CASE TEACHING NOTES for Golden Rice: An Intimate Debate Case by Annie Prud homme Généreux, Curriculum Coordinator for Life Sciences, Quest University Canada INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND Most students have strong opinions on whether they support the creation and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Most of these opinions rest on arguments conveyed in the media, which students accept without much reflection or consideration. Golden Rice (Ye et al., 2000) is a GMO created for humanitarian purposes with funding from philanthropic organizations. It benefits the consumers, instead of the producers, by boosting the nutritional content of the plant. Golden Rice synthesizes pre-vitamin A in its grain, an essential chemical often lacking in the diets of people in developing regions. This is done by transferring genes naturally found in the synthetic pathway of pre-vitamin A of other plants into rice DNA. The trait is then bred into local rice varieties. The grain is offered free of charge to subsistence farmers. Often cited concerns about GMOs such as environmental factors (monoculture, cross-fertilization), health risks, financial accessibility, and intellectual property rights are not as clear-cut with Golden Rice. Consequently, in considering whether they support or oppose the use of Golden Rice, students must examine the reasons for their opinion. The case consists of an intimate debate in which teams of students are presented with evidence that supports either the Pro (Golden Rice is a good strategy for alleviating vitamin A deficiency in the developing world) or Con (Golden Rice is not an effective means of addressing the vitamin A deficiency in developing countries) position. Working in groups, students must absorb a lot of information in a short time, structure arguments to defend their position, and then present their case to another team. Each team also listens to arguments from a team defending the other position. Listening skills are developed, since in the next phase of the debate students must defend the opposite position. This is followed by a whole-class discussion that explores broader issues and questions introduced by the case. The case was created for a freshman, non-science majors, molecular biology course. Twenty students were registered in this course; the format of this case however makes it possible to adapt it to larger classroom settings. Following a section on genetic engineering techniques, students were eager to discuss the societal implications of this biotechnology. The case could easily be adapted to an introductory biology course where students have little prior knowledge of the science of GMOs. It could also be used for more specialized molecular biology or biotechnology courses. Objectives Upon completing the case, students will be able to: Describe concepts associated with GMOs such as monoculture, cross-fertilization of crops, allergenicity, and patents. Examine the arguments supporting and opposing the use of a GMO. Consider the motives of two opposing groups and the effects on the reliability of their arguments. Evaluate the merits of using Golden Rice to alleviate vitamin A deficiency in developing regions. Consider the socio-political causes and implications of malnutrition in developing countries and propose the best strategies to remedy it in the long-term. CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT The first part of the case (the intimate debate) takes exactly 45 minutes to complete. This is followed by a whole-class discussion, for which approximately 60 minutes (or more) are required. Introduction (5 min) Students are instructed to form small groups of 4 students (if needed, larger teams of 5 or 6 can be formed, but this should be kept to a minimum). There should be an even number of teams. Each group is given the case, which provides a brief overview of Golden Rice as well Case Teaching Notes for Golden Rice by Annie Prud homme Généreux Page 1
as instructions for conducting an intimate debate. The use of a written introduction to Golden Rice is optional and could be done with a brief lecture. Students should be introduced to Golden Rice and the fact that while this GMO was created nearly 10 years ago to alleviate vitamin A deficiency, it has yet to be implemented in the developing world. It is important at this point not to divulge any of the arguments for or against Golden Rice. It might be difficult for students to envision the intimate debate procedure reassure them that you will provide instructions at each step. Step 1 Get Informed on One Position (10 min) In this phase of the intimate debate, each group is provided with a list of facts and arguments supporting or opposing the use of Golden Rice in developing countries. Half of the teams receive a handout that consists of a list of Pro arguments (included below), and half the teams receive a handout listing Con arguments (also available below). You can hand out the two lists randomly to each team or (to facilitate the logistics later) you can provide a Pro list to the teams on the right-hand side of the classroom and the Con list to the teams on the left-hand side of the classroom. Each team has 10 minutes to review the evidence provided in the list. The teams task is to structure the evidence into the main issues and arguments supporting their position. They may ask questions of the instructor to clarify terminology or concepts. Students should be encouraged to take notes, as the handout will be collected after the 10-minute preparation period. They will therefore not be allowed to use the handout at the next stage of the