NEW DELHI : Heralded on the cover of Time magazine in 2000 as a genetically modified crop with the potential to save millions of lives from hunger in the developing world, Golden Rice is still years away from field introduction and even then, may fall short of lofty health benefits still cited regularly by GMO advocates.
“Golden Rice is still not ready for the market, but we find little support for the common claim that environmental activists are responsible for stalling its introduction. GMO opponents have not been the problem,” says lead author Glenn Stone, professor of anthropology and environmental studies at Washington University in St. Louis.
First conceived in the 1980s and a focus of research since 1992, Golden Rice has been a lightning rod in the battle over genetically modified crops. GMO advocates have long touted the innovation as a practical way to provide poor farmers in remote areas with a subsistence crop capable of adding much-needed vitamin A to local diets. A problem in many poor countries, vitamin A deficiencies leave millions at high risk for infection, diseases, and other maladies, such as blindness.
Some anti-GMO groups view Golden Rice as an over-hyped Trojan Horse that biotechnology corporations and their allies hope will pave the way for the global approval of other more profitable GMO crops.
GMO proponents often claim that environmental groups such as Greenpeace should be blamed for slowing the introduction of Golden Rice and thus, prolonging the misery of poor people who suffer from vitamin A deficiencies.
A new study published in the journal Agriculture & Human Values reports little evidence that anti-GMO activists are to blame for Golden Rice’s unfulfilled promises. While activists did destroy one Golden Rice test plot in a 2013 protest, it is unlikely that this action had any significant impact on the approval of Golden Rice.
“Destroying test plots is a dubious way to express opposition, but this was only one small plot out of many plots in multiple locations over many years,” Stone says.
“Moreover, they have been calling Golden Rice critics ‘murderers’ for over a decade.”
Stone was an early advocate for keeping an open mind about “humanitarian” GMO crops, such as Golden Rice, and also supported the development of a genetically modified strain of cassava, a starchy root crop eaten by subsistence farmers across much of Africa. Unfortunately, efforts to develop a genetically improved, more productive, and disease-resistant strain of cassava also appear to be a long way from practical field introduction, he notes.
