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.

    • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      91
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months 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.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        48
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months 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.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        They should test it and rule out the health concerns. No one should leave room for Greenpeace to make scientific claims. If its safety hasn’t been studied and proven, then Greenpeace are doing their job of forcing that to happen.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      One thing that I will say on this is that I find the idea that a company can patent life is beyond repugnant. These corporations aren’t designing these things from the ground up. They are doing the exact same thing farmers have done for thousands of years which is mixing breeds together to get the result they want. Only real difference now is that they can take a snapshot of the DNA and go to the patent office and say “Mine!”.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      All that except contamination could be solved by just not using it if there’s a better option for a given farmer.

    • BigDickEnergy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      6 months ago

      Greenpeace, as usual, argues against GM by jesting towards a nebulous cabal of shady globalist BigAg companies. They are endlessly malicious and no amount of benefit can ever be a convincing reason to take even one step back on this issue. This is a classic case of paranoia and it cannot be reasoned with.

      A quick reality check on some of those points. Many of them are based on a paranoid belief that the Golden Rice will somehow invade and take over. We are discussing introducing a new variety, not erasing any - farmers will continue to grow other varieties. Thus, many of the arguments about monoculture and control over seed fall apart. Syngenta have excluded smallholder farmers from paying licensing fees, so they’d get the seeds are a reasonable price. Lastly, countries which grow GM also grow organic crops - the farmers fearing losing their licenses are swept up in the paranoia. There is also no evidence of GM genes finding their way into other varieties in any meaningful amount. If this was a common occurrence, maintaining any discrete variety would be impossible (and we’ve been doing it for over a century).

      • trollbearpig@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I’m not sure man. You make it sound like crazy conspiracy theories, and they are to some extent. But Monsanto has absolutely sued people for planting their genetically modified seeds, for example https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/business/monsanto-victorious-in-genetic-seed-case.html.

        I agree with you (and other posters) that Greenpeace is overblowing the dangers of GMO (though I’m not an expert, not even close, so take this as the uneducated opinion it is). But I still think it’s good they blocked them in this case. To me it’s a fact that these companies will try to use these new crops to exploit the farmers. Because that’s literally the business model of Monsanto and all these fucking companies. And long term that’s worse for the food security of the people in third world countries, no matter what neo liberals say.

        • turmacar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          6 months ago

          They have, but it’s never really been as bad as “the wind blew the pollen.”

          The guy intentionally bought what he knew were Monsanto seeds from a grain elevator to plant in order to get them cheaper. That’s not a problem of “evil corporation sues unwitting farmer”. That’s “farmer tries to circumvent contract he signed.”

          • Lutra@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            In the face of the established historical record of over 100 lawsuits brought against farmers, the amended PUBPAT complaint asserts, “Monsanto implicitly acknowledges that its transgenic seeds can contaminate the property of non-transgenic farmers,” but in its asserted “commitment” to not sue farmers over “inadvertent,” and “trace” amounts of contamination, the company fails to define either term. Therefore, the Complaint argues, “the clear implication is that Monsanto indeed intends to assert its transgenic seed patents against certified organic and non-transgenic farmers who come to possess more than ‘trace amounts’ of Monsanto’s transgenic seed, even if it is not their fault.”

            When Monsanto sued family farmer Percy Schmeiser in Canada over contamination caused by transgenic seed blown off a passing neighbor’s truck, it cost him a half million dollars to fight them, and he had to mortgage his farm to raise the money, Patterson recalls. In the process, he lost control over 50 years of his own traditional, non-transgenic seed development work, according to Patterson and published reports telling the Schmeiser story. “Monsanto reportedly spent $4 million on their case against Schmeiser,” Patterson says. Percy Schmeiser told him Monsanto had 19 lawyers at one point in the courtroom up against his own single lawyer. “In the school yard and in the NFL, that is called ‘piling on,’” he concludes. https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/763/family-farmers-amplify-complaint-against-monsantos-gmos-reinforcing-their-arguments-with-two-dozen-additional-plaintiffs

            They don’t own anything, the modified something that came with the planet, and they want everyone on the planet to be forced to use it, and them to pay them for the privilege. I’ve never been to Msto HQ but I’d give Dollars to Donuts that that is printed on the wall.

          • trollbearpig@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Sorry for the late response, busy day hahaha. A few things:

            1. Please don’t get hung out on the particular examole I picked. I just googled Monsanto seed lawsuit and picked the first example. But there are so many many more examples.

