107 Nobel laureates sign letter blasting Greenpeace over GMOs

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Plazma Inferno!, Jun 30, 2016.

  1. Plazma Inferno! Ding Ding Ding Ding Administrator

    More than 100 Nobel laureates have signed a letter urging Greenpeace to end its opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The letter asks Greenpeace to cease its efforts to block introduction of a genetically engineered strain of rice that supporters say could reduce Vitamin-A deficiencies causing blindness and death in children in the developing world.
    "We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against 'GMOs' in general and Golden Rice in particular," the letter states.
    The letter campaign was organized by Richard Roberts, chief scientific officer of New England Biolabs and, with Phillip Sharp, the winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for the discovery of genetic sequences known as introns.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    GMOs seems to be the liberals antiscience stance, similar to conservatives global warming denials.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Using Golden Rice as a wedge to eliminate prudence in the deployment of GMOs in general is a good, effective, marketing tactic. The downside of Golden Rice is obscure, and difficult to condense into a soundbite, and may not even be sufficient to impede its deployment in the eyes of a reasonable person - Greenpeace might easily be actually wrong in that matter. Meanwhile the economic costs of Golden Rice can be externalized easily, while the profits available via the piggybacked GMOs are banked by their developers. Win/win.

    The essential and central goal of the profiteers - to get all "GMOs" lumped together in the public eye, and voted up or down as one entity that is either good or bad - is apparently (judging by the posts on these science forums) all but accomplished.
    No. The logic of the situation - denial of risks run via massive and uncontrollable environmental manipulations in the process of creating economic dependency - is unfortunately parallel rather than reversed;

    the independent science is as always opposed to the corporate and industrial priorities, the false promises and empty reassurances and marketing misrepresentations are as usual being made or financed by those who hope to profit, and the denial of risk is coming from the same sources - the State and corporate powers that be, who are not at all heavily invested in Golden Rice or anything like it, but instead in quite different GMOs.

    Monsanto's role here is more or less equivalent to Exxon's role in climate change risk denial. The major difference would be the much greater deficit of knowledge/range of ignorance, partly due to the newness of the field, partly due to the much, much greater complexity of the many situations involved.
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    And it gets worse. I was kind of hoping this letter campaign had been misrepresented, the way that survey last year of 2000 scientists in Europe who signed a letter saying there was no evidence of direct medical harm to humans from eating food derived from Bt expressant or glyphosate resistant corn and beans was misrepresented as 2000 scientists asserting that "GMOs are safe".

    But no. These Nobel Laureates really are signing exactly what they are presented as signing. Here, for example, is a page from the website that organized this mess: http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/what-are-gmos_rjr.html

    That's really disappointing. That's deception, without the excuse of ignorance - lying, under cover of "science". And these are the folks taking Greenpeace to task for misleading rhetoric. Granted somebody should, but why not keep the basic integrity of "science" intact while doing so?
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2016

Share This Page