Charley Somsanguansit

Micronutrient Metabolism
2 April 2014
Golden Rice
The Golden Rice Project came into existence as a promising solution to combat Vitamin
A Deficiency (VAD). I am for using genetically modified Golden Rice (GR) for preventing
VAD. According to World Health Organization (WHO), Vitamin A Deficiency is the leading
cause of preventable blindness of children.1 250,000 to 500,000 children go blind annually
because of VAD.1 It increases disease and death from severe infection, night blindness, and
maternal mortality in pregnant women.2 VAD is a problem in more than half of all developing
countries especially Southeast Asia and Africa.1 The cause of VAD in these countries is highly
due to malnutrition and lack of fortified foods or foods that are high in vitamin A. The current
solution in treating VAD is through vitamin A supplementation, food fortification, and the
promotion of breastfeeding.1
The GR Project started in 1982 by the Rockefeller Foundation, a charitable organization
that supported research in biofortified foods.1 It is a project created with humanitarian roots,
using mainly public funds.1 The synthesis of GR is credited to two researchers, Ingo Potrykus
and Peter Keyer, whom developed beta-carotene fortification in 1992.1 In 1999, GR was planted
in labs and in 2004, field trials were done in Louisiana.1
Rice was chosen because it is a staple product in many developing countries.1 Potrykus
and Keyer found that the production of beta-carotene could be turned on in the rice grain using
two sets of transgenes.3 The rice plant is able to produce beta-carotene, but this is only fully
active in the leaves and not in the grain.3 Two genes were added in order to turn on synthesis of
beta-carotene in the grain: plant phytoene synthase (psy) and bacterial phytoene desaturase (crt
I).3 The first generation of GR (GR1) used psy genes from daffodil, but this did not yield enough
1

beta-carotene production.3 Researchers found that the psy gene is what needed to be changed
because the plant phytoene synthase is the rate-limiting enzyme.4 They took the psy gene from
maize and the production of beta-carotene in the rice grain increased to 37 micrograms/gram of
rice.4 For example, a serving of GR2 (1/2 cup) provides 308 micrograms of RAE. GR2 provides
a sufficient amount of beta-carotene because 150 micrograms of RAE a day is what is needed to
combat deficiency.3
In comparison to the main/current solution to VAD in developing countries, GR is low
cost, sustainable, helps subsistence farmers, and is a long-term solution.1 The current solution is
in the form of vitamin A supplementation.1 High doses of vitamin A increases the chances of
toxicityHypervitaminosis A.5 Oral doses exceeding 4500 micrograms can cause birth defects,
which is opposite of the goal.5 It is also very expensive, hard to deliver, and is only a short-term
solution.1 The Golden Rice Humanitarian Board and Syngenta proposed to donate GR seeds to
subsistence farmers earning less than $10,000 a year.1 This would give many farmers the chance
to grow and consume beta-carotene rich rice, regardless of whether they can afford it or not. GR
would be able to reach all corners of the undeveloped world, as opposed to being limited by
supplementation stations.1 Note that GR is not intended for commercial farmers and profit is not
the goal!
Since GR has huge potential in fighting VAD, why hasnt it been used more widely?
There are three reasons: negative association with genetically modified organisms (GMOs),
European Union (EU), and Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs). These three things all tie
into one another and in this essay I would like to support my position for GR, by refuting their
arguments to why GR should not be used.
There has always been a lot of controversy over GMOs, but in the United States we have
been eating GMOs for a while. There are a lot of negative stigmas against GMOs that get
2

associated with GR and make it less favorable. Although GR is genetically modified rice, it
differs greatly from typical GMOs. The funding for developing GR came from philanthropic
organizations, whereas biotech companies fund GMOs. The reasons for developing GR and
GMOs are different; GR has philanthropic origins and production of GR was not meant as a
moneymaking ploy. The patent holder of GR is Syngenta, a biotech company, but there is a
Humanitarian License, which makes GR free to subsistence farmers. The patent holder of GMOs
is a biotech company, but usually there is not a humanitarian license involved. GR benefits the
consumer because of the increased beta-carotene, whereas GMOs benefit the farmer, seller, and
patent holder. GMOs are made to be herbicide- or insect-resistant, tolerant to harsh
environmental conditions, or have a longer shelf life. Usually the food origins of the transgenes
inserted into GMOs are not clearly stated and a variety of genes may be inserted; this means that
sensitivities can occur in people if they are allergic to the transgenes being used. GR on the other
hand only has two transgenes, one is from a plant bacteria and the other from maize. The
minimal set of transgenes used helps limit the allergy potential. Cross fertilization with other
non-GM crops is high unlikely in GR. The International Rice Research Institute studies have
determined the probability of GR interbreeding with wild plants is low.1 It is self-fertilizing.1
Rice pollen grains are only viable for 3-5 minutes and even if transgenic pollen made it to a
wild rice plant, the genes it carried would not crowd out wild rice because its beefed-up betacarotene genes confer no leg up when it comes to natural selection.1 GMOs have higher chances
of cross-fertilization; there are economic and social consequences for organic crops. There is
none foreseen environmental impact from GR, but with GMOs herbicide- and insect-resistance
might have an effect on insect populations and more liberal use of certain herbicides may be
needed in the future. GR is encouraged to breed with local varieties of rice to help adapt to
different regions, whereas GMOs have property rights that keeps the production as
3

monocultures. Farmers are encouraged to preserve the GR seed to use and harvest in the future;
there are no terminator seeds involved. Some GMOs on the other hand come with terminator
seed trait to ensure that farmers buy the patented grain each season. As you can see even though
GR is genetically modified, it differs greatly from a typical GMO.
The second reason why GR isnt more well known is because of the EU. Developing
countries rely heavily on access to the EU market, so many ban GMOs due to fear of being shut
out.1 This fear is the underlying reason why developing countries are not more accepting of GR.
There are three reasons why the EU does not like GMOs: past food scares, media attention, and
popular scientific ignorance.1 There have been several food scares in Europe including mad cow
disease and salmonella. 1 During these food scares the media was used to instill fear into their
citizens of GMOs.1 The EU is ignorant of scientific data and this is the main source of hate
towards GMOs.1 According to the 2005 Eurobarometer poll, 54% of European consumers find
GMOs dangerous.1 25% of Europeans believe that a persons genes can be modified by eating
GM fruit and 59% do not believe tomatoes contain DNA.1 These statistics allude to the idea that
Europeans do not know much about GMOs and because of this ignorance they choose to ignore
the potential benefits of something like GR. Danielle also mentioned in class that Europeans
really pride themselves on their food and dislike anything that has to do with the US. It is unfair
that the EU has such powerful influence on these developing countries, despite their contrasting
poverty levels, and prevents these poor countries from using GR. The EU produces enough food
to stay away from GMOs, whereas developing countries are struggling to provide enough food
for their people.
NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth side with the EU against GR.1 They think
that GR is a ploy to gain wider GMO acceptance.1 As I discussed earlier, there are many
differences between GR and GMOs that should be recognized before people make assumptions
4

about GR. There are many other points NGOs have against GR. The main ones include: GR is
not a solution to the underlying problems of malnutrition, economic want, or inequity, it will
intensify malnutrition, it is not necessary because of other sources, and existing supplemental
programs are adequate.1 It is true that GR will not fix the underlying problems of malnutrition,
economic want, or inequity but it was not meant to! GR was made specifically to combat VAD.1
NGOs believe that GR would intensify malnutrition because it would encourage people to rely
on one staple instead of many vegetables, but this is not true. GR is a beautiful product because it
will substitute the rice that they are already consuming; it is not a complicated idea or a huge diet
change. Yes, there are other sources of vitamin A available, but unlike fruits and vegetables,
which depend on the season, GR would be available year round!1 It is apparently not true that
existing programs are adequate because VAD still continues to be a huge problem in developing
countries.1
Years of research support the synthesis of GR itself, but the stigma against it prevents
extensive studies on humans. Teng mentioned in class that his brother was apart of a study
testing the use of GR. Although the study did violate ethical rules, it showed that a single bowl of
GR can supply more than half of a childs daily vitamin A requirement.6
Making the call to use GR is tough due to the strong controversy on GMOs, but the right
choice could mean saving 6,000 children per day think of how many deaths could be prevented
if countries would accept GR as a staple!1 GR provides an adequate amount of beta-carotene,
without the risk of toxicity unlike current vitamin A supplementation. It has a strong potential to
defeat VAD in all parts of the world, even the poorest, most rural places. We would be giving
subsistence farmers free seeds to grow a staple product that can be used to feed their community
as well as themselves. We would be giving him the fishing rod, as opposed to fish which is
only the short-term solution.
5

References
1. Baggot E. A Wealth Deferred: The Politics and Science of Golden Rice. Harvard
International Review. 2006; 28(3): 28-30.
2. Micronutrient Deficiencies World Health Organization website.
http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/vad/en/index.html. Accessed March 28, 2014.
3. Golden Rice Project. Golden Rice Project website. http://www.goldenrice.org/index.php.
Accessed March 28, 2014.
4. Al-Babili S, Hoa TTC, Schaub P. Exploring the potential of the bacterial carotene
desaturase CrtI to increase the -carotene content in Golden Rice. J Exp Bot. 2006;
57:1007-1014.
5. Vitamin A: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals/ National Institutes of Health website.
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminA-HealthProfessional. Accessed March 28, 2014.
6. Tang, G. et al. -Carotene in Golden Rice is as good as -carotene in oil at providing
vitamin A to children. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2012; 96(3): 658664.