            2. I mean, you don’t see that’s the problem I was pointing out exactly? Again, I’m not against GMOs themselves (though again, totally unneducated opinion). My concern, as someone from a third world country, is precisely with the laws and economic pressure these companies use to exploit people in our countries using this technology.

            Let me explain how this works in my experience:

            1. Monsanto or any of these companies create a new GMO. This GMO is usually actually better at something than traditional crops. Though here better is usually economically better, as in cheaper to produce.
            2. These companies start preassuring every farmer in our countries to use their seeds and crops. Usually this is done through economic preassure. That is usually they price their seeds so they are cheaper to use than traditional crops (on it’s own, not terrible). There is usually some preassure thorugh laws anf marketing to force people to switch too.
            3. The farmers using these new crops will outperform, in an economical sense, the farmers that keep using the traditional crops. They will produce better crops for less money for a while. Usually the ones who survuve this are the big farmers, most family farms can’t compete here. After some time of this we end in a situation where all the crops are replaced with the new GMO, patented crop, giving these companies a monopoly over our food.

            If things ended here it would be okish, though I wiould still hate it hahaha. But we all know that companies will always exploit their monopoly positions as much as possible. So this usually ends with even more hunger in our countries even though we now technicslly have better crops. So yeah, I think you are wrong. If our onky options are to continue using old “inneficient” crops, or this shit, I prefer the traditional crops. So good on Greenpeace for blocking this.

  • Silverseren@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    110
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      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.

      • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months 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.

        • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Very well written and thoughtful response. This is a point I was going to make but was too tired to.

          They can’t compromise, and that shoots the entire movement in the foot

    • enbyecho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        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.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        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.”

      • Silverseren@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Greenpeace actively fearmongers with any and every conspiracy claim they can come up with on the subject. If you look at the reasoning they used in the OP article above and given to the Philippines, you’ll see that they never use any detailed claims, but always vague ones. They reference “safety concerns” without specification and without any consideration of the dozens of papers published on golden rice in the past two decades.

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    5 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      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.

    • jabjoe@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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…

    • enbyecho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      The right way to do it would be to outcross Golden Rice with local strains

      That this might happen is literally one of the specific complaints of farmers.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        It’s only a danger to the other farmers legally. They could be sued for using patented genes.

        • enbyecho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          The article said they felt it could endanger their livelihood by crossing with cultivars they’d spent decades developing and which were uniquely valuable economically.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      The right thing to do is to get a job at Monsanto, acquire a copy of the gene sequence, then smuggle it to some off the grid lab to do one’s own cross breeding.

      Like Praxidike Meng did with that protomolecule yeast.

    • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Don’t know much about current rice farming practises huh? That’s ok. You almost sounded knowledgeable to others that don’t.

  • hash0772@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      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.

      • Iceblade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, tragically that’s the case with many of the enviromental movements where I live as well.

      • Teppichbrand@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        40
        ·
        6 months ago

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

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            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.

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              you’ve convinced me, I’m an oil industry stan now, since nuclear power hasn’t made any progress in waste management in the last 60 years, and it’s not like our descendents will be dealing with the environmental cost of fossil fuels here in 2000 years

              Granted that’s because there won’t be any descendents, but still

            • A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              6 months ago

              Germany, the country that’s doing the environmental transition backwards…

              Nuclear energy is safe, unfuckably safer than what your government is doing right now, you talk so much on the future yet you’re replacing a clean yet not renewable form of energy with the most greenhouse gas emitting shit out there.

              Nuclear fuel can be contained in a safe way that doesn’t require active human monitoring (burying it deep) coal power plant waste is stored in your lungs and in our atmosphere, in what universe is that better.

              People are afraid of things they don’t understand, so instead of voting for a party that makes a dance party while they demolished a town for expanding a coal mine they should sit down for 5 minutes and read a bit about it.

              Like WTF.

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Damn I guess if it’s cheaper to destroy the environment with fossil fuels then we should probably do that instead

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              Yeah, back when renewables weren’t dummy cheap the argument was more convincing.

              It’s possible nuclear could be done cheaper, but nobody has a convincing plan to do it. The whole SMR thing appears to be snake oil.

        • hash0772@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          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.

          • hark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I’m curious why it doesn’t make up a bigger share of energy generation in China then. I assume China doesn’t have the same issues with NIMBYism.

