I have to say this is likely the most intelligent conversation thread I have come across on this subject, and I have seen a few.
Here are a few thoughts which may find some resonance.
Golden Rice is the first significant GMO that is not designed to benefit the farmer - it is designed to benefit the consumer.
Until Golden Rice, seed companies developed GMOs which would be attractive to Farmers - by allowing them to plough less, use less pesticide, endure drought, resist disease and increase yield. Since all farmers operate on profit motive (pretty much like everyone else when it comes to their work) they buy the seeds which help ensure they do not go broke, and hopefully thrive.
This is why the CEO of Lululemons making an impolite statement causes a 15% drop in their stock price, but 1.5 million people marching in 600 cities calling for the death of Monsanto does not even budge their value or their revenue. Farmer are their ONLY customers, and farmers tend to be unimpressed by urban marches, buying the seeds they see as most profitable, even if they cost three times as much.
As well, the fact that the vast majority of urbanites are not really familiar with actual farming realities, it has been easier for NGO's and political forces to exagerate the danger, mobilize communities and raise funds and followers on the issue. There is no consequence for someone in the city to oppose GMOs, unlike cellphones, which also have a risk/benefit dynamic going on.
Golden Rice (and bananas) changes this conversation entirely, as now instead of being concerned with crop yields (Nobody in a city actually cares about this) the issue is the real blindness and death of millions of children in front of their parents who are doing their best to feed them. Everyone in the city cares about children.
So the Precautionary, Principle, when applied to Golden Rice, calls for comparing the risk of doing something ( permitting commercial cultivation) with the risk of not doing something (another 6,000 children dying each day)
Greenpeace's statement on the risk of Golden Rice is they are concerned about "unforeseen health and environmental problems". 'Unforeseen', of course meaning you cannot see it, and therefore do not know what it is or might be.
In their eyes that risk justifies blocking Golden Rice, which immediately ends vitamin A deficiency in whoever eats 60 grams a day of it. This has been proven beyond any doubt - lack of 150-year studies notwithstanding.
They say it is a quick-fix and that it costs too much money.
The WHO spends between 500 million and a billion dollars each year on vitamin A supplement programs. The entire Golden Rice development budget over 25 years has been 35 million dollars.
The seeds of Golden Rice are true and grow more Golden Rice - unlike vitamin pills which you need to come back with every week.
All farmers earning under $10,000/year will pay no royalty, so it will cost them ( virtually all the poor farmers in Asia and Africa) the same as normal rice. And the distribution is controlled by government and NGO organizations, so there is no corporate involvement.
Yet, it was ready for distribution in 2004, and only the political, legal and social activism of Greenpeace and other groups which hold a zero-tolerance position on all GMOs has blocked it.
There is only one difference between normal rice and Golden Rice and that is the presence of beta-carotene in the grain. Rice leaves are already full of beta-carotene but are inedible. So there is not even a new nutrient or element in Golcen Rice, just the corn gene that allows it to put the beta-carotene in the grain ( the same way it does in a corn plant)
I highly respect the statements about civil discourse above, and will do my best to say this without vilifying anyone: I have only encountered two underlying dynamics within the opponents of Golden Rice:
Either they lack the critical thinking capacity to grasp the science which confirms its safety, and concurrently believe the unsubstantiated claims about its danger and the unrealistic 'better ways' that should be done,
or,
they are cynical enough and lacking in compassion to the extent they think it is better to continue to deny families this cure, as long as GMO do not 'win'
After six months of campaigning to support Golden Rice I can report with certainty that 80% of the public understand the issue and immediately favor an exemption for Golden Rice on Humanitarian grounds. So we will see it in fields and the immediate drop in death from vitamin A deficiency that will accompany it.
I invite all conversation on this issue, either here or by email.
Many thanks,
Michael Moore
Executive Director
Allow Golden Rice Society
www.allowgoldenricenow.org
[email protected]
Golden Rice is the first significant GMO that is not designed to benefit the farmer - it is designed to benefit the consumer. Until Golden Rice, seed companies developed GMOs which would be attractive to Farmers - by allowing them to plough less, use less pesticide, endure drought, resist disease and increase yield. Since all farmers operate on profit motive (pretty much like everyone else when it comes to their work) they buy the seeds which help ensure they do not go broke, and hopefully thrive.
This is why the CEO of Lululemons making an impolite statement causes a 15% drop in their stock price, but 1.5 million people marching in 600 cities calling for the death of Monsanto does not even budge their value or their revenue. Farmer are their ONLY customers, and farmers tend to be unimpressed by urban marches, buying the seeds they see as most profitable, even if they cost three times as much.
As well, the fact that the vast majority of urbanites are not really familiar with actual farming realities, it has been easier for NGO's and political forces to exagerate the danger, mobilize communities and raise funds and followers on the issue. There is no consequence for someone in the city to oppose GMOs, unlike cellphones, which also have a risk/benefit dynamic going on.
Golden Rice (and bananas) changes this conversation entirely, as now instead of being concerned with crop yields (Nobody in a city actually cares about this) the issue is the real blindness and death of millions of children in front of their parents who are doing their best to feed them. Everyone in the city cares about children.
So the Precautionary, Principle, when applied to Golden Rice, calls for comparing the risk of doing something ( permitting commercial cultivation) with the risk of not doing something (another 6,000 children dying each day)
Greenpeace's statement on the risk of Golden Rice is they are concerned about "unforeseen health and environmental problems". 'Unforeseen', of course meaning you cannot see it, and therefore do not know what it is or might be.
In their eyes that risk justifies blocking Golden Rice, which immediately ends vitamin A deficiency in whoever eats 60 grams a day of it. This has been proven beyond any doubt - lack of 150-year studies notwithstanding.
They say it is a quick-fix and that it costs too much money.
The WHO spends between 500 million and a billion dollars each year on vitamin A supplement programs. The entire Golden Rice development budget over 25 years has been 35 million dollars.
The seeds of Golden Rice are true and grow more Golden Rice - unlike vitamin pills which you need to come back with every week.
All farmers earning under $10,000/year will pay no royalty, so it will cost them ( virtually all the poor farmers in Asia and Africa) the same as normal rice. And the distribution is controlled by government and NGO organizations, so there is no corporate involvement.
Yet, it was ready for distribution in 2004, and only the political, legal and social activism of Greenpeace and other groups which hold a zero-tolerance position on all GMOs has blocked it.
There is only one difference between normal rice and Golden Rice and that is the presence of beta-carotene in the grain. Rice leaves are already full of beta-carotene but are inedible. So there is not even a new nutrient or element in Golcen Rice, just the corn gene that allows it to put the beta-carotene in the grain ( the same way it does in a corn plant)
I highly respect the statements about civil discourse above, and will do my best to say this without vilifying anyone: I have only encountered two underlying dynamics within the opponents of Golden Rice: Either they lack the critical thinking capacity to grasp the science which confirms its safety, and concurrently believe the unsubstantiated claims about its danger and the unrealistic 'better ways' that should be done, or, they are cynical enough and lacking in compassion to the extent they think it is better to continue to deny families this cure, as long as GMO do not 'win'
After six months of campaigning to support Golden Rice I can report with certainty that 80% of the public understand the issue and immediately favor an exemption for Golden Rice on Humanitarian grounds. So we will see it in fields and the immediate drop in death from vitamin A deficiency that will accompany it.
I invite all conversation on this issue, either here or by email. Many thanks, Michael Moore Executive Director Allow Golden Rice Society www.allowgoldenricenow.org [email protected]