422
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Thousands of children could die after court backs campaign group over GM crop in Philippines, scientists warn

Scientists have warned that a court decision to block the growing of the genetically modified (GM) crop Golden Rice in the Philippines could have catastrophic consequences. Tens of thousands of children could die in the wake of the ruling, they argue.

The Philippines had become the first country – in 2021 – to approve the commercial cultivation of Golden Rice, which was developed to combat vitamin A deficiency, a major cause of disability and death among children in many parts of the world.

But campaigns by Greenpeace and local farmers last month persuaded the country’s court of appeal to overturn that approval and to revoke this. The groups had argued that Golden Rice had not been shown to be safe and the claim was backed by the court, a decision that was hailed as “a monumental win” by Greenpeace.

Many scientists, however, say there is no evidence that Golden Rice is in any way dangerous. More to the point, they argue that it is a lifesaver.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 147 points 1 month ago

If you're like me wondering why:

Greenpeace remains adamant, however. “There are specific problems with Golden Rice,” said Wilhelmina Pelegrina, head of Greenpeace Philippines, last week. “Farmers who brought this case with us – along with local scientists – currently grow different varieties of rice, including high-value seeds they have worked with for generations and have control over. They’re rightly concerned that if their organic or heirloom varieties get mixed up with patented, genetically engineered rice, that could sabotage their certifications, reducing their market appeal and ultimately threatening their livelihoods.”

Pelegrina added that relying on a single-crop system to alleviate malnutrition reduced resilience and increased vulnerability to climate impacts – a serious problem in one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries. “If things don’t work out, it’s the farmer and the consumers who pick up the tab.”

There are also more practical, tried-and-tested solutions to tackle vitamin-A deficiency such as food supplementation programmes and supporting people to grow a range of crops including those rich in vitamin A, she claimed. “That should be where attention and investment is focused.”

[-] [email protected] 92 points 1 month ago

I have to say, patents are my only real concerns regarding GMOs.

Most of the other concerns can be tested/ruled out, but patents could absolutely fuck up entire continents and literally enslave millions of small farmers.

It's 100% within the realm of possibilities that Monsanto puts a gene drive in their crops so suddenly every plant in a 20km radius produces "patented" seeds.

[-] [email protected] 48 points 1 month ago

They don't need a "gene drive". Planting their GMO seeds in one field is guaranteed to contaminate the neighbouring fields. Then they can sue the neighbouring farmers, and steal both their crops and land.

They've been using this tactic in hostile takeovers of farmland since the 90's.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] [email protected] 93 points 1 month ago

They've been doing that for two decades. Golden rice could have saved hundreds, if not thousands, of lives by now. Especially the later versions we're on now. Hopefully it doesn't violate the self-promotion rules for me to link an article I wrote a long, long time ago on Golden Rice 3.0 and its improved benefits.

I haven't kept up with the project since, I wouldn't be surprised if we're on 4.0 or beyond by now, the scientists involved have been working tirelessly for years to make the rice even better and more beneficial for the people who need it.

And anti-science idiots like Greenpeace have been fighting them every step of the way.

[-] [email protected] 61 points 1 month ago

Honestly, I'm a large proponent of conversation and environmentalism. Hell, I sit on a land trust board, and have a very strong technical background in checks notes environmental science.

The thing I keep rolling my eyes at with Greenpeace is their seemingly complete lack of regard for science, like you point out. How can anyone take these guys seriously when most of what they do are stunts.

I doubt anyone would listen even if they did have the technical expertise they need, because support for environmental issues is paltry to begin with. However, it would give them a leg to stand on.

[-] [email protected] 36 points 1 month ago

Thing is, these guys have a very narrow view on "environment", but the conflict here is emblematic of basically everything regarding protection of nature.

Greenpeace is under the (not completely unfounded) impression, that every new technology is a wedge to slowly push the world towards doom. Just one more lane. Just one more gene changed. And so on. They are completely uncompromising, which is understandable to a certain degree.

However, the result is that perfect is the enemy of the good. Here in Germany we have conflicts between people who want to save the planet by installing wind turbines and people who want to save the local fauna by not installing wind turbines. The latter do have a point if you're very myopic, but they don't (want to) see that their actions will likely kill the entire species, not just a few individuals.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] hash0772 74 points 1 month ago

Why would anybody, especially a global campaigning network, get their noses up in shit they don't have a fucking clue about, and then double down after people who understand that shit go against them. What the fuck, Greenpeace?

[-] [email protected] 36 points 1 month ago

They've actually been doing this sort of thing for a while now. They decided rather than pro-environmentalism, they'd rather just be anti-science in general. It's the same with them protesting any use of nuclear anywhere for any reason.

load more comments (32 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 67 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The right way to do it would be to outcross Golden Rice with local strains to transfer the beta carotene gene while preserving other traits that are already adapted to the local ecosystem, thereby maintaining biodiversity and allowing the rice to continue to coevolve with other local organisms. But that would threaten ~~Monsanto’s~~ corporate patents.

[-] [email protected] 64 points 1 month ago

Introgresion of the beta carotene-giving T-DNA locus into local varieties would take a decade before we can obtain a cultivar that resembles local varieties, and this is only if said local varieties are highly homozygous. If they are not, what you are suggesting is simply not possible with 2024 technology and I don't see it becoming possible soon. Such a delay would mean large numbers of children dying and many more suffering. The Monsanto boogeyman's profit desires are not relevant, unless you'd like to give them some credit for making the damn thing, and I'm not even sure they were involved? A company called Syngenta made Golden Rice 2, maybe you're referring to that?

[-] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago

that would threaten Monsanto’s patents

Its the other cancer peddling shitheel this time. Syngenta owns the patent, making it completely justified for Greenpeace to prevent them from gaining control of the food supply, even if they have to use BS arguments about food safety to do so.

