Thinking Critically About Golden Rice (1/2) – Serene’s Synopsis 75
Golden Rice is a GM crop that has been modified to contain higher concentrations of beta-carotene, which is necessary for vitamin A production. This GMO could be extremely beneficial for those in impoverished countries that are malnourished, as vitamin A deficiency (VAD) is “the world’s leading preventable cause of childhood blindness” according to the WHO, along with being “associated with significant morbidity and mortality from common childhood infections.” Although it was developed 20 years ago, skeptics of GMOs have prevented it from being widely implemented, and therefore deprived countless individuals with nutritional deficiencies. In 2021, the Philippines became the first country to allow Golden Rice to be grown commercially, but farmers and environmentalist group Greenpeace, which prides itself in leading the charge against Golden Rice, and have resisted its implementation with such force that approval for Golden Rice was rescinded in April of this year. This is a questionable act in a country where 15% of infants and children are estimated to have VAD (Normile).
Greenpeace’s motivation for preventing access to more nutritious food to impoverished regions might seem unclear at first, and visiting their page prompts more questions than answers. They list three primary reasons to explain their opposition to Golden Rice, followed by links to two pages, both of which are no longer available. Their first point is that the development of Golden Rice has involved the investment of tens of millions of dollars, which they argue could have been spent on more cost-effective solutions for battling VAD. This does not explain their resistance, though, as the money has already been spent, and their pushback requires that additional funds be allocated towards other alternatives. Additionally, the money spent on developing Golden Rice likely contributed to general knowledge of GMOs, as research begun in the 1990s, when the field was still in its infancy. Greenpeace’s proposed alternative to GMOs for countering VAD is using “ecologically farmed home and community gardens,” which is a vague and ambitious proposition for feeding the countless individuals suffering from food insecurity. Their other concerns are about contamination and that some affected by VAD aren’t interested in adding GMOs to their diet. While it is true that those seeking to avoid GM crops should never be forced to consume them, allowing the growth of Golden Rice does not eliminate other options. Additionally, it is hypocritical to say that imposing Golden Rice upon people that don’t want it is amoral as justification for removing it as an option for people that do want it, and could experience major adverse health effects without it.
The reasoning behind Greenpeace’s objection to Golden Rice becomes clearer upon discovering that they are opposed to the entire concept of genetically modified crops. On their page dedicated to Golden Rice, they argue that “GE crops are prone to unexpected effects which can pose a risk to environmental and food safety,” but do not elaborate or provide further evidence outside of their concerns regarding contamination. Their decision to target Golden Rice is likely a move to keep all GMOs from being widely accepted, as its implementation would likely the pave the way for other GMOs. Greenpeace goes so far as to call Golden Rice “a poster child for the GE crop industry in an attempt to gain acceptance of GE crops worldwide,” providing motivation for them to shut down their progress early on.
While Greenpeace’s concern about contamination is valid, they should be working towards solutions that prevent contamination without banning GMOs entirely, because they have immense potential for feeding those in need, along with offering climate solutions. Instead of preventing access to Golden Rice and delaying implementation of other GMOs, Greenpeace should develop mechanisms that prevent contamination and policy that hold GM farmers accountable if contamination does occur. Their choice to use vague phrases about health and environmental concerns is irresponsible and comes off as fear mongering. Instead of depriving countless individuals of essential nutrients, Greenpeace should be investigating reasonable solutions to address the issues they are opposed to.
Immediately, I would like to note that this post focuses specifically on the stance of Greenpeace, and although they played a significant role in the decision to ban Golden Rice in the Philippines, they are not the only factor that contributed to this decision. Next week, I will analyze the perspective of a group of Filipino farmers that also joined the charge against Golden Rice.
I sometimes browse through the Google tab on my phone, where articles about my interests (which primarily consist of science, the environment, and Laufey in that order) are recommended to me, and I was looking through that page when I stumbled across The Guardian’s post about this topic. I originally intended for this week’s article to be a simple recap of the recent Philippine court ruling, but as I continued to research the topic, I became increasingly frustrated and confused with Greenpeace’s actions. I actually ended up emailing Greenpeace, explaining that I’m an environmental advocate but don’t understand their position here. I asked them to share their perspective, as I’d like to have a more nuanced view, and they referred me to an article that will serve as the foundation for next week’s article, which is a continuation of this saga.
I didn’t realize until today how much resistance there was to Golden Rice. I had figured that it was available to those in need and that similar projects were underway for other nutritional deficiencies, so I was shocked to discover that it has met such intense backlash that it was only grown commercially in one country, which has since reverted back to zero. Apparently, experts expect for Golden Rice and other GMOs to be accepted eventually, but this is a major delay that is certainly breeding fear about genetic modification. News like this reminds me of my discussion with journalist Joseph Gakpo about how science communication is critical; information about new technology must be clear and concise and its introduction must be heavily monitored, controlled, and reported on to eliminate any sources of concern.
As always, stay tuned to learn with me!
Read Part Two:
Thinking Critically About Golden Rice (2/2) – Serene’s Synopsis 76
https://www.who.int/data/nutrition/nlis/info/vitamin-a-deficiency
Golden Rice
Golden Rice