Greenpeace's Crime Against Humanity

[TimG]

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

In Canadian law can you give me an example of a criminal offense where the people committing the offence are not only completely unaware that they are committing a crime but would reject the notion that they have committed a crime? I can only think of some special cases like Latimer where he believed he was not committing a crime but the courts disagreed. Edited November 10, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

In Canadian law can you give me an example of a criminal offense where the people committing the offence are not only completely unaware that they are committing a crime but would reject the notion that they have committed a crime? I can only think of some special cases like Latimer where he believed he was not committing a crime but the courts disagreed.

I'm not sure that I catch your drift, but I'll try:

Criminal negligance causing death.

Failing to provide the necesseties of life.

[waldo]

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

yes - the study failed... and the expectation is the Journal that published it, will recall it. The study is tainted... who could trust the underlying process/methodology given the over-riding problems noted - you don't get to separate one from the other. The lack of control/rigor over the Chinese labs/personnel, if nothing else, seriously affects the credibility of any of the results. More pointedly, the community study facet needs to be performed by an independent source, as a separate undertaking; in that regard, that's exactly why the IRRI overseeing the referenced Philippine trials (that I referred to) intends to rely on, "Helen Keller International and university partners to conduct a controlled community study to ascertain if eating Golden Rice every day improves vitamin A status".

as I said earlier in the thread, you are completely predisposed to blindly accepting anything the corporate huckster Moore states and you overtly parrot his "Crimes Against Humanity" alarmism. Moore holds up Greenpeace as his target based on, as he claims, "Greenpeace holding a position against GM outright, Greenpeace holding a position against Golden Rice in particular, Greenpeace disparaging scientists working in GM... and that Greenpeace actively supported the destruction of plants within a Golden Rice field trial". He then presents this hodge-podge of numbers that somehow allows him to arrive at an 8 million figure of deaths that he wants to attribute to Greenpeace activism. Out of all of this, Moore comes up with his "Crimes Against Humanity" labeling, and as I read, doing so without presenting any definitive links/ties between any level of activism, Greenpeace or other, thwarting progress in GM Golden Rice research/trials. He holds up the same failed study you trotted out, as an example of Greenpeace activism against Golden Rice - say what! In a weasel word manner, Moore uses Greenpeace's GMO position to imply it supported the destruction of plants within a field trial... although nothing, as I'm aware, has been shown to tie Greenpeace directly to that event.

I note you haven't changed your thread title yet...

[waldo]

When it comes to reducing VAD and preventing blindness and deaths in children you are damn right that I like the word "encouraging".

'damn right'??? It's too bad your emotional attachment doesn't afford you a clear perspective... you have leveraged that "encouraging" to presume on absolute and definitive findings.

[waldo]

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

care to qualify and quantify your broadly attached "delay and prevention" to activism at large, and in particular, measure out the particular attribution level/percentage of that qualification/quantification you attribute to Greenpeace? Clearly, corporate huckster Moore wasn't prepared to do that... perhaps you can pick up for him, hey?

[carepov]

yes - the study failed... and the expectation is the Journal that published it, will recall it. The study is tainted... who could trust the underlying process/methodology given the over-riding problems noted - you don't get to separate one from the other.

And yet your very own source did exactly that - while there were some issues with the methodology the technical conclusions are sound.

More pointedly, the community study facet needs to be performed by an independent source, as a separate undertaking; in that regard, that's exactly why the IRRI overseeing the referenced Philippine trials (that I referred to) intends to rely on, "Helen Keller International and university partners to conduct a controlled community study to ascertain if eating Golden Rice every day improves vitamin A status".

So, for the third time, what is your position, waldo? Do you agree that further work should go into the development of Golden Rice?

[waldo]

And yet your very own source did exactly that - while there were some issues with the methodology the technical conclusions are sound.

So, for the third time, what is your position, waldo? Do you agree that further work should go into the development of Golden Rice?

no - you referenced dated blog comments; again, the study is tainted... you don't get to selectively pull pieces out of it just to suit your personal agenda. You also completely ignore the repeated statements provided to you that highlight requirements to ensure verification, authentication of any field trial/community study. Those certainly didn't exist in that failed study.

you can quell your junkyard dog act... I hold certain reservations/uncertainties concerning GMO, as much tied to the much profiled negative industry/corporate influences... principally driven by the antics of Monsanto in California. Your parroting of Patrick Moore's campaign doesn't help; either does your continuing to pump that wholly unethical failed study. In any case, I also note you refuse to take up the repeated challenge put to you; to address the Greenpeace position/alternatives concerning vitamin A deficiency. Even if you hold a pro-GM stance, there was nothing preventing industry/corporate ties... or Patrick Moore for that matter, as an interim measure working towards "proving out Golden Rice", from also financing the distribution of vitamin supplements to targeted areas. You know... to help alleviate your pumped up "crime against humanity" bleat!

