Greenpeace blocks planting of golden rice in Philippines(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Greenpeace blocks planting of golden rice in Philippines
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/25/greenpeace-blocks-planting-of-lifesaving-golden-rice-philippines
5 comments
I think you are speculating a lot and drawing unwarranted inferences. There is no evidence for any of the sentences you have written (EG: do you know how many people are members of greenpeace, and have you seen a statistically significant survey that indicates their beliefs as a group? Your comments really strike me as furthering an in-group/out-group mentality)
> The rice they are growing now is GM, but just done at random by farmers over a long time. Nothing in that process is any safer or moral than creating rice deliberately and carefully for a certain goal.
There is a difference, highly selected rice is different from rice that has had genes inserted. I don't think you can select for rice that produces beta carotene, golden rice is truly DNA edited rather than highly selected.
FWIW, to all the other points, this is the reason for opposition written in the article: “Farmers who brought this case with us [Greenpeace] – 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.”
I would interpret the primary concern stated there to be around mono-cultures. I don't personally know how salient of a concern it is, but it does make me think to examples where big 10,000 acre farms move in next to smaller existing farms, and suddenly it's near-impossible to keep the same seed stock.
> The rice they are growing now is GM, but just done at random by farmers over a long time. Nothing in that process is any safer or moral than creating rice deliberately and carefully for a certain goal.
There is a difference, highly selected rice is different from rice that has had genes inserted. I don't think you can select for rice that produces beta carotene, golden rice is truly DNA edited rather than highly selected.
FWIW, to all the other points, this is the reason for opposition written in the article: “Farmers who brought this case with us [Greenpeace] – 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.”
I would interpret the primary concern stated there to be around mono-cultures. I don't personally know how salient of a concern it is, but it does make me think to examples where big 10,000 acre farms move in next to smaller existing farms, and suddenly it's near-impossible to keep the same seed stock.
I interpreted that quote differently, as supporting my thesis. Greenpeace sided with some local financial issue in order to suppress a technology. Not to support farmers.
A local financial issue that was raised by local farmers.
Thank you for the clarification, though, my apologies - I feel a bit confused about it.
I think missing context: is that it is somewhat common for big agra to build farms adjacent to existing, and then local seed stocks become overwhelmed by the new neighbors crop variety. I don't think Greenpeace has an issue with the technology, only concern that it would wipe out the local varieties. That is my understanding for the basis of the lawsuit.
I'm having a lot of trouble seeing your point as anything other than a distinction without a difference.
The local financial issue is raised and brought by the farmers, to which green peace enjoined their litigation.
Thank you for the clarification, though, my apologies - I feel a bit confused about it.
I think missing context: is that it is somewhat common for big agra to build farms adjacent to existing, and then local seed stocks become overwhelmed by the new neighbors crop variety. I don't think Greenpeace has an issue with the technology, only concern that it would wipe out the local varieties. That is my understanding for the basis of the lawsuit.
I'm having a lot of trouble seeing your point as anything other than a distinction without a difference.
The local financial issue is raised and brought by the farmers, to which green peace enjoined their litigation.
Another thought, where do you see that Greenpeace is opposed to the technology? I don't take that as a given, perhaps that is why we disagree?
The stated concern is mixing of seed crops, not a blanket concern for any GMO crop of any type. If the concern were for the latter, I would expect the reasoning to state so.
The stated concern is mixing of seed crops, not a blanket concern for any GMO crop of any type. If the concern were for the latter, I would expect the reasoning to state so.
This is a farce of course. They don't give a fart about farmers and their profits.
Greenpeace is full of people who believe in witchcraft and crystals, worrying that GM is somehow from the devil and must be opposed at any cost. Including the health and welfare of the Philippine people.
The rice they are growing now is GM, but just done at random by farmers over a long time. Nothing in that process is any safer or moral than creating rice deliberately and carefully for a certain goal.
Lets deny healthy food to the members of Greenpeace and see how long it takes them to fold.