In December 2017, the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) issued a directive allowing the commercial sale of food derived from genetically modified (GM) rice line known as GR2E. FSANZ said food derived from GR2E is considered to be safe for human consumption. It also requires manufacturers to label their products as “genetically modified,” in line with Australia and New Zealand’s guidelines on food labeling and to give consumers an informed choice.
So how does that a decision made in Canberra and Wellington affects us? It’s because GR2E—a rice variety that was genetically modified to produce beta-carotene in the endosperm of the rice grain—is the same variety that we know as “Golden Rice.” The field testing of this variety has garnered so much controversy that I think most people have forgotten that it was developed to solve a public health problem and has instead focused on the fact that it’s genetically modified. GM food is such a huge baggage that I think most consumers believe that it’s not safe. This, even if GM corn is already widely cultivated in the Philippines, although as far as I know this GM corn is used primarily consumed as an animal feed.
Unlike GM corn, Golden Rice is meant for human consumption. It has been genetically modified to produce the vitamin A precursor beta-carotene, which gives the rice its golden color. Golden Rice is meant to be a fortified food, especially in a developing country like the Philippines where rice is a staple food and vitamin A deficiency has killed thousands of children under the age of 5.
But it’s not Golden Rice’s nutritional value that attracted public interest but rather the stiff opposition against it. In 2013 the media reported about the hundreds of farmers and environmentalists who stormed a field site in Camarines Norte to uproot the Golden Rice being tested by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the Department of Agriculture. The activists said they attacked the field site because Golden Rice threatens human health, local biodiversity and farmers’ livelihoods. Last year a group of Philippine legislators have filed a bill directing the House of Representatives’s Committee on Agriculture and Food to conduct an inquiry to determine Golden Rice’s impact on health, environment and farmers’ rights.
The IRRI and the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) have also applied to the Bureau of Plant Industry for a biosafety permit for the direct use in food, feed or for processing of Golden Rice. The application was submitted in February 2017, but a year later, the IRRI and PhilRice are still waiting for BPI’s approval. That it’s taking local agricultural officials quite a while can be frustrating to those who advocate for Golden Rice’s cultivation. This is why FSANZ’s straightforward approval process is expected to serve as a role model not only to local policy-makers, but also to health and agriculture officials in other countries, such as the United States and Canada where the IRRI also has a pending application for Golden Rice.
According to Dr. Benigno Peczon, president of the Coalition for Agricultural Modernization of the Philippines, FSANZ “made a landmark decision, based on scientific data provided by IRRI.”
Peczon said FSANZ’s approval process, which ensures that the product meets public health and safety concerns, “provides a model for decision-making in all countries which see an advantage in using GR2E rice.”
“This would be of interest in places where the probability of blindness for lack of vitamin A is significant, particularly in places which perceive the advantage in preventive measures,” he told the BusinessMirror.
Indeed, FSANZ’s decision that was issued last December was accompanied by a comprehensive report that explains the reasons behind its decision, noted on the issues raised by other agencies, non-governmental organizations and individuals, and the process it followed to determine the safety of food derived from Golden Rice. FSANZ also conducted a nutrition-risk assessment—including a nutrition hazard assessment that considered potential adverse effects associated with beta-carotene intake; and a dietary intake assessment for beta-carotene that assumes all rice (including brown and milled rice, rice bran and rice bran oil that are consumed as is or in processed foods and mixed dishes) consumed in Australia and New Zealand are replaced with GR2E products.
But not everyone is convinced with FSANZ’s decision. The Munich-based Institute for Independent Impact Assessment of Biotechnology (Testbiotech), for one, questioned why FSANZ’s didn’t conduct a toxicology assessment.
“According to the IRRI, the consumption of this rice is especially beneficial to young children, as well as lactating and pregnant women. Nonetheless, it is self-evident that food products with no history of safe use must be subjected to the highest standards of risk assessment before the most vulnerable groups of the population are exposed to it. However, no toxicological studies were performed with the rice. Many more in-depth toxicological studies would be necessary before any conclusion can be drawn on food safety,” Testbiotech said.
So the FSANZ’s decision might be final, but still warrants further discussion. I’m on the fence when it comes to GM food and, as far as I’m concerned, the jury is still out as to whether GM crops contribute to sustainable farming and dining.
But this debate is something I welcome. In fact, while I have no formal background on environmental/health sciences, I support the current debate on Golden Rice as the arguments are based on science and not on emotions or hysteria. It’s verifiable data that will in the end decide on food and environmental safety and not pandering to populist but misguided views.
34 comments
I didn’t get the rationale for why toxicology testing on this rice variety might be advisable. Was there some indication that other biochemical changes have occurred in the development of this crop that would introduce some negative effects? Is there some rationale other than antagonism about the process used, rather than the product itself?
