Readings 1

The Politics of Golden Rice

Adrian Dubock*
GMOs are the technique of transferring genes from one organism to another in order to
create new crop varieties that are not compatible with conventional crop breeding
methods. Most nations have complicated national and international policies governing the
research and development of these GMO crops to the point where they are valuable to
producers and consumers. The United Nations' Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the
Convention on Biological Diversity has 167 signatories, including 167 countries. Those
ideas have been proved wrong, but the Protocol has nevertheless led to significant
regulatory obstacles to the development of GM crops.

Introduction
Within 20 years of Watson & Crick1 describing the structure of DNA, scientists
themselves initiated a debate as to what level of concern was appropriate in the way
science conducted genetic research, and what level of regulation was appropriate. After
the Watson & Crick discovery of DNA, there was a debate among scientists as to what
level of regulation was appropriate. The potential for recombinant DNA to make significant
contributions to developments in medicine, agriculture, and industry was well appreciated,
but tempered with concerns for human health and the environment. Some believed that
there were dangers in scientists "assuming leadership in formulating policies that were
matters of public concern".
Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer's decade of research led them to produce beta-carotene
bio fortified rice which accumulated carotenoids as a source of vitamin A when eaten by
humans. In 2001 the inventors donated the technology, including any future improved
versions of it, to assist malnourished and resource-poor people. The prototype Golden
Rice contained 3 genes of interest introduced from other organisms, this was later
reduced to 2, and then the plant source of one of the genes was changed from a daffodil
to maize. The vision of Golden Rice was first described in 2006, and by 2011 an
established rice variety with the trait was already the fifth most demanded breeder seed
in India for the monsoon planting season. In 2014 their vision has still not been realized.
It is unclear how many years would have been saved if Golden Rice had been created
without genetic engineering but the speed of introduction of an agronomically useful non-
GMO trait is illustrative.
For most currently common applications of recombinant DNA, including in
pharmaceuticals and food processing (such as enzymes used in the manufacture of
bread, wine, and beer), there is little concern about the technology. "The issue [of concern
over the technology] and its resolution were complete before an entrenched, intransigent
and chronic opposition developed," according to researchers at the Asilomar meeting.
Regulation of GMO crops includes review by a nation's government-appointed officials of
data including molecular structure of the altered genome and its comparison with
databases of known allergens. Comparison of the data for the GMO-crop with the non-
GMO version is designed to demonstrate only the intended effect of the transformation
for which novel genes were introduced to that genome. The sum of all societal suspicion,
and its effects, relating to Golden Rice can be regarded as the 'Politics of Golden Rice'.

United Nations: The Convention on Biodiversity and its Cartagena Protocol on

Biosafety
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was established as an amendment to the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD), published in 200013, and put into effect in 2003.
'Precautionary approach' refers to a principle that was only ranked 15th out of 27 in Annex
1's Principle’s list, and it is used to qualify the first Objective of the Protocol. According to
research, genetically modified crops are no more harmful to humans or the environment
than crops grown using normal methods. All independent scientific authority throughout
the world have concluded that they are safe since they have access to nearly the same
amount of scientific experience as the authors of the Cartagena Protocol.

