SAFETY:
Myth: Modern biotechnology is inherently different from conventional breeding and poses greater risks.
Facts: Modern biotechnology is a refinement of techniques that have been used to improve plants for thousands of years. The main difference is that modern biotechnology is much more precise and the range of traits that can be imparted to improve plants is much broader than when conventional breeding is used.
Many authoritative scientific bodies—including the National Academy of Sciences—have concluded uniformly that crops enhanced using modern biotechnology are as safe as crops improved through classical breeding methods.
One example of improved safety is a biotech crop that may lower exposure to naturally-occurring toxins. Research has shown that Bt corn helps prevent damage to corn stalks by the corn ear worm. That damage often leads to invasion by fungi that produce the toxin fumonisin. Therefore, protection against corn ear worm lowers exposure to fumonisin, which may be linked to esophageal cancer in humans.
Because of advanced knowledge and greater scrutiny by regulatory agencies, biotech crops and foods may even be safer than their conventionally bred counterparts. Because the traits being transferred using modern biotechnology are fewer and more predictable than when hybridization is used, scientists have a better understanding of the changes being made and are in a better position to assess safety.
Myth: Foods produced through biotechnology are not tested for health and environmental safety.
Facts: Plants and foods produced using biotechnology are among the most stringently tested in history. Using FDA guidelines, biotech companies conduct a safety review of the new food that includes an assessment of toxicants, allergens, and nutrient levels. If the original plant and the transferred trait have been consumed in the past without negative consequences, they are considered “GRAS”, or “generally recognized as safe” by FDA. However, if the original food or the transferred protein has not been previously consumed in the diet, or if the transferred protein was derived from a common allergen, extensive toxicology and allergy testing is required. Inclusion of a trait from a common allergen, although not applicable to any food product on the market today, would require a special food label, as would a significant change in nutrient levels.
For biotech plants that produce their own pest protection or “protectant”, EPA also requires extensive testing covering health and environmental impacts. These requirements include product characteristics, the protectant’s potential toxicity and allergenicity, its effects on non-target organisms (like lady bugs and butterflies), environmental fate (how long it remains in the soil or ground water), and exposure levels when the final food product is eaten.
USDA research requirements also are extensive. These include producing data on the rationale for developing of the plant, the method used to make the genetic change, the source of the transferred genes, genetic analysis and agronomic (growing) performance, and environmental consequences, including potential outcrossing with wild plant relatives, effects on animal wildlife, and potential to become a weed.
Myth: Whole foods developed using biotechnology contain genes, while foods derived from traditional plant breeding do not.
Facts: All whole foods, whether gathered from the wild or harvested from crops in the field, contain genes, which break down during digestion. Genes provide the instructions necessary for the plant to grow and determine the characteristics of the plant and the food it produces. For thousands of years, mankind has been altering the genetic make-up of plants—most recently through modern biotechnology—to improve their characteristics. These changes have resulted in hardier crops that produce greater yields of nutritious, wholesome foods.
Myth: Meat, milk, and eggs from livestock and poultry fed biotech feed crops are not as safe as similar products from livestock and poultry fed conventionally produced feed.
Facts: Scientific evidence supports the safety of meat, milk, and eggs derived from livestock raised on biotech feed. Dr. Jimmy Clark, a professor of Animal Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, reported the results of a review of 23 research studies involving animals fed biotech crops. These independent studies found that feed crops developed using biotechnology are as safe as feed crops developed using conventional breeding. This study confirms an earlier review by the Federation of Animal Scientific Societies (FASS)—representing over 10,000 animal, dairy, and poultry scientists—which concluded that the nutritional value and safety of meat, milk, and eggs from animals fed conventional or biotech feeds are the same (http://www.fass.org/geneticcrops.pdf).
In addition to providing equivalent nutrition, some biotech crops may lower exposure to naturally-occurring toxins. Research has shown that Bt corn, for example, helps prevent damage to corn stalks by the corn ear worm that would likely have led to invasion by fungi that produce the toxin fumonisin. This protection from corn ear worm lowers exposure to fumonisin, which provides farmers with feed that is safer for their animals.
