Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are receiving increasing attention in the global arena. A GMO refers to an organism that has been genetically engineered in a laboratory in order to promote, decrease or modify particular traits. Recombinant technologies may also be used to alter an organism’s DNA with genes from an unrelated species. Much of this technology has been applied to increasing crop yields and in combating micronutrient malnutrition. In 2002 Ross Welch from the USDA wrote a report in the Journal of Nutrition calling for more research in plant breeding as “doing this would dramatically contribute to improving the health, livelihood and felicity of numerous resource-poor, micronutrient-deficient people in many developing countries and would contribute greatly to sustaining national development efforts in these countries” (Welch, 2002).
An example of this type of work is the product “Golden Rice.” A rice product has been produced that is genetically engineered with plant genes so that the grains contain beta-carotene (source of vitamin A). Non-modified rice grains have the capability to produce beta-carotene, but during development, the expression of this gene is turned “off.” The addition of plant genes essentially modifies the rice to turn this gene “on.” Again, the impetus behind this crop (according to the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board which oversees the project) was conceptualized as a way to improve the nutrition of children in developing countries who suffer from deficiencies in vitamin A leading to blindness, reduced immune response, impaired hematopoesis (red blood cell production) and skeletal growth and premature death.
However, despite the fact that the technology of GMOs in general as been touted by researchers as a way to “feed the world” and as an important piece of improving global health, it faces heavy criticism in many circles. Some say efforts are not health and humanitarian focused, but profit-driven as relatively few companies and institutes control the research. In briefly researching the Golden Rice project in particular, I found a laundry list of organizations involved in funding the effort. These include the Rockefeller Institute, Gates Foundation, USAID, Philippines Dept. of Agriculture, Swiss Federal Funding, the European Commission and the Syngenta Foundation. Research has primarily taken place at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines.
Countering this is an article from the NPR which cited the fact that the one of the individuals currently in charge of the Golden Rice project at the IRRI was also the inventor of Monsanto’s patented “round-up ready” gene we discussed in class last week. A lot of controversy surrounds Monsanto’s monopoly of the gene pool in regards to soybeans and corn and some of these voices fear a similar result as this technology becomes globalized. Information found on the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board site does however state that free access to the technology is available to resource-poor farmers through sub-licensing and they will have ownership of their seeds (i.e. able to save seeds). Other worries include loss of biodiversity in crops, future soil infertility and dependency on a centralized food system.
These arguments don’t even begin to scratch the surface of the debate surrounding GMOs including wars over types of labeling and transparency. Could the delivery of nutritious crops in this way eventually harm developing countries if they become dependent on a particular food supply? Are the intentions of researchers on projects like Golden Rice truly humanitarian or do they become become profit-driven because of the way our regulatory/delivery system works? I didn’t even address issues of whether GMOs themselves have intrinsic adverse health effects, which is also highly controversial. I thought it was interesting that aside from the product itself, there’s a huge debate over the balance of power.
Sources:
Charles, D. (2013). In a grain of golden rice, a world of controversy over GMO foods. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/03/07/173611461/in-a-grain-of-golden-rice-a-world-of-controversy-over-gmo-foods
Welch, R.M. (2002). Breeding strategies for biofortified staple plant foods to reduce micronutrient malnutrition globally. American Society for Nutritional Sciences. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Plant,
Soil and Nutrition Laboratory. Ithaca, NY.
Fantastic post Kelly!! One thing is proven that these initiatives are causing more harm to traditional practices and food systems. The health effects (some call them Frankenstein seeds etc..), are being vociferously debated and argued. Science is notorious in this respect as what appears evidence based truth today always stands to be falsified (Karl Popper) as science advances. And end of the day, it is a power game where the farmers stand to lose, regardless of what the site says in its disclaimer. Have a look at the interesting opinion from Dr. Vandana Shiva, a staunch campaigner against GMO. http://billmoyers.com/segment/vandana-shiva-on-the-problem-with-genetically-modified-seeds/
ReplyDeleteKelly, read more, read these people, Shiva, Popper, Farmer, Foucualt, Lacan, Fanon, etc..etc..and maybe at some point, you will have an answer which you can reason with.
There certainly is a history of humanitarian nutrition efforts gone awry in the past: the provision of infant formula that led to dependency (culturally and nutritionally) before subsidies ran out and individuals were left in need of a product they couldn't afford, the introduction of commodity crops as cash initiatives that ultimately result in greater dependence on imports and processed goods, and the destruction of indigenous and heirloom plant varieties by the invasive and dominant nature of GM seeds.
ReplyDeleteYou make some very astute observations here, and the issue of Golden Rice is an interesting one. Some reports say that it was essentially developed as an answer to the growth of negative press surrounding GMs and the oligopolistic endeavors of companies like Monsanto. But regardless of whether you believe it was a humanitarian effort or one mired in ulterior motives, the fact remains that the science does not support the nutritional claims of golden rice. Yes, it does have Vitamin A and yes, it could help elevate those levels in individuals, but there have been no clinical trials to demonstrate whether such micronutrient delivery is efficacious. I can't find the source now, but a policy course I took class year discussed the fact that some estimates say that an individual would have to consume somewhere in the range of a kg of golden rice a day to significantly impact nutrition. In areas of the world that are already struggling, how likely is it that any individual would have access to that sort of supply of rice?
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_28251.cfm