- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
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 must log in or # to comment.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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!”.
deleted by creator
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.”
In the face of the established historical record of over 100 lawsuits brought against farmers, the amended PUBPAT complaint asserts, “Monsanto implicitly acknowledges that its transgenic seeds can contaminate the property of non-transgenic farmers,” but in its asserted “commitment” to not sue farmers over “inadvertent,” and “trace” amounts of contamination, the company fails to define either term. Therefore, the Complaint argues, “the clear implication is that Monsanto indeed intends to assert its transgenic seed patents against certified organic and non-transgenic farmers who come to possess more than ‘trace amounts’ of Monsanto’s transgenic seed, even if it is not their fault.”
When Monsanto sued family farmer Percy Schmeiser in Canada over contamination caused by transgenic seed blown off a passing neighbor’s truck, it cost him a half million dollars to fight them, and he had to mortgage his farm to raise the money, Patterson recalls. In the process, he lost control over 50 years of his own traditional, non-transgenic seed development work, according to Patterson and published reports telling the Schmeiser story. “Monsanto reportedly spent $4 million on their case against Schmeiser,” Patterson says. Percy Schmeiser told him Monsanto had 19 lawyers at one point in the courtroom up against his own single lawyer. “In the school yard and in the NFL, that is called ‘piling on,’” he concludes. https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/763/family-farmers-amplify-complaint-against-monsantos-gmos-reinforcing-their-arguments-with-two-dozen-additional-plaintiffs
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:
- Monsanto or any of these companies create a new GMO. This GMO is usually actually better at something than traditional crops. Though here better is usually economically better, as in cheaper to produce.
- These companies start preassuring every farmer in our countries to use their seeds and crops. Usually this is done through economic preassure. That is usually they price their seeds so they are cheaper to use than traditional crops (on it’s own, not terrible). There is usually some preassure thorugh laws anf marketing to force people to switch too.
- The farmers using these new crops will outperform, in an economical sense, the farmers that keep using the traditional crops. They will produce better crops for less money for a while. Usually the ones who survuve this are the big farmers, most family farms can’t compete here. After some time of this we end in a situation where all the crops are replaced with the new GMO, patented crop, giving these companies a monopoly over our food.
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.
“Farmers who brought this case with us – along with local scientists – currently grow different varieties of rice, including high-value seeds they have worked with for generations and have control over. They’re rightly concerned that if their organic or heirloom varieties get mixed up with patented, genetically engineered rice, that could sabotage their certifications, reducing their market appeal and ultimately threatening their livelihoods.”
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.
Golden rice could have saved hundreds, if not thousands, of lives by now.
Serious question. If hundreds of lives were at stake, why were other mechanisms… such as just giving kids vitamin A, not apparently employed? Regardless of the merits of the opposition to this rice, why not pursue this on multiple fronts?
Other methods have been used in the meantime, for decades. But they are only so effective. Vitamins, other foods, and other methods have been in process. But they each have their own limitations, both on supply to remote areas and getting local peoples to take up those methods.
The latter is the biggest issue, especially with trying to introduce alternative foods like carrots. If they aren’t a part of the local cuisine, many of the individuals, who are often subsistence farmers who have limited land and only grow explicitly what they need to survive, aren’t interested.
Hence why golden rice was developed, because rice is a main part of the local diet in these areas and so it is much easier to get them to adopt growing a different cultivar of something they already eat than it is to convince them to grow a completely different food.
Thoughtful answer, thanks!
Why would anybody, especially a global campaigning network, get their noses up in shit they don’t have a fucking clue about, and then double down after people who understand that shit go against them. What the fuck, Greenpeace?
They’ve actually been doing this sort of thing for a while now. They decided rather than pro-environmentalism, they’d rather just be anti-science in general. It’s the same with them protesting any use of nuclear anywhere for any reason.
Yeah, tragically that’s the case with many of the enviromental movements where I live as well.
Nuclear is over, because it’s stupid, expensive and really dangerous for a LONG time
It’s efficient, pays for itself within a couple decades, and is far less dangerous than what we’re doing right now. Did you know that burning fossil fuels releases more radiation into populated areas than nuclear power does?
