201302250057
SECTION:
Issues & Ideas
EDITION:
National Post
ILLUSTRATION:
Joel Nito, AFP, Getty Images / Bioplant scientist Sophan
Datta shows a strain of "golden rice" being tested in
the Philippines in 2003.;
WORD COUNT:
979
Blind children; The unintended consequence of the
anti-GMO movement: Golden rice can save millions
from Vitamin A deficiency, but its use has been
blocked - until now
Finally, after a 12-year delay caused by opponents of
genetically modified (GM) foods, so-called "golden
rice" with vitamin A will be grown in the Philippines.
Over those 12 years, about eight million children
worldwide died from vitamin A deficiency. Are anti-GM
advocates not partly responsible?
Golden rice is the most prominent example in the
global controversy over GM foods, which pits a
technology with some risks but incredible potential
against the resistance of feel-good campaigning.
Three billion people depend on rice as their staple
food, with 10% at risk for vitamin A deficiency, which,
according to the World Health Organization, causes
250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind each year. Of
these, half die within a year. A study from the British
medical journal The Lancet estimates that, in total,
vitamin A deficiency kills 668,000 children under the
age of five each year.
Yet, despite the cost in human lives, anti-GM
campaigners - from Greenpeace to Naomi Klein - have
derided efforts to use golden rice to avoid vitamin A
deficiency. In India, Vandana Shiva, an environmental
activist and adviser to the government, called golden
rice "a hoax" that is "creating hunger and malnutrition,
not solving it."
The New York Times Magazine reported in 2001 that
one would need to "eat 15 pounds of cooked golden
rice a day" to get enough vitamin A. What was an
exaggeration then is demonstrably wrong now. Two
recent studies in the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition show that just 50 grams of golden rice can
provide 60% of the recommended daily intake of
vitamin A. They show that golden rice is even better
than spinach in providing vitamin A to children.
Opponents maintain that there are better ways to deal
with vitamin A deficiency. In its latest statement,
Greenpeace says that golden rice is "neither needed
nor necessary," and calls instead for supplementation
and fortification, which are described as "cost-
effective."
To be sure, handing out vitamin pills or adding vitamin
A to staple products can make a difference. But it is
not a sustainable solution to vitamin A deficiency. And,
while it is cost-effective, recent published estimates
indicate that golden rice is much more so.
Supplementation programs costs $4,300 for every life
they save in India, whereas fortification programs cost
about $2,700 for each life saved. Both are great deals.
But golden rice would cost just $100 for every life
saved from vitamin A deficiency.
Similarly, it is argued that golden rice will not be
adopted, because most Asians eschew brown rice. But
brown rice is substantially different in taste and spoils
easily in hot climates. Moreover, many Asian dishes are
already coloured yellow with saffron, annatto, achiote
and turmeric. The people, not Greenpeace, should
decide whether they will adopt vitamin A-rich rice for
themselves and their children.
Most ironic is the self-fulfilling critique that many
activists now use. Greenpeace calls golden rice a
"failure," because it "has been in development for
almost 20 years and has still not made any impact on
the prevalence of vitamin A deficiency." But, as Ingo
Potrykus, the scientist who developed golden rice, has
made clear, that failure is due almost entirely to
relentless opposition to GM foods - often by rich, well-
meaning Westerners far removed from the risks of
actual vitamin A deficiency.
Regulation of goods and services for public health
clearly is a good idea; but it must always be balanced
against potential costs - in this case, the cost of not
providing more vitamin A to eight million children
during the past 12 years.
As an illustration, current regulations for GM foods, if
applied to non-GM products, would ban the sale of
potatoes and tomatoes, which can contain poisonous
glycoalkaloids; celery, which contains carcinogenic
psoralens; rhubarb and spinach (oxalic acid); and
cassava, which feeds about 500 million people but
contains toxic cyanogenic alkaloids. Foodstuffs like
soy, wheat, milk, eggs, mollusks, crustaceans, fish,
sesame, nuts, peanuts and kiwi would likewise be
banned, because they can cause food allergies.
Here it is worth noting that there have been no
documented human-health effects from GM foods. But
many campaigners have claimed other effects. A
common story, still repeated by Shiva, is that GM corn
with Bt toxin kills monarch butterflies. Several peer-
reviewed studies, however, have effectively established
that "the impact of Bt corn pollen from current
commercial hybrids on monarch butterfly populations
is negligible."
Greenpeace and many others claim that GM foods
merely enable big companies like Monsanto to wield
near-monopoly power. But that puts the cart before
the horse: The predominance of big companies partly
reflects anti-GM activism, which has made the
approval process so long and costly that only rich
companies catering to First World farmers can afford
to see it through.
Finally, it is often claimed that GM crops simply mean
costlier seeds and less money for farmers. But farmers
have a choice. More than five million cotton farmers in
India have flocked to GM cotton, because it yields
higher net incomes. Yes, the seeds are more
expensive, but the rise in production offsets the
additional cost.
Of course, no technology is without flaws, so
regulatory oversight is useful. But it is worth
maintaining some perspective. In 2010, the European
Commission, after considering 25 years of GMO
research, concluded that, "there is, as of today, no
scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks
for the environment or for food and feed safety than
conventional plants and organisms."
Now, finally, golden rice will come to the Philippines;
after that, it is expected in Bangladesh and Indonesia.
But, for eight million kids, the wait was too long.
True to form, Greenpeace is already protesting that
"the next 'golden rice' guinea pigs might be Filipino
children." The 4.4 million Filipino kids with vitamin A
deficiency might not mind so much.
This article was originally published by Project
Syndicate.
