107 Nobel laureates sign letter blasting Greenpeace over GMOs

[Recursion]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/29/more-than-100-nobel-laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/

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. 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.

“We’re 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]

1. Greenpeace has it right. nt

[HERVEPA]

5. Not this time.

[HuckleB]

23. No, it does not.

[Drahthaardogs]

30. NO they don't.

99% pure bullshit. GMOs are a good thing.

[HuckleB]

33. Greenpeace couldn't be more wrong if it tried.

https://storify.com/mem_somerville/nobel-award-winners-ask-greenpeace-to-stand-on-sci

[Albertoo]

51. On this, Greenpeace is .. bananas

[Act_of_Reparation]

2. This is the part where some mouthbreather says 107 nobel laureates are taking money from Monsanto.

Saw how this movie ends.

[HuckleB]

45. That has been their basic response.

It's sad and funny, but mostly sad.

[MohRokTah]

3. FINALLY, Science is fighting back against the pseudoscientific piffle of the anti-GMO morons! eom

[blogslut]

4. I'm not against GMOs.

What I'm against is the proprietary bullshit that prevents farmers from seed saving.

[Coventina]

7. Agreed. I'm not against GMOs per se, but I DO oppose a lot of the business practices that accompany

them.

[Humanist_Activist]

9. Those business practices predate the introduction of GMOs, sometimes by decades, so what...

you really oppose is agribusiness, not GMOs.

[Coventina]

11. Fair point, but I think the GMO issue has exacerbated the situation. n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

13. Not really, and part of it is biology, a lot of crops are hybrids(not GMOs), and to save time...

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]

15. As humans, we certainly have got ourselves into a pickle, I agree.

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]

16. The issue is that GMOs can be environmentally friendly, and seed saving counterproductive...

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]

17. You seem to be ascribing to me a bunch of opinions that I don't have and have not expressed.

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]

18. That is true, and I apologize about ascribing such opinions to you, call it a prejudice...

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]

19. Agreed. GMOs are part of a constellation of things we need to work on.

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]

20. Yeah, what I really can't stand are those who discard the tools we have because they...

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]

24. That has nothing to do with GMOs.

It's the modus operandi for all types of seeds.

And few farmers would want to save seeds, anyway.

[Major Nikon]

31. It's just another anti-GMO talking point that has been shot down numerous times

Most farmers weren't saving seeds before GMO, but suddenly afterward it becomes a huge issue.

[roody]

6. So glad that Greenpeace is effective and influential.

[Humanist_Activist]

10. So that they can help increase suffering in the world? So they can halt and hinder scientific...

progress?

[roody]

21. Yeah, sure....

[Humanist_Activist]

22. What is the basis for the opposition then? n/t

[HuckleB]

26. "Effecive influence," apparently.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

8. K&R for science and reason!

I love it when science trumps pseudo-science.

[HuckleB]

27. Science has to work so much harder than pseudoscience.

[Rex]

12. Can't argue with 107 NPP winners.

I like Greenpeace and their overall cause, but using FUD to get money is what Evangelicals do.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. You certainly can.

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. Indeed. Though considering that this is a fair percentage of NP winners, ...

... and considering the relation the majority of their fields have with the topic, it would very odd, if they were to be wrong.

[Rex]

38. Have at it, I bet you lose.

Easy money imo.

[RAFisher]

14. It's very hard to argue with especially after looking at the breakdown of which category they won:

Medicine - 41
Chemistry - 33
Physics - 25
Economics - 8
Literature - 1
Peace - 1

http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/view-signatures_rjr.html

[HuckleB]

57. Nah, all you have to do is scream, "Shills!"

[HuckleB]

25. A plea to Greenpeace by Mark Lynas

http://www.marklynas.org/2016/06/a-plea-to-greenpeace/

[Meldread]

28. Good. The Left must aggressively go after ALL anti-science Luddites within our midst.

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]

29. Greenpeace’s Colonialist Ambitions

https://risk-monger.com/2016/07/01/the-nobel-savage-greenpeaces-colonialist-ambitions/

"...

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 NGO’s 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]

32. What a world without GMOs would look like.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/the-plate/2016/06/what-would-a-world-without-gmos-look-like-/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fbp20160630plate-gmos&utm_campaign=Content&sf29995470=1

[Nye Bevan]

36. The anti-GMO brigade has a lot in common with the anti-vaccination crowd (nt)

[HuckleB]

37. Fictions galore.

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]

39. It's kind of a goofy letter:

From the letter:

How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a "crime against humanity"?

[Recursion]

40. Wow... you find malnutrition deaths "goofy"?

Wow. Just.... I have no words.

[Chathamization]

41. I find gross hyperbole goofy. Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that Green Peace has

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]

42. You might want to look further into the history of Greenpeace on this issue.

It's not pretty.

http://www.economist.com/node/1337197

[Chathamization]

47. It doesn't look like Greenpeace was responsible for Zambia's decision, so I'm not sure what your

point is.

[HuckleB]

48. "Responsible."

In other words, you choose to ignore the fact that Greenpeace has advocated for the indefensible with a lame use of terminology.

[Chathamization]

49. "Greenpeace has since published a letter that it sent African governments at the time encouraging

them to accept food aid despite fears that genetically modified seeds would 'pollute' local seedstock." Who's ignoring which facts now?

[HuckleB]

53. Much too late, and Greenpeace still lied about non-existent "fears."

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]

54. So you have no evidence that Greenpeace had any influence on Zambia's decision

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]

55. If you want to ignore the evidence, you can go ahead and do so.

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]

58. Again, do you have any evidence showing Greenpeace influenced Zambia's decision, or that Zambia's

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]

59. Again, you keep ignoring the evidence. That's your choice.

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]

60. None of the links you posted even make those claims, which is why you haven't quoted from them

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:

On the basis of this European environmentalist initiated fear, African countries like Zambia and Zimbabwe have rejected GMO food aid during famines.

And all the mention of Greenpeace on the link:

For example, how Greenpeace wants to deny Golden Rice to those at risk of Vitamin A Deficiency (merely for their anti-GMO dogmatic purity) or how anti-industry groups want to stop global trade agreements (once again a source of Asia’s economic miracle).

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:

Please continue to ignore the evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington

[ananda]

43. All 100 so-called "scientists" are on the wrong end ..

.. of this stick, for sure.

Thank you, Greenpeace. Do not give up.

[HuckleB]

44. Go, Greenpeace! Keep ignoring science! Keep working to harm people and the planet!

Wait, what?



http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html

[YoungDemCA]

46. "So-called"?

[ProfessorGAC]

52. They Give The Nobel Prize in Medicine and Chemistry. . .

. . .to "so-called" scientists? When did that start?

[Act_of_Reparation]

56. Thank Jeebus you're around to keep track of who is and who is not really a scientist.

What's a "Nobel Prize" anyway?

[Odin2005]

50. The Green Movement has a really bad issue with knee-jerk Ludditism.

It's base is full of upper-middle class New-Age romantics.