Nuclear power is a wonderful example of how costs can be pushed into the future and onto future generations. People are obviously still falling for this. The “Asse”-repository in Germany was used for storage from 1967 to 1978 and now we descendants have to deal with the follow-up costs while our ancestors enjoyed the oh-so-cheap nuclear power. Groundwater is already leaking in, and preventing pollution is complex and expensive. And we are only the second generation, but the stuff will still be there in 2000 generations. Rooting for this is so incredibly short-sighted.
you’ve convinced me, I’m an oil industry stan now, since nuclear power hasn’t made any progress in waste management in the last 60 years, and it’s not like our descendents will be dealing with the environmental cost of fossil fuels here in 2000 years
Granted that’s because there won’t be any descendents, but still
Germany, the country that’s doing the environmental transition backwards…
Nuclear energy is safe, unfuckably safer than what your government is doing right now, you talk so much on the future yet you’re replacing a clean yet not renewable form of energy with the most greenhouse gas emitting shit out there.
Nuclear fuel can be contained in a safe way that doesn’t require active human monitoring (burying it deep) coal power plant waste is stored in your lungs and in our atmosphere, in what universe is that better.
People are afraid of things they don’t understand, so instead of voting for a party that makes a dance party while they demolished a town for expanding a coal mine they should sit down for 5 minutes and read a bit about it.
Like WTF.
IDK. Nuclear looks like it kinda sucks.
Damn I guess if it’s cheaper to destroy the environment with fossil fuels then we should probably do that instead
Yeah, back when renewables weren’t dummy cheap the argument was more convincing.
It’s possible nuclear could be done cheaper, but nobody has a convincing plan to do it. The whole SMR thing appears to be snake oil.
Modern nuclear plants are pretty safe in general, and they’re not that expensive when you compare its energy output to other types of power plants’ energy output. Not sure about the “stupid” remark though.
I’m curious why it doesn’t make up a bigger share of energy generation in China then. I assume China doesn’t have the same issues with NIMBYism.
They’ve been increasing usage relatively fast. Air quality is an apparent motivator, but being less sufficient on coal , as well as increasing energy demands with of course massive (though recently slowing) growth of middle class population and their consumeristic and life needs are also motivators. I’m not sure of the share of generation. There is a fair amount of NIMBYism in China if you check on local or regional news occassionally. I’m not sure about recently but nuclear plants under construction have had protests, as well as serial polluting factories and other cases. I’m not sure if those qualify as NIMBYism but there is a culture of dissent where it affects the outcomes of especially individuals, believe it or not. None of this is in defence of the CCP who can go suck an egg and who have been much more stern in their responses to dissent in recent years.
I wasn’t sure how much NIMBYism was a factor but either way, solar and wind seem to be growing a lot faster than nuclear: https://ember-climate.org/countries-and-regions/countries/china/
Because they’re also sheap and also good
It is pretty stupid to look at a nuclear power plant and think “cool, this is pretty clean, cheap and safe” when spent nuclear fuel and plutonium wastes require well-designed storage for periods ranging from tens of thousands to a million years, to minimize releases of the contained radioactivity into the environment.
What if generation 2748 in the future makes a mistake and pollutes an entire region? A million accidents could and will happen, it is so obvious. Aren’t you aware of this? It’s insane to do this to our childrens children and all other earthlings that will live after us.Something like half the population of the human species is currently experiencing a heat wave
approachingexceeding 50°. Quit pretending that nuclear power is uniquely dangerous.
While nuclear energy can appear cost-effective compared to other energy sources, the true cost is often higher when considering indirect factors. Society typically bears these costs through taxes, insurance premiums, and health care costs rather than the price paid for nuclear-generated electricity.
These costs can be divided into several categories:-
Environmental Costs: These include the long-term management of nuclear waste, the potential contamination from radioactive materials, and the decommissioning of nuclear plants. Managing nuclear waste safely over thousands of years is a significant and expensive challenge.
-
Health Costs: Exposure to radiation can have serious health impacts, including cancer and genetic damage. The cost of healthcare for affected individuals and communities can be substantial.
-
Accident Costs: In the event of a nuclear accident, such as the Chernobyl or Fukushima disasters, the costs can be immense. This includes evacuation, compensation, cleanup, and long-term environmental and health monitoring.
