I'm highly skeptical of anti-GMO claims. Usually they come from the same family of pseudoscience as anti-nuclear and anti-vaccine
this post was submitted on 26 May 2024
251 points (91.7% liked)
News
23367 readers
3434 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
GMOs aren’t inherently bad but many crops are genetically modified to be resistant to glyphosate and other herbicides so they can douse the fields with the stuff.
Even in that case it's not the modified plant itself that's harmful but the remains of roundup left in it after being sprayed.
left in it? I wish. More like left everywhere
load more comments
(4 replies)
There are very valid arguments against GMOs even if they're safe from a strictly scientific point of view. Those mainly pertain to control over seeds by corporations that will allow them to exploit poor farmers. This is happening to a huge extent in India where many farmers have committed suicide because of these practices.
Yep, exactly. I'm against Monsanto suing farmers for cross-pollination when the wind blows.
Seed patents are dumb. Once something has been planted it belongs to the ground now, if it spreads that's too bad for giant corpo.
EDIT: the link above is the the wrong case. I found this link which breaks things down better.. I'm still of the opinion that seed patents are dumb, and that if farmers harvest seeds from crops on their fields they should be allowed to replant them.
load more comments
(4 replies)
There are very valid arguments against GMOs
All “valid arguments against GMOs” are ultimately arguments against capitalistic profit-at-all-costs practises.
When you take the profit margin out of the process, there end up being no valid arguments against GMOs, as all such profit-free GMOs that end up moving to production are there purely to benefit humanity as a whole, and not to restrict said benefit to a rarefied group of obscenely wealthy people. It’s the GMOs with capitalistic roots which are problematic for capitalistic, Parasite-Class-greed related reasons.
Yeah, that's basically what I said.
Your 'argument against GMOs' is an argument against seed patents, not GMOs. That's the same as saying there's an 'argument against insulin' because big companies own the patents and charge lots of money. The product is absolutely irrelevant to the conversation.
load more comments
(4 replies)
The author didn't address it in the least, which is troubling, but how exactly did they prove to the court that the rice hadn't been shown to be safe? They seem to have made a convincing argument and I'd rather like to know what it was. Seems like an important part of the story to me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
load more comments
(12 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(14 replies)
My friend got her doctorate engineering rice to grow in high salinity areas. The goal was to aid farmers near brackish water and without access to good farmland. Greenpeace would definitely not like that.
Basically, the issue is that this Golden Rice is a foreign species in Philippines. That comes with a lot of complications.
Most importantly, local farmers don't have the knowledge how to deal with this new type of rice. They are worried that their native species are being replaced and could go extinct, which would be difficult to revert. It would lead to yet another platform lock-in.
It's important to save and continue to grow heirloom species, sure. But almost no cultivated species are native to where they're grown.
Patent bullshit aside.
It's interesting about native species. Think about apple trees in the UK. They grow very well here, the climate is suited perfectly, they don't seem to be invasive (talking as a layperson here). Yet they were introduced about 2000 years ago by the Romans. Does that mean they're old enough to now count as native? I mean, if you go back far enough, everything came from somewhere else. Unless you're looking at a deep-sea vent where life very first evolved, then it has spread from somewhere else.
Maybe if I was a botanist or ecologist, I would know the actual answer. But I'm just a person who loves thinking about things in a philosophical way, without necessarily wanting to research in-depth answers for every little puzzle
I mean, if you go back far enough, everything came from somewhere else.
The Wikipedia article on Native Species is a good start. It's a bit blurrier than I thought but I think the important part is that it's evolved along with the local ecosystem.
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Way to go greenpiss. Anti-scietific fear mongering that will only hurt.
That tracks for Greenpeace. They've been fighting nuclear power since their inception.
I mean with nuclear power there are atleast some things objectively problematic like the high costs of the energy produced and the garbage that is left off. I would not have a beef with thrm protesting GMO's either, where they are used to essentially make the farmers dependent on the seller of the crops. It is this black and white aproach thats really got me grinding my gears because at this point its more of a well known cult than a group for the environment.
If we had gone nuclear 60 years ago climate change would be nothing more than an interesting theory. Greenpeace has as much share of the blame for the current state of the world as Exxon mobil does.
This is just obviously untrue. Not least because we did build lots of nuclear power plants. One significant reason why we didn't build more was their high price compared to ... coal and gas plants. But sure, it's Greenpeace's fault and not Exxon Mobil.
To add to this: The great majority of nuclear plant operators are companies with a majority stake in fossil fuels. Apparently fossil fuel is more profitable for them than nuclear. Additionally, it is much, much more cheaper (like a 1:3 cost ratio) to produce renewable energy via solar and wind than to do it via nuclear energy. Also, fissile material is non-renewable and mining sites are mostly situated in non-western regions, making us yet again dependent on energy imports. Further, nuclear energy is just not as quickly scalable as renewables, as the construction of nuclear plants usually takes around 10 years, at minimum, whilst wind and solar parks with the same output as nuclear reactors only require a couple if years. Every pro-nuclear advocate therefore effectively supports the centralized fossil fuel industry (as opposed to decentralized energy production of renewables) and fosters dependence on increasingly expensive fissle fuel imports. The cognitive dissonance by proponents towards nuclear energy simply is as deep as the money pockets of our fossil fuel overlords who are desperate to keep control of the narrative and ownership of the energy production.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
This article is pretty close to pure clip bait and possible just media spin from Greenpeace, other more reputable articles don't even mention Greenpeace and highlight a lot of local support against the rice. https://www.isaaa.org/blog/entry/default.asp?BlogDate=5/8/2024
What a terrible article. A polarized solution: either the dangerous rice or nothing... As if no other possible food sources could exist or could ever have been considered. And nobody saw this coming, and nobody had any backup plans.
The backup plan was to blame Greenpeace and throw their hands in the air, magically absolved of any responsibility. Jesus.
What evidence do you have that it's dangerous? We've got decades of testing that shows it's safe and effective, and the experts all agree that there is no evidence that it's dangerous.
I feel like I'm debating against the anti-vaxxers of the COVID pandemic all over again: ignorant fear over the opinion of experts.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›