“Golden Rice”, a GMO-product for public good, and the consequences of GE-regulation

Abstract

Compared to a non - genetically engineered (GE) variety, the deployment of Golden Rice suffers from a delay of more than 10 years. The cause for this delay is GE-regulation. Considering the potential impact of Golden Rice on the reduction in vitamin A-malnutrition, this delay is responsible for loss of numerous lives, mostly children and women. GE-regulation is also responsible for the fact that public institutions are prevented from delivering a public good GE-product with the consequence that we are faced with a de-facto monopoly in favour of a few potent industries. Considering the forgone benefits from putative public good GE-products, GE-regulation can be blamed of being responsible for millions of lives, all of them, of course, in developing countries. As there is no scientific justification for present GE-regulation and as it has, so far, not prevented any harm, our society has the responsibility to reconsider present regulation which is based on the concept of an extreme interpretation of the precautionary principle. It would be justified to change regulation to a science-base and to regulate traits instead of technology. This would make regulation cheaper and faster, without compromising safety. GE-technology has an unprecedented safety record and it is far more precise and predictable than any other “traditional” and unregulated breeding technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Abbreviations

IRRI:

International Rice Research Institute

IARI:

Indian Agricultural Research Institute

DRR:

Directorate of Rice Research

TNAU:

Tamil Nadu Agricultural University

GE:

Genetically Engineered

GMO:

Genetically Modified Organisms

References

  1. Al-Babili S, Beyer P (2005) Golden Rice – 5 years on the road – 5 years to go? Trends Plant Sci 10:565–573

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson K, Jackson LA, Nielsen CP (2005) GM rice adoption: impact for welfare and poverty alleviation. J Econ Integr 20:125–134

    Google Scholar 

  3. Batista R, Saib N, Lourenco T, Oliveira MM (2008) Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:3640–3645

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Baudo MM, Lyons R, Powers S, Pastori GM, Edwards KJ, Holdsworth MJ, Shewry PR (2006) Transgenesis has less impact on the transcriptome of wheat grain than conventional breeding. Plant Biotechnol J 4:369–380

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Beyer P, Al-Babili S, Ye X, Lucca P, Schaub P, Welsch R, Potrykus I (2002) Golden Rice: introducing the beta-carotene biosynthesis pathway into rice endosperm by genetic engineering to defeat vitamin A deficiency. J Nutr 132:506S–510S

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bouis HE (2007) The potential of genetically modified food crops to improve human nutrition in developing countries. J Develop Stud 43:79–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bradford KJ, Van Deynze A, Gutterson N, Parrott W, Strauss SH (2005) Regulating transgenic crops sensibly: lessons from plant breeding, biotechnology and genomics. Nat Biotechnol 23:439–444

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Burkhardt PK, Beyer P, Wunn J, Kloti A, Armstrong GA, Schledz M, von Linti J, Potrykus I (1997) Transgenic rice (Oryza sativa)endosperm expressing daffodil (Narcissus pseudonarcissus) phytoene synthase accumulates phytoene, a key intermediate of provitamin A biosynthesis. Plant J 11:1071–1078

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen JI (2005) Poorer nations turn to publicly developed GM crops. Nat Biotechnol 23:27–33

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dubock AC (2009) Crop connundrum. Nutr Rev 67:17–20

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ensering M (2008) Tough lessons from Golden Rice. Science 320:468–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gruere GP, Rosegrant MW (2008) Assessing the implementation effects of the biosafety protocol’s proposed stringent information requirements for genetically modified commodities in countries of the Asia pacific economic cooperation. Rev Agric Econ 30:214–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Herman RA, Chassy BM, Parrott W (2009) Compositional assessment of transgenic crops: an idea whose time has passed. Trends Biotechnol 27:555–557

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kovalski SP, Ebora RV, Kryder RD, Potter RH (2002) Transgenic crops, biotechnology and ownership rights: what scientists need to know. Plant J 31:407–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. McGloughlin MN (2010) Modifying agricultural crops for improved nutrition. New Biotechnol 27:494–504

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Morandini P (2010) Inactivation of allergens and toxins. New Biotechnol 27:482–493

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Morris S (2007) EU biotech crop regulations and environmental risk: a case of the emperor’s new clothes? Trends Biotechnol 25:2–6

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Nash JM (2000) Grains of hope. TIME Mag 31:40–47

    Google Scholar 

  19. Paine JA, Shipton CA, Chaggar S, Howells RM, Kennedy MJ, Vernon G, Wright SY, Hinchliffe E, Adams JL, Silverstone AL, Drake R (2005) Improving the nutritional value of Golden Rice through increased pro-vitamin A content. Nat Biotechnol 23:482–487

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Potrykus I (2001) Golden Rice and beyond. Plant Physiol 125:1157–1161

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Potrykus I (2003) Nutritionally enhanced rice to combat malnutrition disorders of the poor. Nutr Rev 61:S101–S104

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Potrykus I (2010) Regulation must be revolutionised. Nature 466:561

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Potrykus I, Klaus A (2010) Transgenic plants for food security in the context of development. Proceedings of a study week of the pontifical academy of sciences. New Biotechnol 27:442–717

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ramessar K, Peremarti A, Gomez-Galera S, Naqvi S, Moralejo M, Munoz P, Capell T, Christou P (2007) Biosafety and risk assessment framework for selectable marker genes in transgenic crop plants: a case of the science not supporting the politics. Transgenic Res 16:261–280

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Shewry PR, Baudo M, Lovegrove A, Powers S (2007) Are GM and conventionally bred cereals really different? Trends Food Sci Technol 18:201–209

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Sinha G (2009) Up in arms. Nat Biotechnol 27:592–594

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sommer A (2009) Leaving the chrysalis behind. SIGHT LIFE Mag 2:34–36

    Google Scholar 

  28. Stein AJ, Sachdev HPS, Qaim M (2006) Potential impact and cost-effectiveness of Golden Rice. Nat Biotechnol 24:1200–1201

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Tang G, Qin J, Dolnikowski GG, Russell RM, Grusak MA (2009) Golden Rice is an effective source of vitamin A. Am J Clin Nutr 89:1776–1783

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Taverne D (2005) The new fundamentalism, commentary. Nat Biotechnol 23:415–416

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ye X, Al-Babili S, Kloti A, Zhang J, Lucca P, Beyer P, Potrykus I (2000) Engineering the provitamin A (beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Science 287:303–305

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This paper is an edited and updated version of a previous publication: Ingo Potrykus (2010) Lessons from the “Humanitarian Golden Rice” project: regulation prevents development of public good genetically engineered crop products. New Biotechnology 27, 466–472. I am grateful to Dr. Adrian Dubock for the English editing of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ingo Potrykus.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Potrykus, I. “Golden Rice”, a GMO-product for public good, and the consequences of GE-regulation. J. Plant Biochem. Biotechnol. 21, 68–75 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13562-012-0130-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Golden rice
  • Pro-vitamin A
  • GE-regulation
  • Intellectual property rights