low. GR doesn’t seem to be all it’s been touted as.

      1. didn’t they also destroy the GR crops mid-trial?

        Its one thing to claim that the performance is poor; its another thing that these protest-orgs go out of their way to prevent any testing/development of the product AT ALL, ensuring that making fair comparisons remain impossible.

        Its sort of like what urban school systems do with Charters; give them “test runs” so they can’t be accused of being afraid of competition, but ensure that the resulting data are so hopelessly ‘mixed’ that they’re impossible to compare to the larger system.

      2. It’s a good thing Greenpeace blocks it then.

      3. So it needs to be crossed into modern commercial strains. Big whoop.

    2. In India and Sri Lanka in the 80’s “Wonder Rice” was all the rage. Way more yield and easier to grow than the traditional varieties. People were pretty excited about it. I got used to eating the huge-grain rice.

    3. “Golden Rice has been a viable product since 2005, more than ten years later it still has yet to be produced commercially because of Greenpeace et al.”

      Asians don’t like yellow rice. They like white rice. Rather than learning this simple lesson the market has taught us, we prefer to rail against Greenpeace, which has little or no influence on the preferences of Asian consumers.

      1. So, Asians don’t eat brown rice?

        1. That seems racist.

        2. “So, Asians don’t eat brown rice?’

          Not much. White rice is preferred.

          1. Whole white rice with the germ.

            1. Asians prefer it without the germ.

              1. Yeah, and I’m sure you have a cite for that.
                You stupid shit! Asians prefer kids who can see, regardless of whether they like white rice or brown rice.

                1. Uh, what?

                2. White rice doesn’t impair vision. Lack of vitamin A is the problem.

                  1. mtrueman|6.29.16 @ 4:08PM|#
                    “White rice doesn’t impair vision. Lack of vitamin A is the problem.”

                    Yeah, so let’s keep golden rice out of their hands. Good thinking, trueman, as expected.

                    1. “Yeah, so let’s keep golden rice out of their hands.”

                      There’s no demand for it. I understand you would like Asians to demand it, but they don’t. Blame Greenpeace if it makes you feel better.

                    2. It might interest you to know that indians routinely color their rice with tumeric or saffron, which are, wait for it … golden.

                    3. “It might interest you to know that indians routinely color their rice with tumeric or saffron”

                      True, but those same Indians avoid buying discoloured rice. There is no consumer demand in the market place for anything but white rice.

                    4. mtrueman|6.29.16 @ 4:36PM|#
                      “There’s no demand for it.”

                      Cite missing, as always from our imbecilic troll.

                    5. Why do you insist on getting caught up in these manias of Ron’s? This product wouldn’t exist without government funding. It’s not privately, market funded research that brought this product into being. And it’s completely bound up in bureaucratic patent law both of which are looked upon with disapproval by libertarians and other normal people like us. But you and Ron want to throw in with the department of agriculture, Hank Kimball’s old employer, in telling people what’s good for them. You should think carefully about what Ron says before signing on to it. He doesn’t tell you everything.

          2. AND THAT’S CULTURALLY INALTERABLE!! So THERE!

      2. Please. You’re parroting that idiot Vandavna Shiva who thinks that non-white rice is “culturally inappropriate”.

        When people figure out that golden rice makes their kids not blind their tastes might change.

        1. You’re parroting that idiot Vandavna Shiva who thinks that non-white rice is “culturally inappropriate”.

          No, I’m parroting Adam Smith. Or whoever the supply and demand guy was.

          1. mtrueman|6.29.16 @ 8:09PM|#
            “No, I’m parroting Adam Smith.”

            No, you’re not. You’re an ignoramus who has no understanding of what Smith wrote.

        2. “When people figure out that golden rice makes their kids not blind their tastes might change.”

          Vegetables are a source of the vitamin A necessary to prevent these problems. There are already vegetable markets. There’s been a steady demand in the market for vegetables as long as there have been markets. There are other things than than this rice with vitamin A. If you’re convinced that this rice is the superior product, then invest in it. The potential payoff is enormous. All the rice eaten in Asia.

