Greenpeace has been around for what now, approximately 5 decades? When did they start gaining interest in getting involved in the GMO/agricultural products fight? Aren't they just a tad off-base with this issue? (The article says they've been campaigning against this for years, but how long exactly?)

YES! Thank you, finally, an intelligent, rational comment. On the internet. Amazing.

The issue with genetic engineering is more about what things bioengineers will try to put in crops next rather than the few seemingly harmless things they've already done.

Bt is just a bacterium that has secondary metabolites that harm insects, Roundup-Ready is a little more sketchy. Then the bioengineers start getting into terminator genes and things start to get a lot more suspicious.

We need to outlaw all genetically-modified foods entirely.

Is there any rational basis for these extreme claims?

Selective breeding and genetic modification are so different from each other that they cannot be compared. Out of species genes do not appear through selective breeding.

The patenting of lifeforms was against the rules of the patent office until a revolving door bureaucrat from Monsanto changed the rules for the benefit of Monsanto. He then returned to work for Monsanto to collect his reward.

The real problem is overpopulation. A net gain of 80 million people a year is unsustainable. There will be a collapse and millions (perhaps billions) will die. This summer was a glimpse at the fragility if the food production network. Wake up and keep it in your pants.

a cogent argument! and well stated.

The thing about these crops is that those who would choose to NOT consume GMO's have no choice about it as the pollen is spread by insects and wind.

Out of species genes do not appear through selective breeding.

Sure they do. Its called convergent evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

Not only that, but selective breeding has created completely new species. That is far more dramatic than one species acquiring characteristics of another.

the rest of your post is opinion and a little on the alarmist side

This appears to be a... rational debate. Online. Who could have imagined such a thing existed?

As for GMO foods, genetic modification is no more (or less) dangerous than any other biotechnology. With proper oversight, there is no reason it can't be safely used to solve a number of problems.

I don have one issues with Dr. Caplan's argument, however. He appears to argue that even if this study was not conducted ethically (it was conducted ethically), the fact that no harm was done to the subjects in some way mitigates the the transgression. It definitely does not. Research ethics are in no way contingent on the outcome of the study.

@Ed,

But for all times, viruses have move snippets of genetic material between species, not just between plants, but aniomals as well. This is the source of about 1/3 of all genetic mutations that occur naturally. And another 1/3 is "bad" copies of genetic materials that are passed on through seeds, autoclones, etc. The final third is all that is susceptible to selective breeding.

Mostly generic "engineering" uses the viral method --- a natural and already occurring method used by nature. And generically engineered genes have a major advantage over exactly the same change occurring in nature. In nature the change would select for survivability making it persistent in the environment. In GM crops, the changed are generally linked to hybridization so that the manufacturer can recover his development costs. This, too, has been going on for a very long time as any farmer could tell you.

@hamjam,

Caplan is not arguing as you suggest. Golden rice is already out there and avaible to anyhone who wants to plant/eat it. The study compared the amount of Vitamin A that is adsorbed from golden rice by children to the amount from spinach, another good source of Vitamin A. The study concluded that kids get better Vitamin A levels from golden rice.

The argument is that if no bad result could have resulted from the study, that not jumping through ALL the hoops would not have created one.

They sell this GMO garbage at Walmart and other places without even telling you its GMO!

The earth is like a group of domino's and when you knock one domino over there is an effect that takes place all over (from the birds to the bee's to the oceans there are effects taking place).

Controlled GMO in a laboratory is ethically ok, doing it where it will affect other farmers crops and be sold to unwitting consumers is wrong.

I believe cancers are so prevalent today because we are not getting the nutrition we need and GMO is not going to help us as our bodies have used the fruits and vegetables that the earth has produced for much longer than these science experiments have been used.

At the end of the day I go with my gut feeling, when I consume anything GMO I feel like crap, when its organic I do not have the same feeling...

just upsets me that the FDA can't even tell us if something is GMO or not (got to thank the lobbyists of Monsanto for that).

when I consume anything GMO I feel like crap, when its organic I do not have the same feeling...

this is probably your bias, and the reason researchers are "blinded" to the variable being studied

Hmm, let's see. We trust good research, or we go with Derek's opinion. Go with the research and thousands of children are potentially saved from blindness and death. With Derek's opinion, nothing changes and the children are doomed. I'll stick with good science, thank you.

Actually don't go with either, do your own research.

Actually don't go with either, do your own research.

right, with the million dollar lab next to the kitchen...

The article seems to state that experimenting on children without their or their parents' knowledge and consent is ok because none of them died.

Monsanto is playing with all our lives and food. GMO foods, once released, contaminate our air with altered pollen, and forces all of us to be guinea pigs. This is criminal, nothing less.

The reason Greenpeace is attacking this is for the same reasons mentioned by ED-2874315 up above in this conversation. It has nothing to do with concern for these children. This attack is based on the Greenpeace environmental agenda/ideology and they honestly don't care if it really hurt those children or not. Their goal is to harm the reputation of GMO in world opinion by any means possible.

Why you might ask? Two reasons:

Number 1 - they are afraid it will damage the worldwide biome by changing life itself in the wild. These things we are creating are bound to escape into the wild and there's no telling what might happen to the balance of life on this planet as a result.

Number 2 - they are afraid it will temporarilly increase the carrying capacity of the world for human life. That's right - they are afraid it will work, and populations will increase as a result, which they believe will lead to a catastrophic bio-collapse and the extinction of most of the species on this planet.

With that as their ideology and agenda, they really don't care about the children in China. They're just using them to try to get a black eye in the media against GMO, hoping to somehow slow or stop what they believe is a coming global ecological holocost.

This is the same reason why people are saying "All GMO should be outlawed". They're actually afraid it will work. However by that reasoning we should outlaw modern medicine and everything we do in our civilization that makes it easier for people to live and survive.

Well - funny thing is - there are a lot of environmentalists who want exactly that - send us all back to the early bronze age or even worse. Outlaw technology. Live as hunter-gatherers. They say technology is not the answer, it's the problem.

I don't believe that for a minute. Do you?

Number 3--they are afraid that if they don't find a new Cause their funding will dry up and they'll all have to work for a living.

Greenpeace isn't about what's best for the environment, it's about what's best for Greenpeace.

there are a lot of environmentalists who want exactly that - send us all back to the early bronze age or even worse

Bigtex, there are extremist attitudes out there but I don't think that the average environmentalist (like me for example) wants to kiss his wife and kids good morning as they sit eating their bowl of gruel while he rides his donkey off to the foundry where he works beating soft metals into tools.

GM crops generate a lot of angst because 1) they are relatively new and 2) because it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle once they are out in the fields if something goes wrong.

Personally, I don't have a big problem with them and I think they can do a lot of good but I don't think that anyone with a concern is a tree-hugging loon.

