Golden Opportunity for Whom

by Fatima Serene Desuasido (Hachimoji)

Golden Rice (GR), which was developed 20 years ago to combat vitamin A deficiency (VAD), is getting closer to being released for human consumption and cultivation in the Philippines and Bangladesh. Agriculturists have crossbred GR2E, the variety to be used by growers and consumers, with indigenous rice varieties in the said countries. We expect the Golden Rice program to boost immunity against common diseases primarily caused by vitamin A deficiency. Golden Rice may provide additional nutrition at no additional cost to growers or consumers, but the ongoing debate regarding its science slows down Golden Rice’s commercial release.

Last August 2020, Stop Golden Rice Network (SGRN), formed by the Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG), held a week-long protest on what they deemed to be “an unnecessary technology”. MASIPAG claimed that the Golden Rice Project is mired with issues that make its approval in the market questionable. They stated that their opposition towards the project is due to: (1) trivial trace beta-carotene content found in the GR, (2) insufficient data for safety tests, (3) contamination across different rice varieties, and (4) existing substitutes for beta-carotene containing commodity. Thus, the controversy that surrounds golden rice goes deeper than the product itself—it is also about the science that promotes it and the political entanglements it has on rice as a commodity. 

First, regarding nutrient content, MASIPAG cited a letter from the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) stating that the concentration of beta-carotene in GR2E, the variety to be used in the Philippines, offers minimal beta-carotene content. They also cited studies from 2017 to 2019 revealing that the beta-carotene content degrades with improper post-harvest techniques, which is relevant given the lack of proper post-harvest facilities that are available to farmers in the country. 

However, the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) countered this by asserting that the US FDA uses the American diet as a standard to measure the nutrient content gained from GR, where rice consumption is significantly less. To amend this, they used the context of a daily Filipino diet, which resulted in a sufficient daily intake of beta-carotene. They also mentioned a study which stated that “just a half cup of uncooked rice is already sufficient to meet the daily vitamin A requirement, even with rice being the only source of vitamin A in the person’s diet”. Additionally, multiple studies supported the idea that Golden Rice could deliver up to 80% of vitamin A in children and lactating women in the Asian dietary context. IRRI asserts that along with their existing approaches in combating VAD, the nutritional content is sufficient, and the issue of degrading beta-carotene content in crops is best addressed through the standardization of post-handling procedures. 

When asked about their concerns over the safety of GR, MASIPAG raised the lack of food safety tests done for the Golden Rice. The group insisted that there was not enough analysis to show nutritional composition, especially ones that analyzed toxic compounds. MASIPAG said that long-term laboratory testing on animals should be presented first before they find the data presented as satisfactory.

Despite these criticisms, however, scientists have already conducted multiple studies to prove the safety of Golden Rice. The IRRI has a Golden Rice Communication Toolkit that summarizes and presents different studies that test the safety of the commodity. Among these studies was one that analyzed the composition of the GR2E, which was found to have met the regulatory requirements of the Philippines with the safety of the food product. Another study proved GRE2 to be as safe as already-existing rice varieties.

Another concern raised by MASIPAG was about the contamination of other rice varieties with wild relatives of rice. MASIPAG noted that the field testing of Golden Rice focused on the agronomic traits manifested by the crop, not the long-term environmental effects on the agroecosystem. MASIPAG also mentioned the possibility of cross-contamination and seed contamination that would incur significant loss to small-scale farmers. The group cites the Liberty Link rice scandal in 2006 in the United States, which involved the contamination of unapproved genetically modified rice seed with the existing rice seeds in the market. This inadvertently cost the US millions of dollars in damages and caused a dip into the rice market.

However, it is important to note that cross-pollination through rice would only occur when the crops flower at the same time and are close to each other. With a study confirming the similar agronomic traits of previously cultivated rice, we expect no changes in terms of yield, pollen viability, seedling germination, plant growth morphology, and appearance. A separate study confirmed that Golden Rice retained the same pest resistance and grain quality of other rice varieties, proving that Golden Rice would play the same role in a typical rice agroecosystem.

Finally, on the issues of existing sources of beta-carotene, MASIPAG affirmed that there was no need for the commercialization of Golden Rice because sources of the said vitamin already exist elsewhere. To support this, they provided an illustration showing multiple crops that had more beta-carotene such as tomato, which they claimed to have three times the beta-carotene content of golden rice. The group likewise asserted that with all the other sources of vitamin A available, there was no need to push for Golden Rice, and there should be a push for the availability of a healthy balanced diet instead. 

Both proponents from the anti-GR camp to the pro-GR camp are unyielding in deciding. With both proponents and opponents affected, the government and the scientific community should address their concerns. 20 years have passed since the development of Golden Rice, and with the contradicting studies concluding varying results, it is valid to fear the science, especially for the farmers who would grow and market Golden Rice. While present studies could address most concerns of the MASIPAG, the anti-Golden Rice parties should redirect their cries not to science, but to policymakers. 

MASIPAG also claimed that the government programs placed to serve the farmers seemed to be detached from the actual needs of the Filipino farmers. The group stated that rice as a political commodity not only has an agronomic but also a sociopolitical angle as well. MASIPAG begged for consideration for these components when providing projects for agriculture. With the increasing control of corporations on agriculture, including land grabbing and land conversion, the woes and cries of the farmers reflect their fear of getting the short end of the stick with the Golden Rice project. Government decisions directly affected these farmers. To be of service to the people, the government should listen to their appeals and address their questions and doubts.

MASIPAG's protest against the Golden Rice Project. Photo retrieved from grain.org.

The Golden Rice Project merits its launch, for our scientists have carefully studied it for the longest time, and theirs studies prove the benefits that it may yield. But the challenge lies in the policymaking and implementation. The government should support, subsidize, and even incentivize the farmers involved in the Golden Rice commercialization. With the current situation wherein agriculture is seen as a business venture, the government should prioritize hearing the side of the most affected farmers. The government should refrain from their condescending remarks about the farmers being misinformed and come to a solution that would satisfy both parties.