debate, but they will be able to use their notes. Each student should be responsible for understanding each argument, as they may not be able to rely upon their peers to explain it to others. Students generally request more than 10 minutes, but I do not allow it. This is a task in quickly assimilating and structuring information. Step 2 Convince Others of Your Position (2 5 min) Each group should split into two mini-groups (of 2 students each). Each Pro mini-team should find and sit with a Con mini-team. This is where neatly assigning Pro teams to the right of the classroom and Con teams to the left of the classroom when distributing the handouts might simplify the ability of a mini-team to identify a complementary mini-team. In this intimate debate format, each mini-team has 5 minutes to present their arguments to the opposing team. I recommend providing structure by directing students from the Pro teams to begin, and 5 minutes later instructing the Con teams to go. The instructor should time the debate and provide time cues to the class. I like to listen in on each group because the arguments I hear will help me lead the whole class discussion at the end of the debate period. While a mini-team is presenting their arguments, the other team should only listen and not respond. Each listener is only allowed to ask one clarification question during the 5-minute period. Students should be encouraged to take notes on the arguments presented by the opposing team. They will be adopting those views and debating from that perspective in the next portion of the debate. Step 3 Convince Others of the Opposite Position (2 5 min) I ask the original teams of four students to re-associate. Then, each team should again split into two mini-teams of two students. However, the mini-teams should consist of a different arrangement of students (i.e., no student should be paired with the same student as in Step 2). This reshuffling of the mini-teams is optional, but the advantage of carrying out this step is that each mini-team has amassed different arguments in Step 2 and reshuffling the mini-teams will expose students to a larger number of arguments and make students more responsible for their learning. Each mini-team is asked to find another complementary mini-team (i.e., if a mini-team s original position was Pro, they look for another mini-team that was originally Con). The steps listed above are repeated. Each mini-team has 5 minutes to present its case, but students must now defend the opposite point of view. This is a test of the students listening skills and their understanding of the arguments that were presented. If you asked the Pro teams to go first in the previous round, you may ask the Con teams to go first this time. I have observed that the second groups to present often do a rebuttal in addition to presenting the arguments for their side. By asking the Pro teams to be the first to present in the first round and the Con teams to be the first to present in the second round, both sides have a chance to present a rebuttal. Many teams struggle to make up the 5 minutes, as the quantity of arguments that they can remember is smaller than for the original position. The listening mini-teams sometimes report disinterest, since these students are already familiar with the arguments that are being presented. Nevertheless, this step is important for internalization and synthesis of the evidence heard. I Case Teaching Notes for Golden Rice by Annie Prud homme Généreux Page 2
direct students to carefully listen for divergence in what is being said by the opposite team and what they understood from the handout. Different groups of students may have understood the arguments differently and this can be discussed in whole class discussion (Step 4). Some students also realize that they may have misunderstood an argument (or understood it differently) when it is presented to them by another person. As before, the instructor s role here is to keep time and direct students (Con team goes first, then Pro team). The instructor also seems to be a key motivator, helping students fill their 5 minutes and stay on track. Step 4 Decision (10 min) The original teams are recreated (the 4-member teams). Students discuss the arguments that they have heard (different arguments are likely to have been presented to them from different mini-teams) and weigh the evidence. Each team is asked to come to a resolution on whether Golden Rice should be used in developing nations to combat vitamin A deficiency. Each group is given 10 minutes to review and evaluate all the evidence and reach a consensus. Reaching a consensus is often difficult. I ask students to do so based on the weight of the evidence considered in this case, not on their personal opinion and views. I ask each team to nominate a spokesperson to tell the class of their decision and the most influential argument that swayed their decision. I also ask each team to identify whether their final position was similar or different to the initial position they were assigned (i.e., to the position defended by the list of arguments they were handed). I generally find that roughly half the students adopt a Pro stance, while half of them adopt a Con view. I have noticed that more groups adopt the position they were initially assigned, probably because students were exposed to more evidence in this fashion and were thus more easily persuaded. Step 5 Whole Class Discussion (60 min) This subject inevitably stirs up a lot of interest, and I find students eager to participate in a whole-class discussion. I generally begin by having students list the main issues that were considered in this case, which I write on the board. These items can be used as launching points for discussions. You may want to draw out and clarify how each side of the debate views these issues and why. The discussion can be taken in many directions. Some of the topics covered in my classroom include the following (see Answer Key for answers to the discussion questions below): The 10-Year Golden Rice Saga A lot of the issues debated in the case can be juxtaposed and explored in a whole class discussion. Some of the topics that you can explore are listed below. 