she's 14, and she's mostly spouting nonsense. he's...i don't know how old he is...but he's not any more informed than she is. he's consequently an idiot, and she's just 14.

the information on golden rice that she's stating is over ten years old. the most recent strains of golden rice have been shown through controlled trials to have enough vitamin a for the rda in two bowls. it works just fine. she throws the naturalistic fallacy out there; she's 14, she's allowed to not have a strong grasp of anthropology. either mother nature is a constantly changing entity that evolves over time with the input of itself (in other words, creating gmo is working with mother nature by definition because humans are a part of nature), or it doesn't exist at all. further, there are plenty of independent studies out there. this idea that there aren't unbiased studies is a really goofy tactic. as the hosts tried to point out, it can't be tested properly.

he didn't challenge her on any of it, kid gloves, but he's right about her being used as a shill - she's just repeating all the same nonsense that gets shared on social media sites, and (judging from what she said) her research probably consisted of a combination of reading facebook and sorting through badly put together activist literature. the female host challenged a bit stronger, but what the fuck kind of question is "are you anti-science?".

i'm very much in favour of labeling gmos, but they both lose here as far as i'm concerned.

i'm sure somebody will post a fact check on the interview. i'll post it if i find it...

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/01/rachel-parent-kevin-oleary-gmos-video_n_3689126.html

http://ciitn.missouri.edu/cgi-bin/pub_view_project_ind.cgi?g_num=20&c_id=2007009

the whole "blind because they're only eating rice" thing is a highly privileged argument. first, it's stated very poorly. it should be stated something more like this:

"poor people in 'developing countries' are only able to afford rice, and consequently suffer from malnutrition."

so, maybe they should eat more carrots or other sources of vitamin a or beta-carotene. ok, well that's what we do here, because we can afford it. it's a socio-economic argument.

either approach would solve the problem. but, is it more likely that the problem is going to be solved through wealth redistribution or through creating a cheap source of vitamin a? what the fuck kind of privilege factors into telling poor brown people to go buy food they can't afford?

it's not like i want to force people to only eat rice, it's just that i'm being a lot more realistic. as a starting point, i suppose i don't see anything inherently wrong with "modifying mother nature". i don't really see why gmos are fundamentally different than building houses. both are adapting to the environment.

but, if we have a serious problem, i think we need to look at all avenues to solve it.

ironically, one of the things about rice is that it's a high yield crop with a lower environmental impact. if we're concerned about maximizing yield out of growing spaces - and we should be - then rice is a smarter thing to grow than carrots.

again, i need to point out the obvious - the kid is 14. if you're just following what she's saying without critically analyzing it, you should really hand in your adult card. sorry.