            • stellargmite@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              6 months ago

              They’ve been increasing usage relatively fast. Air quality is an apparent motivator, but being less sufficient on coal , as well as increasing energy demands with of course massive (though recently slowing) growth of middle class population and their consumeristic and life needs are also motivators. I’m not sure of the share of generation. There is a fair amount of NIMBYism in China if you check on local or regional news occassionally. I’m not sure about recently but nuclear plants under construction have had protests, as well as serial polluting factories and other cases. I’m not sure if those qualify as NIMBYism but there is a culture of dissent where it affects the outcomes of especially individuals, believe it or not. None of this is in defence of the CCP who can go suck an egg and who have been much more stern in their responses to dissent in recent years.

          • Teppichbrand@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            It is pretty stupid to look at a nuclear power plant and think “cool, this is pretty clean, cheap and safe” when spent nuclear fuel and plutonium wastes require well-designed storage for periods ranging from tens of thousands to a million years, to minimize releases of the contained radioactivity into the environment.
            What if generation 2748 in the future makes a mistake and pollutes an entire region? A million accidents could and will happen, it is so obvious. Aren’t you aware of this? It’s insane to do this to our childrens children and all other earthlings that will live after us.

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Something like half the population of the human species is currently experiencing a heat wave approaching exceeding 50°. Quit pretending that nuclear power is uniquely dangerous.

          • Teppichbrand@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            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:

            1. 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.

            2. 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.

            3. 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.

            4. 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.

            5. 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago
              1. Theres been more damage from coal ash and oil power plants to the environment than from nuclear.

              2. Coal power plants are responsible for more radiation than nuclear

              3. Again, Coal has done more damage to people and the environment, than nuclear ever has.

              4. No ones making a bomb from nuclear power plant waste. Pointless fearmongering from coal lobbyists.

              5. 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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                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.

                • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Except theres always going to be slack times, and I personally would rather have nuclear power filling in those dips, than fucking coal or oil.

                  Especially with new generations of reactors being able to run off of older generations waste.

                • Mirshe@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  The issue is that none of those have the energy density of nuclear power. A single mid-sized nuclear plant can power a small city, where that same city would need at least a half-dozen solar farms around the area (assuming there’s enough cleared land to support it - rooftop solar can offset, but it generally will not replace mains power), or tons of wind turbines (again, subject to area - not every place is a good candidate). Geothermal and hydroelectric are subject to that same issue - you can’t place them anywhere, there are very specific requirements to get one up and running.

                  I agree we should work towards 100% green energy, but nuclear is an effective option dollar-for-dollar and acre-for-acre until we figure out a good way to increase energy density of wind or solar to a point where we don’t need enormous tracts of land dedicated to them in order to support places where people live.

              • nvermind@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                6 months ago

                Basically no one outside of china is advocating for coal use anymore, so this is a BS comparison. The much more apt comparison is against wind, solar, and storage, against which nuclear is far more dangerous. Also, it’s hard for environmental damage assessment to take into account the EXTREMELY long-lived impacts of fuel “disposal”.

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              The most GPT ass comment I’ve ever read

              PS: The evacuation at Fukushima killed more people than the actual disaster would have

              PS: The materials used for nuclear reactors are not the materials used for nuclear bombs. Coal and gunpowder both burn, but you don’t throw gunpowder in a coal power plant, right?

  • zephyreks
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      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.

      • ynthrepic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Yeah… There’s a bigger question too that is, why can’t other foods containing Vitamin A be supplied to the starving people of the Philippines? There are so many sources.

        Let’s consider how fucked it is that even considering introducing this crop to the wild is necessary.

        I’ve previously supported golden rice, but you’ve changed my mind. We should just be doing more to support developing nations directly. The world has sufficient abundance we shouldn’t need to take these dangerous shortcuts. Not yet.

        Try me when we’re closer to Mad Max earth.

        • capital@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Don’t you think giving them the tools they need to improve things is better than making them dependent on consistent outside charity?

          • ynthrepic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            That’s exactly what I’m saying we should do. Brown rice ironically while it is food, might be like giving a baby an economic pacifier instead of trade milk and expecting it to grow. The Philippines has a range of biodiverse crops and other commodities that have more value than just the one food to feed them all, which would undercut the market and stifle local knowledge over time.

