"What Greenpeace is doing is damaging and is anti-science"

[catsmate]

110 Nobel laureates have called on Greenpeace to end it's opposition to genetically modified foods. The campaign was organised by Richard Roberts and Phillip Sharp and has been signed by more than 100 winners of the Nobel prizes.
The letter specifically asks Greenpeace to end it's attempt to block the introduction of a genetically engineered strain of rice ('Golden Rice') that could reduce vitamin-A deficiencies, which cause 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.

We’re scientists. We understand the logic of science. It's easy to see what Greenpeace is doing is damaging and is anti-science. 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.

Roberts said he endorses other activities of Greenpeace and said that he hopes the group, after reading the letter, would "admit that this is an issue that they got wrong and focus on the stuff that they do well".

I find it surprising that groups that are very supportive of science when it comes to global climate change, or even, for the most part, in the appreciation of the value of vaccination in preventing human disease, yet can be so dismissive of the general views of scientists when it comes to something as important as the world’s agricultural future.

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.
Greenpeace has spearheaded opposition to Golden Rice, which has the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which has the greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia.
The World Health Organization estimates that 250 million people, suffer from VAD, including 40 percent of the children under five in the developing world. Based on UNICEF statistics, a total of one to two million preventable deaths occur annually as a result of VAD, because it compromises the immune system, putting babies and children at great risk. VAD itself is the leading cause of childhood blindness globally affecting 250,000 - 500,000 children each year. Half die within 12 months of losing their eyesight.

They [Greenpeace] have misrepresented [GMOs] risks, benefits, and impacts, and supported the criminal destruction of approved field trials and research projects. How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a 'crime against humanity'?

We call upon governments of the world 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.

Thoughts? No doubt the usual suspects will be along soon enough to mutter darkly about "Big Pharma" and Monsanto but hopefully there'll be some space for rational debate.


Links.
Campaign website.
WashPo.
Science Alert.

 

[wobs]

Greenpeace is anti-science? In other news, water is wet.

 

[eerok]

It's a classic, even literal, example of people biting the hand that feeds them. Personally, without science (in the form of surgical intervention) I'd be dead long ago. I think that's true of many of us who've reached a certain age.

Anti-science attitudes are a fascinating form of paranoia. Science is the single human activity that can claim a degree of objectivity, but this doesn't protect it from the irrational maunderings of the lunatic fringe. I think the core thrust of skepticism is to try to stem the tide of science haters and their nonsense.

That being said, I doubt that any amount of reasonable argument will discourage the commitment of Greenpeace to their folly. Educating the public at large is the best hope, even if a faint one, because fear is perversely alluring even when demonstrably unfounded.

 

[marplots]

Is there a GMO version of green peas? Cause that would be sweet.

 

[theprestige]

I'd settle for seeing Greenpeace marginalized.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Is there a GMO version of green peas? Cause that would be sweet.

So, what you want is genetically altered legumes with reduced or delayed starch conversion?







It would be nice if Greenpeace were to grow up and use science but I'm not holding my breath. The kind of people who are drawn to Grenpeace are using irrational, emotional responses to the world; their "environmentalism" is a religion.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

>tfw golden rice will increase the reproductive fitness of these people in third world countries and in so doing ultimately mire them in even deeper poverty

 

[kookbreaker]

>tfw golden rice will increase the reproductive fitness of these people in third world countries and in so doing ultimately mire them in even deeper poverty

Not how it works.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

>tfw golden rice will increase the reproductive fitness of these people in third world countries and in so doing ultimately mire them in even deeper poverty

That's all part of the plan. Those Who Shall Be Eaten Last hide their cruel plot behind a facade of "liberalism," but the strategic end goal is to increase the quality and quantity of human population such that when Cthulhu rises he will eat a bunch of brown people, be sated, and go back to sleep.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

Not how it works.

I know it's not the intent. It's just the more likely outcome.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

dat Jevons paradox tho

 

[crescent]

I tend to think of myself as an environmentalist - a good part of my career has been focused on the protection and recovery of rare and endangered species.

That said, many of the national and international level environmental groups engage in deeply counter-productive strategies. Opposition to GMO is one, opposition to Nuclear power is another.

These groups might have a net benefit overall, as they have been at the forefront of a lot of legislation that protects natural resources through land management designations, oceanic fisheries management and pollution control. But we could have had a much greater reduction in atmospheric carbon output were it not for the opposition to nuclear power.

 

[Ziggurat]

I know it's not the intent. It's just the more likely outcome.

No, it isn't the likely outcome. Vitamin A deficiency kills a lot of people, but it hurts orders of magnitude more. The people it hurts are not prevented from reproducing, but their productivity is damaged, often permanently. A blind person who must be cared for is a far greater burden on an economy than an extra healthy person who can work. The benefits to poor countries from reduced illness associated with vitamin A deficiency will far exceed the extra burden of slightly increased population.

 

[Prokhor Zakharov]

I'll bet those blind folks have fewer children on average (especially if male)

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I tend to think of myself as an environmentalist - a good part of my career has been focused on the protection and recovery of rare and endangered species.

That said, many of the national and international level environmental groups engage in deeply counter-productive strategies. Opposition to GMO is one, opposition to Nuclear power is another.

These groups might have a net benefit overall, as they have been at the forefront of a lot of legislation that protects natural resources through land management designations, oceanic fisheries management and pollution control. But we could have had a much greater reduction in atmospheric carbon output were it not for the opposition to nuclear power.

 

[fuelair]

Greenpeace has never been on my list of trustworthy organizations.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'll bet those blind folks have fewer children on average (especially if male)

But their parents might have more, because one of their children was blinded.

And again, the numbers of people harmed by vitamin A deficiency is much larger than the number who are fully blinded.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Greenpeace has never been on my list of trustworthy organizations.

They would be my go-to source for scoring a dime bag in the middle of the pacific. I'd trust them for that.

 

[FenerFan]

It's a classic, even literal, example of people biting the hand that feeds them. Personally, without science (in the form of surgical intervention) I'd be dead long ago. I think that's true of many of us who've reached a certain age.

Anti-science attitudes are a fascinating form of paranoia. Science is the single human activity that can claim a degree of objectivity, but this doesn't protect it from the irrational maunderings of the lunatic fringe. I think the core thrust of skepticism is to try to stem the tide of science haters and their nonsense.
That being said, I doubt that any amount of reasonable argument will discourage the commitment of Greenpeace to their folly. Educating the public at large is the best hope, even if a faint one, because fear is perversely alluring even when demonstrably unfounded.

 

[William Parcher]

This is what happens when whale populations rebound and become robust again. Greenpeace must find other wars to wage and so they do.