In 2016 a total of 158 Science Nobel Prize laureates (!) signed an open letter calling for #Greenpeace to stop anti-scientific hate campaign against #GMO and specifically Golden Rice. 250 million people suffer from vitamin A deficiency, which golden rice easily resolves.
https://www.supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate-gmo-letter_rjr.html
In 2021, Greenpeace again unrolls a campaign against Philipiness approval of Golden Rice 🤦♂️
Fortunately, I think asthe Golden Rice was *already* approved in Philippines, Greenpeace must have been bugging them through all the legislative process, as this is what they do. So this Greenpeace statement must have been addressed at their most fanatical donors, a kind of reluctant admission they've lost but they fought to the end.
@gritnot Their arguments against GMO changed over time, but in case of Golden Rice they argued the following:
* GR will "open doors" to more GMOs - a classic slippery slope fallacy
* GR could "contaminate" wild rice - so what?
* "industry is selling GR" - which is outright lie because GR specifically is non-commercial and royalty-free
* GR is "drawing funding and attention away from other projects" - while all other solutions to VAD failed
@gritnot By the way, on the food safety argument, exactly the opposite was observed - widespread adoption of Bt cotton and Bt maize resulted in *millions* less cases of pesticide poisoning and less cancer rates due to less mycotoxins.
@kravietz and I assume this rice doesn’t take up more resources than regular varieties so I guess the sustainability part is outout
Yes, in case if GR it's 1:1. On the other hand Bt brinjal (eggplant) has 80% larger yield due to lack of pest losses, so to get the same volume of final veg you need proportionally *less* arable land.
@kravietz was their argument against GMOs or sustainable farming? Is there something about Golden rice that isn’t sustainable?