Myth: Safety tests of biotech foods conducted or sponsored by biotech companies are unreliable and self-serving.
Facts: It is important to note that while companies are responsible for conducting safety testing, the results of those tests are reviewed by scientific experts at the appropriate regulatory agencies. These agency reviews are extremely rigorous and operate as a form of peer review.
Prestigious independent scientific panels also have reviewed the scientific research on crops and foods produced using biotechnology, and they have found no evidence that biotech foods are unsafe. The American Medical Association and the American Dietetic Association are just two of many such groups that have endorsed the safety of biotech foods.
Further, independent research has determined that biotech foods are as safe as their traditionally bred counterparts. Animal feeding studies as part of the toxicology assessments have been conducted on various biotechnology-enhanced crops and have not revealed any negative effects. For example, biotech tomatoes were fed to rats in a study conducted at the State Institute for Quality Control of Agricultural Products in Wageningen, Netherlands. Although the rats consumed an equivalent of 13 fresh tomatoes per day, no ill effects were observed (larger consumption would have led to toxicity due to common nutrients in the tomatoes, such as potassium).
Myth: Biotech foods will introduce new allergens into the food supply, putting susceptible people at risk.
Facts: All known food allergens are proteins, but only a very small number of proteins are allergens. Common sources of food allergens include such widely consumed foods as milk, eggs, wheat, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, and soy.
Today, biotech companies avoid using genetic material from plant foods commonly associated with allergies. Further, FDA regulations require that companies that use genes from a known allergenic source should assume that they will produce an allergen and perform allergenicity tests on the food product. In the mid 1990s, a biotech variety of soybean was developed using a gene from the Brazil nut, and testing sponsored by the company revealed the presence of an allergen. As a result, this soybean was not commercialized, demonstrating how good testing can provide for safety.
Biotechnology also is being used by researchers to remove allergens from foods. Experimental rice has already been modified through biotechnology to remove allergenic proteins, and work is underway to remove or neutralize allergenic proteins from other foods, such as peanuts. The future development of allergen-free foods may expand the choice of wholesome foods available to allergy sufferers.
Myth: StarLink corn has contaminated food supplies and poses a health threat to consumers.
Facts: StarLink corn is a variety of Bt corn that contains a protein, called Cry9C, that did not complete all EPA testing requirements for allergenicity. Although Cry9C does not resemble any known allergens, EPA permitted its use for animal feed only due to characteristics common to some allergens.
Cry9C was detected in some foods after StarLink corn was accidentally commingled with other varieties of corn in the food distribution system. FDA and food companies acted swiftly to recall the affected products and FDA and Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) began an assessment of potential health effects. The producer of StarLink seeds voluntarily suspended sales, and EPA later cancelled registration of the seeds, meaning StarLink can no longer be planted. The maker of StarLink continues to work under the watchful eye of EPA and FDA to comply with food regulations.
An expert panel convened at EPA concluded that it is highly unlikely that infrequent consumption at the extremely low levels detected in the food supply would trigger a reaction. And CDC announced in June 2001 that reported allergic reactions could not be linked to the Cry9C (StarLink) protein.
Myth: Potatoes modified using biotechnology caused harmful effects when fed to rats.
Facts: A single study conducted by Arpad Pusztai and S.W-B. Ewen suggested that biotech potatoes, modified to produce a protein called a lectin, caused unexpected health effects in rats. These potatoes also were shown to have major nutrition composition changes, caused by the introduction of the lectin.
Since its publication in the journal Nature, this study has drawn tremendous criticism from the scientific community, and its results have not been replicated. Half of the study’s peer reviewers rejected it for publication, and a number of the authors’ claims were left out of the published version. After reviewing this study, a panel of the British Royal Society determined it was “flawed in many aspects of design, execution, and analysis and that no conclusion should be drawn from it.”
