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.

  • efstajas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

    • piecat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Both GMOs and nuclear can be used to mitigate climate change too… :(

      • efstajas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        Exactly! The fact that we’re shutting down our reactors all the while still burning coal is so backwards.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

        • cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            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

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

            • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.