Over 80 percent of Americans support "mandatory labels on foods containing DNA"

[Major Nikon]

94. Sure, everyone who disagrees with Greenpeace is a "shill for business interests"

Along with other environmentalists who have changed their mind over GMOs, you can include in your list of "shill[s] for business interests one of the co-founders of Greenpeace.

So yeah, I've heard that one before and I just don't find it that effective of an argument. YMMV.

You didn't bother to source where you came up with the ad hominem attack against Lomborg. I'm pretty sure you got it from Wiki because it's word for word there, and it's probably also a safe bet that the reason you didn't source it was because directly underneath it you'll find this little jewel:

Response of the scientific community[edit]
The original DCSD decision about Lomborg provoked a petition[10] among Danish academics. 308 scientists, many of them from the social sciences, criticised the DCSD's methods in the case and called for the DCSD to be disbanded.[11] The Danish Minister of Science, Technology, and Innovation then asked the Danish Research Agency (DRA) to form an independent working group to review DCSD practices.[12] In response to this, another group of Danish scientists collected over 600 signatures, primarily from the medical and natural sciences community, to support the continued existence of the DCSD and presented their petition to the DRA.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

So yeah, great sources.



Interestingly the best rhetort you could come up with to challenge those figures was from a study that only considered one very small country with a relatively well established infrastructure and even if you run with those figures for the entire rest of the undeveloped world (which would be ridiculous), you still come up with a cost that is far more expensive than Golden Rice.

Another reality you simply ignore is that fortification doesn't work for countries that use little or none of those staples. For instance, sugar is a luxury product for most of the undeveloped world and is out of the reach of vast poor populations. From your own reference, fortification (if it were even practical for everyone and it ain't) would only reduce the vitamin A deficiency by 30%, compared to 60% for Golden Rice. Rice is routinely consumed by over half of the world's population.

So your "cheaper" and "better" argument seems to be falling flat even if you go with your own air-tight sources.