Greenpeace's Crime Against Humanity

[carepov]

With protests and banners in front of the famous Rainbow Warrior, Greenpeace is getting a taste of their own medicine.

The issue is that Greenpeace is opposing Golden Rice, here is their position:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/Greenpeace-and-Golden-Rice/#2

Here are the arguments of the pro-Golden Rice advocates - led by Patrick Moore:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/by-opposing-golden-rice-greenpeace-defies-its-own-values-and-harms-children/article14742332/

http://www.allowgoldenricenow.org/

Who to believe? One example:

GP says:

“Despite all the hype surrounding GE 'Golden' rice, it still remains unproven whether daily consumption of GE 'Golden' rice would actually improve the vitamin A status of people who are deficient (2).”

Moore says:

“This, along with studies on human uptake of beta-carotene from Golden Rice, now provides proof Golden Rice will be effective in preventing vitamin A deficiency with a cup of rice per day.19”

I believe Moore and call on all Greenpeace supporters to withdraw their support and to ask the Greenpeace to change their position on Golden Rice.

Edited November 8, 2013 by carepov

[Keepitsimple]

Reminds me of the eco-nut led ban on DDT in Africa that directly caused the malarial deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions. The GP ideology calls for fewer people - and helping people to avoid starving is an inconvenience to their dubious cause.

[Boges]

This is the same type of dogma that people find abhorrent in the Catholic church where they refuse to sanction any contraception even in the face of an AIDS epidemic.

Technology can help improve the quality of life of people in poorer countries, this is a perfect example. What's the harm in providing this food to people other than some dogmatic opposition to GMOs.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Boges

[TimG]

This is the same type of dogma that people find abhorrent in the Catholic church where they refuse to sanction any contraception even in the face of an AIDS epidemic.

The parallel is apt. The ideology of Greenpeace and other environmental organizations is really just a religion with all the dogma and none of the god stuff. Edited November 8, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

Who to believe? One example:

GP says: “Despite all the hype surrounding GE 'Golden' rice, it still remains unproven whether daily consumption of GE 'Golden' rice would actually improve the vitamin A status of people who are deficient.”

Moore says: “This, along with studies on human uptake of beta-carotene from Golden Rice, now provides proof Golden Rice will be effective in preventing vitamin A deficiency with a cup of rice per day.”

I believe Moore and call on all Greenpeace supporters to withdraw their support and to ask the Greenpeace to change their position on Golden Rice.

interesting you don't elaborate on your belief... the reasons for your decision. One is left to presume you're simply predisposed to believe the corporate huckster, Patrick Moore. You bought it, Moore's shtick, big time! Moore's main play is self-serving publicity borne off his purposeful targeting of "evil enviros"... anything for the corporate buck, hey Moore... hey carepov, Simple, Boges, TimG! Peas in a pod

of course, why bother to actually check anything out... especially when your cut&paste parroting is so much easier.

a simple check with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), the institute overseeing Golden Rice trials, would have saved you from your big-time fail: Clarifying recent news about Golden Rice

(Feb-2013) ...it has not yet been determined whether daily consumption of Golden Rice does improve the vitamin A status of people who are vitamin A deficient and could therefore reduce related conditions such as night blindness. If Golden Rice is approved by national regulators, Helen Keller International and university partners will conduct a controlled community study to ascertain if eating Golden Rice every day improves vitamin A status.

In short, Golden Rice will only be made available broadly to farmers and consumers in the Philippines if it is approved by national regulators and shown to reduce vitamin A deficiency in community conditions. This process may take another two years or more.

since you purposely target Greenpeace with your Moore parroting... to the point of carrying that Moore written article title to this OP, the least you could have done would have been to target... directly target, and (attempt to) refute, the actual Greenpeace statement/position. Hah, what a concept!

.