Well, I think Greenpeace is overplaying their hand here. They are being driven ideologically here rather than out of true concern for these kids.

And I do believe in this case these Chinese kids truly are sacrificial lambs on the altar of Greenpeace environmental ideology.

That they are willing to make that trade-off puts them in my book in the category of ideological extremists.

I am glad to hear you are not in that category Brad. I'm not against environmentalism. But when a person's ideology says people are expendable, something has gone seriously off the tracks in that person's head.

Yes question everything and except nothing as truth without checking.

Unfortunately too many people don't see the whole picture on this issue.

When Europe refuses to buy our crops that are GMO because its bad for their health you have to really question what we are putting into our body.

Derek, as you suggest, we should check everything. A quick Google search using the terms "Europe GMO Policy" produces many interesting results. It does appear that Europe does allow GMO products, with strict regulation. It also appears that their is significant political input that steers the import to some countries, and bans import from others. I don't claim to be an expert from reading just a few search results, but the "whole picture" indicates that GMO products are used in Europe, and that their import sources may be guided more by politics than by science.

Used in Europe because the interests that be have fought the will of the people there.

When Europe refuses to buy our crops that are GMO because its bad for their health you have to really question what we are putting into our body.

Not just Europe, any country might make a move to block American products because of GMO. Not necessarily because they actually believe there are problems, but simply as an extortion strategy. Japan and China does it all the time. Anytime some pest or prion or anything they will ban importing an American product.

The medium future of food in the world is going to be very interesting to watch. There will probably come a time where America will rake in many times our current revenue for food the rest of the world will need it, GMO and all.

Did you read the article? The parents were informed. The test was not about the safety, but rather if the childeren got more beta-carotene. The protocols WERE followed.

For Monsanto to push their agenda you need a story like malnourished children and "golden rice;" this helps to promote their genetically engineered foods, people.

It is interesting that "studies" such as this and "studies" showing organic vs regular foods are not so different nutritionally are coming out in the news prior to the voting on labeling GMOs this November on California ballot.

If you really want to understand the dangers of GMOs, which Greenpeace certainly understands, then read Jeffery Smith's book, Genetic Roulette.

Greenpeace may have started out caring for the ocean and ocean creatures, but since everything is involved in the WEB OF LIFE, then it would make sense Greenpeace is up to speed on what's really going on with GMO foods.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/prop-37-california_n_1791555.html

You are a moron.. you did not refute one thing that the article asserts. Are you disputing the statement that the study recruitment processes and protocol were approved by the Institutional Review Board–Tufts Medical Center in the United States and by the Ethics Review Committee of Zhejiang Academy of Medical Sciences in China. Both parents and pupils [children] consented to participate in the study,” the researchers wrote. So, its your word against Tufts. I never heard of you but I have certainly heard of Tufts.

How much is Greenpeace paying YOU?

It is interesting that "studies" such as this and "studies" showing organic vs regular foods are not so different nutritionally are coming out in the news prior to the voting on labeling GMOs this November on California ballot.

And this particular GMO, in this particular case the rice, is not the same as non-GM rice. It is vastly superior. Have you seen what vitamin A deficiency can do to a child?

@Edwin,

Didn't read the article. ALL American and Chinese protocols were followed to the letter. Period. The Taft and Chinese university IRB's both signed off on it and all informed consents were obtained just as they would have been here.

No one is running for cover and no one is livid. Greenpeace lied because its revenue stream is failing with the cancellation of Whale Wars (caused by the loss of both helicopters and one ship that they do not have the money to replace) and their absolutely zero impact on Japanese whaling.

Thanks for the honest and truthful post Edwin. Becoming a rarity these days, makes me wonder if people are really this uninformed or if lobbyist have extended their reach of influence to public opinion places now.

I think both.

THANK YOU! It would seem there are a lot of opinions, but not a lot of facts. Like the fact that bioengineering has many facets to it.

My biggest concern is engineering on the genetic level, especially when we are talking about mixing species, like a fish into a corn stalk. Folks - on what possible level could this EVER occur naturally? Should it?

Folks are saying there is no domino effect. I see it clearly when I go to a fair, for example. I find it quite strange that, as a kid, I constantly had to protect or abandon my food to bees, yellow jackets, flies, etc. Two yrs. ago, I noticed that while the bugs flew around my head, they had NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in my food. Why? Because they didn't RECOGNIZE it AS food! I threw my nachos and plastic cheese right in the garbage.

Let's move to the fields. How are plants pollinated? Duh! And if the pollinating insects don't recognize that corn as food, why would they pollinate it? More and more, this is becoming a mechanical process that costs a TON of money and then costs you more. How about nutrition? For as much as we know, we still don't know everything. So you use your Round-Up ready pesticides and herbicides (you know they are non-distriminating when they kill stuff, right?). Well, you've killed not just the pests, but the beneficial insects as well as the nutrients and enzymes in the soil that sustain the plants and passes that nutritional element onto you. Now killed, you now need to purchase chemical fertilizers and put back what you killed. Only we're not that sophisticated. We simply don't know what we are missing when we attempt to put these back in place.

As for harm? Yes, there are studies out there that have shown that, not only that some GMO's are insufficient in their nutritional value, but dairy cows fed GMO feed corn have triple the miscarriages of other dairies that do not use GMO's. That may not concern you much unless you or your spouse are pregnant. You want to take that chance? Wouldn't you at least WANT to have a choice in taking that chance or not? In the USA, you're not allowed to know.

Not every GMO is evil, but not every GMO is beneficent either. Bottom line is the money though. Even though it's been proven again and again that organic and traditional methods of farming yield better, the money titans will squash that research as best they can. Monsanto this year bribed Mongolia to FORCE all their farmers to switch to their products alone. HUH??!! And they were instrumental in throwing out the first democratically elected president of Paraguay. WHAT THE HELL??!! That was because, silly man, he thought the native farmers should own their own land. And grow what they wanted. God Forbid that Monsanto lose that battle!

When these companies (Dow included)start lobbying governments and strong-arming them into political and economic blackmail, THAT KIDDIES, is when they have PROVEN to me that they can't be trusted to even tell me the sky is blue! Now - all of their so-called science and beneficence is questionable.

@Poor,

This is because GM crops are all hybrids. Hybrids do NOT crossbreed or breed out. Period. Otherwise they would not be hybrids. And the law is that way so that when you steal hybrid seed, you can claim that "the wind did it." In far country, you will generally see signs in each cornfield that look like advertisements for different corn hytbrids. They are not ads. At the bottom is the hybrid and number of acres permitted to be planted in it. There are agents of the various corn hybridizers (DeKalb, as one example) that drive around looking for unregistered fields. And when they are found, they are sued for stealing patented products --- a felony.

Your rant is ill-informed and 180 degrees from the truth. And the laws in question were written almost a century before genes were discovered.

