Addressing Misinformation: Greenpeace's Claims About Golden Rice
Article written for ValleyDAO
In this article, we delve into the controversy surrounding golden rice, a genetically modified crop designed to combat vitamin A deficiency. This topic is important because golden rice has the potential to address a critical public health issue affecting thousands of people in developing countries. We will examine the scientific development of golden rice and the intense scrutiny and opposition it faces from environmental groups such as Greenpeace. By the end of this article, you will gain a comprehensive understanding of the arguments for and against golden rice and the broader implications for biotechnology and food security.
In 2021, the Philippine government permitted the commercialisation of Malusog Rice, a golden rice variety adapted to local conditions and preferences. This rice variety started to be grown in limited amounts in 2022. It was hoped this GMO variety would comprise 10% of the nation’s rice harvest within the next eight years, enough to meet and mitigate vitamin A deficiency in the country. But Greenpeace has other plans.
In 1999, Potrykus and his colleagues developed genetically modified rice that could help fight vitamin A deficiency, which kills or blinds thousands of children per year, according to WHO (World Health Organisation). However, 25 years later, it is still not widely used in developing countries, even though vitamin A deficiency mortality has not changed since the 1990s. This is due mainly to the regulations around GMO crops and the ‘Green Movement’, which means that Golden Rice is still not on people’s plates.
The first trial for golden rice consumption started in 2008. Still, regulations-wise, little has changed in GMO policies, and along with well-organized opposition, yellow rice has remained just a promise.
Potrykus on the cover of Times Magazine in July, 2000. Headline: “This Rice Could Save A Million Kids A Year.”
Why rice
Vitamin A deficiency can be prevented by consuming vegetables such as carrots, tomatoes, meat, butter, and milk, which provide the vitamin or its precursors. However, many families in developing countries don't have access to these foods and eat a lot of rice daily.
Vitamin A or its precursors are not present in rice’s grain, but precursors are present in the green parts of the rice plant. Scientists needed to reintroduce the biochemical pathway leading to beta-carotene, the most important vitamin A precursor. Beyer, the co-author of Golden Rice, says he did not believe it would work when he and Potrykus submitted the first research proposal for the Golden Rice project in the 1980s. At the time, genetic modification was not as advanced as today.
Austerity against GMO
There was a reason to be cautious about GMOs in the early 2000s. Bt corn; (Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium. This cotton variety has been genetically modified to include genes from this bacterium); a genetically modified corn variety developed by Monsanto, started being commercialised in 1996. This variety was developed to reduce the use of insecticides and was deemed safe; it is used for fuel, animal feed, other products and processed foods today. However, Cornell University entomologist John Losey sprayed Bt corn pollen on plants populated by monarch-butterfly caterpillars, and many of the caterpillars died. The policy does not address all the consequences that GMO crops can pose to wildlife. Biologist Rebecca Goldberg, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defence Fund, says, ‘I’m not anti-biotechnology per se, but I would like to have a tougher regulatory regime. These crops should be subject to more careful screening before they are released.’
Transgenes in pollen drift are also possible when transgenic pollen fertilises wild plants. However, this is different with Bt cotton, for example. Bruce Tabashnik has done experiments with this modified crop, and since cotton is self-pollinated rather than wild-pollinated, the spread of the Bt gene is not a concern. Besides, this crop allowed a reduction of 75% of the use of chemical insecticides, which caused a fair share of environmental problems. Director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ agriculture and biotechnology program, Margaret Mellon, says, ‘People should be responding to these concerns with experiments, not assurances.’ when commenting on people’s stance on GMO regulation.
However, some farmers have already benefited from GM crops to save crops. Puna’s papaya growers in Hawaii suffered an epidemic of ringspot virus in 1992, which almost destroyed the state’s papaya industry. A plant pathologist from Cornell Univerity, Dannis Gonçalves, developed a transgenic, virus-resistant transgenic papaya. In 1998, after patent disputes and field trials, the transgenic variant was planted in Hawai by local farmers. “We’ve found that customers are more concerned with how the fruits look and taste than with whether they are transgenic or not.”, says Rusty Perry, who runs a papaya farm near Puna.
