| I think you are speculating a lot and drawing unwarranted inferences. There is no evidence for any of the sentences you have written (EG: do you know how many people are members of greenpeace, and have you seen a statistically significant survey that indicates their beliefs as a group? Your comments really strike me as furthering an in-group/out-group mentality) > The rice they are growing now is GM, but just done at random by farmers over a long time. Nothing in that process is any safer or moral than creating rice deliberately and carefully for a certain goal. There is a difference, highly selected rice is different from rice that has had genes inserted. I don't think you can select for rice that produces beta carotene, golden rice is truly DNA edited rather than highly selected. FWIW, to all the other points, this is the reason for opposition written in the article: “Farmers who brought this case with us [Greenpeace] – along with local scientists – currently grow different varieties of rice, including high-value seeds they have worked with for generations and have control over. They’re rightly concerned that if their organic or heirloom varieties get mixed up with patented, genetically engineered rice, that could sabotage their certifications, reducing their market appeal and ultimately threatening their livelihoods.” I would interpret the primary concern stated there to be around mono-cultures. I don't personally know how salient of a concern it is, but it does make me think to examples where big 10,000 acre farms move in next to smaller existing farms, and suddenly it's near-impossible to keep the same seed stock. |