    4. It’s not just not commercially viable. The reason why so many poor people in countries like India have vitamin A deficiency from eating rice is because it’s dirt cheap; people who are even slightly better off can afford to supplement it with enough vegetables to avoid deficiency. So you can’t charge much of a premium for it and still help the poor, and there’s no market outside the poor and starving (no health benefit for better-off, orange rice is weird). Oh, and the yield isn’t great and it’s not a very good vitamin A source; newer versions kind of work but it’d be hard to get your RDA that way, the 2005 version was awful. Most fatally, it’s patented up the wazoo by about a dozen different big agricultural companies and even though it’s unlikely to ever be profitable, they’re keeping it tightly locked down just in case someone figures out a way to make money from it. They’ve licensed it for humanitarian use in “Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries” because it helps attack anti-GMO activists (according to its creator) – most of those countries can’t even grow rice.

      The part about “activist opposition to the deployment of Golden Rice” resulting in “the loss of 1.4 million life-years in just India alone” particularly dishonest. I don’t think India could even legally grow it in 2014 as they weren’t on the LIFDC list back then. They are for now, but that could change – the original trial country the Phillipines isn’t as their GDP was retroactively reassessed.

      1. So it’s better to keep it out of anyone’s hands? Are you a trueman sock or just another ignoramus?

      2. It’s not just not commercially viable.

        I think that’s a fair criticism, but one undermined by the obvious point Paul makes above =

        if its problem is that it isn’t a viable economic substitute…. then there’s no reason to ban/vandalize/oppose the product now, is there?

        Sure, it may not be a silver bullet as it exists today; but there’s no reason development of the product couldn’t result in a far more commercially successful one in the near future.

      3. They’ve licensed it for humanitarian use in “Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries” because it helps attack anti-GMO activists (according to its creator)

        The *rice* is a weapon being used to “attack” poor, innocent, helpless anti-GMO activists?

        are you serious?

        1. No, the licensing program is a weapon being used to attack anti-GMO activists. It allows GMO manufacturers to portray opponents of their profitable GMO lines as evil babykillers who’re denying starving kids access to lifesaving golden rice technology that they’re giving away for free, whilst being so restricted as to be useless for actually helping those kids because they don’t want to actually give it away for free just in case there’s money to be made. Very few of the LIFDC countries that are eligible to grow golden rice can grow rice, and imports and exports are not allowed. So until the GMO firms somehow figure out a way to make money from selling golden rice to poor, nutritionally-deprived families it’s locked away behind patents that mean they can’t access it anyway no matter what Greenpeace do.

      4. Nobody is planning to charge a premium for it.

  11. If anyone is interested, the one charity I still contribute to is Helen Keller International. Their fund raising budget is relatively low and they’re rated pretty good for what they do, things which include distributing vitamin A around the world.

    1. You give to charity, yeah right. Not fifteen minutes ago I read that libertarians are just mean spirited I-got-mine-and-fuck-everyone-else Republicans. Charity, my ass.

  12. To my surprise, it was actually covered in the WaPo.

    Mainstream media seems to vacillate on GMOs depending on the story.

    They generally have some vested interest in perpetuating perceived Boogeymen whenever they think a particular misconception is widespread enough. Its the old story of, “THE DEMON LURKING IN YOUR KITCHEN CABINET!! YOUR HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS ARE SLOWLY KILLING YOU”, updated for the modern day.

    But they’ll grant that the science is actually on the side of the pro-GMO side …. once for every 3 scare-stories, maybe. Its their version of ‘even-handedness’. Compared to how they treat climate change, its downright ‘dispassionate & objective’

    1. GMO Flowchart for Reporters

      Are GMOs bad? –> Can you mention Monstanto? Yes –> GMOs are bad ; No –> GMOs are probably OK

    2. The comments on the WaPo article should make the antis embarrassed, but that’s asking too much.

      1. We put new drugs through rigorous tests before we inflict them on patients…

        If you’re *inflicting* drugs on patients, the testing regime is the least of your problems.

      2. Pretty sure the most vocal anti-GMO ‘Jamie’ on that board is actually a Greenpeace member. That, or they are a 10 year old child sick at home. I can’t tell.

    3. “But they’ll grant that the science is actually on the side of the pro-GMO side”

      But people’s food preferences are not on the pro-GMO side. If they were those who include GMO food in their products would proudly proclaim it on their labels, rather than avoiding the issue. Same with this yellow rice. If consumers wanted it, they would buy it. Isn’t this how Libertarians expect markets to work? Or do scientists have some sort of veto on consumer preferences?

      1. Can they buy it if it’s not commercially available? Just curious.

        1. Maybe on the yellow rice black market. Point is they don’t want to buy it. They have other preferences.

          1. “Point is they don’t want to buy it. They have other preferences.”

            Yeah, blind and dead kids are preferred by Asians, ’cause they’re dumb, right trueman?

            1. White rice doesn’t impair vision. You’ve misunderstood the article.

              1. mtrueman|6.29.16 @ 4:10PM|#
                “You’ve misunderstood the article.”

                I’ll just let this stay here.

      2. Rich country: We have a shipment of yellow rice here that should feed 100,000 people.
        Poor country: We don’t like yellow rice, it’s yucky. We’d rather starve.
        Rich country: OK, bye.

        This is the scenario that plays out every day.

        1. “We’d rather starve.’

          You’ve misunderstood. They’d rather eat white rice. Because they prefer it. Is that such a difficult concept?

          1. “You’ve misunderstood. They’d rather eat white rice. Because they prefer it. Is that such a difficult concept?”

            No, you’ve once again been caught bullshitting.

            1. Tell us how eating white rice damages vision in children.

              1. mtrueman|6.29.16 @ 4:11PM|#
                “Tell us how eating white rice damages vision in children.”

                You’ll have to find someone making that claim; I’m not.

                1. “I’m not.”

                  Nice to hear it. Carry on.

                  1. mtrueman|6.29.16 @ 4:31PM|#
                    “Nice to hear it. Carry on.”

                    Nice to read you can’t read. Carry on.

  13. I can’t tell if Bailey is supporting this letter or not, but legal arguments aside, isn’t the moral argument the same as that being pushed against climate-change-deniers? That by opposing X, they’re morally responsible for the consequence of !X?

    1. The GMO science is settled in a far different manner from climate science.

      GMO: safe, good for people, good for environment, increased yields and reduced framing land. The only politics involved is back-to-earth primitives like Greenpeace who see all new tech as evil, while happy to live with most old tech.

      AGW: the only consensus (which is really just common sense) is that human pollution (CO2, particulates, freon, whatever) affects the environment. What is NOT settled is how much, what timescale, if mitigation is possible, etc; and the politics involved is the worst kind of nanny posturing possible, full of economic illiterates who assume the worst and demand a return to hunter gather society as mitigation.

    2. I don’t think the Laureates have the power to lock people up in rape cages. If you are relating publicity campaign to a faux Rico cause, you just may be a retard.

      1. As I said, I wasn’t comparing the legal arguments, I was comparing the moral argument.

    3. I can’t tell if Bailey is supporting this letter or not,

      When was it necessary for a writer to inform you of their personal endorsement (or lack thereof) of the events they report?

      That’s like the inverse of Robbyism. Normally people are telling him to STFU and stop saying whether things are “OKAY/NOT OKAY”. Now you’re moaning because you’re not being told what to think?

      Isn’t the moral argument the same as that being pushed against climate-change-deniers? That by opposing X, they’re morally responsible for the consequence of !X?

      Maybe the form of it has some similarity, but i don’t think they’re comparable for obvious reasons = There is absolutely no doubt that health outcomes would be improved if Golden Rice were more widely available. The negative consequences are real and tangible.

