General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums107 Nobel laureates sign letter blasting Greenpeace over GMOs
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/29/more-than-100-nobel-laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/"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. The campaign has a website, supportprecisionagriculture.org, that includes a running list of the signatories, and the group plans to hold a news conference Thursday morning at the National Press Club in Washington.
Were scientists. We understand the logic of science. It's easy to see what Greenpeace is doing is damaging and is anti-science," Roberts told The Washington Post. Greenpeace initially, and then some of their allies, deliberately went out of their way to scare people. It was a way for them to raise money for their cause."
bananas
(27,509 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)99% pure bullshit. GMOs are a good thing.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Saw how this movie ends.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's sad and funny, but mostly sad.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)blogslut
(38,002 posts)What I'm against is the proprietary bullshit that prevents farmers from seed saving.
Coventina
(27,121 posts)them.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)you really oppose is agribusiness, not GMOs.
Coventina
(27,121 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)money and to maximize yield per acre, its counterproductive to "save seeds" because the seeds you save won't be exactly like what you planted the previous year. It wouldn't be nearly as predictable nor as efficient as buying seeds from seed companies. Now you could argue this, and mono-culture, are the problem with modern agriculture, but, to put it simply, its necessary to feed the world that we live in.
Coventina
(27,121 posts)I do not advocate for starving millions or billions of people to bring our population back in balance.
BUT, I would hope that those same scientists would also agree that we need to have a serious discussion about the long-term health of the planet and bringing the population into balance with that, or, we will reach a point that no amount of GMOs are going to save us. There's only so much arable land on this planet, after all.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)rather than lament the time when oxen driven plows, plowed the fields, we need to focus on using technology to minimize inputs(use of pesticides and fertilizers, labor and machinery) while maximizing outputs(yields). This is where, for example, organic farming fails, due to the nature of said farming practices, they produce a lot less food per acre than more conventional methods, while also relying on more labor intensive or even chemically intensive methods to control pests and weeds. Sometimes even opting for more toxic pesticides than those that aren't approved for organic farming like Copper Sulfate.
The thing is this idea of "balance" is a complete and utter fiction, farming is the most environmentally destructive act humans have every done, and, for once, we might actually be able to reduce the need for so much land. Instead we have people claim they want to be "one with nature" by buying organic produce that was produced using practices that are, overall, more environmentally destructive than conventional methods. Its getting ridiculous.
Coventina
(27,121 posts)All I said was that a lot of crappy practices are done by agribusiness in general, and connected to GMOs in particular.
I recognize the importance of GMOs and plant husbandry in general throughout human history.
However, there is a limited carrying capacity of this planet, and from everything scientific I've read, we are rapidly about to exceed that, to the detriment of not just our own species, but every other one we share this planet with.
GMOs are part of the solution, but they are not magic bullet, either.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)generally speaking, whenever I encounter GMO "skeptics", they usually share such opinions and add a bunch of conspiracy theory nonsense on top of it. Call it defensive preempting of BS I encounter on such topics.
The thing is, we aren't sure what the actual carrying capacity is, but generally speaking, GMOs aren't necessarily a solution to that, but rather one method to help mitigate some of the environmental damage agriculture does. I would say that advocating for women's equitable access to education, social and legal equality, and access to medical care are what will help most in reducing the exploding population on this planet. Better economic stability will also help a great deal, as well as poverty elimination programs.
Coventina
(27,121 posts)And, you're spot on about the role of women.
In EVERY case so far, the education and liberation of women directly impact the birth rate. The effects are measurable in the first generation. Your other factors are extremely important as well.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)make them "uncomfortable" and that is really what the issue is. Had someone tell me straight up that he opposes GMOs because he doesn't want fish DNA in his tomatoes. That particular product doesn't exist, but its exclusively the "ick" factor, and is completely irrational.
I mean, in this case, we are talking about tackling one acute problem, Vitamin A deficiency in parts of the developing world. These are people that, by and large, get enough calories to survive, but not enough Vitamin A to prevent deficiency problems, such as blindness and even death.