also I'll note that you chose to completely ignore the following most recent challenge put to you... of course you do. Taking up that challenge would mean you'd actually have to stand up and support your thread title... which you now appear to be doubling down on.

care to qualify and quantify your broadly attached "delay and prevention" to activism at large, and in particular, measure out the particular attribution level/percentage of that qualification/quantification you attribute to Greenpeace? Clearly, corporate huckster Moore wasn't prepared to do that... perhaps you can pick up for him, hey?

[TimG]

Criminal negligence causing death.

Failing to provide the necessities of life.

'Criminal negligence causing death' is a well understood and accepted crime when someone is directly responsible for a death (i.e. driving while drunk). The only time this charge would be in the grey area is when there is no direct link between the death and the individual (i.e. a bar tender serves a drink to someone that drives drunk) but it is also hard to convict in these cases.

Failing to provide the necessities of life is a well known crime but not well understood. I am guessing that the majority of people charged do not believe they are being charged for doing something that was "good" in their minds (i.e. they know they did not provide what their kids needed but seek to excuse any lapse rather than claim they did nothing wrong).

My point is a crime is where people are 'directly responsible for the harm'. Harms where you have multiple simultaneous causes are not crimes. i.e. doing something that was one factor among many that led to death of someone is not a crime. Even if you could establish that the delay of golden rice was a direct cause of deaths the people who should be charged with criminal negligence are the politicians that blocked the use - not the NGOs that lobbied them. The link is not strong enough to make it a crime.

Another analogy: the nazis are everyone's favorite war criminals, however, they did not operate in a vacuum. Are the people who provided political support to Hilter in the 30s guilty of war crimes or does that designation only apply to the people who actually carried out the acts?

Edited November 11, 2013 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

Wow, this ought to be called the misinformation thread - so much nonsense all together. I need an extra-large shovel to debunk this pile of crap. Below is a perfect example.

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.

How many myths can you find in two short sentences? Let's take a look.

Was DDT banned in Africa? No. In fact, its use continues today in many African countries. The Stockholm convention bans DDT for agricultural use, not malaria control

If there was no ban, why has the use of DDT declined?

Spraying programs (especially using DDT) were curtailed due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation, but mostly because mosquitoes were developing resistance to DDT.^[28] Efforts shifted from spraying to the use of bednets impregnated with insecticides and other interventions.^[29][30]

Would millions of lives have been saved if DDT usage were continued at high levels? No, the effectiveness of this poison was already declining due to resistance.

In 1955, the World Health Organization commenced a program to eradicate malaria worldwide, relying largely on DDT. The program was initially highly successful, eliminating the disease in "Taiwan, much of the Caribbean, the Balkans, parts of northern Africa, the northern region of Australia, and a large swath of the South Pacific"^[26] and dramatically reducing mortality in Sri Lanka and India.^[27] However widespread agricultural use led to resistant insect populations. In many areas, early victories partially or completely reversed, and in some cases rates of transmission even increased.^[28]

IS DDT safe? NO

DDT is a persistent organic pollutant (POP). In contaminated soil, it has a half life of 15-20 years. It breaks down slowly in the body and accumulates over time. It is genotoxic (causes genetic damage), linked to diabetes and is classified by the EPA as a probable carcinogen.

Does the GP ideology call for fewer people?

That statement is so offensive and idiotic, I won't bother responding. WTF is a GP ideology?

Edited November 11, 2013 by ReeferMadness

[ReeferMadness]

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

carepov, you accusation that Greenpeace is guilty of crimes against humanity is so inane, the word ridiculous seems like much too mild of an adjective.

Greenpeace has no ability to control the use of golden rice or anything else. They haven't tried to prevent people from getting Vitamin A, they've only advocated for more natural sources.

What you call crimes against humanity is actually freedom of speech.

[carepov]

'Criminal negligence causing death' is a well understood and accepted crime when someone is directly responsible for a death (i.e. driving while drunk). The only time this charge would be in the grey area is when there is no direct link between the death and the individual (i.e. a bar tender serves a drink to someone that drives drunk) but it is also hard to convict in these cases.

Failing to provide the necessities of life is a well known crime but not well understood. I am guessing that the majority of people charged do not believe they are being charged for doing something that was "good" in their minds (i.e. they know they did not provide what their kids needed but seek to excuse any lapse rather than claim they did nothing wrong).

