World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
The argument against Golden Rice should have nothing to do with GMO and everything to do with monocultures.
Greenpeace is fucked in the head.
That's not their argument though. Their argument is that despite the benevolent sub-$10k payment free licence, at the end of the day it's still a product that the independent farmers are beholden to. That, plus rice is windpollinating. So it's very easy for it to cross pollinate adjecent fields and potentially outperform heirloom species against the farmers' will.
Yeah... There's a bigger question too that is, why can't other foods containing Vitamin A be supplied to the starving people of the Philippines? There are so many sources.
Let's consider how fucked it is that even considering introducing this crop to the wild is necessary.
I've previously supported golden rice, but you've changed my mind. We should just be doing more to support developing nations directly. The world has sufficient abundance we shouldn't need to take these dangerous shortcuts. Not yet.
Try me when we're closer to Mad Max earth.
Don’t you think giving them the tools they need to improve things is better than making them dependent on consistent outside charity?
That's exactly what I'm saying we should do. Brown rice ironically while it is food, might be like giving a baby an economic pacifier instead of trade milk and expecting it to grow. The Philippines has a range of biodiverse crops and other commodities that have more value than just the one food to feed them all, which would undercut the market and stifle local knowledge over time.
That said someone here suggested a more advanced plan to seed the beta-carotine gene into the native species, which is awesome in theory, but could create patent law violations and just generally be incredibly risky to the very biodiversity we're trying to protect.
This is why I think while the science is very cool, we should avoid such irreversible treatments unless it's a last resort.
Mosquitos on the other hand. Love the idea of genetically editing those fuckers out of existence. As the world inevitably warms, malaria is only going to spread further and wider. We should be getting ahead of that catastrophic future while we have the chance.
How about we just introduce them to carrots as a crop?
Have you ever considered that when you have an idea which seems to be an extremely simple solution to a problem that it might be more complicated than that and those closer to the situation with actual knowledge of the particulars probably already thought of it?
So tell me what the experts say about eating foods such as Leafy green vegetables (kale, spinach, broccoli), orange and yellow vegetables (carrots, sweet potatoes, pumpkin and other winter squash, summer squash), Tomatoes, Red bell pepper, Cantaloupe, mango, Beef liver, Fish oils, Milk, Eggs
All of which are sources of vitamin A.
I'm not arguing that carrots aren't a good source of vitamin A.
I'm asking you if you've considered why those closer to the situation haven't just gone with carrots. You don't even know what you don't know. What other constraints are we working with? Do those things grow well there?
What's it like going through life thinking you know everything?
You don't need to insinuate.
Populations have been surviving in the Philippines for millennia without the need for a proprietary spliced rice enriched for Vit A. Just like most other places on earth. Local fauna and flora surely contains a source that met their needs previously.
This has a real, "Back in my day, we kids didn't have these newfangled car seats and we lived!" vibe to it.
From the article:
Low vitamin A intake in the Philippines is primarily due to the lack of vitamin A-rich foods in the diet, particularly among low-income populations. Factors contributing to this include:
Economic Constraints: Limited financial resources restrict access to diverse and nutrient-rich foods such as animal products (liver, eggs, dairy) and vitamin A-rich fruits and vegetables (carrots, sweet potatoes, dark leafy greens).
Dietary Habits: Traditional diets may not include sufficient amounts of vitamin A-rich foods. Staples like rice and fish, while important, are low in vitamin A.
Agricultural Practices: Local agricultural practices might not prioritize the cultivation of vitamin A-rich crops due to various socio-economic and environmental factors.
To address this, an introduction of non-GMO crops that are rich in vitamin A and unlikely to become invasive could be considered. One such crop could be carrots. Carrots are rich in beta-carotene, which the body converts into vitamin A. They are:
Other potential crops include sweet potatoes (particularly the orange-fleshed varieties), which are also high in beta-carotene and have similar advantages regarding non-invasiveness and adaptability.
Now the only thing I see as a barrier is that instead of waterlogged clay soil, carrots need Sandy well drained soil instead.
Honestly, if the Golden rice wasn't under a patent (free or not) and wasn't likely to cross pollinate, I'd be all for it. But at this point I'd sooner the state or NGOs help instituting an egg a day policy over trying to hammer something in that might do more harm than good, more meddling, and may make a poor nation indebted to patent-coloinalism by the Swiss.
What do you do for a living and why do you think you know better than those closer to the problem?
By the way, this looks at least partially written by a LLM.
Rice is easy to store and transport because it doesn't really spoil. Is basically a supercrop in that regard.
Sure, but that doesn't really address the argument in making. It's a lazy way out that benefits the western world for its low cost and the fact is carrying a patented gene modification. We should be doing more, not relying on risky shortcuts.
Maybe one day all rice cultivars will be golden and the world we'll be better off for it. But if the history of other GM crops is anything to go by, it sucks for the environment, and low prices screw local farmers over.
Rice is great because it is something they already eat and know how to cultivate. This is about as direct and unobtrusive support of developing nations can be.
What about when rice prices crash and local small scale farmers go out of business?
Why would I keep following the moving goalposts if you won't even admit the previous point was reasonably addressed?
I don't follow. What goal posts have I shifted? I don't deny that rice is easy. My point is that it's a shortcut that could have other negative consequences that more funding could avoid.
The question was about why we can't provide direct support to these countries, and I explained to you why targeting rice makes sense...and then you completely shifted gears to driving farmers out of business with no recognition of this point.
Direct would be doing the farming for them, or handing over food directly. Or sending in workers to train local farmers to grid Vitamin A rich crops.
