Last April 17, the Court of Appeals (CA) issued a cease and desist order against the cultivation and commercial use of Golden Rice in the Philippines. In doing so, the CA has blocked a multi-year, publicly-funded effort to tackle vitamin A deficiency (VAD)—an issue that claims the lives and eyesight of one out of six Filipino children.
Unlike ordinary white rice, Golden Rice is designed to produce beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A. While it is not a silver bullet to VAD, it does offer a practical solution for Filipinos to get the nutrients they need without radically changing their diets. This is especially important for lower-class Filipinos as many cannot afford to eat food other than rice.
Criticisms and concerns regarding Golden Rice and other genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are always welcome because they can directly impact our daily consumption. However, the CA’s arguments against the crop do not have scientific merit; they are merely peddling the same misinformation and conspiracies that have stalked GMOs for years.
Continued resistance
According to the CA, the production of Golden Rice will be on hold “until such time that the concerned respondent government agencies submit proof of safety and compliance with all legal requirements.” This order was issued based on the belief that GMOs are not “natural” and may pose a threat to our health and the environment.
In reality, there are thousands of peer-reviewed research which conclusively show that GMOs are safe. “Wala naman talagang direct evidence that links GMOs to [these] negative effects of the environment as of this year,” explains Dr. Mark Redillas, an associate professor of biology.
Rigorous field trials and evaluations performed by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) have also shown that Golden Rice is perfectly safe to eat, with little to no negative effects on human health. Even the food regulatory boards of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States of America have declared that Golden Rice is safe for consumption and cultivation.
Furthermore, Golden Rice does not threaten the cultivation of organic crops through cross-pollination and has no adverse effects on grain yield, quality, agronomic performance, and reactions to pests and disease. Despite these studies, scientists continue to be sidelined and told to search for answers they already know.
Barriers to research
The ruling is a devastating blow to GMO research in the Philippines. The lack of field testing hinders the ability to gather crucial data for other engineered crops like Bt Eggplant. Developed by the University of the Philippines Los Baños, the eggplant has a built-in resistance against insects. “How can we test if it’s safe if you don’t allow us to test?” Redillas laments, pointing out the paradox that researchers face.
The CA’s decision also reinforces public skepticism and fear of GMOs, potentially creating an environment where scientific progress is driven by public opinion rather than empirical evidence. Bangladesh and India, for example, were already set to cultivate Golden Rice after years of unnecessary delays. Now, they may view the CA’s ruling with alarm and carefully re-assess their hopes for the crop.
While Golden Rice is not developed for profit nor corporate interests, the ban could signal to international traders and investors that the Philippines is a challenging market for GMO products. Golden Rice is primarily backed by public sector organizations and nonprofits, including the IRRI and the Rockefeller Foundation, rather than large agribusiness corporations.
With no corporate backing for this initiative in the country, this apparent hesitance could lead to a decrease in investments and slow down the adoption of beneficial agricultural technologies. Consequently, the initiative may continue to rely heavily on public funding and international cooperation, which can be less robust and less capable of withstanding regulatory and market fluctuations.
Facing the future of GM crops
Although the future seems dim for golden rice, it is still possible to oppose the CA’s cease and desist order. Success stories from other GM crops, such as corn, suggest that acceptance of GMOs is possible. These crops have been engineered toresist pests, reducing the need for chemical pesticides and increasing yield.
To reverse the ruling, the scientific community must take more proactive measures to change the current perception of GMOs. Continuous communication and education efforts are necessary to demystify GMOs for the public. As Redillas notes, educating the younger generation can help shift public perception over time. “Scientists have the responsibility to tell the public about GMOs,” he says.
Transparency from companies involved in GMO development is also crucial to gaining public trust, especially in light of the recent ruling. For instance, clear labeling of genetically modified products may help consumers make informed choices and ensure that the market is not uncontrolled.
The need to balance regulatory caution with empirical evidence and potential benefits has never been more crucial. By adopting a forward-thinking approach and allowing the rigorous field testing of Golden Rice, we can leverage scientific advancements to address critical health issues and pave the way for future innovations in agriculture.
This article was published in The LaSallian‘s June 2024 issue. To read more, visit bit.ly/TLSJune2024.