Potrykus, the developer of Golden Rice, says he knew the project would be controversial; after all, he has been confronted by angry students since the 1980s. In fact, ETH, where he worked until he retired, invested several million dollars in a grenade-proof greenhouse to protect his plants.
HarvestPlus is a global program aiming to create more nutritious staple crops for developing countries. This program has not used GMOs or genetic modification in its research, as described on its website. In 2008, Howard Bouis, then director of HarvestPlus, commented that GM products might remain on the shelf, and the program would focus more on conventional crop breeding programs, even though it might take much longer to achieve the same results. Bouis says the organisation wants to have an impact fast, so it relies entirely on conventional breeding so GMO protesters do not target it, and it can impact the world.
The feud with Greenpeace
In the early 2000s, Benedikt Haerlin, coordinator of Greenpeace’s European campaign, admitted that golden rice is unlike other GMO crops. Unlike other GMOs, golden rice was developed to help poor consumers in developing countries, while others primarily helped farmers and pesticide companies. Haerlin consulted with WHO experts on vitamin A deficiency and even visited the Potrykus lab in Zurich at the time. Greenpeace pledged not to sabotage the first field trials but launched a very aggressive campaign against golden rice, which is still happening today. The ex-president of Greenpeace Canada has accused Greenpeace of being '...anti-science, anti-humanitarian and against the only workable solution that could end a situation where millions of children are going blind and becoming seriously ill simply for the lack of an essential dietary nutrient.’
Greenpeace argued that the crop was an industry PR ploy (seed company Syngenta was involved in the project) to win over the public and open the door to other GM crops. Greenpeace argued that Golden Rice did not help improve the underlying problem of poverty and that there are better solutions to fight vitamin A deficiency.
One of the other arguments Greenpeace had in the early 2000’s against Golden Rice was that it was not even an efficient solution for vitamin A deficiency. The most efficient strain in t2000 had 1.6 milligrams of vitamin A precursors, so an average 2-year-old would need to eat 3 kg of Golden Rice to reach the recommended intake. A breastfeeding mother would need to ingest more than 6 Kg. Greenpeace assumed that children had to get all their vitamin A intake from rice, which is unrealistic. Also, Greenpeace assumed that the uptake of one vitamin molecule for every 12 molecules of beta-carotene (vitamin A precursor in Golden Rice) when was not known at the time. A study by Russel showed that it is more like one for every 3 or 4 molecules of beta-carotene. This study has been criticised, but the authors planned other experiments to overcome the limitations of their experimental design.
Eat your dinner. Greenpeace said more than 3 kilos of golden rice daily were needed to meet vitamin dietary standards.
Haerlin says that Greenpeace’s calculations were based on the best data at the time, but Potrykus says that that version of Golden Rice was just a proof of principle. The low beta-carotene yield would be improved when Syngenta got involved in the late 90s by funding the project and sharing IP. In the early 2000s, Syngenta scientists created a new version of golden rice, which produced up to 23 times more beta carotene, meaning 72 grams of dry rice would satisfy a child. Since real-world studies were still lacking, WHO was unconvinced then and defended that giving out supplements, fortifying existing foods with vitamin A, and teaching people to grow carrots or certain leafy vegetables were more promising ways to fight vitamin A deficiency.
Greenpeace has spent the last 20 years fighting for the Golden Rice not to be commercialised. However, in 2021, the Philippines were the first country in the world to approve the commercialisation of Golden Rice. Greenpeace appealed this decision to the country’s court of appeal, and last month, they won. The Philippine government is going to challenge the decision. India and Bangladesh have already shown interest in Golden Rice, with dedicated research laboratories established in both countries. However, they might feel deterred from approving its commercialisation after Philippine’s decision.
James Dale, leading a project at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia, to enhance bananas with iron, vitamin A, and vitamin E, emphasises the significance of local "ownership." This is why he has partnered with researchers in Kampala. "This will be a Ugandan banana made by Ugandans," he states.
However, Janet Cotter, who worked for Greenpeace’s Science Unit in London, said Greenpeace will fight to keep GM bananas, cassava, and sorghum from poor countries' fields, just as it will keep opposing golden rice. She also wrote an article about GM myths without scientific resources to support them. More than 100 Nobel Prize laureates have signed a letter to urge Greenpeace to drop the fight against golden rice, but the organisation is still actively trying to stop its commercialisation.
Greenpeace’s claims
Greenpeace has made many claims about Golden Rice for the last twenty years, releasing multiple articles and reports highlighting the issues around Golden Rice, even though they had very few scientific sources for the claims. On their main page explaining why they are against it, they refer to only two articles to back up their claims, one of which has been retracted. Greenpeace accused the project of being designed to help the biotech industry overcome consumer rejection of GMOs. Greenpeace maintained these accusations in a 2013 report, despite an agreement with Syngenta that made Golden Rice seeds free for farmers earning less than $10,000 a year in developing countries (about 99% of the target population) years before. Additionally, in 2004, Syngenta gave up its intellectual property rights to the humanitarian board overseeing the Golden Rice Project., but this was not highlighted in any Greenpeace report at the time.
Greenpeace accuses the project of disadvantaging local farmers by making them reliant on big corporations for their produce. However, as part of the agreement, farmers can save and reuse the seeds each year (which is not always the case), meaning they only need to acquire them once. A study has also shown that ‘In developing countries, the average return was $5.22 for each extra dollar invested in GM crop seed…’ so should the ball be in farmers court when to decide what to plant?
‘GM crops have never been proven safe’ says Greenpeace Southeast Asia campaigner Wilhelmina Pelegrina. However, a literature review that reviewed 1,783 studies concluded that there was no evidence that GMOs are harmful to humans. There was a study claiming that GMOs increase the risk of cancer, but this study was later retracted since the scientist did not include a control group in the study. Not to mention that GM corn feeds 92% of livestock in the US, but there is no increase in cancer rates among the livestock compared to the US, which has not adopted GM feeding. Golden Rice was also deemed safe for human consumption in 2018 by the FDA.
Another claim against GMOs is that they are not natural; disease is natural, and medicine is not. Parasite-infested water is natural; clean drinking water on demand is not. Dying from exposure is natural; temperature-controlled, waterproof housing is not. Not to mention that GMOs might be necessary to feed everyone; as the global population increases, so does demand. If we want to replace all GMO seeds with natural seeds, this would require farmers to plant an additional 11.6 million ha, leading to more habitat destruction for farming.
Greenpeace highlights the lack of knowledge of how plant physiology works. Scientists do not know how the plant will behave once the transgenes are inserted. Even though the modelling and mapping of genomes have improved significantly in the last 10 years, they are still not as good as they could be. However, the Human Genome Project, which focuses on mapping the human genome, only began in the 1990s, and many medicines were commercialised before its inception. The main point is that thorough testing is crucial for understanding how plants with transgenes will behave and how they will affect humans. While modeling can be helpful, it is not essential for developing safe biotechnology.
Greenpeace has claimed the risk of contamination of wild rice by GMO rice. They claim that rice is known to cross-pollinate; however, this is half-true. Rice does cross-pollinate but mostly self-pollinates through natural gravity and natural pollinator agents (insects). Scientists argue that even if cross-pollination happens, it will ‘die off’ since the transgenes do not give any advantage to wild rice. Norman Ellstrand explains, "The traditional expectation is that any sort of transgene will confer a disadvantage in the wild in the absence of selection pressure because the extra machinery would reduce the fitness." In other words, these genes will likely "die off" since wild plants do not need them, and incorporating these transgenes makes the plants less robust. However, when implementing GMO technology, cross-pollination must be considered to minimise risks. This should be a key point when assessing the safety of GM crops in the environment and proper containment systems since transgenes have already been shown to change fauna on plants. Illegal GMO rice has already been found in Europe and the USA, and it was unclear how it entered the supply chain. Before the technology is approved, proper detection methods should also be used to commercialise GMO varieties.
The campaign led by Greenpeace against Golden Rice shows how spreading false information can stop scientific progress and harm efforts to help people. Golden Rice was created to fight vitamin A deficiency and has the potential to save millions of lives and prevent serious health problems, especially in children in developing countries. Despite solid evidence proving its safety and benefits for humans, Greenpeace continues to spread baseless claims and scare tactics. It is more important than ever to share accurate, science-based information. By ignoring the solid evidence from many studies and respected organisations, Greenpeace damages the trust in real environmental advocacy and puts public health projects at risk.
