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.

      • Lowlee Kun@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • Mouette@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Classic brainwashed nuclear take presenting it as black & white like if all energy used in the world was from nuclear there would have been no issue on uranium ressource.

            • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Well, let’s see. We have a century’s worth of uranium left, and only 50 years of petroleum. Also, resource scarcity isn’t really the problem with petrochemicals. It’s the environmental impact. Nuclear doesn’t have that problem. Classic brainwashed tree hugger poser rambling on incoherently while ignoring any and all inconvenient facts. You should join Greenpeace.

              • Mouette@jlai.lu
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                If you had 2 braincell working maybe you’d see fuel consumption is related to production so we wouldn’t have 100 year left if all energy was nuclear as it isn’t even 10% of today’s mix. This is basic energy knowledge if you don’t lnow that don’t even try to understand energy policy of countries dumbass.