this post was submitted on 26 May 2024
251 points (91.7% liked)

News

23367 readers
2752 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 44 points 6 months ago (3 children)

According to the Greenpeace website:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 6 months ago (4 children)

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

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

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 26 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Which big corps would that be exactly?

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

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

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

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

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

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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

[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

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

[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 months ago

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

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

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

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

[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 16 points 6 months ago (4 children)

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

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

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

That's an argument to regulate GMO crops, not to stop doing it.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

What if it changes the flavor of all the world’s rice so sushi, risotto and every other rice-based dishes are different?

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

Assuming it's still safely edible, people would find a way to make it taste good enough. There's a million condiments in the world, something will work.

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Unlikely. Each strain of culinary rice, particularly in Japan is incredibly specific. Sushi rice is often packaged with single strains and new cross bred strains are tracked and only a handful are legitimized for more widespread commercial cultivation. Crops are managed by experts who know exactly what to look for. Deviations in the crop selection for next crop's seed is carefully scrutinized for potential hybridization.

I find it easier to think in terms of apples. Like you know how you go to the supermarket and there are 8 types of apple? There's like hundreds of distinct cultivars of apple some that are hold overs from middle ages. Humans are very good at keeping their fav flavours from getting fucked up. Shout out to the Cox's Orange Pippin or really any Victorian era dessert apple. If you haven't tried one figure out how to get your hands on one. It's worth it

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's so unlikely to happen and the scientists involved have to work so incredibly hard to get it to happen, because it would be a tremendous good for the world if it did.

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

This is what I was replying to.

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And I am saying that in our current cultivation structure gene flow is something we are already used to accounting for. They are talking about the actual bio engineering process that makes that unlikely. I am talking about normal everyday gene flow.

The process of farming has accounted for regular gene flow for a very long time. What you choose to reseed is a pretty easy variable to control. Cross pollenated strains might occur in new fruit or seed but what in totality you harvest and what you choose to replant is fundamentally different. Unlike your average amateur cottage gardener farming done by experts is often incredibly specific as to what gets kept. An expert can tell a lot of things based on the shape of the entire plant not just it's fruiting body before even relying on gene testing. If it's something you work with everyday minute differences become very noticeable.

Also, there may be other people reading this that are actually worried about losing a strain of rice something they value. A lot of alarm happens because people simply don't understand what systems already exist and their concern is essentially already a non-issue for other reasons.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Ah, I thought you were just jumping into a conversation that you didn’t understand.

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

I sort of understand it though just on a passing level. I have a friend whose background is in bio engineering (though he discovered he hated the jobs associated with his degree and actually became management) but also am also friendly with people who are big into gormand style heritage strain conservation and attended a few lectures held by our local University because I was interested in all the hubbub around "Frankenfoods" back in the early 2000's. My understanding of the biological aspects are shakier and generally just passing interest level because the rabbit hole is deeper and more technical... But I love studying the history of farming and crop cultivation which also has an understanding of prevention or propagation of weird hybrids through gene flow.

Some of the comments I read above is examples of very practical fears. People want to know that they are safe and that the things they like aren't endangered. Since media tends to just yell "LOOK AT THIS WEIRD SPOOKY THING! IT'S SPOOKY!" all the time because that sells best it's sometimes good to just rip the mask off a problem and go "It was old man Norman Normal the whole time!"

[–] Temperche@feddit.de 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] n0m4n@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

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

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 0 points 6 months ago

Furthermore, you stole my argument.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 8 points 6 months ago

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

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