            That said someone here suggested a more advanced plan to seed the beta-carotine gene into the native species, which is awesome in theory, but could create patent law violations and just generally be incredibly risky to the very biodiversity we’re trying to protect.

            This is why I think while the science is very cool, we should avoid such irreversible treatments unless it’s a last resort.

            Mosquitos on the other hand. Love the idea of genetically editing those fuckers out of existence. As the world inevitably warms, malaria is only going to spread further and wider. We should be getting ahead of that catastrophic future while we have the chance.

            • capital@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              6 months ago

              Have you ever considered that when you have an idea which seems to be an extremely simple solution to a problem that it might be more complicated than that and those closer to the situation with actual knowledge of the particulars probably already thought of it?

              • Evil_incarnate@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                So tell me what the experts say about eating foods such as Leafy green vegetables (kale, spinach, broccoli), orange and yellow vegetables (carrots, sweet potatoes, pumpkin and other winter squash, summer squash), Tomatoes, Red bell pepper, Cantaloupe, mango, Beef liver, Fish oils, Milk, Eggs

                All of which are sources of vitamin A.

                • capital@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  I’m not arguing that carrots aren’t a good source of vitamin A.

                  I’m asking you if you’ve considered why those closer to the situation haven’t just gone with carrots. You don’t even know what you don’t know. What other constraints are we working with? Do those things grow well there?

                  What’s it like going through life thinking you know everything?

        • zephyreks
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Rice is easy to store and transport because it doesn’t really spoil. Is basically a supercrop in that regard.

          • ynthrepic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Sure, but that doesn’t really address the argument in making. It’s a lazy way out that benefits the western world for its low cost and the fact is carrying a patented gene modification. We should be doing more, not relying on risky shortcuts.

            Maybe one day all rice cultivars will be golden and the world we’ll be better off for it. But if the history of other GM crops is anything to go by, it sucks for the environment, and low prices screw local farmers over.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Rice is great because it is something they already eat and know how to cultivate. This is about as direct and unobtrusive support of developing nations can be.

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

              Why would I keep following the moving goalposts if you won’t even admit the previous point was reasonably addressed?

              • ynthrepic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                I don’t follow. What goal posts have I shifted? I don’t deny that rice is easy. My point is that it’s a shortcut that could have other negative consequences that more funding could avoid.

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

                  The question was about why we can’t provide direct support to these countries, and I explained to you why targeting rice makes sense…and then you completely shifted gears to driving farmers out of business with no recognition of this point.

      • zephyreks
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        It’s not exactly the end of the world to implement terminator seeds… The reason it hasn’t been implemented is because it’s not an issue. This is a non-issue that’s getting blown out of proportion.

        Farmers will opt to maximize profits given all else equal. The license is a cost of goods sold and gets factored in when farmers decide what to plant. Farmers aren’t forced to plant golden rice.

        • rahmad
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            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.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            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.

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

        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.

        This is true with any type of rice then, and is completely separate from gmos.

        • antimongo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Not sure if this applies to this situation. But there have been instance where non-GMO farmers have had their crops cross pollinated, so are now growing a non-GMO/GMO hybrid. Then because these plants are patented or whatever, they’ve been sued by Monstanto and friends for growing their crop without permission. Edit: might be misinformed on this one, doing some reading about this now

          And for the record, I’m not anti-GMO, I’m anti-GMO Corporation. I have no problem eating them if I’m not supporting the evil corporations that usually develop them.

          Sidebar, humans have been genetically modifying food since we started to farm, the wild version of most food we eat is unrecognizable from the tabletop one.

  • Kairos@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 months 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?

    • IzzyScissor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months 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’.

      • maniii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        6 months ago

        I believe pfizer? and some other pharma companies have now admitted to the non-zero risk for blood-clots and fatally-low platelet counts due to the vaccine. We still do not understand the full long-term impact of the vaccines. We need to stop the vaccine rollout and study the long-term and wider population effects now so that if in 10 or 20 or 30 years down the line if we start seeing people developing abnormal long-term systemic chronic effects due to the vaccines, we now have a MASSIVE study-patient-base available.

        Medicine has to be RESPONSIBLY applied and while vaccinations are necessary they still have to be studied to death to ensure their safety and efficacy.

        Private corporations DO NOT GET A FREE PASS.

        • IzzyScissor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          6 months ago

          I agree that those studies should be done. Studies should ALSO be done on people with unvaccinated covid infections, but we can’t do that on a large number of people, because they’re dead. The vaccinated people might have a ‘non-zero risk for blood clots’, but they’re still alive in the meantime.

