[Ngo-sanrm] GMW: Why are we STILL talking about Golden Rice?
Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources Management Working Group
ngo-sanrm at ngocentre.org.vn
Fri Aug 30 06:04:53 BST 2013
GMW: Why are we STILL talking about Golden Rice?
Food, nutrition and public health expert Marion Nestle dismisses the current PR promotion of Golden Rice.
Marion Nestle is Paulette Goddard Professor in the Department of
Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health (the department she chaired
from 1988-2003) and Professor of Sociology at New York University. Her
degrees include a Ph.D. in molecular biology and an
M.P.H. in public health nutrition, both from the University of
California, Berkeley.
EXTRACT: What I find most striking about such views is their implication
that complex societal problems — in this case, malnutrition—are more
easily solved by private - sector, commercially driven science than by
societal decisions and political actions.
---
---
Proponents of food biotechnology are still talking about Golden Rice? Sigh Marion Nestle Food Politics, 28 August 2013 http://www.foodpolitics.com/2013/08/proponents-of-food-biotechnology-are-still-talking-about-golden-rice-sigh/
Yes, they are, as witnessed by the article in the New York Times last
Sunday and the editorial about food biotechnology in the September food
issue of Scientific American.
Nicholas Kristof, also of the New York Times, summed up the arguments in
favor of Golden Rice in a tweet: “Leftist hostility to Golden Rice is
so frustrating! It wld reduce # of kids dying of Vit A deficiency.”
How I wish nutrition interventions were this easy.
If I sound weary of the defense of Golden Rice as the solution to the
vitamin A-deficiency problem, it’s because I wrote about the science and
politics of Golden Rice extensively a decade ago in my book, Safe Food:
The Politics of Food Safety.
In 2010, I did a second edition. Here, in its entirety, is all I could find to say:
Golden Rice (Chapter 5) is the most prominent example of the
benefits of agricultural biotechnology but ten years later its promise
was still unfulfilled. Field trials began in 2008 and the rice might be
in production by 2011 [Oops. It’s still not in
production]. In the interim, researchers re-engineered the rice to
contain higher levels of beta-carotene and showed that people who ate it
could, as expected, convert beta-carotene to vitamin A. Supporters of
Golden Rice continued to complain about the
impossible demands of regulators and anti-biotechnology advocates.
Advocates continued to argue that GM crops are unnecessary and threaten
indigenous food security. The Gates Foundation remains the major funder
of GM projects involving nutrient-enriched
indigenous crops. Such technological approaches, advocates maintain,
are doomed to fail unless they also address underlying social issues.
http://www.foodpolitics.com/safe-food-bacteria-biotechnology-and-bioterrorism/
In the original text of Safe Food, I wrote:
Much of the promise of food biotechnology depends on its science,
but the realities depend on social as well as scientific factors…The
lack of vitamin A is the single most important cause of blindness among
children in developing countries and a major contributor
to deaths among malnourished children and adults….[but] Golden Rice is
unlikely to have much commercial potential in developing countries. Its
public relations value, however, is enormous.
I quoted Greenpeace, then the leading anti-biotechnology advocacy group:
Golden Rice obscures fundamental issues of societal values—in this
case, poverty and control over resources—and is a techno-fix imposed by
corporations and scientists without consulting recipients about whether
they want it or not….the true purpose of Golden
Rice is to convince people to accept genetically modified foods….
I went on to explain that a common theme of biotechnology proponents is
that “Golden Rice holds so much promise that no questioning of its value
is justified.” But:
The companies may be donating the technology to create the rice, but
farmers will still have to sell it, and people will still have to pay
for it. Moreover, in many countries where vitamin A deficiency is
common, food sources of beta-carotene are plentiful,
but people believe the foods inappropriate for young children, do not
cook them enough to make them digestible, or do not consume enough fat
to permit much in the way of absorption. It remains to be seen whether
the beta-carotene in Golden Rice will fare better
under such circumstances. Overall, vitamin A deficiency is a
complicated health problem affected by cultural and societal factors as
well as dietary factors. In this situation, the genetic engineering of a
single nutrient or two into a food, while attractive
in theory, raises many questions about its benefits in practice.
I then explain what happened when I sent a letter outlining some of
these nutritional issues to a professional journal. The letter went
viral. One of the responses said:
It would seem to me that the simplest way to find out if vitamin A
rice [sic] works as a vitamin supplement is to try it out. If it doesn’t
then what has been lost except a lot of hot air and propaganda; on the
other hand if it does work and your letter
has delayed its introduction, could you face the children who remain
blind for life as a consequence?
The sic is because it’s beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, but never mind. As I commented,
The writer seemed to be suggesting that even if beta-carotene
contributes just a little to alleviating vitamin A deficiency, no
questioning of the theoretical premise of Golden Rice—and, by
implication, food biotechnology—is acceptable… What I find most
striking about such views is their implication that complex societal
problems—in this case, malnutrition—are more easily solved by
private-sector, commercially driven science than by societal decisions
and political actions.
As for what to do about vitamin A deficiency?
Taken together, the many nutritional, physiological, and cultural
factors that affect vitamin A status suggest that the addition of a
single nutrient to food will have limited effectiveness. Instead, a
combination of supplementation, fortification, and
dietary approaches is likely to be needed—approaches such as promoting
the production and consumption of fruits and vegetables rich in
beta-carotene, educating people about how to use such foods, and
improving the quantity and variety of foods in the diet
(so beta-carotene can be better absorbed). Perhaps most helpful would
be basic public health measures such as providing adequate supplies of
clean water (to prevent transmission of diarrheal and parasitic
diseases).
Today, I would add sustainable agriculture to that list but even with
that addition, none of these social solutions is likely to contribute to
corporate profits.
My conclusion:
Can genetic engineering usefully contribute to such efforts?
Possibly, but that question cannot yet be answered. In the meantime, the
industry’s public relations campaign continues.
===============================
Chuck Palazzo
Agent Orange Action Group
http://aoag.org/
Chapter 160, Hoa Binh, Veterans For Peace
http://vfp-vn.ning.com/
chuck_pal at yahoo.com
================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://ngocentre.org.vn/pipermail/ngo-sanrm/attachments/20130829/193ec60f/attachment-0017.html
More information about the Ngo-sanrm
mailing list