My point is a crime is where people are 'directly responsible for the harm'. Harms where you have multiple simultaneous causes are not crimes. i.e. doing something that was one factor among many that led to death of someone is not a crime. Even if you could establish that the delay of golden rice was a direct cause of deaths the people who should be charged with criminal negligence are the politicians that blocked the use - not the NGOs that lobbied them. The link is not strong enough to make it a crime.

Another analogy: the nazis are everyone's favorite war criminals, however, they did not operate in a vacuum. Are the people who provided political support to Hilter in the 30s guilty of war crimes or does that designation only apply to the people who actually carried out the acts?

I see your points but still do not agree.

I do not agree either with your Nazi analogy, however opponenets of Golden Rice today are more like Nazi supporters in the 40's not the 30's. But again - I would never have brought up this analogy and I do not agree with it.

The best analogy I can think of is that of Jehova's Witnessess that oppose blood transfutions.

[carepov]

carepov, you accusation that Greenpeace is guilty of crimes against humanity is so inane, the word ridiculous seems like much too mild of an adjective.

Greenpeace has no ability to control the use of golden rice or anything else. They haven't tried to prevent people from getting Vitamin A, they've only advocated for more natural sources.

What you call crimes against humanity is actually freedom of speech.

Greenpeace is speading lies that prevent Golden Rice from reaching children that need vitamin A.

"Freedom of speach" has its limits.

[ReeferMadness]

Greenpeace is speading lies that prevent Golden Rice from reaching children that need vitamin A.

"Freedom of speach" has its limits.

It's not a lie, it's a difference of views. The long term effects of GMO's has yet to be established and there are other cost-effective ways of getting Vitamin A.

[ReeferMadness]

I'm not sure that I catch your drift, but I'll try:

Criminal negligance causing death.

Failing to provide the necesseties of life.

When you find a lawyer who will support your contention that what Greenpeace has done falls into any criminal category, let us know. Until then, this is just hyperbole.

Edited November 11, 2013 by ReeferMadness

[TimG]

The best analogy I can think of is that of Jehova's Witnessess that oppose blood transfutions.

Last I checked Jehova's Witnessess who tell their fellow followers to reject transfusions are guilty of no crime. Even parents who refuse transfusions are not charged with a crime although the state will intervene to protect the child. Edited November 11, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

It's not a lie, it's a difference of views. The long term effects of GMO's has yet to be established and there are other cost-effective ways of getting Vitamin A.

"'Golden' rice is environmentally irresponsible, poses risks to human health, and could compromise food, nutrition and financial security."

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

Lies.

"If the rice gains the Philippine government’s approval, it will cost no more than other rice for poor farmers, who will be free to save seeds and replant them, Dr. Barry said. It has no known allergens or toxins, and the new proteins produced by the rice have been shown to break down quickly in simulated gastric fluid, as required by World Health Organization guidelines. A mouse feeding study is under way in a laboratory in the United States. The potential that the Golden Rice would cross-pollinate with other varieties, sometimes called “genetic contamination,” has been studied and found to be limited, because rice is typically self-pollinated. And its production of beta carotene does not appear to provide a competitive advantage — or disadvantage — that could affect the survival of wild varieties with which it might mix."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/sunday-review/golden-rice-lifesaver.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

What could be more "cost-effective" than free?

[carepov]

Last I checked Jehova's Witnessess who tell their fellow followers to reject transfusions are guilty of no crime. Even parents who refuse transfusions are not charged with a crime although the state will intervene to protect the child.

When you find a lawyer who will support your contention that what Greenpeace has done falls into any criminal category, let us know. Until then, this is just hyperbole.

IMO, the purposeful obstruction of life-saving solutions is criminal.

Edited November 11, 2013 by carepov

[carepov]

no - you referenced dated blog comments; again, the study is tainted... you don't get to selectively pull pieces out of it just to suit your personal agenda. You also completely ignore the repeated statements provided to you that highlight requirements to ensure verification, authentication of any field trial/community study. Those certainly didn't exist in that failed study.

Look waldo, you are the one that is selectively pulling out pieces. All I did was to follow-up on your sources and show that your claims are untrue:

You claimed that Golden Rice is a technical failure:

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

"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."

Do you stand behind the IRRI as a valid source of information?

***

Then you claimed repeatedly that the study that showns that beta carotene is taken into the body was "failed" and therefore invalid. Again, the quote below is your own source.

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

"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."

Edited November 11, 2013 by carepov

[TimG]

IMO, the purposeful obstruction of life-saving solutions is criminal.

