That's an ignorant argument though. It's like telling a doctor not to bandage a slit wrist because it doesn't fix the underlying problem.
No it's not, it's more treating a wound that requires stitches with just a bandage when stitches are readily available to use.
No one is saying these types of things should be permanent, they're just to keep people healthy until economic development can provide a better diet. Somehow I doubt the people this would help are going to play the nirvana fallacy.
How much has it cost to develop and how much is it going to cost to plant this across the entire country (there's no info in the article) and how much would it cost to plant existing high vitamin A crops, say orange sweet potato to replace the locally grown sweet potato variety?
Why go to all the trouble of creating a new crop which is just a clone of an existing crop with a bit extra if it would cost the same to simply provide an additional crop?
Your cost claim is ridiculous. It costs a lot less to make a GMO than to fix a shitload of socioeconomic and political problems
Who says you can only start fixing poor diet once all the socioeconomic and political problems have been fixed? That's just dumb.
As for your corporate issue, this is developed by a university funded by a charity.
Is it really patent unencumbered? Just because Bill Gates is paying for its development doesn't prove it'll be free for farmers forever.
Perhaps you should RFTA before making assumptions. You've just justified the GP's post.
First of all the GP's post is a generalisation not related to this specific research, and secondly there's no detail in this article or anywhere else on how much it's going to cost and what, if any, strings will be attached to the deal.