      By contrast = climate change “critics” (*deniers is a scare-word which attempts to associate AGW with the holocaust, which insults people’s intelligence) aren’t responsible for ANY outcomes whatsoever regardless of whatever policies they stymie.

      Because even if you assume the worst forecasts of Catestrophic AGW are true…. there’s absolutely no action, no matter how drastic that any government on earth could take that would have any effect on climate outcomes whatsoever. Even if the US and EU cut their emissions to Zero overnight, China et al’s future output would still make that effectively meaningless.

      1. When was it necessary for a writer to inform you of their personal endorsement (or lack thereof) of the events they report?
        It’s not. But with how often people ’round here assume that reporting on something means supporting something, a disclaimer that I wasn’t making that assumption seems prudent.

        As to the rest… you’re arguing the specifics of the cases. You are, of course, free to do so, but I was not and don’t intend to.

        1. People ’round here assume that reporting on something means supporting something

          Actually the opposite is more frequently the case = people get irritated by the injection of “value judgement” when its completely unnecessary.

          you’re arguing the specifics of the cases.

          i’m pointing out its a stupid comparison. the consequences in one scenario are predictable, immediate and tangible; there are in fact “no consequences” of the other scenario you suggest because no policy would have any material effect regardless.

          If there was some insight I’m overlooking, highlight it

  14. Darn! After all the effort I went to making a list of suggestions to complete the statement in the previous version of the article!

    …allowing thousands of deaths per year.
    …anti nuclear agitations.
    …being anti-science.
    …being anti-technology.
    …being irrational.
    …being underhand.
    …colonialism.
    …committing a crime against humanity.
    …defending foreign interests.
    …”disinformation” and taking a “fundamentalist” approach.
    …exaggerating the extent of environmental hazards.
    …failing to respond to the more complex issues of the 21st century.
    …fraud.
    …greenwashing.
    …illegal activities.
    …lying.
    …mindless vandalism and taking the law into their own hands.
    …”money laundering.”.
    …piracy.
    …scaremongering.
    …selling out to companies.
    …supporting the “anti-GMO eco-terrorists.”
    …terrorism, genocide.

    1. More pirates would substantially cut down on global warming.

  15. Silly Nobel Laureates. They should just try to get some AGs to file fraud charges. Much more effective.

  16. Why do these Nobel laureates not see that this is part of the plan.By banning G.M.O.’s,D.D.T. ,oil,gas and coal the brown hoards will die off in large numbers.Throw in Melinda Gates and her birth control crusade and you have the perfect way of eliminating the unwashed masses.It’s a better plan then ‘he who can not be named’.

    1. You know who else Could Not Be Named?

    2. In fairness, DDT has reduced effectiveness for every generation of ‘bugger’ that is exposed to it.

      Of course, if it hasn’t ever been used over there it would still retain the same potency there that it had in the U.S. during the heyday of it’s use. So, probably a good idea to give them at least a little respite from their current disease hole.

      1. if it hasn’t ever been used over there

        It has been used over there. Quite extensively. This is just one of those right-wing memes that refuses to die.

  17. Actually, Greenpeace and other anti-biotech activists such as Naomi Klein and Vandana Shiva have long surpassed that threshold.

    I’m sure that some highly motivated AGs will go after them for committing fraud.

    Any minute now.

    1. Woodchippers are bad because they convert trees to CO2-releasing rot.

  18. 50 people in a nightclub die. Progressives: “We must do something!!!”

    250,000 people in Asia die. Progressives: “Meh.”

  19. Greenpeace’s anti-nuclear crusade is one of the biggest the reasons why we have a CO2 problem today. If we continued on the path we were on and achieved the same percentage of nuclear as France, we would have less than half the CO2 emissions from power production.

    1. I bring this up every chance I get. The response from people who aren’t immediately anti-nuclear is still something like “When nuclear goes wrong, it goes really wrong.”

