MASIPAG, an organization of individuals supporting farmers based in the Philippines, defended the recent Golden Rice ban from the perspective of local farmers in a response to an article by The Guardian. The organization expressed its distaste for how The Guardian’s post depicted the battle against Golden Rice, claiming it was viewed through a colonialist frame that did not give proper credit to Filipino resistance to Golden Rice, painting a condescending picture of local solutions. MASIPAG went on to state several claims explaining its resistance to Golden Rice, including safety, food production, impact on farmers, and alternatives to addressing VAD. Their critique about The Guardian’s dismissal of local groups is valid, as Greenpeace is framed as the party responsible for the ban. This should be acknowledged, but some of the reasons MASIPAG gives for opposing Golden Rice warrant consideration.

MASIPAG believes that VAD should be solved by addressing issues with the systems that perpetuate it instead of with new technology. However, it should be noted that these methods are not mutually exclusive, and perhaps it would be more productive to work towards improving both aspects than inhibiting the growth of one to encourage the growth of another. The article pointed out that many local plants have a lot of vitamin A, suggesting that Golden Rice is redundant. If that were the case, VAD would not be an ongoing crisis. MASIPAG mentioned that “hundreds of tons of squash” have gone to waste in the Philippines because they were never purchased, showcasing the extent to which systemic change is warranted. This is an issue that should be addressed, but it was not caused by Golden Rice and replacing current rice varieties with a GM variety would not further perpetuate it. Golden Rice is supported as a tool to fight VAD because people don’t have to dramatically change their dietary habits in order to get more vitamin A in their bodies. In a country plagued by food insecurity, rice is highly desired because it can provide the body with fuel at a low price point. Unlike squash, rice can store for very long periods of time and is one of the least expensive foods on the market. That being said, there have been studies of the retention of β-carotene content of GR as it is stored, which have found that levels dramatically decrease over time (Bollinedi et al.).

Another concern mentioned by MASIPAG is the safety of Golden Rice. The article states that permission to commercially grow Golden Rice was suspended by the Philippine court until “proof of safety and compliance with all legal requirements” is submitted. It is not clear what the Philippine court is looking for, as studies on the safety of Golden Rice have already been conducted, none of which have found that GR poses a heightened safety risk. According to the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), studies analyzing the safety of GR have included genetic changes and their effects, nutritional content, and potential impacts of modification, including tests ensuring that there is no production of compounds that are either allergenic or toxic to consumers. Golden Rice was only granted permission to be grown in the country after the Philippine Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Plant Industry found GR “to be as safe as conventional rice,” meaning the Philippine court accepted the results of the study (“Philippines Approves Golden Rice”).

MASIPAG is also skeptical of the intentions of the Golden Rice project, voicing fears that the initiative for Golden Rice distribution in the Philippines is a tactic to corner farmers into paying heightened rates for the seeds. Currently, rights to distribute the GM rice will be freely given to low-income farmers in developing nations, but farmers are anxious that will change. In that event, farmers would be blindsided after making investments to sell GR seeds under the assumption it would come at no extra cost. However, the chances this would occur are slim to none. A license to use several technologies involved in GR production was provided to Syngenta “free of charge, for humanitarian purposes,” along with a few other companies, according to the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board (GRHB). Syngenta sponsored the GR project early on in order to be the exclusive retailer for Golden Rice; it was always intended to be given freely to those in desperate need, but Syngenta would be able to sell it in advanced countries, which don’t have ongoing VAD crises. The company eventually abandoned the plans to go commercial in developed countries, because without high VAD prevalence, there is not much of a market for the GMO. Syngenta is allowing the GRHB to “sublicense breeding institutions in developing countries free of charge,” and they have no issue with farmers collecting seeds and using them for the next season. Farmers should not be apprehensive, as GR has been a humanitarian effort since the beginning and Syngenta was only offered commercial exclusivity under the condition that GR be sublicensed for free to those who need it most. Additionally, patents typically expire 20 years after they are filed, so license owners would barely have any time to profit on poor farmers before the patent is open to public domain, and would destroy their reputation in the process. 

Golden Rice was introduced as a substitution for normal rice, which is cheap to produce and extremely popular, especially in the Philippines. Obviously, VAD is an issue in food-insecure areas, and this solution is no longer valid if Golden Rice compromises crop yields. Fortunately, studies show that the yield potential of GR is no different from traditional counterparts. In 2021, Nature released a scientific report that tested several GR varieties for several factors including yield and carotenoid content, and found that “there was no specific trend in correlations among different yield and yield related traits.” However, MASIPAG points out GR had compromised yields in comparison to normal rice during the two seasons in which it was grown commercially, although the value they reported is not consistent with the data they cite. MASIPAG claimed GR “averages a yield of 2.8 tons per hectare,” but following the source they used results in an average 3.2 tons per hectare (“Malusog Rice E-Newsletter”). Either way, this value is lower than the value they reported for normal rice yields: 4.3 tons per hectare. This sample size is small, as it only consisted of two growing seasons on 85 hectares of the country’s 4.8 million hectares used for growing rice, but certainly prompts further investigation. MASIPAG points out that reduced food production would be extremely harmful for the state of the Philippines, as the nation already imports a fair share of their agriculture and wants to ease their dependence on other countries, not increase it. Intensive studies should be conducted to identify if there is any discrepancy in yield potential and if there are any ways to make up for it. If GR truly does have compromised efficiency, it is not an ideal solution to VAD, and could further perpetuate food insecurity. 