And once Monsanto (or other seed/chemical companies) has made it impossible to get any other crops but these hybridized ones covered in Round Up (c), what then? What if they all fail like the potato famine in Ireland? The continued use of Round Up and pesticides is already creating 'weeds' and insects resistant to the pesticides and herbicides they use and Monsanto is asking the FDA to approve the use of very stronger chemicals on the food.

The over use of Round Up has destroyed 'weeds' like Milkweed that the Monarch butterfly depends on. Nature doesn't create a mono culture as humans want to do with thousands of acres of the same plant. We are forcing human ways on nature and can't understand why it doesn't always work.

The Earth is finite and it would seem that a truly smart species would look around and realize that and control population for the betterment of all, human, plant and animal. And to make better use of the resources we have and not be so greedy.

I for one don't believe Aliens will save us from our own self destruction.

Tinkering with genetics is a slippery slope, some changes seem more benign than others. For instance this 'golden' rice seems like a good idea, but wouldn't more nutrients also be gained by not processing this rice to make it 'white'.

And then I wonder about who stands to gain financially in all this, it would be more acceptable to me if so much money and control and power wasn't involved.

genetically modified rice is not the only source of vitamin A

It's not a fine point of law, it's one of the reasons we are all guinea pigs.

Edwin, it is the only source for these people Not everyone lives by a Safeway or a Health Supplement store. That's the whole point of the research - to get Vitamin A deficient people who eat primarily rice a source of the vitamin.

I'm against things like trans-species genetic modifications. I think it's profane to put (as a made up example) pig genes into wheat. This experiment seems comparatively harmless: If it failed, the kids are Vitamin A deficient (as they already were) and if it succeeded they get more of the Vitamin. This is overblown as a controversy. The article does say that the kids and parents consented.

"I'm against things like trans-species genetic modifications." - Why? If its good for you in one species (Pig in your example), why do you think it would be magically bad for you if available in Rice?

@Ingsd,

You were change your tune if you had to have a bone transplant that was made from pig bone genetically engineered to slip past the human immune system, or a new ear that was grown on a pig stomach and then transplanted into an Iraq war veteran who lost his, or you were burned and needed a skin graft with artificial skin made from geneticaly altered pigs. Or you were a diabetic, etc, etc, etc. A gene is a gene and they are routinely transferred between species even without being "engineered."

Jim: Many of the commenters about negative aspects of the study and of GMO rice assume that these same people can AFFORD alternative sources of Vitamin A............they totally ignore the consequences and make this into a political scheme or worse, something that CORPORATIONS (eg., Monsanto) iare foisting on uninformed parents and children (NOT in this case, but ignore that it seems). There is risk:benefit in everything from smoking, drinking alcohol and eating no vitamin A foods or golden rice. The risk to these children of blindness is quite substantial compared to the risk of eating GMO rice IMO.............but others seem to dismiss the blindness part and hype the GMO where risk has not been shown

I guess that Gregor Johann Mendel just didn't know his place.

Who says you can't "undo" it?

Once GM crops spread and contaminate other crops, you won't be able to undo it. If we wait for 'proof' of the harm of GMOs, it will be too late. Once the bees and bats are gone, due to overuse of pesticides that are an integral part of GM agriculture, it won't matter... we'll all be eating Soylent Green.

I guess that Gregor Johann Mendel just didn't know his place.

Good point. Its too bad that I suspect no one else on here knows who he is (without the help of wikipedia that is)

Mendel used pollens from related species to "manipulate' organisms; a process that could occur naturally? I suspect he was't able to gene-splice in his garden laboratory.

jukkou,

ask yourself what the difference actually is.

Genetically modified crops are hybridized. That is how the manufacturer recovers his investment. Otherwise, you would just buy one rice seed and grown your own and the manufacturer would get nothing. If sales of a GM crop stop, all the production of that crop automatically stops.

It is exactly like mules. Mules are neutered by nature. Adult mules cannot and never have produced offspring. They are the product of a donkey and a horse (technically a jack and a jenny.) The mules are sterile and cannot reproduce. They cannot escape into the wild or pollute horse breeds or kill all the spiders in the world. And if breeding jacks and jennys were to be outlawed, the birth of new mules would be 100% instantly stopped.

It is obvious that you are trying to formulate an answer to a question that you do not understand.

A point for clarity, Chris -

While there have been no recorded cases of fertile jack mules, there HAVE been cases of fertile jenny mules. Hybridization is not a perfect sterilizer, and there is growing recognition that hybridization is a valid form of speciation.

Chris,

there was a case a couple of years ago in Colorado of a mule giving birth. Some hybrids are not sterile.

AQ point for clarity, @Holly,

If you follow your statement, and try to breed your infertile jack with a fertile jenny, you get NO offspring. If you breed your fertile jenny with a stallion, you do NOT get a mule as offspring. This is why mules cannot beget mules. Period. I rest my case, since you have made it so very well.

But what do you get then? And what if those GMO hybrids are capable of pollinating other plants? What resulted would be untested and unknown.

@milidad,

There is NO record of any mule being born to any pair of mules. Period. A half-horse and half mule does not count (and BTW the half-breed offspring was sterile.)

My point is that hybrids do not breed with hybrids period. When hybrids breed with standards (non-hybrids) the result is virtually always a failure to breed. When breeding does take place, the result is sterile.

A hybrid corn crop (most corn is hybridized and has been for a couple of centuries) will not breed with a neighbor's crop. Period. What might happen is that the hybrid crop might keep the neighbor's corn crop near the property from ever developing --- he would get cops with few or no kernels. The few kernels would come from his own corn crop. This happens all the time.

But you cannot breed a GM corn or a naturally hybridized corn with a standard corn and get either a crop or seed that can be grown. Don't they teach you people anything in high school biology any more? Remewmber all that Fra Gregor Mendel stuff?

@wisepatti,

And what if pigs could fly --- equally likely and also untested and unknown.

Another person who did not read the article:

1) No chiuldren were used illegally.

2) The study only compared existing golden rice with spinach as a source of vatamin A in children. Period. It did no genetic modification of anything.

3) The article clearly explained that it was beta-carotene --- the "normal" form of Vitamin A.

4) Most crops are hybrids --- meaning that they are useless for reseeding. That is how the manufacturer makes a profit. It has been going on for centuries --- long before genes were discovered. My wife crosses daylillies to make hybrids than can only be propagated by division. This makes her evil??????

5) No one has EVER detected even the tiniest unintended nutritional difference in genetically modified food. There are no issues with "breeding" and no known long (or even short) term ill effects.

6) You actually are advocating for a tripling of food prices and a 12 times increase in meat prices. That is how much it would be if you eliminated all GM foods currently going into the food supply.

Itsd poorly educated and ill-informed people like you who are the sabot in the gears of progress.

