Pro-GMO Spin Masquerading as Science Courtesy of “Shameful White Men of Privilege”
July 1, 2016
Pro-GMO Spin Masquerading as Science Courtesy of Shameful White Men of Privilege
by Colin Todhunter
Unlike their predecessors, early 21st century missionaries do not come armed with bibles. They come as members of a scientific priesthood, spouting slick PR and are supported by the likes of Bill Gates, taxpayer aid and the global agritech cartel and rely on the leverage of international institutions like the World Bank, IMF and WTO.
More than 100 Nobel laureates have put their names to a letter urging Greenpeace to end its opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The letter asks Greenpeace to cease its efforts to block the introduction of genetically engineered Golden Rice, which supporters say could reduce vitamin-A deficiencies that cause blindness and death among children in the Global South.
The letter campaign has been organised by Sir Richard John Roberts, a biochemist and molecular biologist with New England Biolabs, and Phillip Sharp, winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize for the discovery of genetic sequences known as introns. The letter urges 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.
Roberts says that the signatories are scientists who understand the logic of science and that the attitude of Greenpeace towards GMOs is anti-science. He implies Greenpeace engages in scaremongering.
More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/01/pro-gmo-spin-masquerading-as-science-courtesy-of-shameful-white-men-of-privilege/
Zorro
(15,749 posts)Now Counterpunch author Colin Todhunter knows what he's talking about.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)The 107 Nobel laureates comprised one peace prize winner, eight economists, 24 physicists, 33 chemists and 41 doctors... mostly white men of privilege with little background in risk science, few with a background in toxicology studies, and certainly none with knowledge of the indigenous agroecological alternatives..."
Zorro
(15,749 posts)I'll go out on a limb here and assert that 107 Nobel Prize winners probably know a lot more about matters of science than a Counterpunch author.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 4, 2016, 12:17 AM - Edit history (1)
beyond a greater or lesser degree of rigor in the application of scientific methodologies.
The study of the merits or demerits of the application of GMO technology products in agriculture in human socieies lies precisely in the field of ('soft' science) social policy studies above most others.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)GMO activists not to blame for scientific challenges slowing introduction, study finds
By Gerry Everding June 2, 2016
Heralded on the cover of Time magazine in 2000 as a genetically modified (GMO) crop with the potential to save millions of lives in the Third World, Golden Rice is still years away from field introduction and even then, may fall short of lofty health benefits still cited regularly by GMO advocates, suggests a new study from Washington University in St. Louis.
Golden Rice is still not ready for the market, but we find little support for the common claim that environmental activists are responsible for stalling its introduction. GMO opponents have not been the problem, said lead author Glenn Stone, professor of anthropology and environmental studies in Arts & Sciences. (Emphasis added - k)
Golden Rice on Time cover
Proclaimed as a potential life saver 16 years ago on the cover of Time, Golden Rice may still be years away from approval.
...GMO proponents often claim that environmental groups such as Greenpeace should be blamed for slowing the introduction of Golden Rice and thus, prolonging the misery of poor people who suffer from Vitamin A deficiencies.
In a recent article in the journal Agriculture & Human Values, Stone and co-author Dominic Glover, a rice researcher at the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Sussex, find little evidence that anti-GMO activists are to blame for Golden Rices unfulfilled promises.
Washington University anthropologist Glenn Stone, shown here with an agricultural field agent, has studied rice cultivation and research in the Philippines since 2013. (Photo: Glenn Stone)
The rice simply has not been successful in test plots of the rice breeding institutes in the Philippines, where the leading research is being done, Stone said. It has not even been submitted for approval to the regulatory agency, the Philippine Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI).
....
https://source.wustl.edu/2016/06/genetically-modified-golden-rice-falls-short-lifesaving-promises/
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010. 39:381400
First published online as a Review in Advance on June 21, 2010
The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at anthro.annualreviews.org
This articles doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105058
Copyright c 2010 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
0084-6570/10/1021-0381$20.00
Glenn Davis Stone
Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130;
Abstract
By late in the twentieth century, scientists had succeeded in manipulating organisms at the genetic level, mainly by gene transfer. The major impact of this technology has been seen in the spread of geneti- cally modified (GM) crops, which has occurred with little controversy in some areas and with fierce controversy elsewhere. GM crops raise a very wide range of questions, and I address three areas of particular interest for anthropology and its allied fields. First are the political- economic aspects of GM, which include patenting of life forms and new relationships among agriculture, industry, and the academy. Sec- ond is the wide diversity in response and resistance to the technology. Third is the much-debated question of GM crops for the developing world. This analysis is approached first by determining what controls research agendas and then by evaluating actual impacts of crops to date.
http://pages.wustl.edu/files/pages/imce/stone/stone-annualreview-2010.pdf
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)and all it stands for.