The Cartagena Protocol Foundations of the Opposition to GMO-Crops, Initially

Considered Rock, Are Actually Sand
Many observers tried to explain the opposition to genetically engineered crops and
Golden Rice. The remains not one substantiated case of harm to human health or the
environment from the use of genetic engineering in connection with crop breeding. At the
molecular level there is no difference between conventional breeding, including
techniques of inducing random genome changes using chemicals and radiation as
mutagens. Understanding the fundamental reasons for opposition to genetically
engineered crops is difficult as each time evidence-based logic prevails in favor of the
anti-GMO-crop position; thus, providing an unrelated objection.
The media does not help either. Usually pursuing an agenda to entertain rather than
educating, they conventionally adopt the posture of “False Equivalency” described
assuming the correct position between 2 opposing views is the midpoint between them
independent of the weight of evidence. The media are more inclined to this behavior with
respect to GMO-crops than with, the different views of creationists and evolutionists. In a
way, the debate appears to be endless even if the weight of scientific evidence the
argument is over.
Underpinning most if not all the arguments against genetic engineering of crops are the
suspicions raised by CBD and the Cartagena Protocol. The Cartagena Protocol
foundation initially considered rock as sand. And these suspicions harnessed and
emphasized by different interest groups to support their positions.
House #1 (Built on the sand foundations)
When the first GMO-crops became commercially available in 1996, not all scientists were
convinced by the reassurances of their peers. Some of them set up experiments to
investigate potential environmental or another hazard. Both groups concluded that there
were no adverse effects of genetic modification however, in both cases the experimental
design did not support the conclusions reached by the authors, nor did it allow the
research to be repeated by others. The quality of science in both cases was discredited
and found to be of no validity for practically relevant understanding.
House #2 (Built on the sand foundations)
Food safety, playing God, anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, a romantic view of small-scale
agriculture, anti-government and in the case of Europe anti-America, were commonly held
views of many, and GMO- crops and the business model supporting their
commercialization were both a useful single-issue proxy for opposition to all of them. So
activist groups including Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace and many other acolytes
were not slow to appreciate the campaigning value of the sentiment of the public for
raising donations.
The fear of genetically modified crops emanating from Houses 1 and 2 became the
accepted wisdom of people who were so uneducated about biology and agriculture that
they were unable to discern the truth. Governments and companies were not trusted. So
‘moral leadership’ from anyone not associated with government or companies was
welcomed. Governments in Europe were taken by surprise using the label, and the
vehemence of the opposition to GMO-crops. Without a consistent, science-based set of
principles, and mindful of short electoral cycles, European governments had soon boxed
themselves into a position where they increasingly knew that the science did not support
any technology-specific opposition to GMO-crops. By 2011 despite all representatives of
the respective European Community governments privately admitting that there was no
scientific justification for opposition to GMO-crops many did not vote positively for them.
And only in 2014 has it been agreed in the European Commission that individual EU
countries shall be free to choose to approve, or not, for planting within their territory GMO-
crops judges safe by the European Food Safety Authority.
House #3 (built on the sand foundations)
GMO-crops provided significant economic and environmental benefits too, by reducing
the amount of tractor fuel required for tillage, increasing yields and making insect control
agricultural-scale neutral. But House #3 became occupied by those which cynically
ignored the facts and continued to fuel the fears for commercial, or other, gain. Some of
them are the same NGO's who started living in House #2 but found it convenient to move
because the fundraising campaign strategy of 'anti-gmo' was so powerfully useful.
Biofortified Golden Rice is bio-fortified rice - no manufacturing, packaging, distribution or
change of cultural practice is required for populations to improve their nutritional status.
The agronomy and cooking qualities and taste will be identical to the variety into which
the nutritional trait is introduced. And each grain is labeled naturally, by its golden color,
allowing choice. Fortification and supplementation do not offer these advantages for
addressing micronutrient deficiencies and are therefore not sustainable for poor
populations.

Are Scientific Institutions Also Vulnerable to Suspicion of Anti-GMO-Crop Bias?

A bowl of Golden Rice can supply 60 percent of the Chinese Recommended Nutrient
Intake for vitamin A for 6- to 8-year-old children, according to the World Health
Organization. Bioconversion is superior to that obtained from spinach, and it is equivalent
to beta-carotene obtained from oil. An adult would have to consume at least 12 times the
typical intake of 300g of rice to obtain the daily required dose of provitamin A, according
to Greenpeace. Greenpeace was motivated to undermine Dr. Tang's published results in
2012, however, they were unable to provide any evidence to back up their claims at the
time. In 2014, in response to widespread public outrage, the Chinese authorities launched
an investigation and discovered a few abnormalities in her research. A few of the medics
were sanctioned by the Chinese government, which also accused Dr. Tang of engaging
in irregularities.
Greenpeace asserted in 2001 that Golden Rice was ineffective as a treatment for vitamin
insufficiency because of its high protein content. Attempts by Greenpeace in 2012 to
refute Dr Tang's published results were unsuccessful, as the organization could not
provide supporting evidence. The Chinese authorities conducted their own investigation
and discovered several abnormalities.
In China, according to the findings, there is inadequate evidence of necessary evaluations
and permissions. Concerns have been raised about the informed consent process,
including an insufficient explanation of the genetically modified nature of the Golden Rice
crop. For the next two years, the lead investigator will be unable to conduct human-
subjects research. Tufts University has updated its policies and procedures to avoid a
repeat of such issues. All complaints regarding the conduct of the field portion of the
research done in China were found to be true.
The Tufts Institutional Review Board, which approved the protocol, understood golden
rice had been genetically altered. One cannot avoid the conclusion that some members
of the Tufts University Institutional Review Board (IRB) in 2013, that genetically altered
crops are inherently harmful because of the way they are engineered. Dr. Tang has closed
her world-class laboratory and announced her retirement after more than two decades in
the field. She is a person of strong moral character who takes her obligations very
seriously. It is a sad day when only those who can afford legal representation have an
opportunity to speak out against what appears to be a bias against genetically modified
organisms.
The Cartagena Protocol Itself Poses a Greater Risk to the Environment and Human
Health than GMO-Crops
The premise on which the Cartagena Protocol is constructed is false. There are no risks
to the environment and human health from biotechnology, including GMO-crops. It does
not provide a comprehensive and holistic approach to the protection of biological diversity.
Cartagena Protocol restricts scientific collaboration and openness, it encourages
monopolistic behavior, and extensification of agriculture. Additionally, it reduces the ability
of agriculture to adapt to climate change, and it increases the dependency of the poor on
established food production systems, rather than allowing their own scientists to adapt
their own crops to local conditions for the basic right and dignity of self-sufficiency in food.
To mitigate the risks which the Cartagena Protocol represents, the nations should not
appoint ministers responsible only for “The Environment.”, the Convention on Biological
Diversity should define the relevant boundary for the purposes of the Cartagena Protocol
as the edges of that zone, rather than national boundaries, and redefine modern
biotechnology so that every crop developed since the 1940's is included and exclude all
crops utilizing biotechnology which is no longer considered modern.
To further reduce the emotional agitation of populations and trade caused by those
political lobbying groups. Governments should stop direct funding support of the activists’
lobbying activities and cease the charitable, tax-exempt treatment of the activists which
is indirect support with taxpayers’ money, which many taxpayers would not agree to if
they reflected on it.