Give me a break already! There has been no long term documentation or testing regarding GM foods...in fact they just seem to not bother testing anything anymore. And cross breeding plants is a far cry from genetically modifying a food source. And going on for centuries...uh...no. And who is ill informed and poorly educated Mr.Sabot?

The only things anyone is advocating is not killing us all by altering a perfectly good food source that has worked for centuries without a need for man's greed.

Well, Monsanto is a developer of at least one type of this ("golden") rice. (source WHO)

Yes, but their plan is to GIVE it away. Monsanto has done stuff related to other GMOs that should be forcefully resisted by the world's human, as opposed to legal, persons (e.g., declaring that if your neighbor's GMO pollen blows onto your field they now own your crop and maybe your retirement savings). However, they are not Satan and they do sometimes do charitable things either out of the goodness of their hearts or for the good publicity. They do comprehend that subsistence farmers so impoverished that their kids are going blind from malnutrition are not going to be able to pay a lot of money for GMO seeds. They still think that trying to save those kids from going blind is the right thing to do. I do not see a problem with that.

Yes, it would be far better for those kids' health if they had more for dinner than a bowl of rice, however super-nutritious the rice. However, it's harder to accomplish that change rapidly or on a large scale. With overpopulation, in most parts of the world where agriculture is practiced there are not enough wild plants left to provide substantial nutrition, and people who are spending all day drudging just to produce enough rice to live on often don't have time or resources to obtain vegetable seeds and plant and tend a garden during a limited growing season. I think that many Greenpeace volunteers, though they mean well, have not witnessed enough serious poverty to understand what kind of constraints the rural poor in most "developing countries" labor under.

If you believe Monsanto "has done stuff" "that should be forcefully resisted," how/why are you assuming this is ok? Clearly, GMOs are a political issue that is resisted for many reasons (it's so political I have a hard time finding a good quantity of quality information on this subject as well as quality opinions on it). I'd love to see many experts saying this "giving" golden rice away thing is ok. Are they? Clearly some would argue that a company could be up to trying to get something in return, such as acceptance in a country that has banned all GMOs, particularly for unrelated reasons...

Here's what I have found on related GMOs:

Georgia has been one of the states hit hardest by Roundup-resistant pigweed [caused by using too much glyphosate because of GMOs that are Roundup resistant], and one farmer in a long line of cotton farmers said the pest could pose as big a threat to cotton farming in the South as the beetle that devastated the industry in the early 20th century...(scientists and farmers say that glyphosate is a once-in-a-century discovery, and steps need to be taken to preserve its effectiveness)..-NYTimes

The exclusive use of herbicide-tolerant GM crops would also make the farmer dependent on [particular] chemicals.-WHO

[A]gritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.-Scientific American, 2009

Just in case you were wondering, the study was paid for by the USDA, the National Intstitute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and China's National Technology Research and Devlopment Program.

Would you explain to us how feeding Vitamin A to Vitamin A deficient children will cause organ damage, obesity, infertility, and over 60 more serious health problems?

In addition, I would like to know why Dr Caplan is responsible for the illegal discharge of PCBs by Monsanto? Is the the Chairman of Monsanto? Does he sit on the board?

Feeding Vitamin A to Vitamin A deficient children isn't the issue. Feeding a rice that has been genetically modified is the issue. Several independent molecular biologists that I trust have concluded that the "process" of genetic modification creates both known and unknown hazards in the food. I once heard a biotech rep explain in a public seminar how during the "process" of genetic "engineering" a vector is used to implant the new traits into the host. The vector is generally a virus or bacteria. In his opinion, an excellent vector would be the HIV virus. This biotech rep also explained that he didn't feel there would be any safety concerns in using the HIV virus as a vector in imparting new traits to GMO foods. I wonder what vector was used in creating the GMO Golden Rice? Do you think this is important, or do you simply trust the biotech company that created it?

The fact that you ignored addressing the GMO process when referencing feeding Vitamin A to Vitamin deficient children is disconcerting. Perhaps you think it is like adding Vitamin A to milk.

On your second point, Dr. Caplan isn't responsible for the illegal discharge of PCB's by Monsanto. However, for a "Bioethicist" to so fully buy into the pro GMO arguments while ignoring the amazingly horrific scientific evidence on what happens to animals in controlled studies fed a GMO diet seems very unethical to me.

As I see it, each year the biotech industry covers up the real dangers of GMOs, it will put tens of billions of dollars more in their pockets, as it did with Agent Orange, DDT, and PCB's. The wheels of justice will eventually turn in my opinion, and hopefully sooner than later if we can learn from past mistakes.

@jrjr,

Caplan ignores it because there is no such body of peer-reviewed literature. No study has ever found a detectable difference.

Try googling "dangers of genetically modifying food". The evidence is overwhelming to an open minded person not sold out to the biotech industry.

Seven years ago many scientific reports began surfacing. For example:

"Several recent studies confirm fears that genetically modified (GM) foods damage human health. These studies were released as the World Trade Organization (WTO) moved toward upholding the ruling that the European Union has violated international trade rules by stopping importation of GM foods.

Research by the Russian Academy of Sciences released in December 2005 found that more than half of the offspring of rats fed GM soy died within the first three weeks of life, six times as many as those born to mothers fed on non-modified soy. Six times as many offspring fed GM soy were also severely underweight.

In November 2005, a private research institute in Australia, CSIRO Plant Industry, put a halt to further development of a GM pea cultivator when it was found to cause an immune response in laboratory mice.1

In the summer of 2005, an Italian research team led by a cellular biologist at the University of Urbino published confirmation that absorption of GM soy by mice causes development of misshapen liver cells, as well as other cellular anomalies.

In May of 2005 the review of a highly confidential and controversial Monsanto report on test results of corn modified with Monsanto MON863 was published in The Independent/UK.

Dr. Arpad Pusztai (see Censored 2001, Story #7), one of the few genuinely independent scientists specializing in plant genetics and animal feeding studies, was asked by the German authorities in the autumn of 2004 to examine Monsanto’s 1,139-page report on the feeding of MON863 to laboratory rats over a ninety-day period.

The study found “statistically significant” differences in kidney weights and certain blood parameters in the rats fed the GM corn as compared with the control groups."

Recent studies continue to confirm the significant health dangers of genetically modifying food:

19 Studies Link GMO Foods to Organ Disruption

admin | Apr 28, 2011 | Comments 1

19 Studies Link GMO Foods to Organ Disruption

Posted By Dr. Mercola | April 27 2011

A new paper demonstrates that consuming genetically modified (GM) food leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice. Researchers reviewed data from 19 studies and found that parameters including blood and urine biochemistry and organ weights were significantly disrupted in the GM-fed animals.

The kidneys of males were the most affected, experiencing 43.5 percent of all the changes. The livers of females followed at more than 30 percent. Other organs may have been affected too, including the heart and spleen, and blood cells.