This one is a known Big GMO operative as well as Olins who up voted him.
Silly comment. I’m a retired California risk assessment toxicologist with no ties to agricultural interests. I don’t use fake names, like the commenter above.
You are also a known industry PR asset who posts propaganda for the biotech chemical industry.
Notice he had nothing to say about what you said.
Likely because he can see that his comments were nothing but more of the industry propaganda line that you and he promote every day on social media for the biotech chemical industry.
And notice you have nothing to say about what he said either.
He just did. Maybe you need to get your eyes checked.
Why are all these anti-GMO folks attacking the messenger rather than the message? Have they nothing to say?
Maybe you should get your eyes checked. Seems people here have a lot to say.
Your username and comment are a perfect example of irony!
I think that if the composition of the modified crop is different enough that hat can’t be considered substantially equivalent then they have to go through that additional testing.
Thank you for bringing that up. You mentioned your experience as a risk assessment toxicoligist so I was hoping you might indulge a question or two.
Other than the intended change of endowing rice with genetics to express beta carotene in the grain, has there been anything in compositional or omics analysis to give us any reason to believe that the genetic intervention to give rice that ability has somehow caused the rice to also express proteins that could have toxic potential?
We know that many types of crops naturally include in their composition of the fruit or grains that we eat as food substances that are very toxic to humans. Eggplant for instance, contains solanine. We know that the concentration varies by variety and growing conditions might affect amount of solanine expressed. But we don’t panic about eating eggplant because the concentrations are so low and even if we tried to poison ourselves with solanine by eating eggplant, we would never get there because by the time we ate enough eggplant to get enough solanine to have ill effects, our health would be impacted in other ways.
My point is that if someone who had never eaten eggplant said they would not eat them until sufficient txico.ogy studies had been done, it would really be pointless since feeding rats or humans eggplant wouldn’t tell us anything about toxic potential, either chronic or acute. To do a toxicology study, wouldn’t you first have to identify an agent in the composition of the food product that could have a toxic effect, isolate that substance and feed it to rats at various levels until you could find a toxic dose. Then you could figure out if it were safe to eat the product by multiplying the concentration of the toxin in the food by the amount and frequency it is realistically likely to be eaten in an overall diet?
To the best of my knowledge, no compositional change has been identified in Golden Rice that would give rise to concerns about adverse effects. My original post requested any information that anyone had, about a specific reason for concern, and I didn’t see any relevant response to this question.
Thanks.
Quite a lot of work has already been done to assess the safety of Golden Rice.
https://irri.org/golden-rice/faqs/how-has-the-food-feed-safety-assessment-of-golden-rice-been-conducted
https://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how3_biosafety.php
https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1398&context=honors_research_projects
Golden Rice is a trojan horse and a scam.
What could go wrong? The studies used to justify yellow rice were retracted for scientific fraud. Yellow rice is known to signify rice that is contaminated with pathogens. Consumers should be very leery of taking part in this undisclosed science experiment.
Let’s hope poor people don’t get their hands on this. Right, Ted? Lord knows, it might help them and we don’t want that!!
Why would you want poor people to be the lab rats for this experiment. Golden rice is a scientific fraud.
“Yellow rice” I thought you guys loved all things Turmeric.
Funny thing: look up Retraction Watch and Golden Rice and you will find that this research paper was retracted and the researcher disallowed from conducting further research for ethics violations. Ten years of research on this failed GE product and it still hasn’t reached the market place. One thing I do believe about this article — the author has no background or experience on the subject.
😂😂🤣😂
No background or experience?? That’s never seemed to stop you!
We know about your experience, Justin. You have no idea about Rob’s experience, and yours is lacking badly in anything except biotech chemical industry propaganda.
😂. You couldn’t make it any more obvious, Ted. It’s ridiculous.
Are you talking to me, Justin?
You’re not terribly bright, are you Ted? Because it says who I’m talking to right here: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/149ca67779f3a6837a48f144338843d29b857d797bf9ade1b7011a60e49d78fb.jpg
We can all see that you are trolling and using targeted harassment, Justin.
Don’t blame me, Ted. You’re the one asking the dumb questions.
No, Justin. You are trolling. Why do the Koch brothers have operatives like you here spreading lies?
You asked me questions. I answered. How is that trolling, again?
Everyone can see that you are trolling and name calling here, Justin.
Oh yes. Of course. Everyone can see.
You have a wonderful day. M’kay?
This will be good news for the people of the Philippines. It means that Golden Rice can be cultivated improving health of the poorest in the country as well as potentially improving livelihoods for farmers.