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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 105 points 6 months 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.

[-] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 67 points 6 months 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.

[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

If it’s been studied and proven safe, there shouldn’t be any room for Greenpeace to make their claims. They’re not a science authority. So what has been done to study its safety and why is anyone even listening to Greenpeace?

[-] enbyecho@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

As the article points out, it's not just a question of safety.

“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.”

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] enbyecho@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Golden rice could have saved hundreds, if not thousands, of lives by now.

Serious question. If hundreds of lives were at stake, why were other mechanisms... such as just giving kids vitamin A, not apparently employed? Regardless of the merits of the opposition to this rice, why not pursue this on multiple fronts?

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 12 points 6 months ago

Other methods have been used in the meantime, for decades. But they are only so effective. Vitamins, other foods, and other methods have been in process. But they each have their own limitations, both on supply to remote areas and getting local peoples to take up those methods.

The latter is the biggest issue, especially with trying to introduce alternative foods like carrots. If they aren't a part of the local cuisine, many of the individuals, who are often subsistence farmers who have limited land and only grow explicitly what they need to survive, aren't interested.

Hence why golden rice was developed, because rice is a main part of the local diet in these areas and so it is much easier to get them to adopt growing a different cultivar of something they already eat than it is to convince them to grow a completely different food.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 89 points 6 months ago* (last edited 4 months 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.

[-] BigDickEnergy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 64 points 6 months 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?

[-] Delta_V@lemmy.world 29 points 6 months 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.

[-] Ozymandias1688@feddit.de 24 points 6 months ago

Who's talking about Monsanto?

[-] jabjoe@feddit.uk 13 points 6 months ago

IP on crops is a legitimate problem. I didn't see anything about terminator seeds, but honestly wouldn't surprise me. Saving lives can all to be often at odds with making money. Plan probably is to take over the market and then ratchet up the price...

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] hash0772@sh.itjust.works 84 points 6 months 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?

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 42 points 6 months 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.

[-] Teppichbrand@feddit.de 15 points 6 months ago

Nuclear is over, because it's stupid, expensive and really dangerous for a LONG time

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 21 points 6 months ago

It's efficient, pays for itself within a couple decades, and is far less dangerous than what we're doing right now. Did you know that burning fossil fuels releases more radiation into populated areas than nuclear power does?

[-] Teppichbrand@feddit.de 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Nuclear power is a wonderful example of how costs can be pushed into the future and onto future generations. People are obviously still falling for this. The "Asse"-repository in Germany was used for storage from 1967 to 1978 and now we descendants have to deal with the follow-up costs while our ancestors enjoyed the oh-so-cheap nuclear power. Groundwater is already leaking in, and preventing pollution is complex and expensive. And we are only the second generation, but the stuff will still be there in 2000 generations. Rooting for this is so incredibly short-sighted.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] hash0772@sh.itjust.works 15 points 6 months ago

Modern nuclear plants are pretty safe in general, and they're not that expensive when you compare its energy output to other types of power plants' energy output. Not sure about the "stupid" remark though.

[-] Teppichbrand@feddit.de 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

While nuclear energy can appear cost-effective compared to other energy sources, the true cost is often higher when considering indirect factors. Society typically bears these costs through taxes, insurance premiums, and health care costs rather than the price paid for nuclear-generated electricity.
These costs can be divided into several categories:

Environmental Costs: These include the long-term management of nuclear waste, the potential contamination from radioactive materials, and the decommissioning of nuclear plants. Managing nuclear waste safely over thousands of years is a significant and expensive challenge.
Health Costs: Exposure to radiation can have serious health impacts, including cancer and genetic damage. The cost of healthcare for affected individuals and communities can be substantial.
Accident Costs: In the event of a nuclear accident, such as the Chernobyl or Fukushima disasters, the costs can be immense. This includes evacuation, compensation, cleanup, and long-term environmental and health monitoring.
Security Costs: Ensuring that nuclear materials are not diverted for weapons use or targeted by terrorists involves significant expenditure on security measures and regulatory oversight.
Economic Costs: There can be broader economic impacts from nuclear accidents, including loss of agricultural or commercial land, reduced property values, and long-term disruption to local economies.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Theres been more damage from coal ash and oil power plants to the environment than from nuclear.
Coal power plants are responsible for more radiation than nuclear
Again, Coal has done more damage to people and the environment, than nuclear ever has.
No ones making a bomb from nuclear power plant waste. Pointless fearmongering from coal lobbyists.
Coal Ash has, again, done far more damage to agricultural/commerial land, reduced property valuies, and disrupted local communities far more than Nuclear power ever has.