Sometimes a picture is worth more than a thousand words. If you dare, go to this link:

I wasn't able to post the link, so I'll summarize the results of a recent French study:

A study published today finds that rats with prolonged exposure to roundup-ridden corn found suffered health problems including mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage. While numerous 90-day studies have already linked GMO foods to allergies and other health problems, the study, which was published in "Food and Chemical Toxicology," marks the first-ever long term animal study on the health effects of genetically engineered foods.

The abstract of the study points out the effects of the Roundup on rats after two years. Says the study:

The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2-3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was vis- ible in 3 male groups fed GMOs. All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological pro- files were comparable. Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was mod- ified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5-5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3-2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier. Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.

Yes, eventually we'll have to eat each other because we have destroyed the planet by over population and poisoning the planet so that what we eat is also poison.
And where does most of this GMO corn and soybeans go? To feed livestock where the pesticides and herbicides are concentrated in their bodies. Of course it is far more efficient to skip feeding the grains to the livestock and feed it to humans instead. Try 'Diet For A Small Planet'.

@T Bourlon:

One of the fundamental problems with GMO/GE Frankenfood is the lack of precision in the various genetic manipulations, where the best kept secret in the GMO/GE community is the fact that the technologies are imprecise . . .

Initially, when the imprecision was recognized, the strategy was to relegate the imprecision to "non-coding" or 'junk" DNA and so forth, where the general idea was that with sufficient lobbying efforts the resulting Frankenfood would be "good enough for government work" or whatever . . .

So, while in an Utopian universe the extraordinarily naive hypothesis is that splicing a snippet of the genetic algorithm of a carrot plant into a rice plant does nothing more than enhance the rice plant with a very precisely limited and well understood characteristic of a carrot plant, the reality is that the imprecision has the direct consequences (a) of allowing other completely unknown stuff to tag along and (b) of causing changes which simply cannot be predicted or known for decades, if not longer . . .

Consider it from the perspective that the genetic algorithm for an organism is not only sufficient to govern and to control the development and maturity of the organism but also in most instances is sufficient to be self-correcting, where the latter characteristic, quality, or ability results in the organism being healthy and being able to sustain health . . .

And the complete genetic algorithm is sufficiently small and compact to fit inside a single cell, yet it is able to guide the development of the single cell so that after some amount of time the single cell becomes a mature organism, which even at maturity is able to engage productively in self-correcting behaviors and functions, and all this is contained in "stuff" that essentially fits on the tip of a sewing needle . . .

What happens when the Frankenscientists have their ways is that, for example, one of them arbitrarily decides that it makes sense to enhance rice with the "golden color" and "beta carotene" bits of a carrot, which might be the same bits, but probably not, since nothing about genetic algorithms ever is simple . . .

But what also happens is that some "extra stuff" inevitably is included in the gene splicing, but the Frankenscientist ignores it or at least makes some effort to minimize the amount of "extra stuff", and by the time any information is provided to the public, the official position is that everything is perfect, which is spanky, except that everything is not perfect, but instead is flawed in ways that most likely are unknown at present, hence ipso facto the need to conduct experiments on people to determine whether at present the "extra stuff" causes any obviously troublesome problems . . .

In other words, the USDA and the various Frankenscientists are not conducting the experiment in China because (a) they were bored silly and (b) they enjoy wasting taxpayer money . . .

The USDA and the various Frankenscientists are conducting the experiment in hopes of gaining a few clues regarding what the "extra stuff" appears to do to children in the short run, which makes this experiment abhorrent to the concepts of human dignity, ethics, and morality . . .

Explained yet another way, there is no ancestral knowledge in the human genetic algorithms for dealing metabolically and physiologically with "golden" Frankenrice, because "golden" Frankenrice did not exist on this planet until it was concocted in a research laboratory at the dawn of the early-21st century . . .

Yet another problem with Frankenfood is that some of the things which are spliced simply do not have any useful purpose with respect to nutrition, health, and well-being, where Bt-corn is an example, where the "Bt" aspect refers to splicing a snippet of organic insecticide from ground dwelling bacteria into corn plants, where it becomes part of the edible portion of the corn . . .

The "Bt" aspect appears to act as a repellent and insecticide for corn borer caterpillars, various moths and butterflies, and so forth and so on, but what does it really do when humans ingest it via eating corn?

What I know, which is based entirely on my experiences over the years, is that in the early-1950s in a typical elementary school there might have been one obese child, one child with diabetes, and perhaps one child with asthma or severe allergies . . .

Elementary school cafeterias routinely served peanut butter cookies (a personal favorite), and there was no high-fructose corn syrup, because high-fructose corn syrup did not exist on this planet prior to the late-1950s anywhere other than in a research laboratory in the US . . .

Yet with the wide scale introduction beginning in the early-1980s of high-fructose and high-intensity cattle feedlots, and then a decade later with the introduction of GMO/GE crops, the reality today is that childhood obesity, diabetes, asthma, and food allergies are the norm rather than the exception, as is the case with teenagers and young adults, as well as some older adults . . .

Perhaps children, teenagers, young adults, and older adults are obese, diabetic, asthmatic, and allergic because they have iPods and personal computers or because they watch too many episodes of "Lost", but common sense strongly suggests that the culprit is a combination of "extra stuff" in GMO/GE Frankenfood about which the human body has no ancestral knowledge, and in the case of high-intensity cattle feedlots, bad animal husbandry practices, since cattle in this scenario are fed corn and other grains in high volume; live and sleep in thick layers of cow manure; and due to their unnatural diet of corn and other grains, some of which now are GMO/GE, the pH of their gastrointestinal systems becomes increasingly acidic, which just happens to be the ideal acidity for gnarly E. coli bacteria to flourish, where the manure from these high-intensity cattle feedlots and other types of high-intensity feedlots is spread on agricultural fields where it becomes fertilizer for such things as leafy vegetables, the consequence of which you can connect the dots easily . . .

Summarizing, these are a few of the reasons that GMO/GE Frankenfood is a "big deal", really . . .

Really! :-o

P. S. And when the GMO/GE technique switches to Somatic-cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), the consequences of the "extra stuff" literally and physically are terrifying, which is the reason for the reference to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (a.k.a., "Prometheus") . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic-cell_nuclear_transfer

The FDA, USDA, Frankenscientists, and the Frankenfood industry want everyone to believe that Somatic-cell Nuclear Transfer cloning produces wonderfully healthy and natural progeny, but the reality is so patently disturbing that I leave it as an homework assignment, if exploring the information regarding what actually happens with respect to the vast majority of cloned progeny is something you think you can handle, since it involves what only can be described as horrible mutations . . .

It is a "big deal", and it is evil incarnate, without doubt . . .