I shall now keep an eye out for more by Colin Todhunter, extensively published independent writer and former social policy researcher based in the UK and India.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)in another thread, and he's not the whitest guy I've ever seen. The scientific consensus on GMOs is world wide, not just the white parts. The whitewashing by big organic of the scientific contributions by poc is despicable, in my opinion.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Casey Luskin decrying that "evolutionists" ignore evidence for Intelligent Design. It's utter hogwash. What are Colin's qualifications?
longship
(40,416 posts)Archae
(46,346 posts)A fundamentalist anti-GMO loon.
From Counterpunch:
Colin Todhunter is an extensively published independent writer and former social policy researcher based in the UK and India.
Pro-GMO Spin Masquerading as Science Courtesy of Shameful White Men of Privilege
July 1, 2016 by Colin Todhunter
Modi, Monsanto, Bayer and Cargill: Doing Business or Corporate Imperialism?
June 24, 2016 by Colin Todhunter
GMOs, Biggest Fraud in the History of Science
June 17, 2016 by Colin Todhunter
False Promises, Smears and Golden Rice: Is This the Solution for Disease, Poverty and Malnutrition?
June 9, 2016 by Colin Todhunter
On World Environment Day, Profiting from Death, Devastation and Destruction is the Norm
June 6, 2016 by Colin Todhunter
Countering Pro-GMO Deceptions in the British Press
June 3, 2016 by Colin Todhunter
The Unique Risks of GM Crops: Science Trumps PR, Fraud and Smear Campaigns
May 31, 2016 by Colin Todhunter
From Albrecht to Monsanto: A System Not Run for the Public Good Can Never Serve the Public Good
May 30, 2016 by Colin Todhunter
From the Green Revolution to GMOs: Living in the Shadow of Global Agribusiness
May 25, 2016 by Colin Todhunter
From the "Biggest Fraud" article:
The genetic engineering of the food supply is the biggest fraud in the history of science, according to Steven Druker, who provides firm evidence that governments and leading scientific institutions have systematically misrepresented the facts about GMOs.
Who is Steven Druker?
From the Maharishi Yogi's "college' (which is spetacularly UNaccredited) website:
Steven Druker Publishes Book on the Fraudulent Foundation of the GMO Food Venture
Maharishi International University founding faculty member Steven Druker just published an exposé titled Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public.
https://www.mum.edu/steven-druker-publishes-book-on-the-fraudulent-foundation-of-the-gmo-food-venture/
This is the same "college" that teaches a course in how to fly with your legs crossed.
Try again, next time find an actual writer, not a zealot who has as much credibility and is as fervent as Ken Ham.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)in these writings.
Archae
(46,346 posts)Would you accept a writer who constantly wrote articles about the "Climate Change Hoax" or "Evolution Hoax," using "science" from Liberty University?
Obviously, no.
But you accept articles from a writer who uses accusations from a nutcase fake "university."
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Agriculture and Human Values
pp 1-16
First online: 16 April 2016
Disembedding grain: Golden Rice, the Green Revolution, and heirloom seeds in the Philippines
Glenn Davis Stone , Dominic Glover
Abstract
Golden Rice has played a key role in arguments over genetically modified (GM) crops for many years. It is routinely depicted as a generic GM vitamin tablet in a generic plant bound for the global South. But the release of Golden Rice is on the horizon only in the Philippines, a country with a storied history and complicated present, and contested future for rice production and consumption.
The present paper corrects this blinkered view of Golden Rice through an analysis of three distinctive rice worlds of the Philippines: Green Revolution rice developed at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the 1960s, Golden Rice currently being bred at IRRI, and a scheme to promote and export traditional heirloom landrace rice.
More than mere seed types, these rices are at the centers of separate rice worlds with distinctive concepts of what the crop should be and how it should be produced. In contrast to the common productivist framework for comparing types of rice, this paper compares the rice worlds on the basis of geographical embeddedness, or the extent to which local agroecological context is valorized or nullified in the crops construction.
The Green Revolution spread generic, disembedded high-input seeds to replace locally adapted landraces as well as peasant attitudes and practices associated with them. The disembeddedness of Golden Rice that boosts its value as a public relations vehicle has also been the main impediment in it reaching farmers fields, as it has proved difficult to breed into varieties that grow well specifically in the Philippines.
Finally, and somewhat ironically, IRRI has recently undertaken research and promotion of heirloom seeds in collaboration with the export scheme.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-016-9696-1
Nitram
(22,879 posts)I stopped reading after the word "privilege." This is not a socio-economic issue, it is a scientific one. Unless you really don't get science, in which case it's a convenient fall-back position.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)"these rich white countries are trying to keep us backwards by trying to saddle us with these useless reservoirs of disease and savage hill people: we need to catch up with Europe!"