‘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
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.
If you're like me wondering why:
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.
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.
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.
I don't like Greenpeace, but these are good arguments.
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!".
All that except contamination could be solved by just not using it if there's a better option for a given farmer.
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).
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.
I posted a reply by accident lol.
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."
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.
Sorry for the late response, busy day hahaha. A few things:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
Their argument continues past that, but yes the court has sided with greenpeace because the of the potential economic losses and the availability of alternative solutions including other crops rich in vitamin A and the effectiveness of food distribution to combat malnutrition.
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.
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.
Thoughtful answer, thanks!
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 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?
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...
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 article said they felt it could endanger their livelihood by crossing with cultivars they'd spent decades developing and which were uniquely valuable economically.
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.
Don’t you think giving them the tools they need to improve things is better than making them dependent on consistent outside charity?
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.
How about we just introduce them to carrots as a crop?
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?
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.
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?
You don't need to insinuate.
Populations have been surviving in the Philippines for millennia without the need for a proprietary spliced rice enriched for Vit A. Just like most other places on earth. Local fauna and flora surely contains a source that met their needs previously.
This has a real, "Back in my day, we kids didn't have these newfangled car seats and we lived!" vibe to it.
From the article:
Low vitamin A intake in the Philippines is primarily due to the lack of vitamin A-rich foods in the diet, particularly among low-income populations. Factors contributing to this include:
Economic Constraints: Limited financial resources restrict access to diverse and nutrient-rich foods such as animal products (liver, eggs, dairy) and vitamin A-rich fruits and vegetables (carrots, sweet potatoes, dark leafy greens).
Dietary Habits: Traditional diets may not include sufficient amounts of vitamin A-rich foods. Staples like rice and fish, while important, are low in vitamin A.
Agricultural Practices: Local agricultural practices might not prioritize the cultivation of vitamin A-rich crops due to various socio-economic and environmental factors.
To address this, an introduction of non-GMO crops that are rich in vitamin A and unlikely to become invasive could be considered. One such crop could be carrots. Carrots are rich in beta-carotene, which the body converts into vitamin A. They are:
Other potential crops include sweet potatoes (particularly the orange-fleshed varieties), which are also high in beta-carotene and have similar advantages regarding non-invasiveness and adaptability.
Now the only thing I see as a barrier is that instead of waterlogged clay soil, carrots need Sandy well drained soil instead.
Honestly, if the Golden rice wasn't under a patent (free or not) and wasn't likely to cross pollinate, I'd be all for it. But at this point I'd sooner the state or NGOs help instituting an egg a day policy over trying to hammer something in that might do more harm than good, more meddling, and may make a poor nation indebted to patent-coloinalism by the Swiss.
What do you do for a living and why do you think you know better than those closer to the problem?
By the way, this looks at least partially written by a LLM.
Rice is easy to store and transport because it doesn't really spoil. Is basically a supercrop in that regard.
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.
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.
What about when rice prices crash and local small scale farmers go out of business?
Why would I keep following the moving goalposts if you won't even admit the previous point was reasonably addressed?
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.
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.
Direct would be doing the farming for them, or handing over food directly. Or sending in workers to train local farmers to grid Vitamin A rich crops.
Rice is a shortcut, and sure it might "work", but there are other potential long-term externalities at play here, that golden rice alone is insufficient to account for. It would be a plaster covering a surface wound when there is internal bleeding to worry about.
You're saying to do the work for them, right after saying that giving them different rice to grow will put them out of business. Lol
And, yes, rice is a short cut. It's unobtrusive as it doesn't require anyone to change their diet or learn how to grow new things.
You want to go in there, drive farmers out of business by doing the work for them, and then expect everyone to just change their diets based on what you want them to eat.
I just said what "directly" would actually look like after you said to help then directly. I didn't endorse this approach necessarily. My point is that getting them to grow our GM crop is not "direct".
I feel that you're intentionally trying to one up me instead actually have a proper discussion here. Why not assume my intention here is to change my mind because together we might actually figure something out? This back and forth is all a waste of time otherwise.
My actual opinion is that we give them monetary aid conditioner on certain outcomes, and send in experienced people to support transitions to more sustainable and productive food production. The money can upgrade housing, farming and transport infrastructure, and help boost Vitamin A rich crop yields and sale prices. Also subsidize imports if Vitamin A rich foods to make up the difference if local yields are insufficient.
Expensive, hard work, job creating activities, instead of shortcuts.
Projection of the day, my friend. I'm sorry that the only example you actually floated immediately contradicted your previous position of not driving farmers out of business.
Except there are kids whose lives and health we can save, right now, if we just start growing golden rice. Why this insistence on letting children die while you come up with a concrete solution that will take years to implement?