1. Can Golden Rice provide an adequate supply of vitamin A for a human being in developing nations? 2. Was the decision to use rice as the vector for vitamin A a valid one? Why is rice a good choice? Why is it a poor choice? What might the alternative vectors be? 3. How is Golden Rice better than vitamin A fortification and supplementation and education programs? How is it worse? 4. Given its special status among GMOs, should the regulatory barriers on GMOs be lessened to allow the quick adoption of Golden Rice? 5. Why has Golden Rice not been immediately adopted in developing regions of the world? Is this resistance warranted? What is fueling it? 6. Why might Greenpeace not be an objective source of information in this debate? How might this taint their arguments? Can you find evidence of this? 7. Why might the Golden Rice Project not be an objective source of information in this debate? How might this taint their arguments? Can you find evidence of this? 8. What are the unresolved issues? What do we still need to learn about Golden Rice to make a rational decision about its usefulness? GMOs This case study on Golden Rice can serve as a spring board for discussing GMOs in general. Some of the questions that can be used to launch this discussion are: 1. What is similar and different about Golden Rice and other GMOs? 2. What is the function of genes typically inserted in the DNA of GM plants? In Golden Rice? 3. Some claims have been made that GMOs may have a higher allergenicity than plants bred with traditional methods. Why might this be? Is this likely in Golden Rice? 4. Traditional breeders can subject their plants to radiation and chemicals to alter their DNA and create variants. These plants DNA does not have to be inspected before the resulting plant is commercialized. GMOs, on the other hand, are subject to Case Teaching Notes for Golden Rice by Annie Prud homme Généreux Page 3
extensive tests to ensure that the inserted or modified DNA is characterized very precisely. Should the two types of plants be subjected to different safety evaluation standards? Do they represent different risks to health and safety? 5. What are monocultures, and why might they be inadvisable? Is this a concern with Golden Rice? 6. What is cross-fertilization? Why is cross-fertilization a concern for GMOs? Is this a concern for Golden Rice? 7. Who typically benefits from the use of GMOs (what improvement do GMOs confer, who has access and uses them, how are profits made)? Who benefits from the use of Golden Rice? 8. Who develops and owns the property rights to GMOs? To Golden Rice? 9. How might this affect your decision to support or oppose the use of GMOs? 10. Discuss the following claim: Golden Rice was created as a public relations tool to win over public opinion and acceptance and pave the way for the use of more GMOs. Malnutrition and Aid to Developing Nations If your course considers the sociological impacts of life sciences, you may wish to explore this issue. Be prepared to hear strongly felt (and sometimes controversial) opinions expressed by students. Remind everyone to be respectful in the presentation of their arguments. (Somehow, this case study discussion in my class ended up in a discussion of big box chain stores, China, and India!) 1. What are the causes of vitamin A deficiency in developing nations? 2. What are the best strategies for alleviating vitamin A deficiency in developing nations? Is one better than another? Given limited resources, should the use of multiple strategies be employed (recall the argument that spending money on Golden Rice takes money away from other strategies)? 3. Should developed nations try to aid developing nations? What are the arguments for and against this? How might we find a solution that takes all these issues into consideration? ANSWER KEY Answers to the questions posed in the case study are provided in a separate answer key to the case. Those answers are password-protected. To access the answers for this case, go to the key. You will be prompted for a username and password. If you have not yet registered with us, you can see whether you are eligible for an account by reviewing our password policy and then apply online or write to answerkey@sciencecases.org. ASSESSMENT There are several means of assessing whether students comprehended and synthesized the information. Here are some suggestions. Participation In my classroom, I use peer review to ensure that each student takes responsibility for the learning and contributes to the debate and ensuing class discussion. At the end of the debate, students are provided a class list and asked to rate the participation of every student in the class using a letter grade. This is possible because of the small class size. Alternatively, students could be asked to rate only the participation of the students in their small groups. Students are given very clear descriptions of the criteria that should be used to evaluate a peer s participation (e.g., arrived on time; was prepared and had read the assigned materials; stayed on task; organized the