"What Greenpeace is doing is damaging and is anti-science"

110 Nobel laureates have called on Greenpeace to end it's opposition to genetically modified foods. The campaign was organised by Richard Roberts and Phillip Sharp and has been signed by more than 100 winners of the Nobel prizes.
The letter specifically asks Greenpeace to end it's attempt to block the introduction of a genetically engineered strain of rice ('Golden Rice') that could reduce vitamin-A deficiencies, which cause blindness and death in children in the developing world.

Quote:

We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against 'GMOs' in general and Golden Rice in particular.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Roberts We’re scientists. We understand the logic of science. It's easy to see what Greenpeace is doing is damaging and is anti-science. Greenpeace initially, and then some of their allies, deliberately went out of their way to scare people. It was a way for them to raise money for their cause.

Roberts said he endorses other activities of Greenpeace and said that he hopes the group, after reading the letter, would "admit that this is an issue that they got wrong and focus on the stuff that they do well".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randy Schekman, I find it surprising that groups that are very supportive of science when it comes to global climate change, or even, for the most part, in the appreciation of the value of vaccination in preventing human disease, yet can be so dismissive of the general views of scientists when it comes to something as important as the world’s agricultural future.

Quote:

Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity. 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 World Health Organization estimates that 250 million people, suffer from VAD, including 40 percent of the children under five in the developing world. Based on UNICEF statistics, a total of one to two million preventable deaths occur annually as a result of VAD, because it compromises the immune system, putting babies and children at great risk. VAD itself is the leading cause of childhood blindness globally affecting 250,000 - 500,000 children each year. Half die within 12 months of losing their eyesight.

Quote:

They [Greenpeace] have misrepresented [GMOs] risks, benefits, and impacts, and supported the criminal destruction of approved field trials and research projects. How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a 'crime against humanity'?

Quote:

We call upon governments of the world 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.

Thoughts? No doubt the usual suspects will be along soon enough to mutter darkly about "Big Pharma" and Monsanto but hopefully there'll be some space for rational debate.


Links.
Campaign website.
WashPo.
Science Alert.

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/29a4EGB