by Scientists have warned that a court decision to block the growth of the genetically modified (GM) crop golden rice in the Philippines could have disastrous consequences. Thousands of children could die after the decision, they claimed.
The Philippines became the first country – in 2021 – to allow the commercial cultivation of golden rice, which was developed to combat vitamin-A deficiency, a major cause of disability and death among children in many parts of the world.
But campaigns by Greenpeace and local farmers last month convinced the country’s appeals court to overturn that approval and revoke this. The groups argued that golden rice had not been shown to be safe and the court upheld the claim, a decision Greenpeace called a “significant victory”.
However, many scientists say there is no evidence that golden rice is in any way dangerous. More to the point, they argue that it is lifesaving.
“The court’s decision is a disaster,” said Professor Matin Qaim, from the University of Bonn, and a member of the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board, which promotes the introduction of the crop. “It goes completely against the science, there has been no evidence of any risk associated with golden rice, and it will lead to thousands and thousands of children dying.”
The decision is to be challenged by the Philippine government and agricultural experts say it is likely to be overturned sometime in the near future. But the fallout is likely to have profound effects. Other countries such as India and Bangladesh – where vitamin A deficiency is also widespread – are considering planting golden rice but are now likely to be blocked.
“The situation is very alarming,” said Adrian Dubock, another board member. “Golden rice was not being planted for profit. No one wanted to control what farmers grow or control what people eat. He was doing it to save people.”
Vitamin A is found in most western foods but in developing countries it is clearly lacking in diets, a deficiency “associated with significant morbidity and mortality from common childhood infections, and the leading cause of preventable childhood blindness in the world, ” according to the World Health Organization. Estimates suggest that it results in more than 100,000 children per year.
As a solution, Peter Beyer, professor of cell biology at the University of Freiburg in Germany, and Ingo Potrykus of the Institute of Plant Sciences in Switzerland, began working in the 1990s using the new technology of genetic manipulation. They inserted genes into the DNA of ordinary rice to create a variant that could make beta-carotene, a rich orange pigment that is also a key chemical precursor used by the body to make vitamin A.
This is golden rice, which has since been shown to be an effective source of vitamin A in humans. Countries, including America, Australia and New Zealand, have ruled that golden rice is safe. But three decades after its development it has yet to be grown commercially – thanks to the green movement’s vociferous opposition to growing any GM crop, regardless of any potential benefits.
“Golden rice was the first transgenic crop created that benefited people, not companies or farmers, but its use has been blocked from the beginning,” Potrykus told the Observer last week. “I am very concerned about the Philippine court’s decision, not only because of the impact it will have on the adoption of golden rice but the impact it will have on growing other transgenic crops.”
This view is shared by many scientists. In 2016, more than 150 Nobel laureates signed an open letter attacking Greenpeace for campaigns against golden rice and other GM crops. Greenpeace had “misrepresented the risks, benefits and impacts” of genetically modified food plants, they said. “There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from eating them.”
Greenpeace remains convinced, however. “There are specific problems with golden rice,” Wilhelmina Pelegrina, head of Greenpeace Philippines, said last week. “Farmers who brought us this case – together with local scientists – currently grow different types of rice, including high-value seeds that they have worked with for generations and have control over. They are rightly concerned that if their organic or heirloom varieties are mixed with patented, genetic rice, this could destroy their certifications, reduce their market appeal and ultimately threaten their livelihoods.”
Pelegrina added that reliance on a single crop system to alleviate malnutrition has reduced resilience and increased vulnerability to climate impacts – a serious problem in one of the world’s most vulnerable countries. “If things don’t work out, it’s the farmer and the consumers who pick up the tab.”
There are also more practical, tried-and-tested solutions to combat vitamin-A deficiency such as food supplementation programs and supporting people to grow a range of crops including those rich in vitamin A, she said. “That should be where the focus and investment is.”
