The Golden Ticket?

An anonymous source recently questioned, "If we are what we eat, with all the genetically modified and imitation foods we now eat, what the heck are we?" Since the early 1990s, scientists worldwide have studied, tested, and attempted to prove that genetically modified foods can prevent disease, resist pesticides, and make the agriculture industry more efficient as a whole. Concerned citizens and federal office holders look at these innovations with strict scrutiny, calling them mutants, unnatural, and not fit for people to eat. The dilemma stems from the uncertainty of the environmental and health effects genetically modified food products may cause. For more than ten years now, a heated debate has formed over the effectiveness and overall impact of the genetically engineered crop nicknamed Golden Rice. The argument regarding Golden Rice has been heightened because of its boasted ability to save millions of unprivileged people from death and blindness with its substantial amount of Vitamin A precursor, beta-carotene; however, it is controversial whether the induction of the crop has been impeded because of an unjust regulatory process, as claimed by “Regulation Must be Revolutionized,” or, as stated by “Golden Rice: A dangerous experiment," because of a lack of tangible results proving the crop capable of its professed abilities.

A recent article in the distinguished science journal Nature disputed the lengthy regulatory process on genetically engineered products by deeming it “excessive” and “scientifically unjustified” (Nature). As a result of federal policies, the crop has been stalled from entering the market for more than ten years. The article, titled “Regulation Must be Revolutionized,” claims that reducing the regulations on the production of Golden Rice will, without a doubt, save millions from starvation, malnutrition, and Vitamin A Deficiency, the lead cause of blindness in developing countries. The author professes that the rice will “provide sufficient vitamin A to reduce substantially the 6,000 deaths a day due to vitamin A deficiency and to save the sight of several hundred thousand people per year” (Nature). Furthermore, the author states that through genetic engineering, crop yield can be significantly increased because of its unnatural protection against pesticides and disease. Overall, the author calls for decreased regulations against genetically engineered rice in order to promote progress and cure the crisis of malnutrition and blindness in developing countries.

The author of an article titled “Golden Rice: A dangerous experiment” posted his opinion of the argument on a passionate site called “banGMfood.org.” The basis of his blog is that Golden Rice has not been adequately tested to prove that it is safe to eat, safe for the environment, and effective at treating Vitamin A Deficiency. Pointing out that the majority of animal tested genetically modified foods have produced unintended results, he states that Golden Rice has not been tried on animals in order to prove it will behave any differently. He exposes the reality that the public cannot trust an experimental product until it is thoroughly proven to be without critical side effects. On this note, the author on BanGMfood.org continues by claiming that the scientists of Golden Rice have not concluded that the crop will not have a negative impact on the environment as a result of possible cross-pollination with natural and wild rice. Moreover, the main concern of this author and other opposition about Golden Rice is its actual effectiveness at treating malnutrition and blindness. According to “Golden Rice: A dangerous experiment,” there is no data proving that the additional beta-carotene in the modified rice will even survive being cooked or kept for several weeks on the shelf. Another hefty concern is that the conversion of the extra beta-carotene will occur differently in those people who lack other vital nutrients, such as fat and iron. These other nutrients are necessary for the uptake of beta-carotene and its conversion into Vitamin A. After counting up all of the costs associated with the engineering and testing of Golden Rice, the author concludes that other more direct methods of nourishing the hungry could result in lower costs and more reliable results.

After assessing just two opinions regarding the debate over the safety and necessity of genetically engineered rice, it is clear that the argument will persist until further data is collected to prove to the federal government and to consumers that Golden Rice is all that it is promised to be and lacks the nasty effects that previous genetically engineered products have aroused. The first article, “Regulation Must be Revolutionized,” focuses solely on the great prospects of Golden Rice. Without asserting any real data, the author claims that the regulatory process overseen by the federal government is wholly to blame for keeping Golden Rice from stopping the deaths and blindness of millions of people. The author of “Golden Rice: A dangerous experiment” contests every aspect of Golden Rice with the argument that no data has been submitted concerning the subjects; however, as readers, are we to believe that this author has exhausted every source on Golden Rice and found no data whatsoever on each of these subjects? Based on the knowledge that Nature Magazine is a well respected publication, and my own suspicion of one man harnessing all of the data surrounding such a broad subject, I feel more confident and convinced by the opinions of the first article rather than the latter. Though the genetically engineered Golden Rice may have the ability to save many people from malnutrition, the public and the government must be open-minded and unbiased to science if we ever wish to see such monumental changes.

Image credit: Environmental Studies, Macalaster College