One factor MASIPAG brought up in defense of the Golden Rice ban was contamination, because irresponsible farming practices can enable GR seeds to enter and overtake traditional varieties. This would ruin harvests and compromise the purity of heirloom rice types and should certainly be discussed before allowing Golden Rice to be grown commercially. Preventative measures must be in place with strict repercussions in case Golden Rice farmers fail to comply, resulting in contamination. Enforcing these regulations allows both GM and wild types of rice to be grown, which allows those interested to purchase genetically fortified crops without jeopardizing traditional varieties.

I’d like to note that MASIPAG’s post mentions an unethical study conducted in China in favor of Golden Rice that has since been retracted. The study involved feeding GR to children without informing them or their parents, breaking Chinese laws, and was taken down in 2012. Although this study was not mentioned in The Guardian’s article, MASIPAG framed it in a way that implies that a GR researcher they quoted is related to the scandal. I’m not really sure why they did that, but I wanted to clarify that the study is not related to The Guardian’s post or the researcher they quoted.

I want to be careful going forward to not dismiss stances I originally disagree with, because they can bring facts to my attention that I was not previously aware of, making it foolish to maintain a position that is built off of an incomplete narrative. I really wanted to read this article because it’s critical to view the full story before taking a stance and promoting a certain viewpoint, especially as this conflict is occurring in a country I know very little about. I cannot form a complete opinion without taking into account the the perspectives of the natives that will be affected. However, while the voices of locals should always be listened to, their perspectives are not inherently correct.

Anyone I’ve talked to about writing this article knows that I was originally going to write it on MASIPAG’s side, but as I looked deeper into their claims, I discovered that the situation is a lot more complex than they give it credit for. Surprisingly, reading this article reiterates my confidence in support of Golden Rice, because although I am aware of more related downsides, I still believe that the benefits can outweigh the costs if Golden Rice is introduced properly.

I spent somewhere in the range of 10-20 hours writing this week’s post, but I’m glad I did it, as being aware of more details means I have a more advanced understanding of this very nuanced situation. I spent a really long time trying to navigate MASIPAG’s points and the evidence they used, which wasn’t always clear. I found their argument about farmers getting the rug pulled out from under them if prices are hiked for GR seeds kind of ironic, though. Didn’t the Philippines themselves do this by allowing GR to be farmed commercially and then changing their minds the next year? Now farmers are stranded with fields of GR they cannot sell, depriving starving people of food that would nourish them and protect them from VAD.

That being said, I am aware that I approached this paper with a critical mindset; I have an inherent bias because I was already a proponent of GMOs before reading this article. However, thinking critically is an important part of research, especially when digesting information from an unfamiliar source. Instead of reining in my skepticism, I should extend it to sources I have a bias towards. Although I have noted any concerns that originate from sources I agree with, I don’t always follow that up with independent research, which I will work on going forward. Please stay tuned to learn with me!

Works Cited

Bollinedi, Haritha, et al. “Kinetics of β-Carotene Degradation under Different Storage Conditions in Transgenic Golden Rice® Lines.” Food Chemistry, vol. 278, Apr. 2019, pp. 773–79, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.11.121.

Fischer, Gerhard. “The Golden Rice Project -Use of Patent Analytics for Non-Commercial Activities.” WIPO Regional Workshop on Patent Analytics, 2013, http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/wipo_ip_mnl_13/wipo_ip_mnl_13_7.pdf.

“Golden Rice and Intellectual Property.” http://Www.goldenrice.org, http://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how9_IP.php.

Mallikarjuna Swamy, B. P., et al. “Development and Characterization of GR2E Golden Rice Introgression Lines.” Scientific Reports, vol. 11, no. 1, Jan. 2021, p. 2496, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82001-0.

“Malusog Rice E-Newsletter.” Us2.Campaign-Archive.com, Sept. 2023, us2.campaign-archive.com/?u=831d5b3f7694549624621422c&id=86085b837d. Accessed 14 July 2024.

“MASIPAG’s Open Letter to the Editor of the Guardian’s Article on Golden Rice: Respect the Knowledge and Agency of the Filipino People.” Masipag.org, 3 June 2024, masipag.org/2024/06/masipags-letter-to-the-editor-a-response-to-the-guardians-article-on-golden-rice-published-via-the-observer/. Accessed 13 July 2024.

McKie, Robin, and Robin McKie Science editor. “‘A Catastrophe’: Greenpeace Blocks Planting of ‘Lifesaving’ Golden Rice.” The Observer, 25 May 2024, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/25/greenpeace-blocks-planting-of-lifesaving-golden-rice-philippines.

“Philippines Approves Golden Rice for Direct Use as Food and Feed, or for Processing.” International Rice Research Institute, 18 Dec. 2019, http://www.irri.org/news-and-events/news/philippines-approves-golden-rice-direct-use-food-and-feed-or-processing.

Pulta, Benjamin. “CA Issues Writ of Kalikasan vs. Golden Rice, Bt Eggplant.” Philippine News Agency, 23 Apr. 2024, http://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1223245. Accessed 13 July 2024.

Qiu, Jane. “China Sacks Officials over Golden Rice Controversy.” Nature, Dec. 2012, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2012.11998.