Golden Rice Essay ⋆ Environment Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

This Golden Rice Essay example is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic, please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

Golden rice is the common term for rice genetically modified to produce beta carotene (the compound that the human body converts to vitamin A) in the endosperm. This invention represented a breakthrough in genetic engineering, and it also played a significant role in public relations campaigns to frame global debates on biotechnology. The impetus behind Golden Rice was the desire to mitigate Vitamin A deficiency among poor Asian populations with rice-based diets. Rice actually contains moderate levels of beta carotene in the bran, but this is commonly removed by polishing – the process of mechanically removing the bran from the endosperm to improve storability and taste.

The search for a biotechnological solution to this problem was led by Ingo Potrykus, a German biologist who had founded the Institute of Plant Sciences at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in 1985. Here he began work on nutritional enhancement of rice through genetic modification. By 1992, he had established a productive collaboration with Peter Beyer at the nearby University of Freiburg. Turned down for corporate funding, he and Beyer secured funding from the Rockefeller Foundation’s Food Security program. Over the next eight years, they succeeded in introducing three genes (two from daffodil and one from the bacterium Erwinia) that produced the four enzymatic reactions making up the carotenoid biosynthetic pathway in the rice endosperm. The modified rice had a yellow endosperm (hence the name) and contained very small amounts of beta carotene. The invention was only a prototype; the level of beta carotene was too low to have an impact on nutrition, and the altered pathway was working only in one strain of rice used for experimentation. Nevertheless, the engineering of a biosynthetic pathway represented a significant advance in molecular biology.

The project also suggested promise for humanitarian biotechnology, but major problems with intellectual property were soon discovered. The development of genetically modified plants, especially with complex multigene transformations, invariably uses multiple patented genes and technologies along the way. Researchers routinely gain access to these technologies through contracts allowing restricted use for research but not for release. When the Rockefeller Foundation commissioned an “Intellectual Property Audit” to identify the patented technologies used in developing the Golden Rice prototype, the finding was that 70 technologies-owned by 32 companies and universities-had been used; any of these could potentially block the eventual release of Golden Rice. Although the number of technologies under patent protection in the target countries was much smaller, this was still a serious obstacle.

Saving “A Million Kids A Year”

In January 2000 the Potrykus-Beyer team described their accomplishment in Science, and in July Time magazine featured Potrykus on its cover with the claim that his rice could “save a million kids a year.” The timing of this publicity was crucial. Reeling from Europe’s rejection of genetically modified foods, the biotechnology industry had begun to promote its products on the basis of the potential to feed the hungry, and it had just started a $250 million public relations initiative called the Council for Biotechnology Information. The CBI seized Golden Rice as the centerpiece of an advertising campaign that included network TV and full-page newspaper advertisements. Tens of millions of dollars were spent by industry touting an invention that had resulted mainly from a noncorporate investment of $1.5 million.

The Golden Rice publicity led to developments with the intellectual property problem. Monsanto, which dominated commercial crop genetic modification, agreed to relinquish its rights on the viral promoter used in Golden Rice development (a promoter is a DNA segment that regulates gene activity); Monsanto then issued a press release that led many newspapers to credit Monsanto with the invention. A broader solution to the problem of patents was later achieved through a deal allowing free distribution of Golden Rice to poor farmers if and when it was released, while the Zeneca Corp. retained commercial rights.

The years following the original announcement brought some improvement in the Golden Rice construct. Molecular biologists at Syngenta (the descendant of Zeneca) replaced the Monsanto viral promoter and one of the daffodil genes what it called Golden Rice 2, greatly raising the level of beta-carotene. Halting progress was made in transferring the engineered trait into rice cultivars (using both genetic modification and backcrossing) in India, Phillipines, Taiwan, and the United States. As of 2006, the only field trial had been in Louisiana using a “golden” version of American rice. It was hoped that Golden Rice cultivars of agronomic value to Asian populations would be available by 2010.

Thus, several years after the invention was announced, Golden Rice had played no role in combatting malnutrition and indeed was still far from being available in a useful form, but it was still playing a significant role in the debates on crop genetic modification. While biotechnology firms and their allies continued to tout the invention, critics charged that Golden Rice was surrendered to the commercial and PR interests of the biotech industry; that the project and its publicity obscured the real causes of malnutrition such as loss of biodiversity; and indeed that it was a “hoax.” Nutritionists pointed out that a simple increase in consumption of beta carotene would have little impact on undernourished children, as they often suffer from protein energy malnutrition and intestinal infections that impede the conversion of beta carotene to vitamin A. The editor of The Lancet suggested that “seeking a technological food fix for world hunger may be… the most commercially malevolent wild goose chase of the new century,” and even officials at the Rockefeller Foundation complained about the claims being made for the invention it had sponsored. These charges pertain more to the commercial and rhetorical uses of Golden Rice, however, than to the original project itself, which was noncorporate and which was conceived by the Rockefeller Foundation only as one part of a broad-based initiative to improve food security.

Bibliography:

Peter Beyer, Salim Al-Babili, Xudong Ye, Paola Lucca, Patrick Schaub, Ralf Welsch, and Ingo Potrykus, “Golden Rice: Introducing the B-Carotene Biosynthesis Pathway into Rice Endosperm by Genetic Engineering to Defeat Vitamin A Deficiency” (J. Nutr, 2002);
Marion Nestle, “Genetically Engineered ‘Golden’ Rice Unlikely to Overcome Vitamin A Deficiency,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association (v.101, 2001);
Jacqueline Paine, A. Shipton, S. Chaggar, R.M. Howells, M.J. Kennedy, G. Vernon, S.Y. Wright, E. Hinchliffe, J.L. Adams, A.L. Silverstone, and R. Drake, “Improving the Nutritional Value of Golden Rice Through Increased Pro-Vitamin A Content,” Nature Biotechnology (v.23, 2005);
RAFI (Rural Advancement Foundation International), “Golden Rice and Trojan Trade Reps: A Case Study in the Public Sector’s Mismanagement of Intellectual Property,” RAFI Communique (v.66, 2000);
Glenn Davis Stone, “Both Sides Now: Fallacies in the Genetic-Modification Wars, Implications for Developing Countries, and Anthropological Perspectives,” Current Anthropology (v.43, 2002);
Gary Toenniessen, “Crop Genetic Improvement for Enhanced Human Nutrition,” ]. Nutr. (v.132, 2002).