[carepov]

interesting you don't elaborate on your belief... the reasons for your decision. One is left to presume you're simply predisposed to believe the corporate huckster, Patrick Moore. You bought it, Moore's shtick, big time! Moore's main play is self-serving publicity borne off his purposeful targeting of "evil enviros"... anything for the corporate buck, hey Moore... hey carepov, Simple, Boges, TimG! Peas in a pod

How about, at least on this thread, we all "play the ball and not the person"?

of course, why bother to actually check anything out... especially when your cut&paste parroting is so much easier.

Please do not assume that I post everything thatI research and all the reasons for my belief - I prefer to keep my posts concise.

directly target, and (attempt to) refute, the actual Greenpeace statement/position. Hah, what a concept!.

Why would you (and Greenpeace) omit the sentence leading up to your quote obove?

"It’s true that human nutrition research indicates that the beta carotene in Golden Rice is readily converted to vitamin A in the body, providing encouraging evidence that eating Golden Rice could help reduce vitamin A deficiency."

http://www.irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12483:clarifying-recent-news-about-golden-rice〈=en

This study is one example that proves Vitamin A from Golden Rice is absorbed in to the body: http://www.goldenrice.org/PDFs/GR_bioavailability_AJCN2012.pdf

If Vitamin A is absorbed into the body, it is reasonable to assume that it would cure Vitamin A defficiency.

[waldo]

How about, at least on this thread, we all "play the ball and not the person"?

Please do not assume that I post everything thatI research and all the reasons for my belief - I prefer to keep my posts concise.

and what were you playing when you, without substantiation, claimed your belief in... the person... Patrick Moore?

say what? Your declared "conciseness" certainly afforded you the "brevity" to completely set-up the Greenpeace vs. Moore narrative... and your parroting of Moore's "Crime Against Humanity" labeling! Was that more of you... "playing the ball"? But somehow, you couldn't manage another sentence or two to provide the rationale/foundation for your "ball playing"!

Why would you (and Greenpeace) omit the sentence leading up to your quote obove?

"It’s true that human nutrition research indicates that the beta carotene in Golden Rice is readily converted to vitamin A in the body, providing encouraging evidence that eating Golden Rice could help reduce vitamin A deficiency."

http://www.irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12483:clarifying-recent-news-about-golden-rice〈=en

nice one! Let's have a look at your "playing the ball". In one sentence you make an implication against me... and... you attach that implication to, as you state, "me (and Greenpeace)". I haven't a clue as to what your direct reference to Greenpeace is, in this regard, but... uhhh... nice ball play there, hey! Of course, you simply provide the same link I initially provided. Your implication is that I, while providing the direct link and quoting from it, withheld something pertinent. Somehow, you actually think the sentence you quote trumps the summary quotation I provided??? Again, this summary quotation:

a simple check with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), the institute overseeing Golden Rice trials, would have saved you from your big-time fail: Clarifying recent news about Golden Rice

(Feb-2013) ...it has not yet been determined whether daily consumption of Golden Rice does improve the vitamin A status of people who are vitamin A deficient and could therefore reduce related conditions such as night blindness. If Golden Rice is approved by national regulators, Helen Keller International and university partners will conduct a controlled community study to ascertain if eating Golden Rice every day improves vitamin A status.

In short, Golden Rice will only be made available broadly to farmers and consumers in the Philippines if it is approved by national regulators and shown to reduce vitamin A deficiency in community conditions. This process may take another two years or more.

This study is one example that proves Vitamin A from Golden Rice is absorbed in to the body: http://www.goldenrice.org/PDFs/GR_bioavailability_AJCN2012.pdf

If Vitamin A is absorbed into the body, it is reasonable to assume that it would cure Vitamin A defficiency.

proof? Clearly, you can't stand up to the waldo's crack research team! But then again, your linked study is certainly "proving" your ball playing, hey! (by the by, unless your purview is limited to the isolated view/position of Patrick Moore, how could you not know of the controversy surrounding your linked study???... a controversy that may ultimately have the Journal recall the paper).