group; read the case aloud; helped others understand concepts; asked questions; presented arguments to opposing team in the debate; contributed ideas, arguments, and opinions in class discussion; responded to other students in class discussion). Students are also given a rubric that outlines the level of achievement that merits an A, B, C and D letter grade to ensure the same standard are used by everyone. Students are also encouraged to nominate students for either special participation (someone who significantly contributed to their learning beyond what should be expected) or disruption (someone who hindered their learning). All students submit their peer evaluation electronically and the marks are collated. If a student is nominated five times for either special participation or disruption, the participation mark goes up or down by one letter grade, accordingly. Written Evaluation More formally, it is possible to ask students to write a minute paper or précis, asking them to summarize the arguments that support one position in this debate. Students may write a 4-page dialogue paper between two characters that hold opposite views on the debate over Golden Rice. Each character must present three arguments that support their position, and the second character must respond to each of the arguments cited. Case Teaching Notes for Golden Rice by Annie Prud homme Généreux Page 4
If an out-of-class assignment is appropriate, it might be worthwhile to ask students to compare and contrast the debate surrounding Golden Rice with the debate surrounding the use of other GMOs. Given that Golden Rice is not subject to as many of the objections usually voiced in concern over genetically modified foods, why has it not been adopted? The debate over Golden Rice elicits strong emotional reactions from proponents defending each side of the debate. As neither side is impartial, there are some misrepresentations of the available data. Students could compare and evaluate the information provided on the Green Peace (http://www.greenpeace. org/international/news/failures-of-golden-rice) and Golden Rice Project (http://www.goldenrice.org/) websites to come to a balanced representation of the facts on this issue. Presentation Students can be asked to produce a mini-documentary on this issue. As impartial documentary makers, they must present each side of the issue and describe the arguments used to support either position. In my classroom, I make students do these movies in the form of a narrated slide show using imovie or Windows Movie Maker. The images and video clips used are a combination of images and videos found on the internet and video clips recorded by students with a point and shoot digital camera (usually portraying role plays, or interviews and surveys of men on the street ). It generally takes students about one week to produce these movies. Students report enjoying this assignment and very few have difficulties using the technology. imovie and Windows Movie Maker are part of the Apple/Mac and Windows operating packages and are loaded on every computer. Note: It is very important, if using this form of assignment, to ensure students focus first on the research and then on making the movie. To ensure that students do not get carried away with the technology, I do not provide instructions on how to use the technology until every student has handed in their movie s script. Only then do I give them the green light to start making the movie. This ensures that the movies are well researched. REFERENCES Al-Babili, S., and P. Beyer. 2005. Golden rice five years on the road five years to go? Trends in Plant Science 10(12): 565 573. Anderson, K., L.A. Jackson, and C. Pohl Nielsen. 2004. Genetically modified rice adoption: Implications for welfare and poverty alleviation. CIES Discussion Paper 0413. Washington (DC): World Bank. Retrieved November 20, 2008, from http://www. accessadelaide.com/cies/papers/0413.pdf. Baggott, E.A. 2006. A wealth deferred. Harvard International Review 28(3): 28 30. Beyer, P., S. Al-Babili, X. Ye, P. Lucca, P. Schaub, R. Welsch, et al. 2002. Golden rice: Introducing the carotene biosynthesis pathway into rice endosperm by genetic engineering to defeat vitamin A deficiency. Journal of Nutrition 132(3): 506S. Bois, H. 2000. Commercial vegetables and polyculture fish production in Bangladesh: their impact on household income and dietary quality. Food and Nutrition Bulletin Special Issue 21: 482 487. Chong, M. 2003. Acceptance of golden rice in the Philippine rice bowl. Nature Biotechnology 21(9): 971 2. Dawe, D., R. Robertson, and L. Unnevehr. 2002. Golden rice: What role could it play in alleviation of vitamin A deficiency? Food Policy 27: 541 560. Enserink, M. 2008. Tough lessons from golden rice. Science 320: 468 471. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2001. FAOSTAT Agriculture Data. Retrieved September, 2001, from http://faostat.fao.org/. Glenn, K.C. 2008. Nutritional and safety assessment of foods and feeds nutritionally improved through biotechnology Case studies by the International Food Biotechnology Committee of ILSI. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Suppl. 1, 17: 229 232. Grain. 2008. Grains of delusion: Golden Rice seen from the ground. Retrieved on November 20, 2008, from http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=18 Guerinot, M.L. 2000. The green revolution strikes gold. Science 287: 241 243. Jayarajan, P., V. Reddy, and M. Mohanram. 1980. Effect of dietary fat on absorption of -carotene from green leafy vegetables in children. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 71:53 56. Krawinkel, M.B. 2007. What we know and don t know about golden rice. Nature Biotechnology 25(6), 623. Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory. 2004. Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 7 Hansard (1 July), Page 3227. Retrieved April 29, 2009, from http://www.hansard.act.gov.au/ Hansard/2004/week07/3227.htm. Case Teaching Notes for Golden Rice by Annie Prud homme Généreux Page 5