      But even that is not accurate. The biggest civilian nuclear disaster in the US killed zero people. The biggest civilian nuclear disaster of the last 20 years killed zero people.

    2. No,you must understand,there are cars and planes and big trucks ships and cows.We must eliminate them all.We’ll need plenty of AR’15’s to kill off the cows.Should be fun.

      1. Oh George, not the livestock!

        1. He’ll live in constant sorrow, all through his days.

          1. They’s not even old timey!

      2. +1 battlecattle

  20. It’s about time.

    Even though it’s something the average Reason reader has known for quite some time.

    Environmentalist policy have a terrible impact on poverty.

    But what does the guy driving a Tesla care, right?

  21. “Off with their heads”.

  22. Three things:

    A) I agree with the point of the article; developing countries could benefit from this technology. Everyone could, really.

    B) That doesn’t mean I give a shit what 100 Nobel laureates think. Recall Obama could have been one of them.

    C) From what I’ve heard, some bio engineered crops are engineered to have one generation. I’d love to hear if this ‘life saving’ technology needs to be repurchased every year to continue growing it.

    1. As to C, who the fuck cares. What matters is that it is cheaper and the way to get people what they need. Am on I Salon here where profits are evil?

      1. “What matters is that it is cheaper and the way to get people what they need.”

        When did it stop being about getting people what they want?

        1. m: Instead of ripping up fields, why not actually offer it to farmers and consumers and let them decide?

          1. ” let them decide?’

            If people want it badly enough, they will find a way and they will pay. Folks in the cocaine trade have it a lot tougher than the yellow rice people and they’ve managed to deliver for decades. That’s how markets work. When you try to introduce a product nobody is demanding, the market punishes you. Then you plant sob stories in the right wing press.

            If the little people have to decide on anything, let it be on a way to make vitamin A rich vegetables a more accessible dietary choice.

            1. mtrueman|6.30.16 @ 12:02AM|#
              “When you try to introduce a product nobody is demanding, the market punishes you. Then you plant sob stories in the right wing press. plant sob stories in the right wing press.”
              It would be nice to have that product introduced; we might find out whether it is in demand rather than lefty assholes (as you identify yourself) telling us it won’t be in demand. Right, lefty asshole?

              “If the little people have to decide on anything, let it be on a way to make vitamin A rich vegetables a more accessible dietary choice.”
              So lefty assholes have decided the ‘little people’ have to get their nutrition the way lefty assholes choose?
              Were you born a lefty asshole or did it take you long years of study to become one?

              1. ” we might find out whether it is in demand ”

                It’s not and it never has been. But with government funding, that’s the beauty. It doesn’t have to be. They’ll keep pushing because they know better. You are the leftist here. Even if you don’t eat vegetables on principle.

    2. “C) From what I’ve heard, some bio engineered crops are engineered to have one generation. I’d love to hear if this ‘life saving’ technology needs to be repurchased every year to continue growing it.”

      Most hybrids do not breed true; no farmer (except organic luddites) saves seed.

      1. Hybrid rice (not even bio-engineered) is like that already. You need two (or three in some cases, I don’t know all the details) parent lines to create the hybrids.

    3. I’m not against profits or I wouldn’t be here, but when you’re talking about a technology as a vehicle for saving human lives who also happen to be some of the most abjectly poor people in the world, yeah it starts to actually matter if you need to rebuy your entire seed crop every year. Especially since, presumably, you are eating the fruits of your labor and not selling it.

      Obviously, you could just give them the seeds every year. I don’t really care one way or the other necessarily, but since the point of the article seems to revolve around helping poor people perhaps that would be a salient point to mention.

      Hence, why I included it.

      I would naturally conclude that a group of people who are literally starving to death, or dying from malnutrition, might be the exact sort of people who would save seed. ‘Organic Luddites’ doesn’t really apply when you would happily eat anything. These aren’t Oregon Hipsters we’re talking about here, are they?

