Well they are going to grow the rice anyway. The argument is shall we augment the rice we grow with Vitamin A so that it saves children from dying due to Vitamin A deficiency? If anything GM is more efficient than conventional technology and thus if it's accepted there will be
less pressure on land use.
Sorry, but that's fundamentally incorrect. It's just another gene in a vast genome, how is it going to reduce biodiversity if another strain of rice has another gene in it? That's like saying all cross-breeding ever reduces biodiversity which is actually the opposite of what cross-breeding does. Also inbreeding is bad for biodiversity and for evolution- Have you not heard of inbreeding depression?
A couple of other things on the subject of biodiversity.
1. As I said above, GM technology = more efficient = less land space required = more land free for 'biodiversity'
2. GM technology can prevent use of pesticides and fertilisers = less harm to local ecosystems/less eutrophication = increased biodiversity
Golden Rice is a rice variety which has been genetically engineered to synthesise beta-carotene which is a precursor of Vitamin A. In the parts of the world where golden rice is grown a lot of kids, especially under 5, die due to Vitamin A deficiency because their limited diets are not sufficient. As rice is a staple in their diet, if the rice synthesises the Vit A precursor then they will get their RDA through the rice and it will save a lot of lives.
Infact here is a quote from a site about the life-saving Golden Rice could do:
From this website:
http://www.goldenrice.org/Content3-Why/why1_vad.php ^^^ I wrote on my blog about GM technology btw, and why the pseudo-science surrounding the topic is ridiculous and regressive.
I will link the posts here:
Disparity in Genetically Modified food regulations across the worldWhy Greenpeace et al oppose Genetically Modified food