Many plausible explanations for the physiological damage reported in this study—if confirmed—exist and have nothing to do with the techniques of modern biotechnology. Chief among these are the dietary conditions imposed on the rats and the presence of lectin, which is a potent insecticide.
Even given the questionable nature of these research results, development of this type of potato has halted. Similarly, every year, conventional breeding produces new varieties that are found to naturally produce toxins that would be harmful to human health—these varieties are discarded so that they never enter the food chain.
Myth: Biotechnology caused people to become ill from a dietary supplement, L-tryptophan, that.
Facts: This myth refers to a 1989 outbreak of eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS) that was linked to batches of the dietary supplement, L-tryptophan, produced by a Japanese manufacturer. Because a microorganism developed using biotechnology had been used to increase production of L-tryptophan, biotechnology has been blamed by some activists as the cause of the outbreak of EMS.
A report by the Institute of Food Technologists, IFT Expert Report on Biotechnology and Foods, examined this issue and found that EMS from consumption of L-tryptophan “has been incorrectly attributed to the rDNA biotechnology-derived organism, rather than to a failure to perform standard purification to remove impurities. In three lawsuits, there was overwhelming evidence that the rDNA biotechnology derived organism was not responsible for the illnesses and deaths.”
Foods produced using biotechnology have been on supermarket shelves since 1994. Since that time, not one single case of illness has been linked to their consumption.
Myth: Crops and foods developed from biotechnology will increase an individual’s resistance to antibiotics.
Facts: The FDA has determined there is no evidence of increased risk of antibiotic resistance in humans from foods developed using biotechnology. In past years, scientists have used genes derived from bacteria (also known as "selectable marker genes") to determine whether or not a specific trait has been successfully added or extracted from a plant. On occasion, antibiotic proteins are used as selectable markers, raising concerns the genetic material producing the antibiotic proteins could be transferred to disease-causing bacteria, making them resistant to these antibiotics. However, in its review of this method, the FDA has determined that it is safe. Further, scientists are now at work developing alternative marker genes that do not involve antibiotic resistance.
Myth: Foods developed using biotechnology do not have the same nutritional value of comparable foods developed using traditional breeding.
Facts: As part of its assessment of biotech foods, FDA reviews data on the nutrient content. Significant changes in nutrient levels of a new biotech food, compared to its traditional counterpart, would trigger a formal FDA review and require labeling. To date, all biotech foods reviewed by FDA have exhibited nutritional values within the normal range (nutritional values can vary for many reasons, such as growing conditions). Independent, peer-reviewed research also has shown that the nutritional composition of current biotech food products is equivalent to that of conventional foods.
Current research is exploring ways to enhance the nutritional content of foods using modern biotechnology. For example, scientists are working to increase the antioxidant, vitamin, and mineral content of foods, and to improve the absorption and utilization of nutrients consumed from foods. Food products with these benefits are still in the research phase, therefore many years from market, but are exciting advantages that we can look forward to.
Back to top
CONSUMERS & THE MARKETPLACE:
Myth: Having foods produced through biotechnology on grocery store shelves will not be a reality for many years.
Facts: Currently, at least 60 to 70 percent of the foods on grocery store shelves contain ingredients derived from plants, such as corn, soy, or canola, enhanced through biotechnology. These ingredients are substantially equivalent to ingredients derived from traditionally bred crops. Since their introduction in the mid-1990s, biotech crops developed to resist pests and tolerate herbicides have been adopted rapidly by U.S. farmers. In 2002, 34 percent of corn, 71 percent of cotton, and 75 percent of soybeans grown in the United States were biotechnology-enhanced varieties. Biotech varieties of canola are also planted widely. Since the introduction of foods enhanced through biotechnology nearly 10 years ago, rigorous testing and regulation have ensured that these foods are as safe as or safer than the foods we have been eating for centuries.
Myth: U.S. consumers are opposed to biotechnology in food production.