-
Security Costs: Ensuring that nuclear materials are not diverted for weapons use or targeted by terrorists involves significant expenditure on security measures and regulatory oversight.
-
Economic Costs: There can be broader economic impacts from nuclear accidents, including loss of agricultural or commercial land, reduced property values, and long-term disruption to local economies.
-
Theres been more damage from coal ash and oil power plants to the environment than from nuclear.
-
Coal power plants are responsible for more radiation than nuclear
-
Again, Coal has done more damage to people and the environment, than nuclear ever has.
-
No ones making a bomb from nuclear power plant waste. Pointless fearmongering from coal lobbyists.
-
Coal Ash has, again, done far more damage to agricultural/commerial land, reduced property valuies, and disrupted local communities far more than Nuclear power ever has.
The point is that green energy, so solar, wind, etc. is cheaper, quicker, easier, and more sustainable while providing everything that is necessary.
Except theres always going to be slack times, and I personally would rather have nuclear power filling in those dips, than fucking coal or oil.
Especially with new generations of reactors being able to run off of older generations waste.
The issue is that none of those have the energy density of nuclear power. A single mid-sized nuclear plant can power a small city, where that same city would need at least a half-dozen solar farms around the area (assuming there’s enough cleared land to support it - rooftop solar can offset, but it generally will not replace mains power), or tons of wind turbines (again, subject to area - not every place is a good candidate). Geothermal and hydroelectric are subject to that same issue - you can’t place them anywhere, there are very specific requirements to get one up and running.
I agree we should work towards 100% green energy, but nuclear is an effective option dollar-for-dollar and acre-for-acre until we figure out a good way to increase energy density of wind or solar to a point where we don’t need enormous tracts of land dedicated to them in order to support places where people live.
Basically no one outside of china is advocating for coal use anymore, so this is a BS comparison. The much more apt comparison is against wind, solar, and storage, against which nuclear is far more dangerous. Also, it’s hard for environmental damage assessment to take into account the EXTREMELY long-lived impacts of fuel “disposal”.
Basically no one outside of china is advocating for coal use anymore
Have you heard about germany?
-
No way this wasn’t written by ChatGPT
The most GPT ass comment I’ve ever read
PS: The evacuation at Fukushima killed more people than the actual disaster would have
PS: The materials used for nuclear reactors are not the materials used for nuclear bombs. Coal and gunpowder both burn, but you don’t throw gunpowder in a coal power plant, right?
-
Silence, German.
Hä, ich verstehe nicht was du meinst?
They actually made some pretty good arguments in this case. The economic losses incurred by contaminating heirloom crops outweighed the benefits which were marginally small compared to growing crops rich in vitamin A and having food programs to fight malnutrition at the root of the problem: financing.
The right way to do it would be to outcross Golden Rice with local strains to transfer the beta carotene gene while preserving other traits that are already adapted to the local ecosystem, thereby maintaining biodiversity and allowing the rice to continue to coevolve with other local organisms. But that would threaten
Monsanto’scorporate patents.Introgresion of the beta carotene-giving T-DNA locus into local varieties would take a decade before we can obtain a cultivar that resembles local varieties, and this is only if said local varieties are highly homozygous. If they are not, what you are suggesting is simply not possible with 2024 technology and I don’t see it becoming possible soon. Such a delay would mean large numbers of children dying and many more suffering. The Monsanto boogeyman’s profit desires are not relevant, unless you’d like to give them some credit for making the damn thing, and I’m not even sure they were involved? A company called Syngenta made Golden Rice 2, maybe you’re referring to that?
that would threaten Monsanto’s patents
Its the other cancer peddling shitheel this time. Syngenta owns the patent, making it completely justified for Greenpeace to prevent them from gaining control of the food supply, even if they have to use BS arguments about food safety to do so.
Who’s talking about Monsanto?
IP on crops is a legitimate problem. I didn’t see anything about terminator seeds, but honestly wouldn’t surprise me. Saving lives can all to be often at odds with making money. Plan probably is to take over the market and then ratchet up the price…
The right way to do it would be to outcross Golden Rice with local strains
That this might happen is literally one of the specific complaints of farmers.
It’s only a danger to the other farmers legally. They could be sued for using patented genes.
The 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fix the laws?
Good joke!