Without doubt! :-(

GMO is the great gift we are giving to the future. I will allow us to use the land in a far more productive way to feed our ever expanding population. After all, we are going to run out of whales pretty soon.

Let's not get too carried away. While I find the alarmists irritating and often idiotic, the core point they make is correct; it is possible to do damage with irresponsible creation of products, sometimes the damage done might exceed the benefit received. The possibilities are wonderful, but caution is always necessary.

why do you think that?

We have genetically modified wolves into dogs--they're not mindless zombie animals...

We have genetically modified chickens to have ridiculously oversized breast meat portions--no obvious harm there.

Im not sure how this is different...

Here's just one example: When you make a plant resistant to poison (glyphosate, or a chemical in Roundup), that has huge implications for the environment and people's health. My post at 8.3 gives a few sourced examples of issues, the first two of which can directly relate to Roundup resistant crops.

you are really splitting hairs here. I think everyone who read the article understood the point that when he said "the experiment worked" that the hypothesis was supported

Not at all. The hypothesis is never positive or negative, it's neutral. In this case it was (or should have been): Can beta-carotene be effectively delivered via enriched rice? Yes, no or inconclusive are all treated equally. It should not be: A demonstration of beta-carotene being delivered via enriched rice. The latter is looking for a particular result, and that is not impartial. It's not a small point, by any means.

the point is understood, but I contend its miniscule

The proof is, that phrased as it was in the story, the overall point of the article was not affected in any meaningful way. The author's clear objective is to show that the addition of vit a to rice was beneficial, and no ethical rules were broken

This point was made irrespective of the semantics you cite

I understand your view as well, and I contend that the point is not at all a small thing. The author used the outcome of the experiment to justify the way it was conducted, and then glossed it over. The article was supposed to be about the ethics of the experiment, not the results of it. That is not semantics. It is the heart of the issue.

The author used the outcome of the experiment to justify the way it was conducted, and then glossed it over

No he didn't. He stated that both the US and chinese govts agreed, and all consents were appropriately signed. That was his justification of the way it was conducted. In fact, he explicitly brought up this point, rather than "glossing over it"

From the story above:

What about consent and review, which Greenpeace says did not happen? The paper says otherwise.

“The study recruitment processes and protocol were approved by the Institutional Review Board–Tufts Medical Center in the United States and by the Ethics Review Committee of Zhejiang Academy of Medical Sciences in China. Both parents and pupils [children] consented to participate in the study,” the researchers wrote.

The article was supposed to be about the ethics of the experiment, not the results of

Um...im not sure where you are getting that from. In fact, if this article discussed the research without mentioning the results, it would be incomplete

That is not semantics. It is the heart of the issue.

This argument is different than the one you started with regarding how to label an experiment with positive results, but it is not supported by the evidence

The author states that the experiment worked because it demonstrated that beta-carotene can be delivered in enriched rice. He then continues on with this line of thought:

"Well, you may say, even if the experiment worked, it still is not right to put kids into a nutrition study without their parents’ knowledge or the proper review. True, but the study was neither risky nor lacking in review."

He is clearly tying the results of the experiment to the ethical questions involved in the way it was conducted. That demonstrates both a positive bias and an error in logic. The outcome of the experiment is absolutely not germane to the question of whether it was conducted ethically. I'm not taking a position on the ethical conduct involved in this study, I'm simply pointing out some obvious errors in the author's reasoning. I hope that clarifies things.

He is clearly tying the results of the experiment to the ethical questions involved in the way it was conducted.

He is not.

Look, he clearly said that all consents were probably obtained. He clearly uses this as justification for the experiment.

These are facts in the story above. Maybe he didn't say them in the order you would like, but the fact is they were said

I hope that clarifies things.

Not really. Its pretty cut and dried. He goes as far to acknowledge the point that good results don't excuse unethical behavior here:

Well, you may say, even if the experiment worked, it still is not right to put kids into a nutrition study without their parents’ knowledge or the proper review. True, but the study was neither risky nor lacking in review.

This is the heart of your argument, and he addresses it in black and white right in the middle of the article. He is acknowledging your point, and then goes on to address it a paragraph later:

What about consent and review, which Greenpeace says did not happen? The paper says otherwise.

“The study recruitment processes and protocol were approved by the Institutional Review Board–Tufts Medical Center in the United States and by the Ethics Review Committee of Zhejiang Academy of Medical Sciences in China. Both parents and pupils [children] consented to participate in the study,” the researchers wrote.

Here he clearly says that that it is TRUE that even if the results were good, unethical behavior is not excused. He then goes on to justify the study ethics NOT by the results, but by the way it was conducted

This could not be more clear

We're reading the same article, but arriving at two very different conclusions, which is fine. We're both allowed to have an opinion. Thank you for sharing yours.

fair enough. I can only say that mine is acutally based in the article itself. You seem to have made up your mind about what the article said without actually reading it

Leave the personal comments out. I read the article thoroughly. I also have the perspective of someone who has been working as a scientist for the last 14 years. If this article was submitted to me for peer review, I would have sent it back for revision for the reasons I stated above. I can say, without hesitation, that any scientific journal would reject this article for the exact same reasons. This difference in perspective is the root cause of our difference of opinion. It is not because of a lack of objectivity or information on my part. Consider that next time before you post something.

Leave the personal comments out.

Umm...there was nothing personal in there. Just an observation

ho has been working as a scientist for the last 14 years.

Scientist or garbageman, doesn't affect the truth of the statement

If this article was submitted to me for peer review, I would have sent it back for revision for the reasons I stated above

Ive peer reviewed articles myself. I find your arguments to be lacking for the reasons stated above.

I can say, without hesitation, that any scientific journal would reject this article for the exact same reasons

Disagreed, for the reasons stated above

Consider that next time before you post something.

There's really no need for that kind of tone. If you feel I started it, then I apologize

Anyway, the fact is you state that Dr. Caplan used the results of the trial as justification for the way it was conducted. I have shown in black and white that this is false. He clearly addressed the trial ethics by plainly stating that informed consent was obtained. This is really irrefutable.

And as a side note, I can't help but notice your argument changed from your first post. You made a mention that an experiment that "worked" could be a negative result also, which while technically true, is a relatively minor point. I suppose pointing that out is also a minor point, but i did that anyway.

Your argument then changed to this one of Dr. Caplan using the results to justify the means, as described above. I just find the switch interesting

Do I feel like you wrote: "You seem to have made up your mind about what the article said without actually reading it"? Or did you actually write it? At that point, you are no longer discussing the article or our difference of opinion on the article. You are talking about me. That is personal, without a shadow of a doubt.