Facts: In a recent survey conducted for the International Food Information Council (IFIC) by Cogent Research (April 2003), a majority of Americans said they would buy food enhanced for insect protection (69%) or better taste or freshness (56%). Also, 62% expect to gain benefits from the technology within the next 5 years. The same survey revealed that only 1% of respondents cited “genetically altered/engineered food” as a food safety concern. Polls suggesting opposition among the general public often use “loaded” questions and negative terminology, or they are conducted on the Internet, where the survey participants are not representative of the U.S. population.
Myth: Consumers want foods produced using biotechnology to be labeled
Facts: Consumer survey results that are representative of the US population show that when asked, unaided, to identify information currently not on food labels that they would like to see added, nearly 4 out of 5 say "nothing” and only 2% mention "genetically altered" food. When the current labeling policy is presented to consumers, 62% support the FDA policy. The results of Internet polls suggesting that consumers want labeling do not represent the attitudes of the general public and often use negative terminology. (Conducted by Cogent Research for the International Food Information Council, April 2003)
Back to top
REGULATION & LABELING:
Myth: Foods derived from biotechnology are not regulated.
Facts: Plants and foods derived using biotechnology are regulated by as many as three agencies: the Department of Agriculture (USDA); the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). State regulatory agencies also perform important oversight functions.
USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates biotech crops under the Federal Plant Pest Act to ensure that new biotech plant varieties do not pose a threat to the environment while growing in the field. APHIS oversees the adequacy of research facilities and authorizes field trials. Once field trials are complete, APHIS reviews the scientific data before granting permission to grow the plant for commercial sale. If any problems are observed, USDA has the authority to halt field trials and discontinue further development of the plant.
Under authority granted in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, EPA regulates biotech crops with built-in resistance to harmful pests. In January 2001, EPA finalized its proposed rule governing the field testing and registration of plants that produce their own protection against insect and viral pests. EPA regulations ensure not only that the new plant is safe for the environment, but also that the protection produced by the plant is safe for consumers. If a pest-protected biotech plant is found to be unsafe, EPA has the authority to stop its development and sale.
FFDCA gives FDA broad pre- and post-market authority to regulate the safety and labeling of all foods (except meat, poultry, and eggs, which are regulated by USDA, and pesticides, which are regulated by EPA) and animal feed. Under the FFDCA, the producer of a food—whether produced by traditional breeding or modern biotechnology—has the legal obligation to ensure its safety to consumers. Foods found to be unsafe may be pulled from the market by FDA at any time.
In 1992, the FDA issued a Policy Statement addressing regulation of biotech foods and instituted a premarket review process. Although FDA’s premarket review process is voluntary, it has been honored without exception by companies seeking to commercialize new biotech foods. Since 1992, FDA has conducted over 51 reviews of biotech foods, none of which raised safety concerns. New rules proposed by FDA in 2001 will make premarket review of biotech foods mandatory, once adopted. The proposed rule has been widely supported by the biotechnology industry as a way to further strengthen consumer confidence.
Other countries have developed or are developing regulations covering the growing and distribution of biotechnology crops and foods. International bodies have developed consistent guidance on the safety assessment of foods produced through biotechnology. These include the United Nations’ Biosafety Protocol and the CODEX Alimentarius Commission’s Committee on Food Labeling. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the United Nations World Health Organization have put forth statements of support and guidance for individual governmental bodies that are developing regulations to improve consistency throughout the global community.
Myth: Labeling of biotech foods is required to protect consumers and increase consumer choice.
Facts: Federal law provides labeling of a new food to inform consumers when there are significant changes in nutrition, safety, or usage, or if the common name of the food no longer applies (e.g., broccolini or tangelo, foods produced through plant breeding). In applying its labeling criteria, FDA focuses on the characteristics of the food, not the method used to develop it. Therefore, provided that a biotech food is substantially equivalent to similar varieties currently on the market, FDA does not require special labeling, as it would not provide the consumer with useful information on the new food’s safety or nutritional value.