          • Allero@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yeah, your chances to get blood clots due to vaccination are orders of magnitude lower than your chance to just die from covid.

        • Allero@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Cool. Now there’s the question.

          Covid itself is known to fuck with the body in a wide range of ways, creating severe long-term consequences for many. We know it’s true, and we know covid has way more lasting side effects than vaccines do.

          What is the guarantee it doesn’t cause something very bad to you down the road? Maybe even something we don’t know yet? COVID-19 is not perfectly studied, and what is studied tells us it absolutely can cause problems down the road.

          It’s also not safer by the virtue of being “natural” - viruses are essentially pieces of randomly changing encapsulated code injected into our bodies and reprogramming our cells. It could be anything, and I mean that.

          Pfizer vaccine (or pretty much any approved covid vaccine for that matter) has little known side effects and is not expected to cause much more going forward.

          From all the data we have now, vaccinating is a better pick both right now AND against future consequences.

          Also, due to the fast pace of viral mutations, the vaccine will probably be completely useless in the 30 years you suggest.

      • capital@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        No human has ever died on Mars - only ever on Earth.

        Conclusion: Mars is safer than Earth.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      6 months ago

      You don’t even realize how amazingly stupid your response/argument is, do you?

      Do you have any concept of how many times in human history, that an argument has basically boiled down to “its safe, stupid. Stop being a baby and use it!”, Only to find out years or even decades down the road that Oopsy Daisy, it wasnt as safe as was claimed?

      Tetraethyllead being an excellent example, which I bet you would have voraciously argued in favor of at the time.

      • Kairos@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        To be more specific, my above comment was more or less saying “see! I can make meaningless arguments too!”. Golden rice saves lives. Lots of things that save lives arent proven safe.

        • maniii@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          It doesn’t absolve the need to study the Golden rice for health problems. If Monsanto/Bayer made this “healthy rice” I will be even MORE skeptical of this. Corporations have been well-known for greed and mutual-human-extinction.

          I trust the rice that was humanly modified and grown over 20,000 years rather than the rice that was suddenly placed in the market by a greedy-corporation in less than a century.

      • Kairos@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        …and you’re doing the same thing as the idiots wanting to ban golden rice. You have to understand things in context and the context here is they are clearly targeting just golden rice not all GMOs

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Do you have any idea what genetically modified organisms actually are? We’re not talking about some chemical we’ve never heard of, we’re talking about rice (but with more vitamin a). This isn’t something that needs to be proven safe.

        I love the downvotes from people who don’t understand what GMOs even are

  • efstajas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

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

      • efstajas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Exactly! The fact that we’re shutting down our reactors all the while still burning coal is so backwards.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          At a certain point I think governments should start investigating Greenpeace. The policies they support are exactly what the fossil fuels lobby would want.

          They are anti-nuclear which effectively means pro-coal.

          They are anti-GMOs which effectively means more fertilizers made from natural gas.

        • cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          If nuclear waste DID pollute water, it would still help combat climate change, specifically the warming of the earth. It doesn’t pollute water, and nuclear waste can be stored deep underground or reused. But we are out of time to find a “perfect solution” nuclear power is the ONLY option to provide renewable and carbon neutral base load power that other forms of “green electricity” will NEVER be able to compete with.

          It’s coal or nukes. You better figure out which one you want fast.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            You, redisdead, already used this personal attack in this thread. Where are the mods when you need one? Thought this was a place to discuss ideas not attack the intelligence of those that disagree

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      6 months ago

      The greens being anti nuclear is a good thing. We dont have the storage for the nuclear waste. The greens in germany are the party with the best energy politics. I wont vote for them because they are pro deportation though.

      • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Bullshit we don’t have the storage. Fucking NIMBYs. 80% of our planet is covered in water, and at its deepest point there is no life. And the waste absolutely can be reused. Think, Draeron, think. Why is nuclear waste dangerous? It’s dangerous because it still contains usable energy. It’s still fissile. It’s only “waste” because the reactor it came out of cannot fission it any further. So we put it into a newer reactor that can. And we keep using it until it’s rendered inert.

        • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          They’re likely talking about other nuclear waste besides spent fuel rods.

          They’re still wrong, but it makes a bit more sense from that perspective.

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

            They might be talking about waste that radiology departments produce, but that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the waste generated by the energy sector.

            • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              No, I meant the radioactive waste water and such. There’s different levels of radioactive waste that nuclear plants produce, and it’s not just spent fuel.

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    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.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        6 months ago

        Lot of rage at something that is apparently a fad that will go away on its own and yet somehow will take all our jobs.

        • Jax@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          I can point to all the ways AI has made my life worse. Google (and YouTube) has gotten worse, any forum where art is posted (that includes lemmy) has gotten worse, and I’ve had to establish a safeword with my mom because of AI scammers.

          So, sincerely, pull your head out of your ass. Thank you.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            24
            ·
            6 months ago

            YouTube recommendations have sucked for years, your own fault for using Google, art hasn’t made sense since a can of soup counted as it, and your mom shouldn’t be answering calls. Period. What the fuck just text like a normal person.

            So sincerely please stop being a luddit,

    • Lutra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      The implication is: that by it’s nature -All Science Is Good® All science is cool. Is neat. But not all good. There a many genies, we suffer from that we can not put back in the bottle. Some of us ‘Science for a living’, and still don’t think ‘All Science Is Good’.

        • Lutra@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          In my language this statement :

          The anti-science crowd wins again

          Says that science (good) is being defeated by the anti-science crowd (bad). From there it follows, if people are against this product of science, then they are against science.

          Therefore, all science must be good. And all people against ANY product of science are therefore ‘anti-science’

    • enbyecho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      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?

      • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        … I think that was an application of Godwin’s Law.

        As in the NAZIs had genetic purity fanatics.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 months ago

          Pretty much the whole world had genetic purity fanatics in the 1930s. Eugenics was broadly supported for most of the 20th century.

          • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yup. Even my supposedly egalitarian country had relatively recent legislation ensuring “white” immigration.

            Apparently it was a surprise to the government of the time that Indians some Pacific islanders were British (at the time) and that upset some people who equated “white” and “British”.

  • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      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.

      • orrk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        actually, even tho rice is mostly self pollinating, it is also a wind pollinator

    • barryamelton
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      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.

    • Lutra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      proven. there’s a list of new inventions that were proven safe in 1950. Do we think they were just idiots back then?

      Also its about directing cash from the sale of ‘Golden rice’ far more than about having these folks afford good food.

      https://grain.org/en/article/10-grains-of-delusion-golden-rice-seen-from-the-ground

      I’m no expert but these folk are almost

      While many doubt the ability of golden rice to eliminate vitamin A deficiency, the machinery is being set in motion to promote a GE strategy at the expense of more relevant approaches. The best chance of success in fighting vitamin A deficiency and malnutrition is to better use the inexpensive and nutritious foods already available, and in diversifying food production systems in the fields and in the household. The euphoria created by the Green Revolution greatly stifled research to develop and promote these efforts, and the introduction of golden rice will further compromise them. Golden rice is merely a marketing event. But international and national research agendas will be taken by it.

      The promoters of golden rice say that they do not want to deprive the poor of the right to choose and the potential to benefit from golden rice. But the poor, and especially poor farmers, have long been deprived of the right to choose their means of production and survival. Golden rice is not going to change that, and nor will any other corporately-pushed GE crop. Hence, any further attempts at the commercial exploitation of hunger and malnutrition through the promotion of genetically modified foods should be strongly resisted.

  • SeattleRain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        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.

      • Cypher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        6 months ago

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

        • Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          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

            • Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                22
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                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.

                • Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Do you want me to agree with you that big ag is shit? Well, I do.

                  Do I know about cross pollination? Yep, been keeping bees for a long time, though rice is wind pollinated and you aren’t controlling that anymore than my bees flight.

                  Have you lived in Asia? Most of what is called farms in the west are not for profit, they are a family with a few hectares of land, maybe a water buffalo. Water Buffalo are getting scarce though, what’s more common is having someone come in with a rice harvester to gather your crop, which is its own problem.

                  So $10k means nothing if you aren’t selling, or you sell $200.

                  Golden Rice was developed to address Vitamin A defiency, studies show it helps. It would be great if the whole thing was permissive license, it’s not though. This is what we have. So far it has only been grown in trials with local development agencies, Big Ag won’t touch it because of potential liability.

                  ETA: you want a hill to die on, go for anything Roundup Ready™ or GMO corn, not because it’s GMO, but because of the bullshit IP and the fact it is used overwhelmingly for ethanol production, not food, and has huge subsidies.

