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
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.
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.
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?