Spot the difference! Golden rice and ordinary rice. Photo: International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY).
- Bovine TB summit: science-based policy, or policy-based science?
- Cellphones, wifi and cancer: Will Trump's budget cuts zap vital ‘electrosmog' research?
- EDF facing bankruptcy as decommissioning time for France's ageing nuclear fleet nears
- Atom bomb test veterans: Soviet justice in London's High Court
Pro-GMO campaign exploits Nobel laureates in 'Golden Rice' Greenpeace attack
4th July 2016
Greenpeace is being attacked for 'crimes against humanity' by 100 Nobel laureates for blocking GMO 'golden' rice, reports Claire Robinson. But the low-yielding crop is years away from going on sale, and there is no proof of any nutritional benefit to the malnourished children it's meant to benefit. Could the distinguished prize-winners have fallen for slick pro-GMO PR and spin?
Golden rice has failed as a solution and isn't currently available for sale, after more than 20 years of research. It has not even been proven to actually address Vitamin A deficiency. To be clear, we are talking about something that doesn't even exist.
A new pro-GMO propaganda campaign has been launched in which, in the words of a Washington Post article, "more then 100 Nobel laureates have signed a letter urging Greenpeace to end its opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
"The letter asks Greenpeace to cease its efforts to block introduction of a genetically engineered strain of rice that supporters say could reduce Vitamin-A deficiencies causing blindness and death in children in the developing world."
In highly emotive language, the letter, published by a shadowy website called supportprecisionagriculture.org, claims, "Greenpeace has spearheaded opposition to Golden Rice, which has the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which has the greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia."
The letter calls upon Greenpeace "to cease and desist in its campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general", and upon governments to
"reject Greenpeace's campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general; and to do everything in their power to oppose Greenpeace's actions and accelerate the access of farmers to all the tools of modern biology, especially seeds improved through biotechnology. Opposition based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped."
Whose 'emotion and dogma' is it now?
The letter ends with an impassioned rhetorical question: "How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a 'crime against humanity'?"
The problem with this picture is that the "emotion and dogma" in this case do not belong to Greenpeace but to those who claim or imply that GM golden rice is ready to deploy and that only anti-GMO activists are holding it back.
That's because in reality, as Prof Glenn Davis Stone pointed out in a peer-reviewed study co-authored with development expert Dominic Glover, GM golden rice still isn't ready and there's no evidence that activists are to blame for the delay.
In 2014 the body responsible for the rollout of golden rice, the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), announcedthat the rice had given disappointing yields in field trials and needed further R&D to produce a crop that farmers would be willing to grow. Stone commented, "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's study showed that the rice is still years away from being ready.
And far from the rice being held up by over-stringent regulations fostered by over-zealous anti-GMO activists, as some pro-GMO campaigners have claimed, Stone pointed out that GM golden rice "has not even been submitted for approval to the regulatory agency, the Philippine Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI)."
Indeed, how could it have been submitted to regulators, given that IRRI says it's not ready for release and that it hasn't been tested for toxicity, let alone efficacy in combating vitamin A deficiency in the target malnourished populations?
As Greenpeace stated in its response to the campaign:
"Accusations that anyone is blocking genetically engineered 'golden' rice are false. 'Golden' rice has failed as a solution and isn't currently available for sale, even after more than 20 years of research. As admitted by the International Rice Research Institute, it has not been proven to actually address Vitamin A deficiency. So to be clear, we are talking about something that doesn't even exist."
Authority over expertise
The laureates' letter relies for its impact entirely on the supposed authority of the signatories. Unfortunately, however, none appear to have relevant expertise, as some commentators were quick to point out.
Philip Stark, associate dean, division of mathematical and physical sciences and professor of statistics at the University of California, Berkeley, revealed on Twitter his own analysis of the expertise of the signatories: "1 peace prize, 8 economists, 24 physicists, 33 chemists, 41 doctors". He added that science is "about evidence not authority. What do they know of agriculture? Done relevant research? Science is supposed to be 'show me', not 'trust me'... Nobel prize or not."