                • Silverseren@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  6 months ago

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

                  I do. In that it was made up by the organic companies to fearmonger about GM crops. The only lawsuits that happened were against people who were purposefully harvesting the GM crops of their neighbors to plant only those. Cross-contamination doesn’t result in a subsequent harvest of 99+% GM crops.

    • enkers@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      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.

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    6 months 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

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      No, I’ve been convinced that gmos are bad and so fuck any evidence and the opinion of experts, they are bad!

      Also how dumb are conservatives for rejecting the opinion of experts during the pandemic? What a bunch of sheep!

      • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Imagine that we actually do colonize Mars. The first colonists are likely going to eat GMOs, because the only alternative is red sand.

      • lost_faith@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        We have been modifying crops by cross breeding and selective breeding since we started growing and harvesting crops, this is not the same as GMO. GMO is not bad in so far as a food source that can overcome environmental changes quickly. GMO is bad when it can pollinate non GMO crops thereby stealing a traditional farmers ability to replant from their seeds as they now have a trademarked gene that they cannot use. Monsanto is terrible for this.

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

          GMO is bad when it can pollinate non GMO crops thereby stealing a traditional farmers ability to replant from their seeds as they now have a trademarked gene that they cannot use. Monsanto is terrible for this.

          And you won’t be able to provide a single case of this ever happening. Because it hasn’t.

          Also, just as importantly, this is not limited to GMO, as you can patent traditionally modified crops as well, and they could pollinate non modified crops posing the same exact “problem.”

  • spicy pancake@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    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

    • maniii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      If you mix rice with turmeric ( another attempted cash-grab-by-patenting ) you will get “golden rice”. Not sure if it will have Vitamin-A so thats what supplements are for.

    • redisdead@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Being against GMO taking over our food supply chain by massive, dubious corporations with a long history of absolute fuckery is the same as banning some mildly better form of transportation?

      • AnthropomorphicCat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        You are exactly the type of person I’m talking about 🤦‍♂️.

        The technology of GMOs is awesome, it will help us solve several problems, some related to food supplies, and other problems in different areas like healthcare. We can develop food with more nutrients. Crops resistant to most common plagues. We use it to create insulin without needing to harvest tons of pig’s pancreas. The technology itself is completely safe and full of potential.

        But most uneducated people think that “GMOs = mOnSaNtO” and want to ban all of them only by the actions of a company that no longer exists (yeah, now owned by Bayer, but whatever). And even most of that bad reputation was caused by myths and defamation. Just because one company that developed GMOs was a dickhead doesn’t mean that GMOs are bad, in the same way that electric cars should not be banned because of Elon Musk.

        Edit to add: like with any technology, it needs to be extensively regulated to prevent monopolies or other abuses.

        • redisdead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Oh you’re so naive.

          I love how you’re all like 'monsanto doesn’t exist they’re owned by Bayer a

          As if Bayer was more reputable somehow.

          We’re literally facing dangerous monopolies trying to corner the market of our basic needs. And you’re sitting here like YEAH TECHNOLOGY IS AWESOME AND SAFE LET’S GOOOOOOO.

          • AnthropomorphicCat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Also, I have family that are large-scale farmers, so they have first-hand experience with agriculture practices and technology. I have other family members that are researchers on soil ecology and related fields. And I was a researcher (at a completely unrelated field, I admit) and I read lots of literature about the subject, because I had access to all scientific journals at my university. But yeah, “I’m naive”, lol.

            • redisdead@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              I am repeating the same argument because the reply to my previous argument was ‘but what about this other greedy seedy company?’

              I’ll have a new one when you guys have a new one.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Criminalizing a food via the court instead of by democracy is issue here.

        Your buddies at Greenpeace couldn’t produce good arguments that the product was dubious, so they used Western money, judge shopped, and out lawyered a poor nation. They get to decide for the people there. Individual farmers don’t get to decide what to do with their land, people don’t get to decide how their own nation is to be run,. Greenpeace came in and used forklift piles of money to force their will on the Pinay.

        This is why people fucking hate them. The self-appointed moral authority of the human race answerable to no one but themselves.

  • Grass@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m gettingn that thing where I keep losimg my spot no matter how many times I try to read over and bouncing paragraphs unintentionally. Does it say who owns Golden Rice? I assume it’s a branded product someone owns from the capitalization of its name.