[-] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago

Who's talking about Monsanto?

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] [email protected] 61 points 1 month ago

The argument against Golden Rice should have nothing to do with GMO and everything to do with monocultures.

Greenpeace is fucked in the head.

[-] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago

That's not their argument though. Their argument is that despite the benevolent sub-$10k payment free licence, at the end of the day it's still a product that the independent farmers are beholden to. That, plus rice is windpollinating. So it's very easy for it to cross pollinate adjecent fields and potentially outperform heirloom species against the farmers' will.

load more comments (34 replies)
[-] [email protected] 57 points 1 month ago

golden rice had not been shown to be safe

Has regular rice? What about standing in the sun has that been shown to be safe? Has breathing?

[-] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This was the same reaction I had when the Covid vaccines were rolling out. "They haven't been proven to be 100% safe and effective!" OK. Sure, but you know what is guaranteed to be bad for you? Covid. There are two choices here, and there's a clear mitigation of harm with one option over the other.

It's shocking that we'd rather see children die of treatable vitamin deficiencies than the off-chance that the food 'might be unsafe'.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago

Breathing has a 100% death rate.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] [email protected] 48 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm so fucking concerned about climate change... But I can't vote Green because of their stupid, anti-scientific stances on two issues: GMOs and nuclear power. For context, I'm in Germany, where there's very public hysteria about both. The general public still holds absurdly distorted and misinformed views, so none of the green-aligned parties are ballsy enough to hold positions on them that are in any way nuanced. It's super frustrating.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago

Both GMOs and nuclear can be used to mitigate climate change too... :(

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] [email protected] 44 points 1 month ago

The anti-science crowd ranks up another victory.

They have pretty successful killing nuclear power, secularism, vaccines, modern birth procedures, nitrogen fixation, and now GMOs. I guess AI is next.

[-] [email protected] 41 points 1 month ago

I guess AI is next.

We can hope.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] [email protected] 40 points 1 month ago

Greenpeace have genetic purity fanatics?

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] [email protected] 33 points 1 month ago

This is fucking tragic. Golden rice hasn't been proven safe? It's fucking rice with a spliced gene to produce vitamin A. This is a life saver plain and simple. Monsanto is fucked for a whole host of reasons, but golden rice is not it. There has been study after study on it just to fucking prove that it's beta-carotene survived cooking.

When Greenpeace started opposing GMOs that could be patented, I was on board, but they just attack any GMO now.

[-] ThanksForAllTheFish 26 points 1 month ago

The GMO gene in Golden Rice is patented. It's just licensed for use for free in developing countries on small hold farms. A monoculture of golden rice would be less diverse than the current wide range of heritage rice varieties, and there could be over reliance on it which could case issues if there was a blight. Theres some concern that spread of the genes could catch unaware farmers with legal issues, but it's harder for rice genes to spread than most other crops, as they're usually self-pollinating. The risks dont seem to outweigh the benefits in this case, but it is more complex than it appears on the surface level. Greenpeace doesn't seem to be able to use scientific research to back its claims here, and is instead just staying true to it's anti-GMO message.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago

The idea is to extinguish the other variants, get into a monoculture, and in the future have them completely at Monsanto's will. This product is patented. There's no need for patented grains here. They can be helped through many other means and produces.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago

Nah, they're right. It will give American Biotech corps a strangle hold over seeds. The world grows more than enough food for everyone. Scarcity is not why people go hungry.

[-] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago

What American biotech crops? Golden rice was developed by a group of university researchers in Switzerland and have been distributing the rice for free via NGOs.

[-] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago

NGOs have looooong history of working for western capital interests to the detriment of the global south. See how they fooled low income women into using baby formula and getting thousands of babies killed first through contaminated water used to mix the formula then through starvation after they cut off the supply after women's breasts had gone dry.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Cheradenine 21 points 1 month ago

This isn't about scarcity, it's about addressing Vitamin A deficiency.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

When your ideals are in direct opposition to the well being of people its time to rethink your ideals, not double down on them

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago

full take: this is a complex topic involving sociology, agricultural science, economics, culture, ethics, and more and deserves serious discourse

meme take: THAT RICE IS PRETTY I WANT IT

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago

Any plant or animal that has been domesticated has been genetically modified.

[-] [email protected] 43 points 1 month ago

Their concern is not solely based on the gene modification. The impact of introducing a new crop is bigger than that. The golden rice is patented and that often comes with a ton of regulations the local farmers have no control over.

While I wish for there to be a good way to solve the food problem AND find a good use for gene modification, I don't think that this particular instance is it....

[-] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This. Read an article a while back about American farmers getting sued because there was GM crop growing in their fields when they didn’t plant it. It had cross pollinated from neighboring farms. Being able to sue over patented GM crops is just a bad idea.

[-] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago

The huge difference is who holds the patent. The example you gave involves Monsanto, the patent holder for several GMO crops, and a terrible company that does everything in its power to make money by exploiting people. Golden Rice, however, is patented by the scientists who designed it, who likely only patented it so that a company like Monsanto couldn't just make some similar GMO and patent it instead, using it to exploit people even more.

This same thing happened back when genes themselves were able to be patented; some companies like Myriad Genetics would patent genes like the BRCA gene, a common source of inherited breast cancer predisposition, so that they could charge an arm and a leg for testing. So, researchers and non-profits would patent genes that they found just ensure they could be fairly studied and tested for.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[-] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

Being against GMOs is like wanting to ban electric cars because Elon Musk is a dickhead.

load more comments (23 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 May 2024
422 points (94.7% liked)

World News

37468 readers
2044 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS