SBI PO Prelims 2017: Comprehension Test – Set 5

Recently 110 Nobel Laureates
issued a strongly worded plea to Greenpeace to “abandon their campaign against
[genetically modified organisms] in general and Golden Rice in particular.”
This is not the first time notable scientists have waded into the controversy
surrounding genetically modified (GM) crops. What is remarkable about this
latest foray, however, is their poor grasp of the facts surrounding Golden
Rice. Golden Rice is an orange-yellow-coloured rice, genetically modified to
produce beta-carotene, the precursor of Vitamin A. Advocates claim it is a
powerful way to combat Vitamin A deficiency, the cause of diseases like
childhood blindness, and deaths, particularly among the poor in Africa, South
and Southeast Asia. Golden Rice was first developed around 1999 by two European
scientists, Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer. The transnational agribusiness
corporation Syngenta currently holds commercial rights to it. Moved apparently
by humanitarian sentiments, Syngenta decided in 2004 to sublicense it free of
charge (subject to several conditions, not all of which are straightforward) to
agricultural research institutions in developing countries, through an entity
named the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board. The project of taking Golden Rice to
developing countries is housed within the International Rice Research Institute
(IRRI) in Philippines. The Nobel Laureates argue that the reason this
innovation has not started saving lives yet is Greenpeace’s criminal
opposition. This narrative of conspiracy glosses
over the rather more straightforward explanation: As IRRI itself admits on its
website, Golden Rice is not ready for farmers, yet. There are above-board
reasons for this which have little to do with antiGM activists. The Laureates
say that Golden Rice has “the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the
death and disease caused by Vitamin A deficiency” (emphasis added). At least
two conditions need to be met for Golden Rice to work as hoped: it should be
suitable for cultivation by farmers; and it should be bio-available, that is,
the digestive system should be able to extract the beta-carotene and make it
available to the body, thus improving Vitamin A levels. The two versions of
Golden Rice developed so far, Golden Rice 1 and 2, are both Japonica (sticky,
dryland) rices, while people in areas with Vitamin A deficiency in South and
Southeast Asia generally cultivate and consume the non-sticky, submerged Indica
paddies. Japonica varieties are easier to modify genetically, but do not
perform well in Asian fields. IRRI is still in the process of crossing Golden
Rice into Indica varieties. In 2014, IRRI stated, “Results of the first round
of multi-location trials of Golden Rice showed that… yields of candidate lines
were not consistent across locations
and seasons, prompting research direction toward assessing [other] Golden Rice
versions.” This is hardly a rice ready for cultivation by farmers – it has not
even entered the stage of biosafety evalution by government regulatory
institutions.

The question of bioavailability
is even more vexed. The body does
not necessarily absorb beta-carotene because one eats Golden Rice. The Golden
Rice Humanitarian Board’s website quotes a study published in 2012 in The
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition for establishing the effectiveness of
Golden Rice. On July 29, 2015, the journal retracted this paper citing ethical
concerns. Even assuming that ethical concerns do not detract from the paper’s
findings, the study design merits attention. The study saw middle-income,
healthy Chinese children consuming a total of 210 grams of pork and other foods
over breakfast and lunch daily, with 40 per cent of their total calorie intake coming from fat. Fats help the
body absorb beta-carotene, since the latter dissolves easily in fats. Unlike
customary practice, the Golden Rice fed to the children had been stored at
minus 70°C after drying for three days, to avoid any decline in beta-carotene
levels with time. Thus, the study design favoured Golden Rice, rather than
reflecting the actual lives and habits of poor Asians and Africans, who
generally cannot afford fatrich meals every day. The Nobel Laureates accuse
Greenpeace’s campaign of raising the regulatory bar for GM crops. The facts
above suggest that neither Greenpeace nor regulatory hurdles have delayed
Golden Rice’s release. In fact, in 2009, the distinguished biotechnologist, former Deputy Director-General (Crop
Science) of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, who had worked on
Golden Rice at IRRI, categorically stated, “The regulatory system is not the
barrier to releasing Golden Rice in India.” IRRI itself, in its last update
released in 2014, said: “Golden Rice will only be made available broadly to
farmers and consumers if it is successfully developed into rice varieties
suitable for Asia, approved by national regulators, and shown to improve
Vitamin A status in community conditions.” Let us, for the moment, ignore the
political aspects of Golden Rice and GM crops. Let us overlook the fact that
many sciences (other than physics, chemistry, and medicine represented in the
letter) have something to contribute to the debate over GM crops — in India,
agricultural scientists, ecologists, nutritionists, and sociologists, among
others, have insightfully contributed to the debate.