Janice R. Andrews
27, 2024, Manila, Philippines
Scientists and environmentalists are engaged in a heated dispute over the recent court ruling in the Philippines that banned the growing of genetically modified (GM) Golden Rice. The judgment was made in response to campaigns launched by Greenpeace and local farmers. Concerns have been expressed over the ban’s potentially disastrous effects, especially the increased risk of vitamin A deficiency in youngsters, which could result in serious health problems and higher death rates.
The commercial production of Golden Rice, a crop created to fight vitamin A deficiency, which is a major cause of blindness and mortality in children in developing nations, was first approved in the Philippines in 2021. But this month, the court of appeals reversed this approval, citing safety concerns raised by regional farming organizations and Greenpeace.
Golden Rice Humanitarian Board member Professor Matin Qaim of Bonn University called the court’s ruling “catastrophic.” “It will cause thousands and thousands of children to die, and it goes completely against science, which has found no evidence of any risk associated with Golden Rice,” he said.
Although experts caution that the postponement of Golden Rice production could discourage other nations like India and Bangladesh from embracing the crop, the Philippine government intends to contest the verdict. The public health emergency associated with vitamin A deficiency—which the World Health Organization believes results in more than 100,000 child fatalities annually—could be made worse by this resistance.
Professors Peter Beyer and Ingo Potrykus created Golden Rice in the 1990s, and it contains beta-carotene, which is a precursor to vitamin A. Even though it has been shown to be effective and has received safety approval from the US, Australia, and New Zealand, commercial production of this crop has been consistently impeded by anti-GM sentiment.
Greenpeace’s opposition is unwavering. Greenpeace Philippines’ Wilhelmina Pelegrina contended that Golden Rice would upend regional agricultural systems and jeopardize the livelihoods of farmers cultivating conventional rice varietals. Additionally, she emphasized the value of resilience and biodiversity in agricultural operations, particularly in areas vulnerable to climate change.
Many experts and more than 150 Nobel laureates have voiced opposition to the ban, accusing Greenpeace of distorting the dangers of genetically modified crops and impeding the development of a possibly life-saving remedy. They contend that Greenpeace’s more doable suggestions, such food supplementation plans and diverse crop development, have not done enough to alleviate the pervasive lack.
The possible effects of the court’s ruling on agricultural methods and world health are still a major issue as the argument rages on.
