Sure, but again, this is a stance against industrialized agriculture in general. You don't need to splice genes or irradiate seeds to get something that is useless after one generation, you just need to sell F1 hybrids (Fun fact, "killer genes" aka GURT aren't actually used in practice. The majority of farmers are dependent on hybrid plants nowadays, whether or not they decide to plant a GMO or another strain. I don't want to quell the debate against industrialized agriculture, just pointing out that the singling out of GMO technology is, for the most part, silly. But the use of GMOs and organic (Slash "post-organic) farming are not incompatible, even if most organic farmers have a bad taste in their mouth after Bt and Roundup Ready crops. Because a crop is only the cost of its seeds. Not the weather, the soil, the seasons. Growing all crops are the same and require no plant-specific expertise that may or may not be present in different cultures. Sarcasm aside, a more varied diet is usually more preferable, but when you compare the task of completely altering the foods of all the orange and red countries on this map and giving out cheap seeds, the short term solution is going to be the former. The long term solution is to bring the countries out of poverty, but "they're already working on that".The safety of GMOs isn't the only reason why people are against them. The centralization of seed production as well as the ability to patent life are two aspects with huge environment-socio-economic repercussions, which were never openly debated. On this basis alone I feel it's fair to have a stance against the whole of the bio-technology industry.
Regarding golden rice, why don't we give seeds of vegetables which naturally contain the vitamin that a certain population's is deficient on,
instead of selling them an expensive, patented GM seed which they'll have to buy every year (since saving GM seed is illegal)? It seems to me that bio-tech companies are trying to hide their greed behind altruistic marketing.