The green movement’s attempts to block the cultivation of a grain enhanced with vitamin A is misguided

For a crop that was designed to save the lives of children, Golden Rice has had a disturbing, volatile history. Developed more than 20 years ago using the techniques of genetic manipulation, it provides consumers with the ability to make vitamin A, which is missing from many diets in developing countries. This is a deficit that can have grim consequences. Without vitamin A, infections among the young soar and it is estimated that the lives of more than 100,000 children are lost every year as a result.

The production of a food that could counter this deadly scourge might be expected to be greeted with global relief and gratitude. Sadly, this has not been the case. Although field trials of Golden Rice have shown it to be an effective source of vitamin A that is safe to grow and consume, the crop has yet to be grown commercially – thanks, in the main, to the green movement’s vociferous opposition to its cultivation. Led by Greenpeace, campaigners have attempted to block the growing of any genetically modified crop, regardless of any potential benefit it might possess, and Golden Rice has been a particular target for their attention. The organisation claims there are other more practical solutions to improve vitamin-A deficiency and accuses corporations of overhyping its efficacy to pave the way for approval of more profitable GM crops.

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.

Last week, General Motors announced that it would end production of the Chevrolet Malibu, which the company first introduced in 1964. Although not exactly a head turner (the Malibu was "so uncool, it was cool," declared the New York Times), the sedan has become an American fixture, even an icon [...] Over the past 60 years, GM produced some 10 million of them. With a price starting at a (relatively) affordable $25,100, Malibu sales exceeded 130,000 vehicles last year, a 13% annual increase and enough to rank as the #3 Chevy model [...] Still, that wasn't enough to keep the car off GM's chopping block. [...] In that regard, it will have plenty of company. Ford stopped producing sedans for the U.S. market in 2018. And it was Sergio Marchionne, the former head of Stellantis, who triggered the headlong retreat in 2016 when he declared that Dodge and Chrysler would stop making sedans. [...] As recently as 2009, U.S. passenger cars [...] outsold light trucks (SUVs, pickups, and minivans), but today they're less then 20% of new car purchases. The death of the Malibu is confirmation, if anyone still needs it, that the Big Three are done building sedans. That decision is bad news for road users, the environment, and budget-conscious consumers—and it may ultimately come around to bite Detroit.