FDA’s current policy of labeling biotech foods based on the final product, rather than the production process, has broad support in the scientific community. In December 2000, for example, the American Medical Association issued the following recommendation: “[T]here is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education.” Labeling would not provide the consumer with useful information on either the safety or the nutritional value of biotech food.
Options are available for consumers who wish to avoid biotech products. Under USDA’s new organic standards, which were finalized in December 2000 and fully implemented in 2002, products carrying the organic label cannot be produced using biotechnology. In addition, in January 2001 FDA issued draft guidance to manufacturers that wish to voluntarily label their food products as containing ingredients developed with or without the use of modern biotechnology. However, it should be kept in mind that USDA’s organic rule and FDA’s proposed voluntary labeling guidance are both processed-based standards. Therefore, food producers who apply these labels cannot make claims that their products are superior or inferior to their counterparts.
Back to top
THE ENVIRONMENT:
Myth: Widespread planting of herbicide-tolerant crops will lead to increased use of harmful herbicides and the development of herbicide-tolerant weeds.
Facts: Crops developed to resist the herbicide glyphosate allow farmers to control weeds more effectively. Glyphosate actually is less harmful to the environment than other commonly used herbicides. It degrades quickly in the soil and groundwater, has low toxicity, and is harmful only to plants, not mammals, making it is safe for wildlife that lives near crop fields and for humans who care for and eat the crops. Moreover, herbicide-tolerant crops allow no-tillage farming, a practice that greatly reduces water loss and soil erosion.
According to the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, the introduction of herbicide-resistant cotton led to 19 million fewer herbicide applications in 2000 (http://www.txfb.org/TexasAgriculture/2001/030201cotton2.htm). While the use of glyphosate herbicide has increased, its use has been more than offset by a reduction in the use of more toxic and persistent herbicides, leading to an overall decrease in herbicide use. Similarly, with the introduction of Roundup Ready (herbicide-tolerant) soybeans, total soybean herbicide applications decreased by 12 percent from 1995 to 1999, even as total soybean acreage increased by 18 percent.
Exposure to a herbicide always raises the possibility that the targeted weed will develop resistance, and glyphosate is no exception. Under the right conditions, agricultural crops can cross pollinate with wild relatives that may grow nearby, but gene transfer is extremely rare when species are not related. (Most crop species in the U.S. originated elsewhere, so there are few wild relatives available for outcrossing—canola, and squash are two exceptions—greatly reducing the potential environmental risk.) However, to date there has been no documented case (What about the marestail that is said to be the only first row crop weed to develop glyphosate-resistance in the US? http://www.biotech-info.net/dominating.html)of a “superweed” developing from glyphosate used in conjunction with glyphosate-tolerant crops. The few anecdotal cases of glyphosate-tolerant weeds that have been reported are unrelated to biotech crops. In fact, a study was published in Nature that examined the hardiness, over a 10 year period, of crops that had been enhanced through biotechnology for herbicide tolerance and insect protection, but were allowed to grow along side non-modified crops. The study was conducted by Michael J. Crawley and colleagues at Imperial College in England. The research examined soybeans, oilseed rape (canola), potatoes, corn and sugar beets, and found that herbicide-tolerant crops and insect protected crops survive no better than unmodified crops in the wild.
Resistance to herbicides and pesticides is a common problem in agricultural environments, requiring evolving management practices and the development of newer, usually more environmentally-friendly herbicides. The use of herbicide-tolerant crops developed through biotechnology poses no problems that farmers have not faced and managed in the past.
Myth: Widespread cultivation of "Bt" corn is a significant threat to Monarch butterflies.
Facts: Insect-resistant "Bt" crops incorporate genes from the soil microbe Bacillus thuringiensis, allowing them to produce proteins (endotoxins) that protect them from certain insect pests—e.g., the European corn borer, cotton and pink bollworm, tobacco budworm, and Colorado potato beetle. The proteins are harmless to most other insects, humans, and animals, and they have been used safely by organic farmers in spray formulations for many years.