That, plus rice is windpollinating. So it’s very easy for it to cross pollinate adjecent fields and potentially outperform heirloom species against the farmers’ will.
This is true with any type of rice then, and is completely separate from gmos.
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?
golden rice had not been shown to be safe
Has regular rice? What about standing in the sun has that been shown to be safe? Has breathing?
This was the same reaction I had when the Covid vaccines were rolling out. “They haven’t been proven to be 100% safe and effective!” OK. Sure, but you know what is guaranteed to be bad for you? Covid. There are two choices here, and there’s a clear mitigation of harm with one option over the other.
It’s shocking that we’d rather see children die of treatable vitamin deficiencies than the off-chance that the food ‘might be unsafe’.
I believe pfizer? and some other pharma companies have now admitted to the non-zero risk for blood-clots and fatally-low platelet counts due to the vaccine. We still do not understand the full long-term impact of the vaccines. We need to stop the vaccine rollout and study the long-term and wider population effects now so that if in 10 or 20 or 30 years down the line if we start seeing people developing abnormal long-term systemic chronic effects due to the vaccines, we now have a MASSIVE study-patient-base available.
Medicine has to be RESPONSIBLY applied and while vaccinations are necessary they still have to be studied to death to ensure their safety and efficacy.
Private corporations DO NOT GET A FREE PASS.
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
Removed by mod
You, redisdead, already used this personal attack in this thread. Where are the mods when you need one? Thought this was a place to discuss ideas not attack the intelligence of those that disagree
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.
Removed by mod
The anti-science crowd ranks up another victory.
They have pretty successful killing nuclear power, secularism, vaccines, modern birth procedures, nitrogen fixation, and now GMOs. I guess AI is next.
I guess AI is next.
We can hope.
Lot of rage at something that is apparently a fad that will go away on its own and yet somehow will take all our jobs.
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
Ah yes, being unwilling to surrender our food supply to massive, dubious corporations with a long track record of shitty behavior is being ‘anti-science’.
I’m sorry, why are you using the Internet to answer me? That is double plus ungood and also unnatural
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Another personal attack.
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 :
The anti-science crowd wins again
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.
Greenpeace have genetic purity fanatics?
Were you trying to be funny or do you really think this is the motivation here? Did you even read the article?
… I think that was an application of Godwin’s Law.
As in the NAZIs had genetic purity fanatics.
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
While many doubt the ability of golden rice to eliminate vitamin A deficiency, the machinery is being set in motion to promote a GE strategy at the expense of more relevant approaches. The best chance of success in fighting vitamin A deficiency and malnutrition is to better use the inexpensive and nutritious foods already available, and in diversifying food production systems in the fields and in the household. The euphoria created by the Green Revolution greatly stifled research to develop and promote these efforts, and the introduction of golden rice will further compromise them. Golden rice is merely a marketing event. But international and national research agendas will be taken by it.
The promoters of golden rice say that they do not want to deprive the poor of the right to choose and the potential to benefit from golden rice. But the poor, and especially poor farmers, have long been deprived of the right to choose their means of production and survival. Golden rice is not going to change that, and nor will any other corporately-pushed GE crop. Hence, any further attempts at the commercial exploitation of hunger and malnutrition through the promotion of genetically modified foods should be strongly resisted.
Nah, they’re right. It will give American Biotech corps a strangle hold over seeds. The world grows more than enough food for everyone. Scarcity is not why people go hungry.
What American biotech crops? Golden rice was developed by a group of university researchers in Switzerland and have been distributing the rice for free via NGOs.
NGOs have looooong history of working for western capital interests to the detriment of the global south. See how they fooled low income women into using baby formula and getting thousands of babies killed first through contaminated water used to mix the formula then through starvation after they cut off the supply after women’s breasts had gone dry.
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
This contribution was based on the understanding that Syngenta would retain commercial exclusivity for the technology, including large agricultural setups in developing countries.
Lots of claims about it being for humanitarian purposes but there it is.
Did you read your link?
Eliminating reach-through rights and technologies that don’t show up in the most recently developed Golden Rice versions leaves us with only a few patented technologies, all of which have been made available for humanitarian purposes free of charge. The licensing process was quick and simple, contrary to what many onlookers believe. Similar projects are looking at this licensing agreement as a good example of how this kind of arrangements between the public and the private sector can be made, especially for humanitarian purposes.
