SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Block on GM rice 'has cost millions of lives and led to child blindness'
Stifling international regulations have been blamed for delaying the approval of a food that could have helped save millions of lives this century. The claim is made in a new investigation of the controversy surrounding the development of Golden Rice by a team of international scientists.
Golden Rice is a form of normal white rice that has been genetically modified to provide vitamin A to counter blindness and other diseases in children in the developing world. It was developed two decades ago but is still struggling to gain approval in most nations.
"Golden Rice has not been made available to those for whom it was intended in the 20 years since it was created," states the science writer Ed Regis. "Had it been allowed to grow in these nations, millions of lives would not have been lost to malnutrition, and millions of children would not have gone blind."
[...] [Many] ecology action groups, in particular Greenpeace, have tried to block approval of Golden Rice because of their general opposition to GM crops. "Greenpeace opposition to Golden Rice was especially persistent, vocal, and extreme, perhaps because Golden Rice was a GM crop that had so much going for it," he states.
For its part, Greenpeace has insisted over the years that Golden Rice is a hoax and that its development was diverting resources from dealing with general global poverty, which it maintained was the real cause of the planet's health woes.
Nevertheless, this opposition did not have the power, on its own, to stop Golden Rice in its tracks, says Regis. The real problem has rested with an international treaty known as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an agreement which aims to ensure the safe handling, transport and use of living modified organisms, and which came into force in 2003.
Previously: Where's the Golden Rice?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @08:06AM (27 children)
Charitably, that article is very light-weight - lots of innuendo, little verifiable facts.
A few months back I looked into Golden Rice. Here's what I found:
Genetically modified Golden Rice falls short on lifesaving promises [wustl.edu]
breakdown is believed due to the cellular structure of rice (versus other plants with high vitamin-A content like carrots or taro) so similar loss rates are likely
with 2nd gen GR.
One thing I have noticed is that scare-mongering (without any rigorous evidence) about millions of kids going blind or dying without golden rice is pretty common. [slate.com] Cynically I've come to believe that its a deliberate tactic to use outrage about fake kids to deflect critical analysis of (a) golden rice's failures and (b) the motives of the groups funding and promoting golden rice [cbsnews.com] as a sort of poster child for GMOs, providing PR cover for the relentlessly amoral corporate greed that actually drives most of the push for GMOs.
It really doesn't help that a bunch of nutjobs like mercola (who are likely russian assets) are vocally and incoherently opposed to golden rice - it lets the 'very sober and rational' people in corporate PR point at the nutjobs to dimiss criticism. As if the nutjobs being wrong somehow makes the corporate greedheads right - they can both be wrong.
The corporate PR strategists offer up golden rice like it is a magic bullet, but malnutrition is the result of a bunch of factors coming together and is unlikely to be a problem than can be solved with a single technological change. Focusing on GMOs lets all the other bad actors off the hook, at least for another generation until people realize that the magic bullet didn't work, but somehow the plutocrats all got richer and fatter.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @08:40AM
What if you switch to the part interface without notice. It is with loss data on your loop conspiracy theorist.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @08:47AM (6 children)
There's an even more simple refutation than most of what you just said: carrots. Carrots, unlike rice, are utterly trivial to grow, grow pretty much anywhere, and provide exactly what 'golden rice' is supposed to be except in substantially larger quantities.
So why do the lobbyists want golden rice instead of carrots? Because golden rice, or genetically engineered consumables in general, can be patented enabling a supply side monopoly. Should a genetically engineered foodstuff become a staple of a nation, even a quite poor nation, it would be a never-ending source of extensive revenue that, thanks to said monopoly, could be exploited to no end. Carrots by contrast are just a vegetable. And you can't patent a natural vegetable.
