Will Golden Rice Someday Help The 500,000 Children Who Go Blind Each Year Due To Vitamin-A Deficiency?

Please find below a representative sampling of submissions since this discussion was launched in August 2000. Some submissions have been edited for length. Submissions which were not accompanied by a name, location, and valid e-mail address and those that did not pertain to the topic or used profanity were omitted.

Our bodies are absolutly amazing. They function with pinpoint precision, billions of tasks everyday. Our earth is also an absolute wonder and provides our bodies with all they need to stay healthy. If more research and education were done on using natural remedis from the earth to sustain life and health, people would be much more happy and healthy. Of course how could anyone profit from that. It is wrong the way you influnce government agencies and elected officials as well as create propaganda about feeding the world and doing good for mankind. Take our money, work us to death, but at least give us natural, life sustaing fuel. At least give us a choice.

Brian
NYC
tul@hotmail

In my opinion, genetic engineering of food is a hugely important breakthrough and while it should be handled with care, anything that can improve 500,000 lives a year can't be too bad.

J. Burch
London
95JOBURC@CSGRAMMAR.SCH.BEXLEY.CO.UK

Don't try and make a profit from 2 Million childeren dying. Don't try to use the suffering of 400 million people to cover any capitalistic intections. Donate the 10 years research, donate the seeds and you have my total support.

Tyler H
Canada
iaminbanff@hotmail.com

I think this is a good idea to stop starvation and blindness... I mean, if the opposition would like to try having vitamin A deficiency, they can. After half of them are blind and the other half are dead, I think they would agree.

D. Gillespie
UK
www@fm242.facility.pipex.com

It doesn't matter what GM innovation comes along to save the starving, the problems of the developing world are usually not related to the types of crops grown and consumed. Nutrition and welfare are reliant on a number of factors that are far more intrinsic to the political economy of farming. It is not simply "anti-science" to condemn this new form of GM rice as a marketing gimmick. However, scientists are being, at best, naive about the situation of marginal and subsistance producers in the developing world. GM food technology, whatever your opinions are on its benefits, will not produce any benefits to the poor if farms cannot succeed in present economic climates. That must be emphasised again and again to combat Monsanto propaganda.

Dan Brett
London
dan@danielbrett.co.uk

That idea in the point of view researcher is a great innovation. But the implementation of it through genetic engineering method should be very safety product for human food. Do not use the people in the developing country as a experimental object. I am biotechnologist, graduated at TU Braunschweig University, Germany. Right now I am researcher Biotechnology and Technology Policy at BPPT (Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology), Jakarta.

Best regard,

Sumaryanto Ph.D
Jakarta, Indonesia
sumary13@htomail.com

Developments of this magnitude should not be inhibited by closed minds seeking to suppress any scientific advancement. Much of the anti GM lobby in the UK is class ridden, well fed and financially secure. Were it their own children at risk from Vit A deficiency, they would feel differently. However, huge companies like Monsanto should not be allowed to engineer a monopolistic control of such advances in societies unable to pay for them.

Instead, the advanced and prosperous countries should agree tax concessions to reward such innovative research and motivate further developments of this nature. Ultimately, if we are truly civilised, we should do all we can to alleviate suffering and deprivation anywhere in the world. Regrettably, much of the resistance to such developments is mounted by selfish individuals who place their own environment and well-being way above helping others.

David Croxton
UK
davidcroxton@goldoakfarming.co.uk

Monsanto needs to spend more money to pull the wool over the consumers eyes. Marketing dollars spent now will pay big divedends in the future when the horrid long-term effects of GE crops have become evident.

Kirk Gordon
US
kgd@usa.net

Don't believe the propaganda and hype the GM corporations put out. The problem facing marginal producers in the developing world is not the quality of the food they produce. The problem is of achieving beneficial economies of scale in which farmers can produce both subsistance crops and cash crops. In recent years, the world has undergone a process of globalisation under economic liberalisation, involving the removal of marketing boards, subsidies for credit and capital inputs, undermining of guaranteed prices for crops produced by small farmers, and a general problem of ecological destruction and war. Rises in malnutrition are intimately related to these processes. Genetic crops may well give corporations such as Monsanto rich pickings, but this does not solve the structural problems which underpin malnutrition and could just create dependency on multi-national corporations.

Dan Brett
London, England
dan@danielbrett.co.uk

It is very unfortunate that scientists have not yet bred a GM crop with significant benefits to consumers. That would greatly help to convince the Europeans that their reluctance is not well founded. Golden rice could have been the answer if it were not for the fact that traditionally bred vegetables could also provide sufficient vitamins. Give the poor carrot seeds instead of yellow rice! Especially as the colour of this rice will make it culturally less acceptable in Asia. European environmentalists now claim it to be a trick of Monsanto to win public approval. It is a pity that the brilliant minds are found only in Monsanto's research department while their communications department seems void of intelligence.

