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.

  • JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    According to the Greenpeace website:

    But behind the hype, GE ‘Golden’ rice is environmentally irresponsible, poses risks to human health and could compromise food, nutrition and financial security.

    My take from this: It may be that they targeted more than the safety, but also the possibility of gene flow (to other rice crops including wild rice), possible effects on biodiversity, and the ever-present patent issues that come up with GMO’s.

    Scanning down the page though, they don’t specifically say why it poses risks to human health other than some hand-wavey stuff about how it would make people rely on rice instead of providing other sources of vitamin A in their diets.

    They also brought up that at least one experiment with the rice on children in China wasn’t done ethically, and also that this could be imposed against people’s religious beliefs.

    It mentions the cross-contamination gene flow stuff, but I thought because rice was self pollinating that that wasnt as big an issue with GM rice. (I’m not an expert by any means.)

    Their general argument seems to be “new way bad, old way good” without any scientic evidence. They didn’t have to convince scientists though.

    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’d like to point out that Greenpeace or the local population doesn’t have to prove that GM rice is bad. It’s the other way around:

      Big corps have to prove that GM rice is good and has no adversarial long-term effects, which is impossible to prove.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Which big corps would that be exactly?

        It’s perfectly possible to show that it’s safe to any reasonable standard: https://www.irri.org/golden-rice-faqs

        https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jafc.9b01524

        The only biologically meaningful difference between GR2E and control rice was in levels of β-carotene and other provitamin A carotenoids in the grain. Except for β-carotene and related carotenoids, the compositional parameters of GR2E rice were within the range of natural variability of those components in conventional rice varieties with a history of safe consumption.

        How exactly do you propose that the genetic makeup of the rice is going to impact the person eating it, if chemical analysis shows it’s not meaningfully different from any other rice?

        You can’t demand that people prove something beyond unreasonable doubt. At some point you have to be able to articulate a concern to justify further scrutiny.

        • Cypher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          That would be Syngenta, the big agricultural corp involved in the project.

          • Syngenta retains commercial rights, although it has no plans to commercialize Golden Rice.
          • “Humanitarian Use” means (and includes research leading to):
          • Use in developing countries (low-income, food-deficit countries as defined by FAO)
          • Resource-poor farmer use (earning less than US$10,000 per year from farming)

          The key part to me is the under $10,000 USD per year from farming requirement. What happens when a larger farm gets accidental cross pollination?

          What happens to farms with organic certification if their neighbours start growing golden rice and it cross pollinates?

          There is a history of Western nations using “humanitarian” outreach to sabotage developing nations.

          Assuming that Syngenta are entirely altruistic is a huge risk for developing nations.

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

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            This is a good point, we shouldnt use this well tested and seemingly safe life saving scientific advance to save the lives and health of children because someone might have ulterior motives. Outright ban instead of a legal framework to protect against the abuse.

      • Silverseren@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        What big corps? Golden rice is developed by scientists working for universities and distributing it via NGOs for free.

        And they’ve produced dozens of studies over the past 24 years showcasing its effectiveness and safety.

      • JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Honestly, that’s where my comment started… But everything I found showed that studies had proven that it was safe. So I changed tack and started focusing on the Greenpeace side.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Big corps have to prove that GM rice is good and has no adversarial long-term effects, which is impossible to prove.

        Do you say this for every new organism that is patented or is it reserved solely for gmos?

    • Silverseren@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      If gene flow from golden rice managed to successfully hybridize the four gene complex providing the iron, zinc, and beta-carotene nutrients into other rice crops, that would be incredible. It’s so unlikely to happen and the scientists involved have to work so incredibly hard to get it to happen, because it would be a tremendous good for the world if it did.

      We could only hope that such gene flow would occur naturally from the golden rice.

      • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’m not generally a fan of GMO, mostly because we’re just not very good at it. Food with pesticide throughout when natural variants would just have it in the skin? Maybe not. That said, this looks like the perfect candidate for GMO. I dont mind having beta carotene being throughout the whole food, and i dont care if it gets expressed in the rest of the plant (not that i know if it does). If I could buy this in the store, I would. Sometimes I don’t feel like carrots. Also, saying they could get their Vitamin A elsewhere while completely ignoring widespread deficiencies in various regions is the stupidest argument I’ve heard in a while.

      • Temperche@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Theres another possibility. That gene flow leads to making all other rice varieties inedible similar to what happens to “self-harvested/cross-pollinated” pumpkin/cucumber/zucchini seeds. Genes dont 100% copy over due to the process of recombination, which can cause quite unexpected outcomes. The GMO scientists never tested these quasi-infinite possibilities yet.

        • n0m4n@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          When non-sponsored scientists do work like this, corporations have usually spread fear to stop a competitor from gaining a toehold. Unless the scientists have very deep pockets, they can be banned from the marketplace, for lack of money to “prove” their product is safe. This looks like more of the same. With the Citizens United ruling, we do not know who is pushing which agenda.

    • AmidFuror@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Furthermore, cross-contamination of traits like RoundUp resistance could spread under selection pressure. What’s the selective pressure for beta-carotene production in wild rice?

      • Silverseren@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        What does that furthermore have to do with anything? The selective pressure of a trait that uses up more plant energy to focus on its nutrient production and that is only beneficial to humanity and not wild species?

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          I believe that’s what they’re saying, yes. Concern of the trait spreading to other strains of rice are exaggerated because there’s nothing that would make this trait an advantage outside of the domestic food context, whereas Roundup resistance provides value to plants that want to grow near Roundup.

          • Silverseren@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            6 months ago

            It’s actually interesting looking at what traits seem scary, but are actually massively negative in the wild. Like, there were a bunch of people freaking out about that modified salmon that grows three times faster (and requires 3 times the amount of food to compensate).

            If that ever escaped into the wild, it would die. Period. The only way it stays alive is by being fed directly and by not having to use its energy to swim a lot. There is no advantage in the wild for growing 3 times faster. Heck, because of that, it likely wouldn’t even match up with the spawning season properly.