[-] 0xD@infosec.pub 12 points 6 months ago

The point is that green energy, so solar, wind, etc. is cheaper, quicker, easier, and more sustainable while providing everything that is necessary.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 65 points 6 months 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.

[-] frostysauce@lemmy.world 46 points 6 months ago

I guess AI is next.

We can hope.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 59 points 6 months 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.

[-] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 29 points 6 months 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)

[-] efstajas@lemmy.world 51 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months 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.

[-] piecat@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

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

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)

[-] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 44 points 6 months ago

Greenpeace have genetic purity fanatics?

[-] enbyecho@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

Greenpeace have genetic purity fanatics?

Were you trying to be funny or do you really think this is the motivation here? Did you even read the article?

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] SeattleRain@lemmy.world 44 points 6 months 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.

[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 33 points 6 months 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.

[-] SeattleRain@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months 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@sh.itjust.works 27 points 6 months ago

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

[-] Cypher@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago

Yes Im sure it’s all about addressing dietary deficiencies and not profit motivated at all

[-] Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works 27 points 6 months ago

Golden Rice was the first transgenic crop to be created that benefited people not companies or farmers, yet its use has been blocked from the start,” Potrykus told the Observer last week. “I am extremely worried about the decision of the Philippines court, not just for its impact on the take-up of Golden Rice but its effect on the growing of other transgenic crops.”

This view is shared by many scientists. In 2016, more than 150 Nobel laureates signed an open letter that attacked Greenpeace for campaigning against Golden Rice and other GM crops

[-] Cypher@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

This contribution was based on the understanding that Syngenta would retain commercial exclusivity for the technology, including large agricultural setups in developing countries.

Lots of claims about it being for humanitarian purposes but there it is.

Source: http://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how9_IP.php

[-] Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 months ago

Did you read your link?

Eliminating reach-through rights and technologies that don't show up in the most recently developed Golden Rice versions leaves us with only a few patented technologies, all of which have been made available for humanitarian purposes free of charge. The licensing process was quick and simple, contrary to what many onlookers believe. Similar projects are looking at this licensing agreement as a good example of how this kind of arrangements between the public and the private sector can be made, especially for humanitarian purposes.

[-] Cypher@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago

I did. Did you see the part about it being free only for farms which earn under $10,000 annually?

Do you have any idea of the history of litigation around cross pollination from GMO crops?

What happens when a small farmer cross pollinates a larger farm? Do they get sued the same way Monsanto sued farmers for the cross pollination of GMO corn?

There are many unanswered issues that could arise from allowing golden rice and trusting Western philanthropy, which has been weaponised against developing nations in the past, is a surefire path to costly sabotage.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yeah. I used to think people who were against GMOs were just anti-science contrarian types, but the more I saw of how Monsanto operates, the more I became cognizant of how it's mostly just capitalism trying to stick its grubby hands in to literally everything to extract maximum profits.

[-] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 36 points 6 months 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@sh.itjust.works 26 points 6 months 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)

[-] barryamelton@lemmy.ml 21 points 6 months 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)

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 33 points 6 months ago

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

[-] Terces@lemmy.world 45 points 6 months 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....

[-] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 33 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months 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.

[-] Signtist@lemm.ee 15 points 6 months 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)

[-] janus2@lemmy.zip 20 points 6 months 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)

[-] AnthropomorphicCat@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

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

load more comments

this post was submitted on 26 May 2024

433 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39110 readers

2149 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.