Now, supplement programs help, but require good, preexisting infrastructure to have a large impact, and distribution has been inadequate. Fortifying programs would also help, if there is enough infrastructure and distribution available, which there is not. So some scientists came up with an idea to supplement and replace staple crops in certain areas of the world with crops modified to overproduce beta-carotene, hopefully enough to provide the population with the much needed Vitamin A they require in their diet. The problem is, particularly with Golden Rice, is two fold. Version 1 didn't produce enough beta-carotene, but was more a proof of concept, and because of Greenpeace and other misguided activists, the field trials for Version 2 have been inadequate, and the research slowed down, hampered and, in some cases, sabotaged.
Same resistance is also happening for beta carotene fortified Bananas that, hopefully will alleviate Vitamin A deficiency in Uganda. The opposition to it is just as ridiculous. Anti-GMO activists even protested the trial to test whether the bananas increase Vitamin A in the body, which was conducted at an American university. Think about how stupid that is. Not even safety(they know its safe) but testing the effectiveness of a GMO banana, apparently that get too far.
This is one area where I think GMOs can be a literal lifesaver, yet we have ignorant people who fear science and hence hamper progress.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's the modus operandi for all types of seeds.
And few farmers would want to save seeds, anyway.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Most farmers weren't saving seeds before GMO, but suddenly afterward it becomes a huge issue.
roody
(10,849 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)progress?
roody
(10,849 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)I love it when science trumps pseudo-science.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I like Greenpeace and their overall cause, but using FUD to get money is what Evangelicals do.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)There are a lot of nobel prize winners, some with some deeply regrettable views.
In this case I think they're right, but I would be far less perturbed by a letter from 107 nobel prize winners disagreeing with me than I would be by, say, a poll showing that 80% of experts in the area did.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... and considering the relation the majority of their fields have with the topic, it would very odd, if they were to be wrong.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Easy money imo.
RAFisher
(466 posts)Medicine - 41
Chemistry - 33
Physics - 25
Economics - 8
Literature - 1
Peace - 1
http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/view-signatures_rjr.html
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Meldread
(4,213 posts)There is no room on the Left for anti-science nonsense. We must always be aggressively in support of the facts, the evidence, and scientific advancement. Let the anti-science crowd join their allies on the right.
I think it is legitimate to attack business practices, and have a debate around that. However, there should be zero room for spreading anti-scientific nonsense.
On the right we have the climate change deniers and the anti-stem cell folks. On the left we have the anti-vaxers and the anti-GMO folks. They are two sides of the same anti-scientific coin, and both need to be actively purged from our politics. They are actively responsible for killing people all around the world. Those of us on the Left are anti-War out of concern for the lives of the innocent. However, we sit by and allow these people to cause the death and suffering of millions upon millions--numbers that would make even the most genocidal warlord blush.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)"...
Why is this happening now given that the activist campaigning has been going on for almost two decades? In recent months NGOs have expanded a myth that Golden Rice does not work, is dangerous and that NGO campaigns are not responsible for the delays in developing the technology. Seeing how NGOs can take a debunked article and turn it into a successful social media campaign (Glyphosate 101), scientists felt the need to speak out.
So how did Greenpeace respond when faced with such a scientific slap on the face? Did they acknowledge the eminence of the scientists and take the evidence the Nobel laureates presented into consideration? Did they express regret for the loss of life from Vitamin A Deficiency? Did they request a meeting or conference to discuss the issue and present their own research on how ecological farming will transform impoverished countries and solve malnutrition?
Come on now! This is Greenpeace: the most arrogant and egotistical assembly of zealots history has ever had the horror to have witnessed! On the day that the Nobel laureates presented their letter, Greenpeace released a scathing response accusing industry of overhyping Golden Rice for global approval, reinforcing the anti-GMO myth that the technology does not work and continued to push their alternative of ecological agriculture (farming with no inputs or technologies whatsoever). The NGOs four citations were to a biased news article, an undocumented and unattributed hearsay from IRRI and two to their own reports against Golden Rice. Talk about defending their scientific credentials! Greenpeace also retweeted an article in Ecowatch where the head of the Organic Consumers Association, Ronnie Cummins, declared that all of the Nobel Laureates were paid by Monsanto! Argumentum ad Monsantium!