      1. There are quite a few charities who spend their time helping poor people cultivate crops. I have no doubt that they would include Golden Rice in their repertoire if they weren’t painted as knuckle-dragging savages (the irony, it burns) for doing so.

      2. “These aren’t Oregon Hipsters we’re talking about here, are they?”

        We talk about little else.

      3. BYODB|6.29.16 @ 2:27PM|#
        “I’m not against profits or I wouldn’t be here, but when you’re talking about a technology as a vehicle for saving human lives who also happen to be some of the most abjectly poor people in the world, yeah it starts to actually matter if you need to rebuy your entire seed crop every year.”

        That strawman needs an ambulance.

  23. “That’s blood on the hands of Greenpeace and the organizations they mobilize for support, not to mention Deniers for Hire like SourceWatch and US Right To Know who use their dark money funding to attack farmers and scientists.”
    http://acsh.org/news/2016/06/2…..lden-rice/

  24. Yet, when it comes AGW, Greenpeace and like minded low foreheads “fucking love science”. Apparently they only “fucking love science” when it aligns with their political agenda.

  25. Wow, pretty strong stuff from the Laureates!

  26. The laureates specifically demand that Greenpeace stop its attacks on Golden Rice[…]

    Oh, for fuck’s sake. What is it about the green movement you don’t understand, all of you ‘Nobel laureates’?

    The raison d’etre of the current green movement is to JUSTIFY the ABJECT POVERTY that Socialism creates everywhere it is implemented, as a FEATURE and not a BUG.

    Since the Marxian promise of abundance NEVER materialized, Socialists now want to peddle their idea as some sort of sacrifice to the god of nature. In essence you have a juxtaposition of socialism and paganism, which proselytizes on the basis of self-sacrifice in the name of saving Nature from humans, but it is all a big scam to impose socialism without the disappointments.

    1. There are millions of Asians who prefer eating white rice to yellow rice. They are not necessarily socialists. It’s just that they like white rice.

        1. They make that stuff in the kitchen. Where they cook. We’re talking about the market here. Where they buy and sell, overwhelmingly, white rice.

          1. mtrueman|6.29.16 @ 8:13PM|#
            “They make that stuff in the kitchen. Where they cook. We’re talking about the market here. Where they buy and sell, overwhelmingly, white rice.”

            We know this since trueman has run polls throughout Asia asking whether the people there would like white rice or dead/blind children.
            Right asshole?

            1. “Right asshole?”

              No, I’m a left asshole. But don’t tell anyone, ok?

              1. mtrueman|6.30.16 @ 12:06AM|#

                “Right asshole?”

                “No, I’m a left asshole. But don’t tell anyone, ok?”

                No, you’re an asshole, right, asshole?

                1. “No, you’re an asshole, right, asshole?”

                  Have I ever denied it? Worse still, I’m a child blinder.

    2. Since the Marxian promise of abundance NEVER materialized

      You idiots just aren’t doing it right. Here, let Frank Grimes BHO show you how it’s done.

    3. Why is it that lefties always view human beings as some sort of non-native invasive species. We evolved on this planet like every other species here.

      Next time a leftist makes thins kind of enviro-argument against me, I might just ask them: “so you don’t believe the theory of evolution is correct?”

      1. Because they look down their nose at the rest of humanity as cattle in need of caretaking, which conveniently necessitates giving geniuses like them god-like authority. Modern leftism is custom-made to appeal to the frustrated vanity of the speculative intellectual and theorist.

  27. You know who else killed millions of people?

    1. Cecil B. DeMille?

    2. Other socialists?

  28. Lefties fucking love science, except when it disagrees with their worldview. Then it’s just Big Pharma or Big Agro that’s purposely cooking the books.

  29. TOP. MEN. know what’s best for poor people. So what if it sounds like nutrition-based eugenics?

    1. What matters is that it is cheaper and the way to get people what they need.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.