printable article

Originally published June 3 2014

Scientist who advocates GMO golden rice also advocates infanticide

by L.J. Devon, Staff Writer

(NaturalNews) In the eyes of some professors and scientists, genetically modified foods can be an open door toward transhumanism -- believing that mankind can break through current physical limitations by genetically altering food, offspring and the environment.

Could this really be an ulterior motive in the minds of professors who advocate genetically modified organisms?

How might GMO-influenced transhumanism destroy what is natural and eclectic, as manipulations of life and environment restrict the diversity of agriculture and people, eliminating the "flaws" of nature, while discarding the "unfit."

Princeton Professor advocates GMO golden rice and infanticide

After investigating the beliefs and sentiment of Princeton Professor Peter Singer, it seems there may be an ulterior plot behind biotechnology and the genetic manipulation of nature. This plot revolves around control and may even encourage infanticide.

In a new article, Singer pretends to be reasonable and skeptical of GMOs, relaying, "In the 1990's, as a Senate candidate for the Australian Greens, I was among those who argued for strong regulations to prevent biotech companies putting our health, or that of the environment, at risk in order to increase their profits."

But now, in the 21st century, Singer's true beliefs are being uncovered, as he now advocates for GMO golden rice. Upon further investigation, Singer seems to advocate for infanticide, too.

In a 2002 review titled "The Politics of Transhumanism," James Hughes sums up Singer's true beliefs "on the permissibility of euthanizing certain disabled newborns (Kuhse and Singer, 1985)."

Hughes also reveals that Singer "argues, we must employ the new genetic and neurological sciences to identify and modify the aspects of human nature that cause conflict and competition [emphasis added]."

It's as if Singer believes that he is in charge of the universe and the size and behavior of the population.

Advocating for genetic enhancements of mankind

Singer isn't the only one advocating a future of genetically modified people. A colleague who shares similar beliefs, Julian Savulescu, is a professor of applied ethics at Oxford University. At a recent speech at Melbourne University, Savulescu advocated for genetic engineering that selects and even designs children to boost their likelihood of longevity, skills and beauty. "If you're going to have a child, you should have the best child you can," he said.

Their ideas center on a eugenics program that requires humanity to "genetically enhance" or face extinction. This plan involves requiring drugs to better adapt people to the modern technological world. This could mean implantable chips with drug reservoirs that feed people set amounts of drugs for optimal performance. This might mean that parents could select gene sequences from a pool of lives, while discarding the babies and genes that they perceive as undesirable.

GM golden rice doesn't solve malnutrition, is more about agricultural control

Today, Singer advocates for genetically modified "golden rice." This lab-designed seed was developed to produce crop that contains higher amounts of beta-carotene. In Singer's eyes, this technology could improve the health of millions of children in indigenous cultures who go blind due to vitamin A deficiency. Developed 15 years ago by Swiss scientists, GM golden rice has yet to be proven safe, long-term.

Singer reasons that the golden rice should be released: "The irony is that glyphosate-resistant crops are grown commercially on millions of hectares of land, whereas golden rice (which has not been shown to pose any risk at all to human health or the environment) still cannot be released."

A more ethical solution for malnutrition that restores biodiversity in agriculture

The better question to ask: "Are there more ethical ways to nourish vitamin A deficient children without genetically altering seed and controlling agriculture?"

By taking over indigenous cultures with mono-agriculture methods, diversity of crops is eliminated and pushed out of the region. Ironically, this very diverse agriculture is what could save the region (and the world) of hunger and malnutrition.

Velvet Escario Roxas, who works at the Philippines-based non-governmental organization ARUGAAN, advocates for breastfeeding and shows how diverse agriculture is solving nutritional deficiencies in Southeast Asia. Roxas says that between natural breast milk and native foods naturally rich in vitamin A, which includes things like mangoes and papayas, there is no need to engineer rice with artificial nutrients.

Roxas' organization provides these foods for children locally each year. She says, "Breast milk can be supplemented as the child develops with nutritious fruits rich in beta-carotene (the precursor of vitamin A) like mangoes, papaya, sweet camote, or moringa leaves."

She continues, "Ironically, all these crops are part of the rich and biologically diverse agricultural landscape in the Philippines," also stating that these crops are "four times richer in beta-carotene than carrots."

Discuss your concerns with Professor Singer

To discuss agricultural biodiversity with Peter Singer, go to his Twitter account. There is a better way to feed and heal the world than through genetic manipulation of nature, environment and people.

For more information and breaking news on GMOs, visit

Sources for this article include:

All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit