7mo ago

‘A catastrophe’: Greenpeace blocks planting of ‘lifesaving’ Golden Rice

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

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

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.

News @lemmy.world

‘A catastrophe’: Greenpeace blocks planting of ‘lifesaving’ Golden Rice

www.theguardian.com /environment/article/2024/may/25/greenpeace-blocks-planting-of-lifesaving-golden-rice-philippines

251 100

243 comments

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.
- 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.
  
  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.
- 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?
  
  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.”
  
  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.
- 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?
  
  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.

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?
- 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.
  
  Yeah, tragically that's the case with many of the enviromental movements where I live as well.
  
  Nuclear is over, because it's stupid, expensive and really dangerous for a LONG time
- They actually made some pretty good arguments in this case. The economic losses incurred by contaminating heirloom crops outweighed the benefits which were marginally small compared to growing crops rich in vitamin A and having food programs to fight malnutrition at the root of the problem: financing.

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.
- 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?
- 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.
- Who's talking about Monsanto?
- 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...
- 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.
  
  It’s only a danger to the other farmers legally. They could be sued for using patented genes.
- 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.
- This.
- Don't know much about current rice farming practises huh? That's ok. You almost sounded knowledgeable to others that don't.

The argument against Golden Rice should have nothing to do with GMO and everything to do with monocultures.
Greenpeace is fucked in the head.
- 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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  If there argument is so good why not getting people to vote for it instead of using the court system to force it?

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?
- 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'.
  
  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.
- Breathing has a 100% death rate.
  
  No human has ever died on Mars - only ever on Earth.
  Conclusion: Mars is safer than Earth.
- 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.
  
  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.
  
  ...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
  
  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

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.
- Both GMOs and nuclear can be used to mitigate climate change too... :(
  
  Exactly! The fact that we're shutting down our reactors all the while still burning coal is so backwards.
  
  Polluting our water with nuclear waste does not help combat climate change
- 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.
  
  We absolutely do have the storage.
  
  This is spectacularly misinformed.
  
  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.

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.
- I guess AI is next.
  We can hope.
  
  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.
- Ah yes, being unwilling to surrender our food supply to massive, dubious corporations with a long track record of shitty behavior is being 'anti-science'.
  
  I'm sorry, why are you using the Internet to answer me? That is double plus ungood and also unnatural
- 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'.
  
  The implication was not that, but strawmen are easier so go ahead and attack them.

Greenpeace have genetic purity fanatics?
- Greenpeace is full of complete nutheads.
- 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?
  
  ... I think that was an application of Godwin's Law.
  As in the NAZIs had genetic purity fanatics.

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

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.
- 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.
  
  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.
- This isn't about scarcity, it's about addressing Vitamin A deficiency.
  
  Yes Im sure it’s all about addressing dietary deficiencies and not profit motivated at all
- 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.

When your ideals are in direct opposition to the well being of people its time to rethink your ideals, not double down on them
- 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!
  
  Imagine that we actually do colonize Mars. The first colonists are likely going to eat GMOs, because the only alternative is red sand.
  
  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.

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
- 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.

Any plant or animal that has been domesticated has been genetically modified.
- 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....
  
  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.
  
  All plant cultivars are patented, including all organic and heirloom cultivars.
  The scientists that developed Golden rice have been distributing it for free via NGOs.
  
  The question here is whether to give farmers the freedom to choose to grow it - most will continue growing other varieties. Idk what uncontrollable regulations you are referring to, but no regulation will force you to grow something.
  I also want to solve the problem and this is a great solution. It's worth enacting it, unless you have a better idea - children have been dying, die right now, and could continue to die if something isn't done.
- not modified; selected
  
  Is that selection not modification?
- Any plant or animal that has been domesticated has been genetically modified.
  You aren't exactly the first person to misunderstand this. But congrats I guess.
  
  It all depends what your definition of genetic modification is.
  My opinion isn’t exactly a fringe theory.

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

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.
- I don't think any one company owns the whole thing. But from what I've been reading, companies have granted humanitarian licenses for production under $10k US. That probably covers most places where it's needed.
- Syngenta.

243 comments