The truly interesting switch here is from your contention that my points are miniscule, to that they are completely wrong, to that I have no basis for my views whatsoever. Initially, you steadfastly refused to acknowledge that I have a viable opinion on this article because it differed from your own. Now, you refuse to acknowledge that I even read the article, and accuse me of forming an opinion based on ignorance of the facts. I have no interest in continuing this discussion under these conditions. You may now post whatever you like, as I will not be checking back. Good luck to you, Eric.

You are talking about me. That is personal, without a shadow of a doubt.

I have to disagree. I was making an observation--you rather stubbornly cling to a position which is absolutely contradicted by the article. A natural conclusion is that you did not read it, or did not read it carefully. This is not "personal" ie, an ad-hominem attack, or something I wouldve said only to you and not to any other random poster, which is the opposite of personal. Again, my apologies for the tone. I could see how it could come off badly though. I should've phrased it differently.

The truly interesting switch here is from your contention that my points are miniscule, to that they are completely wrong,

Well, of course. Your first point was technically correct, but miniscule. Your second point is flat out contradicted by the article. Two different arguments, two different analysis of said arguments

itially, you steadfastly refused to acknowledge that I have a viable opinion on this article because it differed from your own.

Not for that reason. I think I was fairly clear that your opinion was not viable because it was directly contradicted by the article.

Now, you refuse to acknowledge that I even read the article

Not true, I just raised the question. I believe you that you read it if you say you did. Relax a little!

accuse me of forming an opinion based on ignorance of the facts.

You make it sound so dramatic. I just said the facts in the article contradict your opinion very clearly, so one logical conclusion is that you somehow skimmed over that part of the story. I apologized for any offense more than once.

. I have no interest in continuing this discussion under these conditions. You may now post whatever you like, as I will not be checking back. Good luck to you, Eric.

Since your last post with any substances was at least 3 posts ago, Im not complaining at this point. But I was intrigued at first, and sorry to see you go

Good luck to you as well!

DDT is currently used in Africa and parts of Asia: The World Health Organization in 2006 re-approved the use of DDT against malaria. A somewhat recent article from Environmental Health Perspectives concludes: "There are situations where DDT will provide the best achievable health benefit, but maintaining that DDT is safe ignores the cumulative indications of many studies. In such situations, addressing the paradox from a centrist-DDT position and invoking precaution will help design choices for healthier lives." (Jan. 18, 2011)

Regarding the issue you bring up about the EPA, what is your source for that?

What I'm taking away from your comment that it would be better to let these children die, rather than save them, even though they may live a life of poverty. While they may be extremely poor in a monetary sense, they may live a very rich life, just not the life that you or I might desire.

Please tell me that is not what you meant.

@John in NW PA:

You wrote this:

What I'm taking away from your comment that it would be better to let these children die, rather than save them, even though they may live a life of poverty. While they may be extremely poor in a monetary sense, they may live a very rich life, just not the life that you or I might desire.

Please tell me that is not what you meant.

This is not what I meant, and in fact is nearly the exact opposite of what I wrote and what I meant, and the reason I provided the link to Sam Kinison;s appearance on Late Night With David Letterman was to make it all the more clear with respect to using common sense . . .

Rice comes from somewhere, as do carrots and other sources of beta carotene, as well as sources of vitamin A . . .

Rice somehow manages to be delivered to people, and the common sense solution is to ensure that carrots, perhaps dried carrots if it is easier, or some other source of beta carotene or vitamin A also is delivered to people . . .

Even if the people have nearly no contact with anyone and grow their own rice, one might ponder the way the "golden" Frankenrice is expected to be delivered . . .

If "golden" Frankenrice can appear automagically, then why cannot carrot seed also appear automagically?

Growing rice requires water and good soil, and it certainly should be possible to grow carrots at the same location . . .

In other words, the problem is that these people apparently have created a system where for some unknown reason they only eat rice, which is the fundamental problem . . .

Eating rice is not the problem . . .

The problem is that they only eat rice, which is an entirely different problem . . .

From this perspective, which is the common sense perspective, the solution is to expand the menu so that there are other food items . . .

Explained using an analogy, metaphor, or simile, consider someone who only eats jelly beans . . .

Common sense suggests strongly that if someone only eats jelly beans, then the person probably has significant deficiencies in their nutrition . . .

If you are tasked with solving the problem, then what do you do?

Do you embark on a grand project to create a jelly bean which is a complete source of nutrition?

Or do you devote a bit of attention to ensuring that the person has more to eat than jelly beans?

But there is an additional troublesome aspect of the idea of arbitrarily splicing snippets of carrots into rice, which is that for people who are getting adequate beta carotene in their diets, the extra beta carotene in "golden" Frankenrice causes them to get too much beta carotene, which can be a problem for some people . . .

Stuff like this might appear to be wonderful, but when you step back a few paces and consider everything from the perspective of common sense, it is a bit mind-boggling . . .

If you want another example, then consider one of the proposed high-technology solutions for toilets that was entered in the toilet competition sponsored by the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation, which is explained at the following link:

http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_21310641/cu-boulder-awarded-780-000-by-bill-gates

In contrast, the low-technology solution is called an "outhouse", and when properly designed and maintained it works very nicely and safely in every respect . . .

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outhouse

But most importantly, it does not require an advanced degree in Rocket Science to operate an outhouse, which from a practical perspective tends to ensure that an outhouse actually is used correctly . . .

In other words, while an elaborately complex high-technology toilet might be used correctly for a while, sooner or later something will stop working and with nobody available to diagnose and to repair the problem, what happens is that the users will start disconnecting and then discarding, selling, or repurposing most of the high-technology components, perhaps keeping only the toilet seat, at which time the users are back to pooping on the ground, where the key word is "on", as contrasted to "in", really . . .

Really! :-o

@John in NW PA:

Did you actually read what I wrote, in particular this paragraph, which has the complete information regarding my perspective:

In other words, instead of promoting a future where "golden" Frankenrice somehow becomes a staple food for people at the very bottom of the ladder, by every possible definition of "ladder", I think it makes vastly greater sense to focus on devising a way for example to add carrots to the diet but more importantly in the long run to focus on devising a way to elevate these people so that they have ready and abundant access to good nutrition, health care, housing, education, transportation, and jobs . .

Is there anything unclear or confusing about "to elevate these people so that they have ready and abundant access to good nutrition, health care, housing, education, transportation, and jobs"?

Perhaps instead of "elevate", I should have used "lift" or "help", which are equally valid words that convey the same gracious thought . . .

Eating only rice is a problem, but rice is not the fundamental problem. Instead, the fundamental problem is eating just one thing . . .

Eating only jelly beans is a problem, as is eating only one thing generally, with the exception being that babies who are breastfed by their mothers receive complete nutrition from one source, specifically breastmilk . . .

If you only eat turnips, you will have nutritional problems . . .

The common sense solution is that you eat more than just one thing, and there are a practical ways to achieve this common sense goal which do not require genetic engineering, really . . .

