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.
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
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.
This is my field of expertise …
Nativity, weediness, is a philosophical question. In Hawaii, there are several non-native plants known as “canoe plants” that were brought over by Polynesians for agriculture when they settled the islands. They are generally considered native by Hawaiians, some scientists may disagree.
Generally, nativity is less important than the overall ecosystem goal and invasiveness. The apple trees are likely embedded enough in English culture to be considered native, but I don’t know.
On the other hand, cattle have been on US soil for hundreds of years but I would NOT consider them native in any way despite their importance. To me, it’s because they were brought over in a way that forcibly displaced Native American land management practices and came with the introduction of a suite of annual grass species that have left California with 1% if it’s original native grasslands. It’s jarring.
In Hawaii, they definitely had an impact on the land when they came in and hunted birds and brought in species … but the canoe plants are not invasive (they are moderate to slow growing, unlike invasives which tend to be fast growing), and they were brought over by the native people.
Interesting read, thank you. Sounds like your cows are very similar to our sheep - basically the whole of Wales and Scotland were destroyed by sheep and are now mostly just grassy wastelands with a very low diversity of other plants that survived the intensive grazing
Yes that sounds very similar! Are sheep a relatively recent import into Wales and Scotland?
Not really, sheep were also imported by the Romans. There were a couple of recent developments which made things much worse though. The first was the Highland Clearances of 18th and 19th centuries, where native Scots were driven off their lands to make way for more profitable and intensive sheep farming, which could involve clear-cutting entire hillsides for sheep to graze. The sheep then kill almost every plant by grazing, leaving only heather and a few types of grasses. Eventually, most of the grasses are killed too apart from those that the sheep don’t eat, as they out-compete the grass that sheep like. If there were mixed flocks which eat all grass types equally, or less intensive shepherding (both of which were more traditional methods), then the land could recover.
The second development was a post-WW2 policy which encouraged more farming. I think it might be the Agricultural Act 1947 but I’m not sure. Anyway, this policy paid farmers for the animals that they reared, and sheep were the most profitable. So, of course, many people reared sheep which just doubled down on the damage already caused.
In Wales, sheep farming is a very traditional job / way of life, and I feel like it’s very difficult for Welsh people to see and understand the damage caused by sheep. I know several a lot of farmers and shepherds who are in it just because they like sheep, rather than because it’s the most profitable career. Thankfully, the government is putting in place certain measures to try to protect and re-introduce wild spaces on farms. Most of the Welsh countryside tends to be just fields of grass, either growing hay or with sheep grazing.
In Scotland, the damage is much more obvious once you know what you’re looking for. In the Highlands especially, the land is either desolate heaths of grass and heather or mono-culture pine timber forests. It can be very pretty, especially when the heather is in flower and entire hillsides are just covered in purple. As I’ve learned more, it is just getting depressing because there is no nature left, just the ruins of what humans have done. But again, there are a lot of people trying to restore what is lost. I don’t know much about Scottish government initiatives, but there are a lot of private people and groups who are trying to put it right.
Rice is a well-understood plant with well-understood properties. One of these properties is that it just doesn’t have many vitamins. If you want vitamins, you have to get another plant as a side-dish.
What these mad scientists propose is to change the very nature of rice to make it something that it is not, to solve a problem (Vitamin A deficiency) that could be approached with much less severe measures (like, growing carrots as a side-dish).
Agriculture is like medicine: You should always attempt to use the approach that is least invasive and has the smallest possible impact, while still solving the problem. This way, you minimize complications and reduce risks.
I think you may need to consider the cost and shelf life difference here. Suggesting “what if they just ate a more expensive vegetable more” seems like a pretty callous take.
I know they grow carrots in the phillipines but they definitely aren’t native to there either.
Why can’t they just fortify their caviar with vitamin a?
If just grow carrots lol was adequate, tell me again why people are deficient in the nutrients golden rice has over baseline rice, please.
If the local people don’t want it, it’s not the right solution.
If people don’t want it, because they are being lied to about it, we should maybe stop the people lying and spread accurate information, before we decide that “it’s not the right solution”.
From the article
This isn’t misinformation, this is a real issue. I’m an ecologist … we worry about genetic drift from native plants sourced elsewhere in the state!! Of course there is a concern about genetic drift from GMOs.
Maybe read the article before assuming the poor idiotic Filipino people are being misinformed 🙄
I assume poor idiotic people everywhere are being misinformed. It has nothing to do with the specific subset of humanity they belong to, and everything to do with incentive gradients and entrenched power nodes.
The power nodes of the large corporations that hold the patents to GMOs?
Indeed, “eating more food” is generally agreed to be the best way to remedy childhood malnutrition and food insufficiency. It’s hands down agreed upon to be the best possible approach.
Unfortunately, children who suffer from these maladies often lack additional food to eat, which is why there are several lines of inquiry for solving this problem:
Inevitably, that means things like “vegetables that tolerate bad soil”, “vitamin fortified rice”, or “fast growing wheat”, or “crazy fertilizer strategies”.
It’s a sad reality that most places that can’t grow enough food to properly feed children typically lack the ability to just grow more, to say nothing of diversifying into more resource intensive crops. otherwise they would probably do that.
Rice already has the beta-carotene genetic pathway. It’s just missing the final enzyme gene to cause production of the precursor product.
Furthermore, people have already tried to introduce alternative crops. But people who live there aren’t interested. If a crop like carrots isn’t a part of their cuisine, they have little to no interest in altering the foods they eat. Especially if they’re already subsistence farmers with limited crop growing areas.
Like bill nye said, gmo’s are just a tool in your tool box to solve the answer and they are a really useful tool for the future as things get harder for us
that sounds like it would require paying people enough to afford more than just rice and we can’t be having that now can we