Genetically engineered foodstuffs should be used only as a last resort. They introduce substantial unknowns and meaningful testing isn't really viable. The standard 6 month 'did you get sick or experience allergies' testing is mostly pointless for things where you're concerned about long-term macro level effects. 6 month tests would, for instance, show cigarettes to also be mostly harmless. And so we should only really push for these products in cases where there is simply no natural alternative whatsoever. In this case carrots brilliantly emphasize just how much of a corporate ploy 'golden rice' is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @12:33PM (1 child)
Some quick searching suggests that boiling carrots lowers the Vitamin A content slightly (some goes into the water), but at the same time makes other changes that improves Vitamin A absorption. Didn't find anything scholarly, but this was reassuring. Boiling them in soup (where the liquid is consumed) could be the best choice?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 30 2019, @02:17PM
Actually, no. Close, but no. Please, SIMMER that soup!!
https://www.jessicagavin.com/simmering/ [jessicagavin.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Wednesday October 30 2019, @01:56PM (1 child)
I don't think that's the case. Firstly, the patent [wikipedia.org] for Golden Rice (GR) [goldenrice.org] was granted in 2000. This means that the patent expires next year.
What's more, as the licensing of patented and proprietary technologies (the GR patent is the most important, but other tech is needed to create a viable product) required to produce the stuff is *free* and always has been.
I'm not claiming that GR is good or bad. But given the status of the IP involved, your assertion about lobbyists doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Am I missing something obvious?
AFAICT, this isn't a scam like Roundup Ready [wikipedia.org] crops.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Wednesday October 30 2019, @02:26PM
As long as there are carrots, there is no monopoly. As long as golden rice is banned, carrots have a monopoly.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Wednesday October 30 2019, @03:41PM
Not to mention the whole "my neighbor got the GMO, it cross-pollinated into my fields without my permission, now they're suing my ass off with their team of ninja lawyers" thing.
Enjoy these GMO strains cross-breeding and out-competing all the natural strains, then good luck if it turns out they're more susceptible to some disease or something.
Invasive species is already a major problem just with naturally-occurring ones.
---
Now time to make a fool of myself... ;)
I know it's silly to cite fictional TV for arguments like this, but there was an episode of Leverage [fandom.com] where a GMO company tried to purposely expose the world's wheat population to a disease that would wipe out all strains except their own GMO resistant strain, then there's a couple layers of double-crossing and the disease "accidentally" gets released in the process.
A) They've said that most episodes of the show are based on real-life stories, and in many cases they actually had to *tone down* how evil the bad guys were because they didn't think the audience would believe it.
B) If you ask me, this idea is just such a monumentally bad idea for some sociopath to actually try it. Don't underestimate how dangerous powerful people with no ethics can be.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @03:07PM
Yeah I was thinking about the same thing. If the target group just ate some leafy greens or carrots they could easily get more vitamin A than they'd get from the rice.
Carrots have about 80 micrograms of beta carotene per 1g.
Spinach has 50 micrograms of beta carotene per 1g: https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Spinach%2C_raw_nutritional_value.html [nutritionvalue.org]
10 times more than golden rice which has 5-6 micrograms per 1g. And spinach is also high in lutein and zeaxanthin (which are good for the eyes too). I doubt the golden rice has much lutein. Other existing candidates that aren't very expensive = sweet potatoes(80mcg/g) and pumpkin (30mcg/g).
Spinach, carrots, pumpkin and sweet potatoes aren't 8-10x the price of normal rice per kg even in India (which I believe was one of the target markets or comparable to the target market).
So if they can't afford enough of those vegetables they are unlikely to be able to afford the golden rice. And so that's where the gov subsidies come in and where the golden rice bunch will make their money?
And the kids will just be malnourished in a different way (since golden rice is a one-trick pony right?) and so another bunch of "white knights" will come up with yet another scheme to save the kids... High B12 and vitamin C rice?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @09:16AM (14 children)
I've never understood the concerns with GMO based food and 'control'.
Sure, there are patents.. but for example? They expire in 20 years in the US. And due to treaties, it seems like 20 years in most places. And frankly? How is (for example) Bayer going to sue some farmer living in a hut? And even if 'stuff happens' to extend patents, all it takes is one revolution, or one angry country, and patents aren't enforceable. Can you imagine the bad PR from Bayer forcing people to starve over patents?
So.. any patent laws will likely be used more in Western nations, and will likely expire.