Golden Rice Not So Golden for Tufts

A study in which Chinese children were fed a small amount of genetically modified rice violated university and U.S. federal rules on human research, according to a statement issued yesterday by Tufts University in Boston, whose scientists led the study. Tufts has barred the principal investigator, Guangwen Tang, from doing human research for 2 years and will require her to undergo training in research on human subjects.

But the IRB concluded that there were a number of problems in the way Tang conducted the study. For instance, she provided "insufficient evidence" that the study "was reviewed and approved by an Ethics Review Board in China in accordance with prevailing standards." It also found that some of the consent forms had not been obtained before the trial started, and there was "some evidence that the dates on some consent forms were changed and that other consent forms may have been inappropriately signed."

Tang also made some unauthorized changes to the study protocol after obtaining permission, the IRB concluded; for instance, the participation of research team members from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention was not described in the protocol, and eight subjects were recruited to an unapproved "placebo" arm. Tufts, in its letter to OHRP, characterized Tang's actions as constituting "serious and continuing non-compliance with federal regulations" and with Tufts IRB policy.

Tang is not the only one in the crosshairs. The external panel criticized Tufts' IRB for having failed to verify that there were ethics panels in place in China equipped to review the study, and whether they actually reviewed and approved the trial. The IRB should also have ensured that the informed consent form for parents explicitly stated that the rice is the product of genetic engineering.

The Tufts statement and the letters don't mention the role of Robert Russell, the last author of the paper and a renowned nutrition researcher. Russell, now retired, was the head of the Tufts-USDA lab at the time the study was conducted. Although he helped design the trial, Russell tells ScienceInsider that he had little to do with how it was carried out, was not present at the study site in China, and does not speak Chinese. The paper lists him as "the study physician," but he was only available for "long-distance consultation" if problems emerged, he says.

.

[waldo]

I would think a "real ball player" would adjust the thread title to more properly... and accurately... reflect positions/history/status.

[carepov]

Of course, you simply provide the same link I initially provided. Your implication is that I, while providing the direct link and quoting from it, withheld something pertinent. Somehow, you actually think the sentence you quote trumps the summary quotation I provided???

OK, let's look at the entire quote again:

"It’s true that human nutrition research indicates that the beta carotene in Golden Rice is readily converted to vitamin A in the body, providing encouraging evidence that eating Golden Rice could help reduce vitamin A deficiency.

However, it has not yet been determined whether daily consumption of Golden Rice does improve the vitamin A status of people who are vitamin A deficient and could therefore reduce related conditions such as night blindness. If Golden Rice is approved by national regulators, Helen Keller International and university partners will conduct a controlled community study to ascertain if eating Golden Rice every day improves vitamin A status.

In short, Golden Rice will only be made available broadly to farmers and consumers in the Philippines if it is approved by national regulators and shown to reduce vitamin A deficiency in community conditions. This process may take another two years or more."

http://www.irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12483:clarifying-recent-news-about-golden-rice〈=en

To me, this statement says that, while there is still work to do, there is a good chance that Golden Rice will help reduce VAD. Do you agree?

[waldo]

To me, this statement says that, while there is still work to do, there is a good chance that Golden Rice will help reduce VAD. Do you agree?

nice! No proof, no determination, unfinished studies... and, according to your own "good chance" words, you (by parroting), declare a "Crime Against Humanity"! Well done, uhhh... "ball player"! Well done!

[carepov]

nice! No proof, no determination, unfinished studies... and, according to your own "good chance" words, you (by parroting), declare a "Crime Against Humanity"! Well done, uhhh... "ball player"! Well done!

Why don't you answer the question: Do you agree that the statement from the source that we both quoted says that there is a good chance that Golden Rice will help reduce VAD?