Liu, Y. L. 2006. Exploration of the biopolitics of GMOs: Using golden rice as an analytical model. Agricultural Sciences in China 5(12): 885 894. Mayer, J.E. 2005. The golden rice controversy: Useless science or unfounded criticism? Bioscience 55(9): 726 727. Mayer, J.E. 2007. Delivering Golden Rice to developing countries. Journal of AOAC International 90(5): 1445 1449. Mayer, J.E., W.H. Pfeiffer, and P. Beyer. 2008. Biofortified crops to alleviate micronutrient malnutrition. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 11: 166 170. Messeguer, J., G. Peñas, J. Ballester, M. Bas, J. Serra, J. Salvia, M. Palaudelmàs, and E. Melé. 2006. Pollenmediated gene flow in maize in real situations of coexistence. Plant Biotechnol J. 4(6):633 45. Nordlee, J.A., S.L. Taylor, J.A. Townsend, L.A. Thomas, and R.K. Bush. 1996. Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. New England Journal of Medicine 334(11): 688 692. Retrieved November 20, 2008, from http://content.nejm.org/cgi/ reprint/334/11/688.pdf?ck=nck. Paine, J.A. et al. 2005. Improving the nutritional value of Golden Rice through increased pro-vitamin A content. Nature Biotechnology 23: 482 487. Pohl Nielsen, C., and K. Anderson. 2003. Golden rice and the looming GMO trade debate: Implication for the poor. Discussion Paper No.0322. Centre for International Economic Studies. University of Adelaide. Retrieved November 20, 2008, from https:// www.adelaide.edu.au/cies/papers/0322.pdf. Potrykus, I. 2001. Golden rice and beyond. Plant Physiology 125: 1157 1161. Prescott, V.E., P.M. Campbell, A. Moore, J. Mattes, M.E. Rothenberg, P.S. Foster, T.J. Higgins, and S.P. Hogan. 2005. Transgenic expression of bean alphaamylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 5323):9023 30. Reburnishing Golden Rice. 2005. Reburnishing Golden Rice. Nature Biotechnology 23(4): 395. Sommer, A. 1997. Vitamin A prophylaxis. Archives of Disease in Childhood 77: 191 194. Smyth, S., G.G. Khachatourians, and P.W.B. Phillips. 2002. Liabilities and economics of transgenic crops. Nature Biotechnology 20: 537 541. Sun, S.S.M., and Q. Liu. 2003. Transgenic approaches to improve the nutritional quality of plant proteins. In Vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology Plant 40: 155 162. The United Nations Children s Fund. 2007. Vitamin A Supplementation: A Decade of Progress. The United Nations Children s Fund (UNICEF). Retrieved November 19, 2008, from http://www.unicef.org/ publications/files/vitamin_a_supplementation.pdf. U.S. National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine. 2006. Dietary Reference Intakes: The Essential Guide to Nutrient Requirements. Otten, J.J., P. Pitzi Hellwig, and L.D. Meyers (Editors). Washington (DC): National Academies Press. World Health Organization. 1995. Global Prevalence of Vitamin A Deficiency. Micronutrient Deficiency Information System Working Paper No. 2. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved November 19, 2008, from http://www.who.int/nutrition/ publications/vad_global_prevalence/en/index.html. World Health Organization. 1998. Vitamin and Mineral Requirements in Human Nutrition, 2 nd edition. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved November 19, 2008, from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/ publications/2004/9241546123.pdf. World Health Organization. 2008. Micronutrient Deficiencies. Retrieved November 18, 2008, from http:// www.who.int/nutrition/topics/vad/en/index.html. Ye, X., S. Al-Babili, A. Klöti, J. Zhang, P. Lucca, P. Beyer, and I. Potrykus. 2000. Engineering the provitamin A (beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoidfree) rice endosperm. Science 287(5451): 303 305. Zimmermann, R. and M. Qaim. 2002. Projecting the Benefits of Golden Rice in the Philippines. ZEF-Discussion Papers on Development Policy No. 51. Bonn: Center for Development Research (ZEF). Retrieved November 20, 2008, from http://www.zef.de/module/register/media/ e553_goldenrice_dp51.pdf. Acknowledgements: This case was published with support from the National Science Foundation under CCLI Award #0341279. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Copyright held by the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science, University at Buffalo, State University of New York. Originally published May 8, 2009. Please see our usage guidelines, which outline our policy concerning permissible reproduction of this work. Case Teaching Notes for Golden Rice by Annie Prud homme Généreux Page 6