Devon G. Peña, PhD, an anthropologist at the University of Washington Seattle and an expert in indigenous agriculture, posted a comment to the new campaign's website in which he called the laureates' letter "shameful". He noted that the signatories were "mostly white men of privilege with little background in risk science, few with a background in toxicology studies, and certainly none with knowledge of the indigenous agroecological alternatives. All of you should be stripped of your Nobels."
The lack of expertise among the letter signatories contrasts markedly with that of the man whose work the new propaganda campaign seems to be attempting to discredit.
Glenn Davis Stone - who has never opposed GM golden rice - is an expert on crop use and technology change among poor farmers, including rice farmers in the Philippines, the country targeted for the golden rice rollout - if it ever happens. He has been following the evidence on the progress of golden rice for years and has published extensively on the topic.
In other words, unlike the laureates, he knows what he's talking about.
Who is behind the letter?
The new propaganda campaign is said to have been organized by Sir Richard J. Roberts. Roberts is a Nobel Laureate in physiology or medicine for the discovery of genetic sequences known as introns, and chief scientific officer for New England Biolabs.
According to their website, New England Biolabs are "a collective of scientists committed to developing innovative products for the life sciences industry... a recognized world leader in the discovery, development and commercialization of recombinant and native enzymes for genomic research."
Given these facts, it is surprising that Roberts claims that he has "no financial interest in GMO research".
According to the writer and researcher Colin Todhunter, Roberts has been propagandizing for GM food and crops in India. Todhunter says Roberts' speech included emotional blackmail in the form of a claim that millions of people in the third world would die of starvation unless GM crops were introduced, as well as highly questionable assertions about the safety of the technology.
Conflicts of interest and bias aside, if you think it's unlikely that Roberts alone would be able to mobilize over a hundred Nobel laureates to launch a campaign that gives patently false information about a GM crop that may never see the light of day in real farmers' fields, you are not alone.
So who's really behind the laureates' letter? Some odd goings-on at the press conference announcing the letter may give a clue. Tim Schwab of the NGO, Food & Water Watch and a Greenpeace representative tried to attend the press event, held at the National Press Club.
However, Schwab reported, "We were barred at the door from entry - by none other than Jay Byrne, whose long relationship with Monsanto needs no elaboration." Byrne is a former Monsanto PR man who now heads the PR firm to the biotech industry, v-Fluence.
Schwab commented that it was "a bizarre choice for this campaign to have Byrne play bouncer." He added, "Byrne said only credentialed press were allowed to attend. Seconds later I saw a representative from CSPI (an NGO) entering the room. Byrne said some NGOs were invited to attend. Really? Why not Greenpeace - the subject of this campaign?"
Schwab tweeted, "Nobel laureate #gmo #goldenrice press event would be a lot more credible if industry guy wasn't blacklisting NGOs."
A further clue comes from the fact, just drawn to our attention, that while the website for the laureates' letter is 'supportprecisionagriculture.org', the .com version, 'supportprecisionagriculture.com', reroutes to the Genetic Literacy Project (GLP).
US Right to Know calls the GLP an "agrichemical industry front group ... with unknown funding that regularly attacks activists, journalists and scientists who raise concerns about the health and environmental risks of genetically engineered foods and pesticides." Its executive director is Jon Entine.
The timing of this press event may be significant. Could it be timed to coincide with the run-up to the GMO labelling vote in the US Senate, with the added 'bonus' of burying Stone's inconvenient golden rice critique?
Whatever the answer to that question, the 'supportprecisionagriculture.org' campaign is shamelessly exploiting a group of Nobel laureates in a propaganda exercise that is actively misleading the public, the media, and governments.
Claire Robinson is managing editor at GMWatch, a public news and information service on issues surrounding GM crops and foods.
This article was originally published by GMWatch.
Using this website means you agree to us using simple cookies.