[waldo]

Why don't you answer the question: Do you agree that the statement from the source that we both quoted says that there is a good chance that Golden Rice will help reduce VAD?

no - per that same (complete) statement, you're at least 3 steps ahead... 3 steps outside and beyond your self-declared "ball playing". I note you haven't changed your thread title yet... is there a, as you say, "good chance" you'll do so? I also note you're not quite ready to engage and attempt to refute the actual Greenpeace statement. You know, bring forward something relevant and meaningful... something beyond your parroting of Moore... something beyond your failed study reference. C'mon, play the ball, playa!

[TimG]

Why don't you answer the question: Do you agree that the statement from the source that we both quoted says that there is a good chance that Golden Rice will help reduce VAD?

You may not be familiar with waldo's modus operendi: he latches onto an ambiguous phrase from a source that does not actually refute your proposition but it does not completely support it either. He keeps repeating that phrase over and over again and refuses to respond to attempts to look at the complete context of the phrase if looking at the complete context requires that he concede that he may have been wrong.

For my part although it is fun to shine a light on enviro hypocrisy the use of the phrase "crime against humanity" is over the top. The is the same debasing of the language that we see from people wanting to call the native residential schools program 'genocide'.

Edited November 9, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

You may not be familiar with waldo's modus operendi: he latches onto an ambiguous phrase from a source that does not actually refute your proposition but it does not completely support it either. He keeps repeating that phrase over and over again and refuses to respond to attempts to look at the complete context of the phrase if looking at the complete context requires that he concede that he may have been wrong.

no - there is no ambiguity, none whatsoever. The phrase "latched onto" was the summary assessment statement that clearly states, clearly refutes, the premise of this thread. I've repeated the summary assessment phasing twice now... would you like for a third time? Here, have another:

a simple check with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), the institute overseeing Golden Rice trials, would have saved you from your big-time fail: Clarifying recent news about Golden Rice

(Feb-2013) ...it has not yet been determined whether daily consumption of Golden Rice does improve the vitamin A status of people who are vitamin A deficient and could therefore reduce related conditions such as night blindness. If Golden Rice is approved by national regulators, Helen Keller International and university partners will conduct a controlled community study to ascertain if eating Golden Rice every day improves vitamin A status.

In short, Golden Rice will only be made available broadly to farmers and consumers in the Philippines if it is approved by national regulators and shown to reduce vitamin A deficiency in community conditions. This process may take another two years or more.

[carepov]

no - per that same (complete) statement, you're at least 3 steps ahead... 3 steps outside and beyond your self-declared "ball playing". I note you haven't changed your thread title yet... is there a, as you say, "good chance" you'll do so? I also note you're not quite ready to engage and attempt to refute the actual Greenpeace statement. You know, bring forward something relevant and meaningful... something beyond your parroting of Moore... something beyond your failed study reference. C'mon, play the ball, playa!

Sorry, I am having trouble understanding you. What does the statement:

"It’s true that human nutrition research indicates that the beta carotene in Golden Rice is readily converted to vitamin A in the body, providing encouraging evidence that eating Golden Rice could help reduce vitamin A deficiency."

mean to you then?

I will be happy to move on to other statements and arguments and go further into why I do think that the Grenpeace is committing a crime against humanity. I just think that it is important to estabish each of our's interpretation of statement because IRRI it is a source that both of of seem to find credible and I do not think that we will find many of these.

[carepov]

Here is a great blog entry from the IRRI:

http://irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12682%3Aseeing-clearly-golden-rice-and-climate-science〈=en

[waldo]

Sorry, I am having trouble understanding you. What does the statement:

you can hang your hat on whatever word you want... you apparently like the word "encouraging"! For some strange reason, the institute mandated to oversee the trials isn't quite prepared to stop at your level of acceptance. Apparently, as stated, the field trial must complete, the separate controlled community study must complete... and... the respective national regulators must approve it.

when will you change your thread title, ball-player, hey playa?

[carepov]

For my part although it is fun to shine a light on enviro hypocrisy the use of the phrase "crime against humanity" is over the top. The is the same debasing of the language that we see from people wanting to call the native residential schools program 'genocide'.

I am open minded to changing my stance and the thread title, but for now I stand behind it:

"For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health."