This is classic Age of Stupid behaviour. Greenpeace is not engaging in debate with the leading scientific minds. They present neither facts nor evidence but rather attempt to cast doubt and undermine trust. They were responding to their tribe, sayng what their followers wanted to hear and disregarding the rest. But their tribe is getting marginalised: good leaders will continue to abandon the NGO; funding will decline (2015 financial statements showed yet another dramatic increase in fundraising expenses) and the mainstream public will continue to consider Greenpeace as an obstacle to progress and technology.
..."
The list of Greenpeace colonization activities is stunning. Check it out.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Over on the OP, where an organic funded organization wrote a piece attacking Monsanto for pushing information via a similar organization, there are posts claiming Monsanto sues farmers for having Monsanto seeds blown onto their land, and all the usual bizarro world, long debunked nonsense. The same posters keep posting the same claims, and they have to know they're not true. It's truly bizarre.
And it's disturbing to see a DU OP pushing organic industry propaganda get 34 likes, while an OP about 110 Nobel Laureates standing up for science gets a whopping eight. WTF?
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)From the letter:
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Wow. Just.... I have no words.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)caused malnutrition deaths? Or anything that could come close to being called a "crime against humanity"? That's a pretty serious claim, and I'd hope the people making that would have evidence to back it up. Especially those claiming to speak on behalf of science.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's not pretty.
http://www.economist.com/node/1337197
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)point is.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)In other words, you choose to ignore the fact that Greenpeace has advocated for the indefensible with a lame use of terminology.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)them to accept food aid despite fears that genetically modified seeds would 'pollute' local seedstock." Who's ignoring which facts now?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It has continued to lobby African governments with misinformation about GMOs, as well.
And it learned nothing from the incident.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/26/golden_rice_attack_in_philippines_anti_gmo_activists_lie_about_protest_and.html
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)And it looks like it specifically didn't in this case, if Zambia rejected their suggestion to accept GMO foods. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by these kinds of fact free arguments. Do you have any evidence that Zambia's rejection of GMO food caused problems?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)No one cares. It's you who you have to live with...
I care about people and the planet, so I don't work to ignore ugly acts that harm people and the planet.
http://www.foodinsight.org/purdue-study-economics-no-gmo-biotech
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)rejection of GMO foods caused problems? If you do, you really should share it instead of just making various claims and then calling them evidence without providing facts.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Pretending that things are different than they are seems quite silly, however.
https://risk-monger.com/2016/06/08/how-to-starve-africa-ask-the-european-green-party/
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)I suppose. I mean, it's one thing to be posting links from websites that don't provide any evidence for the claims, but these links aren't even making those claims.
Here's the only time Zambia was mentioned in your last link:
And all the mention of Greenpeace on the link:
Even if you wanted to abuse the term evidence to the point where you think any claim made by someone on risk-monger.com is evidence that something is true (even if they don't provide any, you know, facts), they're not even making the claim that Zambia's decision was because of Greenpeace or that it contributed negatively to the famine.
I have to assume that this kind of avoidance is tacit admission that you have zero evidence that Greenpeace was responsible for decision made by the government of Zambia, and that likewise, you have zero evidence that the rejection of GMO aid had a negative impact on the famine.
Eagerly awaiting your next post consisting of misusing the word evidence and posting a non-sequitur link:
ananda
(28,866 posts).. of this stick, for sure.
Thank you, Greenpeace. Do not give up.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)ProfessorGAC
(65,061 posts). . .to "so-called" scientists? When did that start?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)What's a "Nobel Prize" anyway?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)It's base is full of upper-middle class New-Age romantics.