The anti-rice campaign
- deconstruction of a Greenpeace press release
By Dirk Maxeiner
This Essay was first published in the german newspaper DIE WELT (07.04.2005)
Researchers have developed a new genetically modified rice variety with a particularly high content of provitamin A – good news for people in many developing countries but apparently bad news for the opponents of genetic modification. In the journal “Nature Biotechnology“ the scientists reported a 23 times higher beta-carotene content than in the first generation of the GM rice variety. Greenpeace did not even wait to see the content of this study before reaching its final verdict. “Ineffective. Superfluous.“ This press release from Greenpeace exemplifies the thinking and methods of the Hamburg Association. Dirk Maxeiner critical reviews it.
“Genetically manipulated rice: ineffective and superfluous. Greenpeace publishes new studies.“
„Genetically manipulated rice with a higher content of vitamin A cannot combat vitamin A deficiency diseases in the countries of the South. Studies published by Greenpeace today prove this.“
But they do not prove it at all. Two of the studies are devoted to the vitamin A deficiency situation in general with a passing mention of “golden rice.“ A third study presents no new scientific knowledge, but merely contains a selection of extracts from previous studies, some of which are already out of date.
“There is even reason to fear that projects which are already successfully fighting vitamin A deficiency will no longer receive the necessary support as vastly exaggerated expectations have been stoked up around ‘golden rice’”.
But linking a scientific innovation with hopes for the greater well being of mankind, does not amount to “stoking up exaggerated expectations.“ That same criticism might equally have been levelled against Justus von Liebig, Paul Ehrlich or Robert Koch. Nor is there any reason not to engage in competition to discover the best means of providing assistance. Otherwise Unicef, for example, would have to cease its work because it might make aid to prevent world hunger obsolete.
“Evidence is also produced to show that this rice conceals a serious risk to mankind and the environment.“
The serious risk does not come from rice but from vitamin A deficiency. According to the WHO, one in five children worldwide is suffering from this deficiency and some one million die from its sequels every year while half a million go blind. Greenpeace regards hypothetical residual risks as more important than concrete risks to millions of human beings. By the same logic, drinking water treatment should be halted because secondary effects of the substances used in the treatment process cannot be completely ruled out.
“In response, scientists have already announced new publications for April 2005 about genetically modified rice which is now said to contain up to ten times more provitamin A.“
The rice contains up to 23 times more provitamin A. Just 70 grams of it would be sufficient to meet the daily need.
“The industry is talking up this project because it hopes that it will bring a higher acceptance of GM food, comments Christoph Then, genetic engineering expert at Greenpeace.”
Golden rice is indeed likely to enhance the acceptance of green genetic engineering. The invention of aspirin also helped to increase the acceptance of pharmaceuticals. The term “industry“ does not designate organized crime but companies with thousands of employees. The inventors Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer have in any case done nothing to exploit their innovation for commercial purposes. They made it available without charge to small farmers in the developing countries. And they have even succeeded in persuading genetic engineering companies to waive their patents for this purpose. The latest results published by Syngenta researchers have also been handed over to the “Golden Rice Board”.
“Genetically engineered rice is no way of fighting dietary deficiencies in the countries of the South, however much provitamin A it may contain.“
In other words, however many facts and arguments may be put forward they do not count. One might equally say: people may eat as much as they like but they will still go hungry if Greenpeace says so.
“A precise study of existing publications about genetically engineered rice shows that the technical problems are played down and the possible benefits vastly exaggerated.“
Greenpeace has not investigated “golden rice“ but previous publications (!) including its own pamphlets. Even if just one per cent of the people suffering from vitamin A deficiency could be helped, that would mean tens of thousands fewer deaths and cases of blindness each year.
The fact that researchers encounter difficulties in their work is perfectly normal.
“It is not clear how much and which kinds of carotene the plants form and whether they can be of any use to human beings in this form.“
The quantity of carotene which the body converts into vitamin A depends on the individual constitution and on diet. Estimates suggest between 50 and 10 per cent, but even in the most unfavourable assumption a substantial contribution would still be made to dietary improvement. A meaningful conclusion could only be reached after lengthy comparative studies of rice consumers. Greenpeace is using all the means at its disposal to prevent that from happening by torpedoing research and planned tests plantations.
“What is more, unexpected substances have also been found in the GM plants.“
They do not say “dangerous“ or “suspicious“ but “unexpected.“ A typical smoke screen. The intention is simply to insinuate that they are dangerous. Genetically engineered plants undergo far more stringent tests for the presence of allergens or suspect substances before their use is authorized than conventional foods. For instance, a perfectly normal raspberry would have no chance whatever of authorization because of the many natural substances contained in it which present problems of their own. For years now millions of people have been eating food made with genetically modified maize or soybeans without any health problems ever arising.
“From the point of view of the consumer, this rice cannot be regarded as safe. Once it has been planted it may spread to neighbouring fields and risks to the environment and health can then no longer be halted.“
Note: the risk is not to the people who eat vitamin A rice to improve their diet but to “consumers“ in the rich western countries who are bothered about airborne pollen reaching Asian rice fields.
„Professor Klaus Becker of Stuttgart-Hohenheim University, one of the authors of the Greenpeace studies warns: The large scale introduction of golden rice might even make dietary deficiency more acute and endanger food safety. Because it would promote an eating habit based solely on a single intensely bred plant variety. Instead better use should be made of biological diversity – with existing plants which contain various vitamins and mineral substances and are cheap and readily available.“
Professor Becker wrote a study for Greenpeace entitled “On rice, Biodiversity and Nutrients.“ When asked, he commented: “Golden rice is not a focus of that study.“ He went on to say “I want to make it clear that I do not play down Mr Potrykus’ achievement. On the contrary, I have always held the scientific achievement in high esteem.“ Becker is mainly concerned about the good potential of old rice varieties which often remains unused. Nobody is asking for golden rice to be grown everywhere as the sole variety. In addition, scientists in India, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and Ghana are performing research into locally appropriate varieties. Why not leave the decision to the farmers themselves? In the best tradition of neo-colonialism, Greenpeace seems to think that they are too immature to look after themselves.
“It is a fact that vitamin A deficiency has been significantly reduced in recent years with vitamin A preparations and dietary programmes.“
Vitamin A tablets and dietary programmes regrettably reach far too few people. The farmers could grow golden rice themselves.
“Beta-carotene for example is present in carrots, green leaf vegetables, sweet potatoes, mangos and papayas.“
These are neither affordable nor accessible for many people. The argument is reminiscent of Marie-Antoinette: “If they have no bread, let them eat cake.“
“In countries like Bangladesh, the risk of blindness caused by vitamin A deficiency in children has been almost completely eradicated.“
But the global figures for malnutrition are as catastrophic as ever.
“What is more, scientists like Professor Becker have also found traditional rice varieties which not only show traces of beta-carotene but also contain substances such as iron, high quality protein and fats, which are needed to enable beta-carotene to be absorbed”
There cannot be enough different strategies for a solution and growing traditional varieties is one of them. Here, Greenpeace could provide concrete financial assistance. In the past ten years, the rich organization has collected around one billion dollars (!) worldwide. So far it has spent some 20 million dollars on its campaign against genetic engineering. That is about three times as much as Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer together spent on the development of “golden rice.“
Copyright © 1996-2011 Dirk Maxeiner and Michael Miersch.
All rights reserved.