We believe that Greenpeace's actions during the past 14 years to prevent Golden Rice from being produced and reaching the millions of people who now suffer needlessly from vitamin A deficiency constitute a crime against humanity as defined by the Rome Statute.

There is no doubt that Greenpeace and its allies are largely if not entirely responsible for the opposition to Golden Rice that has effectively blocked its cultivation and delivery to the millions of people who suffer from vitamin A deficiency.

There is no doubt, given the results of clinical trials with animals, adult humans and children that Golden Rice is effective in delivering beta-carotene, the precursor to vitamin A, into human body at levels that will eliminate vitamin A deficiency.

There is no doubt that the continued lack of access to Golden Rice is resulting in "great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental and physical health" and that Greenpeace's actions are "intentional", that their campaign is "a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.""

http://www.allowgoldenricenow.org/crimes-against-humanity

[carepov]

you can hang your hat on whatever word you want... you apparently like the word "encouraging"! For some strange reason, the institute mandated to oversee the trials isn't quite prepared to stop at your level of acceptance. Apparently, as stated, the field trial must complete, the separate controlled community study must complete... and... the respective national regulators must approve it.

Are you in favour of conducting field trials for Golden Rice?

[waldo]

Here is a great blog entry from the IRRI:

sorry, that blog entry is predicated on, as stated and linked to within the blog entry... the same failed study you tried to trot out earlier. Try again... and change your thread title, hey!

[waldo]

I am open minded to changing my stance and the thread title, but for now I stand behind it:

"For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means .....

right... direct from your favoured corporate huckster, Patrick Moore!

[TimG]

I am open minded to changing my stance and the thread title, but for now I stand behind it:

This is same overly clever word parsing that the providing-education-is-genocide crowd uses. "crimes against humanity" carries a connotation that associates it with massacres, child soldiers, systematic rape etc. i.e. something which would be crime no matter what and is made worse by its wide spread use. Opposing the use of a helpful foodstuff causes great harm but it does not rise to the level of a "crime". The Catholic Church opposition to birth control is a better analogy.

We could use a word to describe the harm caused "i-have-a-right-to-impose-my-morality-on-others" types. But calling it a crime is a distraction.

Edited November 10, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

This is same overly clever word parsing that the providing-education-is-genocide crowd uses.

We could use a word to describe the harm caused "i-have-a-right-to-impose-my-morality-on-others" types. But calling it a crime is a distraction.

considering the OP took the thread title directly from your "enviro hunter", Patrick Moore's linked article, that's mighty big of you!

[carepov]

sorry, that blog entry is predicated on, as stated and linked to within the blog entry... the same failed study you tried to trot out earlier. Try again... and change your thread title, hey!

I had a chance to read your earlier link you used to claim that the Tang study "failed".

http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2013/09/golden-rice-not-so-golden-tufts

Yes you are correct there were issues regarding the study, but:

"The reviews found no evidence of health or safety problems in the children fed golden rice; they also concluded that the study’s data were scientifically accurate and valid."

"German plant scientist Ingo Potrykus, who developed the first golden rice variety in the 1990s, says the controversy should not deflect attention from the study's outcome. "The study has shown that golden rice is a very effective source of vitamin A," says Potrykus, who is retired and lives in Switzerland. "That's what's most important.""

you apparently like the word "encouraging"! .... Apparently, as stated, the field trial must complete, the separate controlled community study must complete... and... the respective national regulators must approve it.

When it comes to reducing VAD and preventing blindness and deaths in children you are damn right that I like the word "encouraging". Again I ask, what is your opinion: Are you in favour of conducting field trials for Golden Rice?

[carepov]

We could use a word to describe the harm caused "i-have-a-right-to-impose-my-morality-on-others" types. But calling it a crime is a distraction.

I respectfully disagree. Delaying and preventing the widespread use of Golden Rice has unnecessarily allowed VAD affect millions of children. This is a crime.