Rice is a shortcut, and sure it might "work", but there are other potential long-term externalities at play here, that golden rice alone is insufficient to account for. It would be a plaster covering a surface wound when there is internal bleeding to worry about.
You're saying to do the work for them, right after saying that giving them different rice to grow will put them out of business. Lol
And, yes, rice is a short cut. It's unobtrusive as it doesn't require anyone to change their diet or learn how to grow new things.
You want to go in there, drive farmers out of business by doing the work for them, and then expect everyone to just change their diets based on what you want them to eat.
I just said what "directly" would actually look like after you said to help then directly. I didn't endorse this approach necessarily. My point is that getting them to grow our GM crop is not "direct".
I feel that you're intentionally trying to one up me instead actually have a proper discussion here. Why not assume my intention here is to change my mind because together we might actually figure something out? This back and forth is all a waste of time otherwise.
My actual opinion is that we give them monetary aid conditioner on certain outcomes, and send in experienced people to support transitions to more sustainable and productive food production. The money can upgrade housing, farming and transport infrastructure, and help boost Vitamin A rich crop yields and sale prices. Also subsidize imports if Vitamin A rich foods to make up the difference if local yields are insufficient.
Expensive, hard work, job creating activities, instead of shortcuts.
Projection of the day, my friend. I'm sorry that the only example you actually floated immediately contradicted your previous position of not driving farmers out of business.
Except there are kids whose lives and health we can save, right now, if we just start growing golden rice. Why this insistence on letting children die while you come up with a concrete solution that will take years to implement?
I don't mean this as an insult, just a statement of fact: you are very ignorant about this whole thing. You don't think people have considered bringing in and growing high beta-carotene foods before? It's not so simple. We are talking about extremely poor people and areas here, where there is little or no infrastructure to support this as a long-term solution. However, they know how to grow rice, they eat rice, it requires them buying nothing else, it requires them setting up nothing new, it's a great solution that fits seamlessly into the current framework, and it's relatively cheap.
What you are suggesting requires drastic change and a lot of upfront money, and continued on-going long-term support and financial assistance. Not only that, but it requires touching so much that the change of unintended consequences is extremely high. You worry about driving farmers out of business by giving them license free access to rice. . .but you are all sticking your fingers in most everything about their food logistical chain? It's not consistent.
How does supporting local farmers drive local farmers about of business?
"Right now" would be mass sustained imports of Vitamin A supplements. Golden Rice still has some ways to go to be establish on existing rice farms, and then enjoy a successful growing season, even if it had been approved to proceed. If we want to "think of the children" seriously, money shouldn't be an object and we'd be looking at multiple strategies all at once, and not relying solely on an experimental product like this.
Sure, but that's part of the problem isn't it? Why don't we also go in and fix that right now?
Indeed. Don't get me wrong, I know it's never going to happen. Given that fact, perhaps we need cheap and nasty shortcuts like golden rice in order to help poor people save themselves with minimal outside resources. Potential patent issues aside if the gene mixes in with local rice varients, and other risks to the environment, it would be great if there was more Vitamin A available in their poverty diets. But, I can see why there is opposition to this. It makes sense, and it's not just "ignorant" people like me who think this, clearly.
It's not exactly the end of the world to implement terminator seeds... The reason it hasn't been implemented is because it's not an issue. This is a non-issue that's getting blown out of proportion.
Farmers will opt to maximize profits given all else equal. The license is a cost of goods sold and gets factored in when farmers decide what to plant. Farmers aren't forced to plant golden rice.
Seed patent holders have previously, successfully, sued farmers who inadvertantly grew patented plants they did not intentionally plant, but arrived on their property through natural means.
The point here is, some farmers will be 'forced' to plant golden rice by circumstance, not intention. Are they liable for that, or not? In the US and Canada, historically, they have been.
I've heard this claim many times, and have yet to see anyone provide even a single case of it happening. Please don't try to cite Monsanto v Schmeiser. It's amazing how often that is used as the example when both the farmer very deliberately planted the seeds, and did not even argue that it was inadvertent in court.
I'm replying to you instead of the first reply to this comment because I would also really appreciate seeing information regarding cases where something like natural migration of seeds has led to a won lawsuit.
https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/seed-giants_final_04424.pdf
In most cases the outcomes have been settlements, most farmers simple can't afford to sustain the fight. I think there have been some that made it through the court system and ended up working against the farmers.
I haven't read this whole report, but I read the relevant section starting on page 29. It was sourced from this Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents
Citation needed. And don't give me any Salon crap. I want the exact incident in question where a farmer was sued over this and lost.
It's pointless because literally every time I ask people to produce this mythical court case I get some salon article about how it is possible to occur one day.
Fix the laws?
No. It's the GMOs who are wrong.
Good joke!
This is true with any type of rice then, and is completely separate from gmos.
~~Not sure if this applies to this situation. But there have been instance where non-GMO farmers have had their crops cross pollinated, so are now growing a non-GMO/GMO hybrid. Then because these plants are patented or whatever, they’ve been sued by Monstanto and friends for growing their crop without permission.~~ Edit: might be misinformed on this one, doing some reading about this now
And for the record, I’m not anti-GMO, I’m anti-GMO Corporation. I have no problem eating them if I’m not supporting the evil corporations that usually develop them.
Sidebar, humans have been genetically modifying food since we started to farm, the wild version of most food we eat is unrecognizable from the tabletop one.
If there argument is so good why not getting people to vote for it instead of using the court system to force it?