Slate.com
SECTION:
Issues & Ideas
EDITION:
National Post
ILLUSTRATION:
Joel Nito, AFP, Getty Images / Bioplant scientist Sophan
Datta shows a strain of "golden rice" being tested in
the Philippines in 2003.;
WORD COUNT:
979
Blind children; The unintended consequence of the
anti-GMO movement: Golden rice can save millions
from Vitamin A deficiency, but its use has been
blocked - until now
Finally, after a 12-year delay caused by opponents of
genetically modified (GM) foods, so-called "golden
rice" with vitamin A will be grown in the Philippines.
Over those 12 years, about eight million children
worldwide died from vitamin A deficiency. Are anti-GM
advocates not partly responsible?
Golden rice is the most prominent example in the
global controversy over GM foods, which pits a
technology with some risks but incredible potential
against the resistance of feel-good campaigning.
Three billion people depend on rice as their staple
food, with 10% at risk for vitamin A deficiency, which,
according to the World Health Organization, causes
250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind each year. Of
these, half die within a year. A study from the British
medical journal The Lancet estimates that, in total,
vitamin A deficiency kills 668,000 children under the
age of five each year.
Yet, despite the cost in human lives, anti-GM
campaigners - from Greenpeace to Naomi Klein - have
derided efforts to use golden rice to avoid vitamin A
deficiency. In India, Vandana Shiva, an environmental
activist and adviser to the government, called golden
rice "a hoax" that is "creating hunger and malnutrition,
not solving it."
The New York Times Magazine reported in 2001 that
one would need to "eat 15 pounds of cooked golden
rice a day" to get enough vitamin A. What was an
exaggeration then is demonstrably wrong now. Two
recent studies in the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition show that just 50 grams of golden rice can
provide 60% of the recommended daily intake of
vitamin A. They show that golden rice is even better
than spinach in providing vitamin A to children.
Opponents maintain that there are better ways to deal
with vitamin A deficiency. In its latest statement,
Greenpeace says that golden rice is "neither needed
nor necessary," and calls instead for supplementation
and fortification, which are described as "cost-
effective."
To be sure, handing out vitamin pills or adding vitamin
A to staple products can make a difference. But it is
not a sustainable solution to vitamin A deficiency. And,
while it is cost-effective, recent published estimates
indicate that golden rice is much more so.
Supplementation programs costs $4,300 for every life
they save in India, whereas fortification programs cost
about $2,700 for each life saved. Both are great deals.
But golden rice would cost just $100 for every life
saved from vitamin A deficiency.
Similarly, it is argued that golden rice will not be
adopted, because most Asians eschew brown rice. But
brown rice is substantially different in taste and spoils
easily in hot climates. Moreover, many Asian dishes are
already coloured yellow with saffron, annatto, achiote
and turmeric. The people, not Greenpeace, should
decide whether they will adopt vitamin A-rich rice for
themselves and their children.
Most ironic is the self-fulfilling critique that many
activists now use. Greenpeace calls golden rice a
"failure," because it "has been in development for
almost 20 years and has still not made any impact on
the prevalence of vitamin A deficiency." But, as Ingo
Potrykus, the scientist who developed golden rice, has
made clear, that failure is due almost entirely to
relentless opposition to GM foods - often by rich, well-
meaning Westerners far removed from the risks of
actual vitamin A deficiency.
Regulation of goods and services for public health
clearly is a good idea; but it must always be balanced
against potential costs - in this case, the cost of not
providing more vitamin A to eight million children
during the past 12 years.
As an illustration, current regulations for GM foods, if
applied to non-GM products, would ban the sale of
potatoes and tomatoes, which can contain poisonous
glycoalkaloids; celery, which contains carcinogenic
psoralens; rhubarb and spinach (oxalic acid); and
cassava, which feeds about 500 million people but
contains toxic cyanogenic alkaloids. Foodstuffs like
soy, wheat, milk, eggs, mollusks, crustaceans, fish,
sesame, nuts, peanuts and kiwi would likewise be
banned, because they can cause food allergies.
Here it is worth noting that there have been no
documented human-health effects from GM foods. But
many campaigners have claimed other effects. A
common story, still repeated by Shiva, is that GM corn
with Bt toxin kills monarch butterflies. Several peer-
reviewed studies, however, have effectively established
that "the impact of Bt corn pollen from current
commercial hybrids on monarch butterfly populations
is negligible."
Greenpeace and many others claim that GM foods
merely enable big companies like Monsanto to wield
near-monopoly power. But that puts the cart before
the horse: The predominance of big companies partly
reflects anti-GM activism, which has made the
approval process so long and costly that only rich
companies catering to First World farmers can afford
to see it through.
Finally, it is often claimed that GM crops simply mean
costlier seeds and less money for farmers. But farmers
have a choice. More than five million cotton farmers in
India have flocked to GM cotton, because it yields
higher net incomes. Yes, the seeds are more
expensive, but the rise in production offsets the
additional cost.
Of course, no technology is without flaws, so
regulatory oversight is useful. But it is worth
maintaining some perspective. In 2010, the European
Commission, after considering 25 years of GMO
research, concluded that, "there is, as of today, no
scientific evidence associating GMOs with higher risks
for the environment or for food and feed safety than
conventional plants and organisms."
Now, finally, golden rice will come to the Philippines;
after that, it is expected in Bangladesh and Indonesia.
But, for eight million kids, the wait was too long.
True to form, Greenpeace is already protesting that
"the next 'golden rice' guinea pigs might be Filipino
children." The 4.4 million Filipino kids with vitamin A
deficiency might not mind so much.
This article was originally published by Project
Syndicate.
Slate.com
Comment