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.
Do you have any idea of the history of litigation around cross pollination from GMO crops?
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.
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.”
full take: this is a complex topic involving sociology, agricultural science, economics, culture, ethics, and more and deserves serious discourse
meme take: THAT RICE IS PRETTY I WANT IT
If you mix rice with turmeric ( another attempted cash-grab-by-patenting ) you will get “golden rice”. Not sure if it will have Vitamin-A so thats what supplements are for.
Any plant or animal that has been domesticated has been genetically modified.
Their concern is not solely based on the gene modification. The impact of introducing a new crop is bigger than that. The golden rice is patented and that often comes with a ton of regulations the local farmers have no control over.
While I wish for there to be a good way to solve the food problem AND find a good use for gene modification, I don’t think that this particular instance is it…
This. Read an article a while back about American farmers getting sued because there was GM crop growing in their fields when they didn’t plant it. It had cross pollinated from neighboring farms. Being able to sue over patented GM crops is just a bad idea.
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.
The huge difference is who holds the patent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Any plant or animal that has been domesticated has been genetically modified.
You aren’t exactly the first person to misunderstand this. But congrats I guess.
It all depends what your definition of genetic modification is.
My opinion isn’t exactly a fringe theory.
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.
It is selecting genes through breeding or doing the same thing in a laboratory.
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.
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/
Being against GMOs is like wanting to ban electric cars because Elon Musk is a dickhead.
Being against GMO taking over our food supply chain by massive, dubious corporations with a long history of absolute fuckery is the same as banning some mildly better form of transportation?
You are exactly the type of person I’m talking about 🤦♂️.
The technology of GMOs is awesome, it will help us solve several problems, some related to food supplies, and other problems in different areas like healthcare. We can develop food with more nutrients. Crops resistant to most common plagues. We use it to create insulin without needing to harvest tons of pig’s pancreas. The technology itself is completely safe and full of potential.
But most uneducated people think that “GMOs = mOnSaNtO” and want to ban all of them only by the actions of a company that no longer exists (yeah, now owned by Bayer, but whatever). And even most of that bad reputation was caused by myths and defamation. Just because one company that developed GMOs was a dickhead doesn’t mean that GMOs are bad, in the same way that electric cars should not be banned because of Elon Musk.
Edit to add: like with any technology, it needs to be extensively regulated to prevent monopolies or other abuses.
Oh you’re so naive.
I love how you’re all like 'monsanto doesn’t exist they’re owned by Bayer a
As if Bayer was more reputable somehow.
We’re literally facing dangerous monopolies trying to corner the market of our basic needs. And you’re sitting here like YEAH TECHNOLOGY IS AWESOME AND SAFE LET’S GOOOOOOO.
Literally you are repeating the same argument. Come back when you have a new one.
I am repeating the same argument because the reply to my previous argument was ‘but what about this other greedy seedy company?’
I’ll have a new one when you guys have a new one.
Also, I have family that are large-scale farmers, so they have first-hand experience with agriculture practices and technology. I have other family members that are researchers on soil ecology and related fields. And I was a researcher (at a completely unrelated field, I admit) and I read lots of literature about the subject, because I had access to all scientific journals at my university. But yeah, “I’m naive”, lol.
Knowledge and naivety are two separate things.
Criminalizing a food via the court instead of by democracy is issue here.
Your buddies at Greenpeace couldn’t produce good arguments that the product was dubious, so they used Western money, judge shopped, and out lawyered a poor nation. They get to decide for the people there. Individual farmers don’t get to decide what to do with their land, people don’t get to decide how their own nation is to be run,. Greenpeace came in and used forklift piles of money to force their will on the Pinay.
This is why people fucking hate them. The self-appointed moral authority of the human race answerable to no one but themselves.
The funny part is when megacorps do the exact same fucking thing, you’re cheering on the sidelines.
I am? Please show me the date and time and comment in question. Unless you meant “you” in the sense of the word “imaginary person”.
You’re literally cheering for Bayer in another comment in this chain.
Please present it.
When you present where I talked about GMOs are unnatural and ungood in this comment chain: https://lemmy.world/comment/10308725