The Bt protein expressed in Bt corn has long been known to be toxic to the caterpillars of butterflies, including the Monarch, a relative of the target insect pests. Two laboratory studies demonstrating this have been inflated by biotech critics, who suggest that Bt corn poses a severe threat to Monarch populations in the wild. However, field studies show that the threat to Monarch populations is quite low. Last fall, after a comprehensive review of the ecological effects of Bt corn, EPA concluded that there was "a low probability for adverse effects of Bt corn on monarch larvae." EPA also noted that some researchers suggest that Bt corn may be beneficial to Monarchs because it requires fewer applications of sprayed pesticides.
Further, field research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in October 2001 (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/98/21/11937.pdf) showed that there was no significant difference in Monarch populations found near Bt versus non-Bt corn fields.
Back to top
AGRICULTURE:
Myth: Yields of herbicide-tolerant soybeans are lower than for conventionally bred soybeans.
Facts: Glyphosate tolerance was introduced into a specific variety of soybean that is appropriate for a relatively small growing area. As this trait is incorporated in other soybean varieties (through hybridization, a process that can take many years), it is expected that the herbicide tolerance trait will be available in the highest-yielding varieties.
There is no evidence that yields from these soybeans, under field conditions, is lower than for similar conventionally bred soybeans. Variety trials, which measure yield potential, have indicated that glyphosate-tolerant soybeans do not yield as much as conventionally bred soybeans. (Research by the National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy shows that the 4 percent gap measured in 1998 had closed to 3 percent in 1999). There are many factors can that affect yields, and the variety trials are designed to ensure that these factors are the same for each variety being assessed. However, these trials did not always include all of the varieties available in an area, nor did they always compare plants that, except for the herbicide-tolerant trait, had the same genetic makeup. Moreover, variety trials are conducted in a weed-free environment, so they do not represent field conditions, where competition from weeds may have a larger negative impact on yields of soybeans that do not possess the herbicide-tolerant trait.
Yield potential is just one factor that farmers consider when deciding what variety to plant. Farmers continue to select herbicide-tolerant soybeans because of the advantages in cost, reduced tilling, and weed control they provide.
Back to top
DEVELOPING NATIONS
Myth: Agricultural biotechnology will not benefit developing countries.
Facts: It is estimated that, today, about 840 million people do not have access to sufficient food supplies. Moreover, according to the US Census Bureau, the current world population is about 6 billion and projected to grow to about 9 billion by 2050 (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html). As the rapid increases in food production brought about by the "Green Revolution" begin to level off and the availability of arable land shrinks, increasing demand for food and fiber, coming largely from the developing world, will have to be met primarily through increased yields.
The National Academy of Sciences, together with six other international scientific organizations, recently issued a report discussing the role of biotechnology in meeting the food needs of a growing world population. It concluded that “GM technology, coupled with important developments in other areas, should be used to increase the production of main food staples, improve the efficiency of production, reduce the environmental impact of agriculture, and provide access to food for small-scale farmers.”
Biotechnology already is having an impact. According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), the worldwide acreage of crops produced through biotechnology increased by 19 percent from 2000 to 2001. More than three-quarters of the farmers that benefited from biotech crops in 2001 were resource poor farmers planting Bt cotton, mainly in China and South Africa. By 2002, just seven years after their introduction on the market, some 5.5 million farmers in more than a dozen countries planted over 145 million acres with seed produced through biotechnology.
The development of beta carotene- and iron-enriched Golden Rice will help combat vitamin-A deficiency in millions of people worldwide. In the future, new varieties of existing crops will be developed that will reduce environmental impacts and increase yields. Scientists are even working on foods that will help prevent or cure debilitating diseases, such as cholera and diarrhea, leading causes of infant mortality in developing countries.