Pro Golden Rice Handout VAD is the primary cause of childhood blindness worldwide and is now recognized as a major contributing factor in an estimated 1 million 3 million child deaths each year (WHO, 1995, 2008; Al-Babili & Beyer, 2005; Mayer, 2007). Rice is a staple food in many developing regions. For example, in Bangladesh nearly 80% of calorie intake comes from rice (Bois, 2000; Mayer, 2007). The most recent calculations for India show that, in a scenario of widespread adoption and full government support, GR could reduce the number of VAD children by more than half (Mayer, 2007, see also Al-Babili & Beyer, 2005). The complete daily recommended dosage of vitamin A is not required to bring about health improvements (Enserink, 2008). β-carotene (consumed from vegetable sources) must be absorbed in the gut and transformed to vitamin A in the body. This process is somewhat inefficient. In calculating the dosage of vitamin A resulting from the consumption of GR, it has sometimes been assumed that the uptake of β-carotene by the human gut and its conversion into vitamin A were quite inefficient, resulting in one vitamin molecule for every twelve molecule of β-carotene [ ] A soon-to-be-published study among healthy volunteers who ate GR, led by Robert Russell of Tufts University in Boston, suggests that it s more like one [vitamin A molecule created] for every three or four [β-carotene molecules consumed] (Enserink, 2008). A new version of GR has been created. Dubbed GR2, [this strain] produces up to 23 times more β-carotene in its seed [than the original Golden Rice, GR1] (Enserink, 2008). Even using the 12:1 conversion factor, 72g of GR2 polished rice would provide 50% of the [recommended dietary allowances] for children (Paine, 2005). The patent laws governing the use of GR fall under a Humanitarian License. Accordingly, farmers earning less than USD $10,000 per year may use GR free of charge. Farmers may also keep seeds from each harvest and sow them the following season (Potrykus, 2001; Al-Babili & Beyer, 2005; Enserink, 2008). The GR trait can be introduced into any local variety making it easy to preserve the cultivation of traditional varieties with added value (Mayer, 2005; Enserink, 2008). This will adapt Golden Rice to local growth conditions, and will prevent the spread of monocultures. Conventional breeders can bombard plant cells with chemicals and radiation to create useful mutants without having to check how it affects their DNA; a GM insertion must be clean that is the extra genes must sit neatly in a row without disturbing other genes (Enserink, 2008). Some populations may have limited-access to vitamin A-rich foods. Many families in poor countries cannot afford to buy a varied diet. Many of the fruits and vegetables that could provide vitamin A do not grow in the area, or are perishable, or they are only available seasonally. Meat products may also be difficult to obtain (Al-Babili & Beyer, 2005; Mayer, 2005; Enserink, 2008). Experience with vitamin A supplementation [and fortification] programs revealed that coverage achieved over the last decade in 103 priority countries has stagnated at 58%, with high year-to-year fluctuation. (Mayer, 2005, 2007; UNICEF, 2007). In addition, supplementation programs rely Golden Rice: An Intimate Debate by Annie Prud homme Généreux
on on-going funding to purchase and distribute the vitamin A. Golden Rice would only need to be distributed to farmers once, as the crops produced annually by these farmers would provide the required nutrients thereafter. It is a more sustainable strategy (Al-Babili & Beyer, 2005). Excess dietary β-carotene [provided in Golden Rice], in contrast to excess vitamin A [provided in supplementation programs], has no harmful effects (Guerinot, 2000). A calculation by the World Bank predicts that [ ] adoption of GR could signify a windfall of $15 billion/year for Southeast Asia (Pohl Nielsen & Anderson, 2003; Anderson et al., 2004). Provitamin A [β-carotene] is normally produced in the green tissues of every plant and converted to vitamin A in the human body. Nobody has been able to come up with a scenario whereby the provitamin A-enriched grains of GR could pose a menace to the environment or to human health (Potrykus, 2001; Mayer, 2005). It was not possible to develop Golden Rice using traditional breeding methods (Potrykus, 2001; Al- Babili & Beyer, 2005). The GR project was funded by not-for-profit and public sources: the philanthropic Rockefeller Foundation, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, the European Community Biotech Program and the Swiss Federal Office for Education and Science (Guerinot, 2000; Potrykus, 2001). Part of the public opposition to GMO stems from ignorance about biotechnology. The 2005 Eurobarometer poll indicated that almost 25% of Europeans believe that a person s genes can be modified by eating GM fruit, while 59% of Europeans do not believe tomatoes contain DNA (Baggott, 2006). Both of these beliefs are wrong. Extensive evidence from widespread production and consumption of GM plants more than 90 million hectares planted in 2005 indicates that no specific harm emanates from transgenic crops, while clear life-threatening conditions arise from the lack of micronutrients (Mayer, 2005). GR is self-fertilizing, rice pollen grains are only viable for three to five minutes, and even if transgenic pollen made it to a wild rice plant, the genes it carried would not crowd out wild rice because its beefedup β-carotene genes confer no leg up when it comes to natural selection (Baggott, 2006). Rural Philippine rice growers were asked if they would grow a GMO rice strain that had a different color. Thirty out of 32 interviewed farmers indicated that they would, as long as this rice strain produced as high a yield as their current strain, and that it was safe to eat (Chong, 2003). Golden Rice: An Intimate Debate by Annie Prud homme Généreux
