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.

  • hash0772@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Why would anybody, especially a global campaigning network, get their noses up in shit they don’t have a fucking clue about, and then double down after people who understand that shit go against them. What the fuck, Greenpeace?

    • Silverseren@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      They’ve actually been doing this sort of thing for a while now. They decided rather than pro-environmentalism, they’d rather just be anti-science in general. It’s the same with them protesting any use of nuclear anywhere for any reason.

        • hash0772@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Modern nuclear plants are pretty safe in general, and they’re not that expensive when you compare its energy output to other types of power plants’ energy output. Not sure about the “stupid” remark though.

          • Teppichbrand@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            While nuclear energy can appear cost-effective compared to other energy sources, the true cost is often higher when considering indirect factors. Society typically bears these costs through taxes, insurance premiums, and health care costs rather than the price paid for nuclear-generated electricity.
            These costs can be divided into several categories:

            1. Environmental Costs: These include the long-term management of nuclear waste, the potential contamination from radioactive materials, and the decommissioning of nuclear plants. Managing nuclear waste safely over thousands of years is a significant and expensive challenge.

            2. Health Costs: Exposure to radiation can have serious health impacts, including cancer and genetic damage. The cost of healthcare for affected individuals and communities can be substantial.

            3. Accident Costs: In the event of a nuclear accident, such as the Chernobyl or Fukushima disasters, the costs can be immense. This includes evacuation, compensation, cleanup, and long-term environmental and health monitoring.

            4. Security Costs: Ensuring that nuclear materials are not diverted for weapons use or targeted by terrorists involves significant expenditure on security measures and regulatory oversight.

            5. Economic Costs: There can be broader economic impacts from nuclear accidents, including loss of agricultural or commercial land, reduced property values, and long-term disruption to local economies.

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              The most GPT ass comment I’ve ever read

              PS: The evacuation at Fukushima killed more people than the actual disaster would have

              PS: The materials used for nuclear reactors are not the materials used for nuclear bombs. Coal and gunpowder both burn, but you don’t throw gunpowder in a coal power plant, right?

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          It’s efficient, pays for itself within a couple decades, and is far less dangerous than what we’re doing right now. Did you know that burning fossil fuels releases more radiation into populated areas than nuclear power does?

          • Teppichbrand@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Nuclear power is a wonderful example of how costs can be pushed into the future and onto future generations. People are obviously still falling for this. The “Asse”-repository in Germany was used for storage from 1967 to 1978 and now we descendants have to deal with the follow-up costs while our ancestors enjoyed the oh-so-cheap nuclear power. Groundwater is already leaking in, and preventing pollution is complex and expensive. And we are only the second generation, but the stuff will still be there in 2000 generations. Rooting for this is so incredibly short-sighted.

      • Iceblade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah, tragically that’s the case with many of the enviromental movements where I live as well.