There are all sorts of other concerns with GMO food, more about cross-species gene transfer. But humans are already GMO! More and more babies are being born with GMO being performed pre-conception, post-conception, and post birth!
So.. not sure what to say here. If we're going to start modifying ourselves (and we have, and will more and more).. GMO food seems like a secondary concern.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @09:24AM (13 children)
To speak to this a little bit more.
Over the next 10 years, a revolution will happen. Think of it this way...
You are against GMO, and more specifically, modifying humans. Hell, there's even been a law passed in your country! No GMO on humans, except to fix birth defects, horrible disease, that sort of thing.
But, you notice that John across the street took a vacation, and when he returned, his wife was pregnant! Hmm. Rumour is, his kid is a GMO, genetically engineered for better health, intelligence, and more! His kid is going to have an IQ of 200, live to 130, and be healthy most of that time.
What are you going to do? You're against GMO, against modifying humans, but now your kid is going to be stupid, sickly, and slow compared to John's kid. Worse, you heard that 1/4 of the parents on the block are going to do the same.
What now? Do you resist pressure, knowing your kids might not be able to succeed in life? That they'll be slow and stupid compared to the average? That 'average' IQ might shift to equiv of 150, or more?
Consider the above...
I really can't see any scenario where the cat isn't going to get 'out of the bag'. Humans are going to be modified, and in droves, safety, security, whatever be damned.
And can you imagine if only the rich get this? Can you imagine if there are very strict laws, but the rich get to bypass them? Or can afford them, and you can't?
How would you like a true ruling class? Forever? Because, unless you can get your kids GMO, how can you even HOPE to compete?
And yes, it matters. Intelligence matters. Health matters. Having an edge matters.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @09:36AM (5 children)
Gattaca called. They want their plot back.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @09:56AM (4 children)
"Hi.. this plot was in a movie, so why did you ever mention it"?
No.. this isn't about Gattaca. Gattaca wasn't about genetic engineering, but instead about genetic selection. And using DNA to identify 'flawed' people.
I'm referring to something entirely different, which is 'the forces behind the eventual entire human race being genetically engineered'. Again, Gattaca wan't that.. it was just invirto selected offspring + prejudice.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday October 30 2019, @03:30PM (3 children)
Ummm...yeah it was? The entire driving plot point was that the protagonist's parents declined to have him genetically modified while he was in the womb.
I think you're splitting hairs here
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @04:50PM (2 children)
No, it wasn't.
In-vitro != genetically engineered, at all. Instead, unchanged sperm fertilize unchanged eggs, they are allowed to divide a time or two, then they are inspected for .
Bad embryos are discarded. We've been doing this for decades, and it has nothing do to with genetic engineered DNA. It's like you're claiming that since you picked the colour car you want, out of 20, you actually painted it.. or, even better, mixed the paint.
And I'm not splitting hairs. Gattaca was about genetic discrimination, something that was big in 1997, when insurance companies first started to ban people, or up people's rates, for genetic pre-conditions.
What I'm talking about is GMO as humans.
In-vitro = the same with we've done with plants forever. See desirable traits, and let them breed. See bad ones, kill them / or just eat them without allowing the seed to propogate.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Wednesday October 30 2019, @08:22PM (1 child)
Bullshit.
Gattaca was totally about genetic engineering.
I'm not going to repeat tangomargarine (667) because he was totally on point.
The protagonists parents wanted to make a natural baby and not select traits, how is that NOT genetic engineering?
Yes society used genetics to discriminate, but the discrimination was very much against the natural born over the engineered.
Nice summery of that fact:
Dr. Lamar: Jerome, never shy, pisses on command. Beautiful piece of equipment you've got there, Jerome. I ever told you that?
Vincent: Only every time I'm in here.
Dr. Lamar: Occupational hazard. I see a great many on the course of any given day. Yours just happens to be an exceptional example. Don't know why my folks didn't order one like that for me.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @12:43AM
The big difference between GMO, and genetically *selected*, is where the genes come from.