Conclusion
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is a legally binding protocol to the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD). However, it does not address food safety issues. Principle 1
of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development states “Human beings are at the
center of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and
productive life in harmony with nature." The regulations, developed by national
governments which are signatories to the UN's Convention on Biodiversity and its
Cartagena Protocol has an impact on current global society. It must incur the pain,
environmental damage, and death due to delays to advancement in agricultural science.
Golden Rice is a startling example of the costs of delays in GMO-crop development.
Because of this, human health is also dangerously delayed.
The meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol in Korea agree that the Cartagena
Protocol is cancelled for crops produced using modern biotechnology and the biosafety
research, government committees, unnecessary international meetings, and data
dossiers. All these systems should migrate back to the systems used for the approval of
all other crop varieties, to release the real skills of agricultural and nutritional research
and seed breeding, to release the full potential of a modern understanding of plant
genetics for the benefit of humans and the environment. The United Nations has a huge
and pressing responsibility to address the impediments it has put in the way of GMO-
crops.

Note
On April 30, 2009, NIDDK Inquires wrote a message to Dr. John an appreciation for
writing to Dr. Raynard S. Kington concerning a formal protest of the use of golden rice in
an NIH-supported project. The message is about the Vitamin A deficiency that can led to
serious problems such as blindness and death, clinical research such as Dr. Tang's is
important to further define the functions of vitamin A and its metabolites and to identify
the levels required to improve health and alleviate disease. It is a rare condition in the
United States., it is a significant problem in China and in much of the developing world.
The collaborative project Dr. Tang led was designed by Chinese and U.S. investigators
to alleviate vitamin A deficiency in children. Many safeguards were built-in to ensure that
the study was carefully planned and monitored to protect the children who participated.
The collaborative project Dr. Tang led was designed by Chinese and U.S. investigators
to alleviate vitamin A deficiency in children. Many safeguards were built-in to ensure that
the study was carefully planned and monitored to protect the children who participated,
and it was approved by the IRB. Approval from U.S. Food and Drug Administration and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture was not required to conduct the study, project
investigators welcomed and received advice and counsel on safety, nutritional, and
regulatory issues from both agencies. Dr. Tang's detailed application for NIH funding was
also evaluated in a two-step peer review process required by law to ensure high scientific
standards among funded projects.
The application was first peer-reviewed by the Nutrition Study Section in the NIH Center
for Scientific Review and approved with high enthusiasm. then conducted a second
review of the project and approved it for funding. The Department of State cleared the
proposed research on January 16, 2003. Under an NIH-approved Data Safety Monitoring
Plan, an independent, institutional safety officer monitored interim study data for any
potential problems and reviewed participants translated, informed consent statements.
Lastly, while some research indicates that genetically modified foods show promise for
correcting or preventing nutritional deficiencies, further research is needed on the
availability of vitamin A in different plant foods, including genetically modified foods such
as golden rice. It should also be noted that Dr. Tang's project focused not only on golden
rice, but also on other food sources of vitamin A, including spinach and pure Beta-
carotene (B-C) in oil.