425

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

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

244 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] enbyecho@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

It all depends what your definition of genetic modification is.

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.

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

It is selecting genes through breeding or doing the same thing in a laboratory.

[-] enbyecho@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] enbyecho@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

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/

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Here’s one that proves my point.

[-] enbyecho@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

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.

"Plant domestication by the earliest farmers 10,000 years ago is an example of genetic modification."

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.

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Any plant or animal that has been domesticated has been genetically modified.

Technically, yes. That's true.

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.

[-] enbyecho@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

just wanted to argue and get pedantic for whatever reason

You are the pedantic one. Have a nice day.

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

No u?

That’s what you choose to end this seven hour conversation?

[-] enbyecho@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

That’s what you choose to end this seven hour conversation?

Yes. Because this did not qualify as a conversation.

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

You have strange definitions for things.

this post was submitted on 26 May 2024

425 points (94.7% liked)

World News

38969 readers

1996 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.