In-vitro selection takes all the possibilities that a set of parents could have. It's literally taking sperm, 100% natural from the parent, combining it with eggs, 100% natural from the mother, gestating them, and then throwing away ones without the desired traits. As far as I recall, and the IMDB and wikipedia summaries of the movie, all indicate in-virto was discussed as the method.
This is 100%, period, no matter what, absolutely not genetic engineering. Saying 'it's the same thing' is completely, and totally wrong.
Why?
Genetic engineering involves taking an organism, like a fertilized egg, and *modifying it*. Something that in-vitro selection DOES NOT DO. Modifications can be repairing genes that are damaged, adding new genes found in others of the same species, or! even adding in genes from other species, or genes we create from scratch!
There is no comparison. They are entirely different things. Selecting traits is NOT genetic engineering. In-virto selection is NOT being engineered, merely selected.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @02:36PM (1 child)
Living to 130? That would be horrible. All your friends would be dead, nobody would hire you after you hit 40, the world has spun about you and you've been pelted with rocks as a commie, then a nazi, then a commie again.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @03:04PM
Speak for yourself. I'm an extreme masochist.
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Wednesday October 30 2019, @02:56PM
Multiply your timeline by 5, and it might happen. But lots of other changes are also coming over the next 50 years. At least humanity can evolve then without killing a bunch of people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @05:13PM
how the hell is this flamebait
(Score: 2) by ilsa on Wednesday October 30 2019, @07:30PM (1 child)
The Rich having GMO kids is just a variation on the same theme that they are ALREADY doing today. Private schools, bribing organizations for special treatment, etc. Even without GM, rich kids have incredible advantages that the rest of us would never hope to possess.
The only reason they keep doing it is because everyone else lets them do it. As long as people consider themselves temporarily embarrassed millionaires who expect to be able to bathe in the mud with the rest of the pigs at some point, the Rich will continue to get away with, in some cases quite literally, murder.
The real question is what will it take for things to change, and in what form would that change take? Look at what happened in France. People finally snapped, and lots of heads were suddenly rolling in the aisles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31 2019, @01:14AM
You're really out there.
When GMO humanity arrives, people of average intelligence today (about 100 IQ), will be like *retards*. Have you ever interacted with the severely mentally disabled?
How about with a dog. A dog is great, but have you seen that doc solve complex mechanical problems? Build a car? Compared to a GMO, you and I will be the dog.
Yes, that'll be you and me, compared to them.
It's not even remotely a variation. You're mixing up GMO and selecting existing genes. Other than a few joke videos on youtube, have you seen monkeys overthrow mankind?
No? Why not? What about apes? No? Why not.
Intelligence.
And genetically modified humans, with IQs that can't even be measured today? Well.
We won't even *understand* how the weapons used against us *work*. Or even *what they are*.
"Oh look, a magic bang stick that kills!"
How is this a variation on a theme! Come on!!
(Score: 1) by Afty on Thursday October 31 2019, @05:12PM
It's not different to today, really. Rich kids have better nutrition, private tutors, access to better universities, more books at home (a key indicator of future success), access to better healthcare for both elective and emergency issues etc. etc.
They live longer, happier, healthier and wealthier lives already.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @09:32AM (1 child)
This is just cherry on top. Don't want to go blind? Grow some carrots!
Overall, your comment must take the cake as one of the most informative comments I've ever read to any article. The comment more informative and researched then the actual article.
Well done!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @12:46PM
Carrot cake with cherries on top. My want some.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday October 30 2019, @02:33PM (1 child)
That's not what fat soluble means. Not even the slightest fucking bit. What shitty anti-gmo site did you pull this bullshit idea from?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30 2019, @04:39PM
You are correct. Technically correct that is, which is the best kind of correct.
Fat soluble does not literally mean fat is required to absorb the vitamin. It just means that the vitamin "sticks" to fats.
But because of the way the body processes fat soluble vitamins, it is extremely difficult to absorb them without fats.
WebMD: A Little Fat Helps the Vegetables Go Down [webmd.com]
Beta carotene is essentially another name for vitamin-A.