I don't mean this as an insult, just a statement of fact: you are very ignorant about this whole thing. You don't think people have considered bringing in and growing high beta-carotene foods before? It's not so simple. We are talking about extremely poor people and areas here, where there is little or no infrastructure to support this as a long-term solution. However, they know how to grow rice, they eat rice, it requires them buying nothing else, it requires them setting up nothing new, it's a great solution that fits seamlessly into the current framework, and it's relatively cheap.
What you are suggesting requires drastic change and a lot of upfront money, and continued on-going long-term support and financial assistance. Not only that, but it requires touching so much that the change of unintended consequences is extremely high. You worry about driving farmers out of business by giving them license free access to rice. . .but you are all sticking your fingers in most everything about their food logistical chain? It's not consistent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/seed-giants_final_04424.pdf
In most cases the outcomes have been settlements, most farmers simple can't afford to sustain the fight. I think there have been some that made it through the court system and ended up working against the farmers.
I haven't read this whole report, but I read the relevant section starting on page 29. It was sourced from this Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents
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.
Fix the laws?
No. It's the GMOs who are wrong.
Good joke!
This is true with any type of rice then, and is completely separate from gmos.
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 nowAnd 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.
If there argument is so good why not getting people to vote for it instead of using the court system to force it?
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.
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.
Yeah, your chances to get blood clots due to vaccination are orders of magnitude lower than your chance to just die from covid.
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.
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.
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.
...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
It's Greenpeace they're 1000% trying for all GMOs they just won this time with golden rice.
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.
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.
Polluting our water with nuclear waste does not help combat climate change
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.
That is why coal plants should be closed
Bro imagine having the balls to be so ignorant yet so brave
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
Oof, how much money did you lose on crypto buddy?
Burn
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.
In my language this statement :
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'
Bifurcation. Basic logical fallacy.
Greenpeace have genetic purity fanatics?
Greenpeace is full of complete nutheads.
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.
Pretty much the whole world had genetic purity fanatics in the 1930s. Eugenics was broadly supported for most of the 20th century.
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".
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
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.
I thought that was Nestle.
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
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
Lots of claims about it being for humanitarian purposes but there it is.
Source: http://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how9_IP.php
Did you read your link?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
The huge difference is who holds the patent. The example you gave involves Monsanto, the patent holder for several GMO crops, and a terrible company that does everything in its power to make money by exploiting people. Golden Rice, however, is patented by the scientists who designed it, who likely only patented it so that a company like Monsanto couldn't just make some similar GMO and patent it instead, using it to exploit people even more.
This same thing happened back when genes themselves were able to be patented; some companies like Myriad Genetics would patent genes like the BRCA gene, a common source of inherited breast cancer predisposition, so that they could charge an arm and a leg for testing. So, researchers and non-profits would patent genes that they found just ensure they could be fairly studied and tested for.
I don’t think that is important really. The big problem is that patents can be sold so the good guy(s) with the patent could turn out to be not as good as we hoped when someone offers them a bucket load of money.
Well, yes, but that's kinda my point. If you don't patent, you get exploited, like how the discoverers of insulin synthesis decided not to patent, so companies patented similar, but not exact methods, and now it's incredibly expensive. But, as you said, if you do patent, there is still a risk of exploitation if the patent holder sells to an exploitative company. However, that exploitation is still less likely than when not patenting, so I support the practice so long as patenting is still possible.
I worked at a small nonprofit back when genes were still able to be patented; we mostly studied the condition Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum, and held the patents to a few of the genes associated with it. However, we still allowed people to research them freely - we only patented them to prevent a company like Myriad Genetics, who had been patenting genes so that they could sell expensive genetic tests, from patenting it instead. We celebrated when genes were no longer able to be patented; I imagine that the researchers working with golden rice will do the same if we're ever lucky enough for GMO's to no longer be able to be patented.
Relying on a hope that someone will do good is, and always has been, a terrible idea. We need to fix that shit at its core.
I wholeheartedly agree. I was working for a small genetics nonprofit when they removed the ability to patent genes, and the whole office had a party to celebrate. It was mostly a celebration about freedom to research and test, but we were also very excited to no longer have to deal with having a bunch of patents. Even though we let people research the genes freely, we still had a bunch of paperwork that needed to be done any time someone wanted to do so.
Oh hey. I didn't realize anyone was still pushing that long since debunked canard.
The guy in question was a lying hack, who purposefully set up his fields next to a farmer who grew the GM crop and then purposefully harvested the crops that were along the connecting edge of the field so he could replant them without having to have bought them. When he was called out on that, he lied and blamed cross-contamination, but there was no way for his subsequent harvest to be 99+% the GM crop from cross-contamination unless he had collected and planted them on purpose.
