Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Judi Lynn

(160,530 posts)
Wed Jul 13, 2016, 04:06 AM Jul 2016

Don’t Eat the Yellow Rice: the Danger of Deploying Vitamin A Golden Rice [View all]

Don’t Eat the Yellow Rice: the Danger of Deploying Vitamin A Golden Rice
July 12, 2016


by Ted Greiner

What better way to discredit your critics than to rope in 107 naive Nobel Prize winners (all without relevant expertise) to criticize your opposition?

But such tactics are not new. Long ago, the GMO industry spent well over $50 million to promote “Golden Rice” as the solution to vitamin A deficiency in low income countries. They did so well before the technology was completely worked out, let alone tested. Let alone consumer acceptability tested. Let alone subjecting it to standard phase 2 and 3 trials to see if it could ever solve problems in the real world.

So why has this apparently straightforward scientific project not reached completion after so many decades?

Because the purpose of Golden Rice was never to solve vitamin A problems. It never could and never will. It’s purpose from the beginning was to be a tool for use in shaming GMO critics and now to convince Nobel Laureates to sign on to something they didn’t understand.

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/12/dont-eat-the-yellow-rice-the-danger-of-deploying-vitamin-a-golden-rice/

105 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I dunno about this. longship Jul 2016 #1
that pesky human nature doesn't always comply with "what's best" eShirl Jul 2016 #2
that's not the point of this piece Fast Walker 52 Jul 2016 #14
What is the point then? cleanhippie Jul 2016 #29
Oh boy. Where to start? DetlefK Jul 2016 #3
We can be quite sure skepticscott Jul 2016 #5
Excellent rebuttal. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #7
Nobel prize winners really don't have to worry about their career anymore. Fast Walker 52 Jul 2016 #11
In science, there is "wrong" and there is "wrong". DetlefK Jul 2016 #16
I agree all that, but signing onto this product is not going to be some huge embarrassment Fast Walker 52 Jul 2016 #46
So, William Shockley was right about race, and Linus Pauling was right about vitamin C? jberryhill Jul 2016 #56
I don't know who they are and I never said anything about being "right". DetlefK Jul 2016 #74
I'm sorry, but they are two very well known Nobel Prize winners jberryhill Jul 2016 #102
So you think you can compare single scientists to 107? HuckleB Jul 2016 #103
Notice the total lack of science offered by those waving the word science like a banner. kristopher Jul 2016 #78
Also, your reading of the piece is odd Fast Walker 52 Jul 2016 #12
Wrong. The resistance to it has been there from the beginning. HuckleB Jul 2016 #22
Wha??? Fast Walker 52 Jul 2016 #47
I see you choose to focus on the parts you like. HuckleB Jul 2016 #53
I'm not anti-GMO! Fast Walker 52 Jul 2016 #66
If you say so, and the consumer is often the farmer in this case. HuckleB Jul 2016 #70
"Asians have a natural aversion"... uriel1972 Jul 2016 #63
Insofar as this refers to the propensity marybourg Jul 2016 #24
You forgot a particularly glaring one Warpy Jul 2016 #55
What scientific criteria, specifically? kristopher Jul 2016 #76
For example: DetlefK Jul 2016 #79
So you don't really have a sense of what "criteria" means? kristopher Jul 2016 #81
re DetlefK Jul 2016 #82
Yeah, you're better off running from substantive discussion. kristopher Jul 2016 #84
*sigh* DetlefK Jul 2016 #85
Unless Greenpeace puts its "review" up for peer review in a legit journal, it really doesn't matter. HuckleB Jul 2016 #86
Another Pro-tip kristopher Jul 2016 #89
You are in no position to give anyone tips of any kind. HuckleB Jul 2016 #90
The more appropriate reaction for you would be shame. kristopher Jul 2016 #91
Pro-tip: The first rule of doing science is to be honest. kristopher Jul 2016 #87
We keep hearing how awful GMOs are. Skinner Jul 2016 #4
This source makes a mockery of the forum title. nt msanthrope Jul 2016 #8
Some GMOs are benign and others are harmful. Else You Are Mad Jul 2016 #54
Name one GMO on the market that is harmful compared to the non-GMO alternatives. HuckleB Jul 2016 #59
Harmful is a relative term... Else You Are Mad Jul 2016 #61
So you have nothing. HuckleB Jul 2016 #62
Yes, they can. Else You Are Mad Jul 2016 #67
Not really, no. HuckleB Jul 2016 #68
Well, both sides are just as fanatical... Else You Are Mad Jul 2016 #71
Not even close. HuckleB Jul 2016 #83
Counterpunch? Woo from Counterpunch? This would be hysterically funny if it weren't msanthrope Jul 2016 #6
maybe read the piece first Fast Walker 52 Jul 2016 #13