References for Pro Golden Rice Handout Al Babili, S., and P. Beyer. 2005. Golden rice five years on the road five years to go? Trends in Plant Science 10(12): 565 573. Anderson, K., L.A. Jackson, and C. Pohl Nielsen. 2004. Genetically modified rice adoption: Implications for welfare and poverty alleviation. CIES Discussion Paper 0413. Washington (DC): World Bank. Retrieved November 20, 2008, from http://www.accessadelaide.com/cies/papers/0413.pdf. Baggott, E.A. 2006. A wealth deferred. Harvard International Review 28(3): 28 30. Bois, H. 2000. Commercial vegetables and polyculture fish production in Bangladesh: their impact on household income and dietary quality. Food and Nutrition Bulletin Special Issue 21: 482 487. Chong, M. 2003. Acceptance of golden rice in the Philippine rice bowl. Nature Biotechnology 21(9): 971 2. Enserink, M. 2008. Tough lessons from golden rice. Science 320: 468 471. Guerinot, M.L. 2000. The green revolution strikes gold. Science 287: 241 243. Mayer, J.E. 2005. The golden rice controversy: Useless science or unfounded criticism? Bioscience 55(9): 726 727. Mayer, J.E. 2007. Delivering Golden Rice to developing countries. Journal of AOAC International 90(5): 1445 1449. Paine, J.A. et al. 2005. Improving the nutritional value of Golden Rice through increased pro vitamin A content. Nature Biotechnology 23: 482 487. Pohl Nielsen, C., and K. Anderson. 2003. Golden rice and the looming GMO trade debate: Implication for the poor. Discussion Paper No.0322. Centre for International Economic Studies. University of Adelaide. Retrieved November 20, 2008, from https://www.adelaide.edu.au/cies/papers/0322.pdf. Potrykus, I. 2001. Golden rice and beyond. Plant Physiology 125: 1157 1161. UNICEF. 2007. Vitamin A Supplementation: A Decade of Progress. The United Nations Children s Fund (UNICEF). Retrieved November 19, 2008, from http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/vitamin_a_supplementation.pdf. WHO. 1995. Global Prevalence of Vitamin A Deficiency. Micronutrient Deficiency Information System Working Paper No. 2. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved November 19, 2008, from http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/vad_global_prevalence/en/index.html. Golden Rice: An Intimate Debate by Annie Prud homme Généreux
Con Golden Rice Handout The gut does not absorb β-carotene efficiently. According to dietary reference guides, only one molecule of β-carotene is absorbed for every 12 consumed. If this is true in Golden Rice, it means that a woman would need to consume 5.25 kg of uncooked Golden Rice (GR1) every day to meet daily vitamin A requirements (U.S. NASIM, 2006). Golden Rice 2 (GR2) produces 23 more β-carotene than GR1 and contains sufficient quantities of β- carotene to meet the nutritional requirements for a person. However, no study has yet investigated how this chemical will fare through the steps of rice preparation (milling, storing, cooking, etc.) (Krawinkel, 2007; Glenn, 2008; Enserink, 2008). β-carotene may be degraded by these steps. Although a GMO approach is straightforward in theory, past experience has shown that there is often a trade-off in cereals, where enhanced protein levels can lead to diminished yields or to alterations in other nutritional or grain quality components (Sun et al., 2003). Dietary fats and zinc are needed for the absorption of β-carotene and synthesis of vitamin A. Since these nutrients are limited in rice-eating countries, the absorption of β-carotene from Golden Rice will probably be less than optimal (Jayarajan et al., 1980; WHO, 1998; Dawe et al., 2002; Grain, 2008). Cultivated rice could outcross with its wild and weedy relatives and thus the Golden Rice could possibly lead to genetic contamination of wild rice; this is not reversible [ ] and brings with it economic and environmental problems (Liu, 2006). It may be difficult to cross Golden Rice with local varieties of rice and preserve the β-carotene trait since many genes are necessary for its production and could be lost during the crossing. Cultivation of Golden Rice in many fields across the world will reduce the genetic diversity of rice. Genetic diversity is our insurance against environmental stressors such as parasites and temperature variations. If these stressors occur and wipe out a specific strain of rice, other strains might prove resistant. However, if all the rice in the world is the same, all rice could be wiped out by the stressor. Transferring genes between species is undesirable and can lead to allergic reactions. There is a report of people being allergic to GM soybean into which Brazilian nut DNA had been incorporated (Nordlee et al., 1996). Similarly, the gene for a protein capable of killing a common pest of the bean was inserted into pea DNA. The chemical structure of this protein was subtly altered in the new organism and found to cause allergic reactions in mice (Prescott et al., 2005). Since genes from several organisms were inserted into Golden Rice, people with pre-existing allergies to these organisms may also be allergic to Golden Rice (and would eat Golden Rice without knowing the dangers). The vitamin A gene in Golden Rice comes from daffodil (Ye et al., 2000). However, rice already makes vitamin A in its husk (the husk is not digestible and is removed before consumption). It should be possible to force the rice vitamin A gene to be expressed in the grain. This would prevent the incorporation of a transgene from another organism. Adding the β-carotene genes to local rice varieties will change the color of the rice. This can give rise to objections in some regions [ ] It is possible to change people s preferences for color, but it is an arduous process requiring close contact with customers and education measures (Mayer, 2007). As a consequence of choosing a GMO approach to address vitamin A deficiency, regulatory approval must be sought on a country-by-country basis and will involve the completion of regulatory dossiers Golden Rice: An Intimate Debate by Annie Prud homme Généreux
as required by national legislation (Mayer, 2007). Present regulatory regimes have made the approval process for transgenic crops prohibitively expensive. Compliance costs in a country like India may amount to $5 million (Mayer, 2007; see also Pohl Nielsen & Anderson, 2003). GMO opponents see Golden Rice as a public relations or marketing ploy to ease public concerns about GMOs, secure positive media coverage, and render this technology more acceptable. It is seen as a Trojan horse that may open the route for other GMO applications (Potrykus, 2001). Golden Rice might interfere with existing vitamin A supplementation and fortification programs and campaigns (Krawinkel, 2007). The Green Revolution of the 1960s and 70s replaced diverse cropping systems with monocultures of new wheat and rice varieties [ ] Monoculture in the fields predictably led to less diverse diets. In India, household consumption of vegetables has decreased 12% over the past two decades. In Thailand, 80% of caloric intake now comes from rice, up from less than 50% before the Green Revolution. An impoverished diet that consists of little else but rice (golden or not) will never provide a solution to world hunger or malnutrition (Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory, 2004; see also Baggott, 2006). The biotechnology firm Syngenta owns the rights to Golden Rice for commercialization. [While the GR1 rice strain is a product of publicly-funded research], the [GR2] rice strain is entirely a product of Syngenta s corporate R&D funding ( Reburnishing Golden Rice, 2005). Many countries are opposed to the use of GM crops on their land. EU market access is very important to developing countries. Some like Zimbabwe have banned GM foods (including GM food aid and Golden Rice) due to the fear of being shut out of European markets (Baggott, 2006). The humanitarian license governing the use of Golden Rice allows farmers with income less than USD$10,000 to have free access to the grain. However, it only permits these farmers to engage in national (and not international) trade of this rice (Al-Babili & Beyer, 2005). This, and international trade agreements on GMOs, will limit the income potential of the farmers by barring access to certain markets. A 2005 Eurobarometer poll showed that 54% of European consumers find GM food dangerous (Baggott, 2006; see also Pohl Nielsen & Anderson, 2003). Golden Rice: An Intimate Debate by Annie Prud homme Généreux
References for Con Golden Rice Handout Al Babili, S., and P. Beyer. 2005. Golden rice five years on the road five years to go? Trends in Plant Science 10(12): 565 573. Baggott, E.A. 2006. A wealth deferred. Harvard International Review 28(3): 28 30. Dawe, D., R. Robertson, and L. Unnevehr. 2002. Golden rice: What role could it play in alleviation of vitamin A deficiency? Food Policy 27: 541 560. Enserink, M. 2008. Tough lessons from golden rice. Science 320: 468 471. Grain. 2008. Grains of delusion: Golden Rice seen from the ground. Retrieved on November 20, 2008, from http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=18 Jayarajan, P., V. Reddy, and M. Mohanram. 1980. Effect of dietary fat on absorption of β-carotene from green leafy vegetables in children. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 71:53 56. Krawinkel, M.B. 2007. What we know and don t know about golden rice. Nature Biotechnology 25(6), 623. Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory. 2004. Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 7 Hansard (1 July), Page 3227. Retrieved April 29, 2009, from http://www.hansard.act.gov.au/hansard/2004/week07/3227.htm. Liu, Y.-L. 2006. Exploration of the biopolitics of GMOs: Using golden rice as an analytical model. Agricultural Sciences in China 5(12): 885 894. Mayer, J.E. 2007. Delivering Golden Rice to developing countries. Journal of AOAC International 90(5): 1445 1449. Nordlee, J.A., S.L. Taylor, J.A. Townsend, L.A. Thomas, and R.K. Bush. 1996. Identification of a Brazilnut allergen in transgenic soybeans. New England Journal of Medicine 334(11): 688 692. Retrieved November 20, 2008, from http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/334/11/688.pdf?ck=nck. Pohl Nielsen, C., and K. Anderson. 2003. Golden rice and the looming GMO trade debate: Implication for the poor. Discussion Paper No.0322. Centre for International Economic Studies. University of Adelaide. Retrieved November 20, 2008, from https://www.adelaide.edu.au/cies/papers/0322.pdf. Potrykus, I. 2001. Golden rice and beyond. Plant Physiology 125: 1157 1161. Prescott, V.E., P.M. Campbell, A. Moore, J. Mattes, M.E. Rothenberg, P.S. Foster, T.J. Higgins, and S.P. Hogan. 2005. Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 53(23):9023 30. Reburnishing Golden Rice. 2005. Reburnishing Golden Rice. Nature Biotechnology 23(4): 395. Sun, S.S.M., and Q. Liu. 2003. Transgenic approaches to improve the nutritional quality of plant proteins. In Vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology Plant 40: 155 162. U.S. National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine. 2006. Dietary Reference Intakes: The Essential Guide to Nutrient Requirements. Otten, J.J., P. Pitzi Hellwig, and L.D. Meyers. (Editors). Washington (DC): National Academies Press. WHO. 1998. Vitamin and Mineral Requirements in Human Nutrition, 2 nd edition. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved November 19, 2008, from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241546123.pdf. Ye, X., S. Al-Babili, A. Klöti, J. Zhang, P. Lucca, P. Beyer, and I. Potrykus. 2000. Engineering the provitamin A (beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Science 287(5451): 303 305. Golden Rice: An Intimate Debate by Annie Prud homme Généreux