So, yeah, he was sued. Including by his neighboring farmer for theft.
Your whole comment is based on the assumption that what that guy did was theft, and morally reprehensible. It fucking isn't though. Intellectual property of the generic material of plants is just capitalist made up bullshit.
Can I patent my DNA so if I knock someone up I can sue them?
What does intellectual property have to do with stealing crops from your neighbor? In fact, the guy in question was purposefully working for the organic food companies in order to try and have such a lawsuit happen.
The funny thing being that he completely lost the case.
Fuck the neighbor, as long as he didn't harvest the neighbors' crops directly and it came on to his property it's his.
He did harvest his neighbors crops directly. He purposefully cut and took crops through the fence bordering the property. He did all of that completely on purpose.
The GM crop was Roundup Ready. Unlike non-GM crops, it won't be killed by a Roundup, an herbicide. So unless you are using GM seeds, it would be madness to spray Roundup on your crops.
All of those farmers were sued when they used Roundup on their fields. Why would they do so if they didn't secretly plant Roundup Ready seeds?
And hence why his fields were 99+% GM crops. Him trying to claim cross-contamination after that was laughably dumb.
Nah read into it, the guy had planned all-GM and had kicked up a shitstorm with the "cross-pollination" theory to try and get away with it. Unfortunately reality matters in court so he hit sued (Greenpeace never told you that part)
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.
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.
No it doesn't.
It's a completely disingenuous argument and a false equivalency. We know that we are referring to GMO vs selective breeding. These are completely different mechanisms and in the latter case we understand the consequences and implications because humans have been doing it for millennia. In the former case we have not been doing it very long at all and do not yet fully understand the consequences and implications. I'm not saying that makes it inherently wrong, but it is a vast area of unknown ramifications. And given human's already long history of fucking with nature and finding out my money is on those ramifications being less than ideal.
It is selecting genes through breeding or doing the same thing in a laboratory.
It is a completely different mechanism. The best way to simply describe this is perhaps to say that in selective breeding you are allowing random mutations to happen naturally - IOW allowing the plant to naturally "adapt" to it's environment. This is crucially different in that you are not going in and saying "oh these genes are the ones we want let's only bring those out" but rather "these are the characteristics I want, let's select the organisms that display those".
To put it another way: in selective breeding you are selecting for a collection of characteristics. A great example is saving seed from a crop you have grown. Those seeds will always do better in your specific environment than commercially purchased seeds of the exact same cultivar. Why? Because there are small random mutations across a number of genes that are better adapted to your specific environment to produce the characteristics you want. Those genes are often not actually understood nor is the effect of different combinations of genes. By working backward from exhibited characteristics you are working from known successful combinations.
It’s like you’re trying to explain to me muscle mass growth from going to the gym vs hard work as a farmer.
It’s the same outcome and you’re not getting that.
I just explained how it's not and you're not getting that.
Here, educate yourself: http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-gmo-and-selective-breeding/
Here’s one that proves my point.
It really doesn't though. If you point is... um... what exactly? That somehow the end result is the same? LOL. Only if you squint real hard and pretend to misunderstand words.
Technically, yes. That's true. Through DIFFERENT mechanisms.
But what do you expect when it's brought to you by Cargill, Bayer, Syngenta, Nutrien, BASF... among others.
I think this conversation is over and it could have always been this simple but you just wanted to argue and get pedantic for whatever reason.
You are the pedantic one. Have a nice day.
not modified; selected
Is that selection not modification?
Selection technically isn't modification, since the modification had to have already occurred for it to be selected for. However, modification certainly did occur, and all crops are genetically modified. Indeed, all living creatures are genetically modified, as without modification, evolution can't occur.
The public fear of GMO's is largely due to Monsanto, who aggressively protect their GMO crop patents to the point where farmers who just happened to have some seeds blow into their fields have been sued.
The issue with GMO's isn't the modification, it's the lax patent laws that allow companies like Monsanto to exploit people for profit, giving a bad name to the field as a whole, in spite of the immense potential good it can do, for which Golden Rice is a prime example.
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.
Being against GMOs is like wanting to ban electric cars because Elon Musk is a dickhead.
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.
Syngenta.
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.
This situation is an example of idiots on both sides. The activist could have looked at Potato production in France and Filipino Farmers could have looked at the US South prior to enriched flour. Grow Golden Rice for export and it will become a commodity crop. I know several farmers in the US that would love to grow Golden Rice and no-one outside the Philippines can get the stuff due to the genetics group that is stupidly restricting it due to grain quantity. IF the Philippines doesn't want it the rest of the world isn't that dumb. You just got the money for humanitarian reasons you lucky fucks.