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/
= new reply since forum marked as read
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 Rice’s 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. 39:381–400
First published online as a Review in Advance on June 21, 2010
The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at anthro.annualreviews.org
This article’s 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