IMO the need for free speech trumps any such considerations. As soon as you start saying that words are criminal you create a slippery slope that will inevitably result in the loss of the right to dissent because there is too much room for subjective judgement the words "purposeful obstruction". Edited November 11, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

IMO the need for free speech trumps any such considerations. As soon as you start saying that words are criminal you create a slippery slope that will inevitably result in the loss of the right to dissent because there is too much room for subjective judgement the words "purposeful obstruction".

IMO, the right to life and health of children suffering VAD should not be "trumped".

[waldo]

Look waldo, you are the one that is selectively pulling out pieces. All I did was to follow-up on your sources and show that your claims are untrue

You claimed that Golden Rice is a technical failure:

look carepov, in this regard, you can't read, can't comprehend, can't logically evaluate... and you're making shyte up!

what I claimed is the paper is flawed. What I stated is you can't selectively piecemeal it, to presume to have it meet your predisposition. Aside from the raft of ethical and regulation problems within the trial, the lead author acknowledged she fabricated documents. This is a serious breech of scientific conduct drawing critical suspicion/comment on the trial methodology and results.

Critics note that discrepancies remain over the full details of the trial. For instance, the CDC's investigation revealed that the children ate Golden Rice just once during the study — and not lunch every day during the three-week study as the paper states.

“How much Golden Rice did the children have exactly?” asks Wang Zheng, a policy researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Policy and Management in Beijing. “Either the researchers are lying about this now or they lied about it in their paper. It’s a serious offence either way.”

I note you haven't changed your thread title yet... I note you continue to ignore this direct challenge to you:

care to qualify and quantify your broadly attached "delay and prevention" to activism at large, and in particular, measure out the particular attribution level/percentage of that qualification/quantification you attribute to Greenpeace? Clearly, corporate huckster Moore wasn't prepared to do that... perhaps you can pick up for him, hey?

.

[carepov]

what I claimed is the paper is flawed.

While I have agreed all along that there were flaws in the study. You said:

... the same failed study ...

yes - the study failed... and the expectation is the Journal that published it, will recall it.

As per your own source, the technical conclusions are sound - β-carotene is converted to the vitamin once ingested. Do you agree with this conclusion?

[carepov]

care to qualify and quantify your broadly attached "delay and prevention" to activism at large, and in particular, measure out the particular attribution level/percentage of that qualification/quantification you attribute to Greenpeace?

IMO, a significant percentage of those children blinded and dyeing each year would have been saved if it were not for Greenpeace's opposition to Golden Rice.

***

If proved efficacious and once approved by the regulatory bodies, HKI would proceed to include Golden Rice in their VAD combatting toolbox. According to HKI 190 million pre-school children and 19 million pregnant women are currently vitamin A deficient. Each year, an estimated 670,000 children will die from VAD, and 350,000 will go blind. In the Philippines, approximately 1.7 million children aged 6 months to 5 years and an additional three out of every ten school-aged children have VAD, as do one out of every five pregnant and lactating mothers.

http://www.goldenrice.org/

http://www.goldenrice.org/Content3-Why/why1_vad.php

"The body converts beta carotene in Golden Rice to vitamin A as it is needed. According to research published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2009, daily consumption of a very modest amount of Golden Rice – about a cup (or around 150 g uncooked weight) – could supply 50% of the Recommended Daily Allowance of vitamin A for an adult."

http://irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=10227〈=en

"HKI firmly believes that there is no single magic bullet solution for vitamin A deficiency, and views Golden Rice as a potential additional intervention that could be used in combination with other existing proven vitamin A strategies, including the promotion of optimal breastfeeding, vitamin A supplementation, large-scale food fortification, home fortification with micronutrient powders, dietary diversity, and agricultural measures including homestead food production (HFP) and the cultivation and consumption of orange-fleshed sweet potatoes or other vitamin A rich crops."

http://www.hki.org/reducing-malnutrition/biofortification/golden-rice/

[waldo]

While I have agreed all along that there were flaws in the study. You said:

As per your own source, the technical conclusions are sound - β-carotene is converted to the vitamin once ingested. Do you agree with this conclusion?

as I said, you can't read, you can't comprehend... and you continue to make shyte up! Again, you pick a one line reference that speaks to nothing more than "encouraging"... while you ignore the immediately following salient summation points of the sourced quotation/reference. Notwithstanding you obviously live by the mantle of a single paper/study result... from which you parrot the "Crimes Against Humanity" labeling!

here, read it again... read it slow... take your time... try to comprehend it!

(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.

[waldo]

IMO

as you simply repeat from Moore's website... as you simply make reference to the same failed study! You're a waste of time.