Really! :-o

P. S. As an even more troubling example, there was and perhaps continues to be a project at Cornell University where researchers want to use bananas as a delivery mechanism for vaccines, where the idea is that instead of needing to give someone an injection, you just hand them a single bite portion of a GMO/GE vaccine banana, which might appear to be a wonderful idea, except that sooner or later the GMO/GE vaccine bananas will become part of the natural banana population, at which time eating such a banana will cause one to receive perhaps 5 to 10 single doses of whatever the vaccine happens to be, and if someone eats one such banana every day, then they are receiving 5 to 10 vaccinations a day, which does not sound like a good thing to me . . .

The Frankenscientists are quick to proclaim that there are no "escapes", but look at what happened with LL601 rice and Starlink corn, as well as what continues to happen with Monsanto "Roundup Ready" GMO/GE soy beans . . .

If you need hard evidence, then visit the local solid waste plant during the summer and ask if you can walk through the part where the sewer sludge is stored, where in this context "sewer sludge" is one of the colloquial names for the processed solid waste, which basically looks like black dirt . . .

What you will discover is that the mounds of sewer sludge are covered with what appear to be cherry tomato plants, which actually are volunteer tomato plants, and the way this happens is that people eat tomatoes; poop some of the tomato seeds; and the tomato seeds travel through the sewers where eventually they become part of the mounds of sewer sludge . . .

The problem is that various diseases can travel with the tomato seeds, and if you eat one of these "cherry" tomatoes, you can get the disease it contains, where hepatitis is one of the diseases . . .

[NOTE: The recent deadly outbreak of E. coli in Europe was traced to contaminated Fenugreek seed from Egypt, and this is another example of seeds being transmission vectors for human diseases . . . ]

And for reference, the tiny black dots in bananas that look a bit like ground pepper are banana seeds, and while the vaccine bananas might be grown only in greenhouses, once someone eats a piece of banana and poops, at least a few of the banana seeds travel through the sewer system, and then at least in tropical countries, sooner or later there are volunteer vaccine banana plants, and then the ecosystem is changed forever in frightening ways . . .

Thank you for your response. Absolutely, let's "elevate" these people to a more varied diet, a more varied food crop and hopefully a healthier and happier life.

Culturally, though, can we expect this to happen? These people, as well as many others throughout the world continue to live in primitive times. This is perhaps evidenced at its extreme in the struggles we observe in the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan. So when you walk into the village and try to change their diet, their farming techniques - essentially their entire life and culture, will it happen and happen right now? I'm doubtful.

China has undergone phenomenal economic growth, yet these people seem to be untouched by the prosperity. So can we effect this change? Sure, but it be difficult and time consuming. Years, maybe decades, could pass before we accomplish this goal. Years, maybe decades, of children going blind and dying.

So, let's compromise. Let's see that this population receives adequate supplies of golden rice. Rice is a staple in their diet, and it could be readily accepted. It can be grown there now, incorporated into their diets and adequate Vitamin A can be consumed. As a result we see healthier children, and it can happen soon. At the same time, we begin our education process. And who knows, maybe one of those kids will be the leader in this change.

@John in NW PA:

In some respects it sounds "wonderful" to imagine that "golden" Frankenrice appears and becomes part of the farming culture automagically, but is this what actually will happen?

Have the various companies developing "golden" Frankenrice agreed in binding contracts never to exert patent protections and always to make "golden" Frankenrice seed readily available to everyone regardless of income and country at the same price as regular rice seeds?

Have the various companies done extensive testing to determine what happens when "golden" Frankenrice "escapes" from designated growing fields and mixes with regular and wild rice, especially with respect to adverse mutations and so forth?

[NOTE: There are two primary ways that the genetic algorithms of seeds can "escape" a field, where one way is via cross-pollination with crops in adjacent or nearby fields, and the other way happens when the seed itself is transported by various means to another place where it finds its way to the ground and starts growing, where one such mechanism happens when an animal eats some seed but does not fully digest all the seed and then poops viable seed onto the ground at some other location, but another way is that a wind storm simply blows some of the seed onto adjacent or nearby fields, which is similar to what happens with rain and runoff . . . ]

What happens in the scenario where "golden" Frankenrice causes food allergies or other metabolic and physiological problems that are not identified for years or perhaps decades?

Is it possible to rollback the clock once "golden" Frankenrice is released in the ecosystem?

What happens in the scenario where one or more "golden" Frankenrice seed companies begin using the highly aggressive patent protection schemes that Monsanto uses for its "Roundup Ready" seed like soy beans, where they have attempted to collect royalty fees and penalties from soy bean farmers who never intentionally planted Monsanto "Roundup Ready" soy beans in their fields?

http://www.monsanto.com/food-inc/Pages/seed-saving-and-legal-activities.aspx

[NOTE: This video report on the current GMO/GE soy bean patent case case being heard by the U. S. Supreme court provides a bit of balance by presenting some of both sides of the argument . . . ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkJaQyUCJbk

[NOTE: This is a sample of the 2008 Monsanto "Technology/Stewardship Agreement", colloquially called the "TUG" by Monsanto . . . ]

http://www.monsanto.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/tug_sample.pdf

And perhaps most importantly from the perspective of common sense, how is providing farmers with carrot seeds and a bit of education somehow vastly more difficult than automagically making "golden" Frankenrice appear?

Rice is not the problem!

The problem is that some people have not yet discovered how to enjoy a balanced nutritious diet, and the common sense perspective is that solving this problem does not require resorting to patently evil Frankenscience, coercion, and sneaky weaseling, which is what "golden" Frankenrice is in the grand scheme of everything, where from a more practical perspective the "golden" characteristic certainly makes it easier to identify patent violators using satellite imagery, and if you do not think this is one of the reasons for promoting "golden" Frankenrice, then my advice is to ponder this for a while, because (a) it is an indisputable "marker" and (b) we already know from ongoing research into fluorescent biological markers that there is a keen interest in being able to identify various aspects of animals and plants using such markers, where in the information provided to the public the focus always is on how "wonderful" it is, but a bit of common sense tends strongly to suggest that there are other not so "wonderful" applications for "markers" . . .

Summarizing, it takes more time and effort to wade through the glittering generalities proclaiming how "wonderful" it is, but you can do it, and once you understand the realities, (a) it is not a very "wonderful" idea at all and (b) it allows the existence of potentially terrifying consequences over the long run, where one long term possibility is that all rice becomes toxic to humans due to a "perfect storm" sequence of unexpected and unanticipated events, really . . .

Really! :-o

P. S. All the satellite surveillance and investigatory stuff certainly appears to be a bit surreal, almost to the level of being just a wacky type of a conspiracy theory, but watch the Monsanto video, where they state very clearly that they do this . . .

please post them

Name one, not some random internet thing but something published in a peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor of at least 10.0.