Ted Greiner is an HIV denialist. I have better things to do with my time than read woo msanthrope Jul 2016 #17
thanks for the info. I can't believe anyone even glances at Counterpunch anymore uhnope Jul 2016 #19
Source for him being an HIV denialist? Fast Walker 52 Jul 2016 #48
Precisely. That's HIV denialism. HIV is definitely transmitted msanthrope Jul 2016 #58
the paper was a while ago, and it looked like he was merely saying the evidence Fast Walker 52 Jul 2016 #64
Indeed...his HIV denialism is probably why he's now characterized as an ex-professor. nt msanthrope Jul 2016 #72
Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of it there, these days. HuckleB Jul 2016 #23
There are GMOs and GMOs. Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #9
Monoculture was a problem before GMOs. progressoid Jul 2016 #33
Yes, monoculture predates it. Thanks for interesting excerpt. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #41
For a minute I thought this was ms liberty Jul 2016 #10
And only 99 cents! I love it! nt msanthrope Jul 2016 #18
Stop eating tostones, too bluedye33139 Jul 2016 #26
Really? The goal of the yellow-rice people was to shame GMO critics? Igel Jul 2016 #15
I don't think that was the whole goal, but I do know that yellow rice is a big part of PR for Fast Walker 52 Jul 2016 #49
And yet GMOs destroy people's lives regularly fasttense Jul 2016 #20
I find this line of thinking bizarre. Skinner Jul 2016 #21
First, glyphosate is not a GMO. Second, Seneff's silliness has been debunked over and over again. HuckleB Jul 2016 #25
Round Up is killing you too. fasttense Jul 2016 #27
This is nuts. Archae Jul 2016 #32
No, it's not. Why do you want to go back to harsher herbicides? HuckleB Jul 2016 #36
Drop the binary thinking. There are GMOs and GMOs. Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #39
First, without GMOs glyphosate use would be down by over 50%. What do you think Round-Up ready seeds fasttense Jul 2016 #104
So you prefer more toxic products used on non-GMO plants. HuckleB Aug 2016 #105
Illogical & Foolish in the extreme to condemn ALL GMO because SOME GMO has issues. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #38
Total crap course. HERVEPA Jul 2016 #51
It is important to read the entire article, not just the title. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #28
Huh? progressoid Jul 2016 #30
So subsistence farmers, who cannot afford to pay, get it free. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #31
It's not anyone's market because of frightened luddites around the world. progressoid Jul 2016 #34
Weeds? Use a 5% vinegar solution. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #40
Won't work on these. progressoid Jul 2016 #42
Vinegar works on many common weeds, guillaumeb Jul 2016 #45
It's interesting that you get debunked, but you just repeat yourself as if it hadn't happened. HuckleB Jul 2016 #60
I am an organic gardener, and know a few others. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #65
Anecdotes about using old technology that isn't safer aren't really going to change reality. HuckleB Jul 2016 #69
Neither is believing industry-funded "research" that is designed guillaumeb Jul 2016 #92
I don't need industry-funded research when there is plenty of independent research. HuckleB Jul 2016 #93
If you read the original post, guillaumeb Jul 2016 #94
FFS, you are going to use the debunked IARC nonsense? HuckleB Jul 2016 #95
From your very own citation: guillaumeb Jul 2016 #96
So you don't know what the IARC's job is. HuckleB Jul 2016 #97
Your own citation, the one that you chose to make your point, guillaumeb Jul 2016 #98
You really don't get it, do you? HuckleB Jul 2016 #99
Agreed, it is rather sad. guillaumeb Jul 2016 #100
Again, you show that you don't know what the job of the IARC is. HuckleB Jul 2016 #101
You might want to look a bit further. HuckleB Jul 2016 #44
The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops kristopher Jul 2016 #77
exactly. Fast Walker 52 Jul 2016 #50
Maybe DU should have a "Bad Reads" or "Idiotic Reads" forum. progressoid Jul 2016 #35
Something needs to change. HuckleB Jul 2016 #37
Yeah... thedeadchucken Jul 2016 #43
Your ignorance concerning science and inability to recognize a bad and disgusting source is just sad HERVEPA Jul 2016 #52
Don't eat the yellow snow either! Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel Jul 2016 #57
GMOs, Greenpeace and Nobel Laureates Judi Lynn Jul 2016 #73
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine kristopher Jul 2016 #75
Imaginary Organisms NeoGreen Jul 2016 #80
A great discussion that shows the ludicrous nature of the OP. HuckleB Jul 2016 #88
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Don’t Eat the Yellow Rice...»Reply #0