433

‘A catastrophe’: Greenpeace blocks planting of ‘lifesaving’ Golden Rice (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

168 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] rahmad@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago

Seed patent holders have previously, successfully, sued farmers who inadvertantly grew patented plants they did not intentionally plant, but arrived on their property through natural means.

The point here is, some farmers will be 'forced' to plant golden rice by circumstance, not intention. Are they liable for that, or not? In the US and Canada, historically, they have been.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 8 points 6 months ago

Seed patent holders have previously, successfully, sued farmers who inadvertantly grew patented plants they did not intentionally plant, but arrived on their property through natural means.

I've heard this claim many times, and have yet to see anyone provide even a single case of it happening. Please don't try to cite Monsanto v Schmeiser. It's amazing how often that is used as the example when both the farmer very deliberately planted the seeds, and did not even argue that it was inadvertent in court.

[-] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 months ago

I'm replying to you instead of the first reply to this comment because I would also really appreciate seeing information regarding cases where something like natural migration of seeds has led to a won lawsuit.

[-] rahmad@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago

https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/seed-giants_final_04424.pdf

In most cases the outcomes have been settlements, most farmers simple can't afford to sustain the fight. I think there have been some that made it through the court system and ended up working against the farmers.

I haven't read this whole report, but I read the relevant section starting on page 29. It was sourced from this Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents

[-] piecat@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Fix the laws?

No. It's the GMOs who are wrong.

[-] Robaque@feddit.it 3 points 6 months ago

Fix the laws?

Good joke!

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Citation needed. And don't give me any Salon crap. I want the exact incident in question where a farmer was sued over this and lost.

It's pointless because literally every time I ask people to produce this mythical court case I get some salon article about how it is possible to occur one day.

this post was submitted on 26 May 2024

433 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39110 readers

2187 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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.