Monique Krinkels
Netherlands
m.krinkels@ebi.nl

Here is an excerpt from an article I wrote for the magazine Splice - it can be found at www.geneticsforum.org.uk:

"If it were not for the vast array of alternatives on offer, the arguments for the GM approach might be genuinely compelling. But this is simply not the case. In fact the sole beneficiaries of the technology so far have been the biotech corporations, who have started to claim altruistic motives for their work. Hopefully the public will not be so gullible as to believe their claims. After all, this is little more than a cynical attempt to engineer a ‘PR-gene’ into an otherwise beleaguered industry."

Hugh Warwick
Oxford
hedgehog@gn.apc.org

My understanding of one of the biggest problems with genetically modified plants is that farmers in the developing world do not have the legal option of cultivating their own seeds. Therefore, after a year or two of buying seeds for a product like golden rice, perhaps at a discounted price that is far below cost, farmers will have lost the option of returning to their traditional crop species because their supply of seeds for these species will be either used for food or too old.

They then have no choice but to continue to pay out yearly for seeds from large corporations like Monsanto, who raise prices in order to increase their bottom line and cover the high costs of research and development. Since developing world farmers typically have little monetary wealth, they have no option but to turn to exporting crops that they desperately need for survival purposes in order to pay for the seeds. This cycle, if anything, increases rates of malnutrition and outright starvation.

I'd like to see Monsanto adressing these types of concerns in an open manner. On one hand, if I'm wrong and the corporation is not responsible for perpetuating these type of destructive cycles, you should be proud of that fact and advertise it to investors, and other public. These important stakeholders are increasingly concious of the moral issues orbiting around large multi-nationals.

On the other hand, if Monsanto is responsible for these cycles, the corporation should advertise the reasons that it cannot currently adress the problem. Such reasons may include issues outside of its control, such as corrupt developing world governments that are failing to distribute wealth to the majority of the population.

Either way, such open communication can only serve to deflect potential criticism and increase the credibility of the information your corporation provides.

Jeff Naylor
Canada
jnaylor@sfu.ca

Yes, it is good to bring it to the market, but as it is a transgenic it will be too costly and poor people cannot afford it and they are the ones who suffer most with vit a deficiency.

Anupam Goel
Baroda, India
goelanupam@usa.net

We've already seen the negative effects biotech has had in the U.S. an increased dependance on the industry. It's hard to see why biotech would not try to promote and purpetuate this. We still have time to prevent this from happening in developing countries. The solution is not to engineer one "wonder crop" as a substitute for a proper balanced diet based on biodiversity.

Peter Booth
Texas
boothpete@hotmail.com

The development of golden rice is an effort well-spent. But looking at a problem or phenomenon from purely physiological or physical aspects can be considered as one-sided. Other aspects such as economic conditions of the people, political structure on the family and as a nation -- who can eat more -- and food beliefs and preferences are factors to be considered to solve the problem. I believe that Vitamin A deficiency has deeper roots and to cure it with improved rice varieites without going into the real cause of the problem would just be an exercise in futility. Vitamin A absorption is another factor that needs to be looked into. Is the problem really about vitamin A deficiency or the body's capability to absorb and utilize the vitamin A?

Jun Bernados
Cebu City, Philippines
simeon@cnms.net

Isn't it great that we have a bunch of starving people in the Developing World that can act as wonderful little guinea pigs for a self-proclaimed wonder rice? After all, many countries don't even have human rights standards. How lucky and so very cost effective. It will be very interesting to see how many blindness cases are not only cured, but replaced with other health problems (liver and kidney problems) that are associated with too much Vitamin A.

Tom Dichinhare
USA
tomd@yahoo.com

Golden rice may not only help children but if phytate is removed women may become less anemic. This could allow women to reach their full potential in developing countries. Thus biotech may give women a better diet as they will be able to absorb iron with phytate removed. (http://www.ironpanel.org.au/AIS/IBA/iba_text.html)

Biotech may allow more women to become better educated and allow them to participate fully in their society. Men on rice diets have always had a dietary advantage. Men could reduce iron intake with phytate which may extend their lives.

Henry Brown
New Mexico
hbrown@pnm.com

Gold rice is the greatest achievemet of biotechnology. If marketed properly (key for consumer acceptance) it's going to help thousands of malnourished children in third world countries.

M.N.Baig
Alberta, Canada
mnbaig@telusplanet.net

Back