Low yields also can contribute to a shortage of nutritious foods in developing countries. Biotechnology can help by developing plants that resist insect and viral pests. For example, a new variety of sweet potato developed by Monsanto and the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) to resist the feathery mottle virus is being introduced in Africa. Biotechnology also was used to “immunize” papaya plants to papaya ringspot, a virus that had devastated production in Hawaii. This technique is now being applied to protect high-value papaya and cucurbit crops throughout Southeast Asia, India, the South Pacific, and Australia. Foods that have extended freshness also can reduce losses due to spoilage.
As former President Jimmy Carter has noted, “Biotechnology is not the enemy. Hunger is.” Together with other forms of intervention, developments in biotechnology can contribute to enhancing the nutritional intake of people throughout the world.
Myth: Golden Rice is touted as a benefit for developing nations, but a person would have to eat so much Golden Rice to get a sufficient amount of vitamin A each day that it is really not an effective method of addressing severe vitamin A deficiency.
Facts: Severe vitamin A deficiency, which makes people vulnerable to infections and blindness, is a serious problem in many regions of the world where rice is a dietary staple. According to the World Health Organization, between 100 and 140 million children are affected by vitamin A deficiency (http://www.who.int/nut/vad.htm).
Golden Rice was developed to address vitamin A deficiency by providing beta-carotene (which is converted to vitamin A in the body) in a food staple normally lacking in it. It is estimated that one and one-half cups (300 grams) of cooked Golden Rice would meet 20 to 40 percent of the “recommended safe intake” for vitamin A, an amount that could make up deficiencies in the diets of poor children around the world. Golden Rice also is expected to increase the concentration of vitamin A in breast milk, an important source of vitamin A for infants.
How efficiently nutrients are absorbed from food—its bioavailability—for people who are malnourished is not well understood. Therefore, before distributing Golden Rice to developing nations for crop development, the International Rice Research Institute is conducting bioavailability studies on Golden Rice. Nutritional studies with vitamin-A deficient people also need to be performed.
Myth: It would be easier and cheaper to just give vitamin A supplements to people deficient in the vitamin.
Facts: Supplementation is just one of many traditional interventions employed to combat vitamin A deficiency—food fortification, dietary diversification, control of infectious disease, and plant breeding are also important. Although these methods have been used for decades, every year an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 children go blind, and half die within 12 months of losing their sight. (http://www.who.int/nut/vad.htm) Supplementation strategies do not benefit many in need of intervention because their countries lack adequate distribution infrastructure. Golden Rice offers a viable new tool that will complement (not supplant) other intervention methods by providing a locally-grown source of beta carotene for farming families in many developing nations.
It should also be recognized that biotechnology is being used to provide enhanced nutrition through other basic food security crops, not just rice. Researchers are now working to enhance the nutrition of wheat, cassava, sweet potato, and banana. New varieties of corn, sorghum, and wheat also are in development to provide more lysine, an important dietary protein. Research also is underway to develop a “golden mustard” that will yield provitamin A-enriched cooking oil. These and other efforts will provide even more agricultural options to improve the diets of poor people in the developing world.
Myth: Because it is controlled by multi-national companies, developing countries will not have access to biotechnology.
Facts: Developing countries have recognized the potential of biotechnology as an option to improve the lives of their people. Biotechnology companies do not provide the only avenue to this technology.
Golden Rice, for example, was developed by Swiss scientist Ingo Potrykus using public funds and charitable contributions. Biotechnology companies also played a role by donating free licenses of intellectual property rights connected to the project. With the assistance of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), it is expected that Golden Rice eventually will be made available to farmers in all parts of the developing world.
IRRI is one of 16 international agricultural research centers distributed throughout the world that make up a network known by the acronym CGIAR—the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. CGIAR is an informal association of fifty-eight public and private sector members that, including the World Bank and the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and Development Program (UNDP). U.S. and European governments also fund other research centers and projects aimed at improving agricultural production.
Research universities and agricultural extension services also provide a source of expertise. For example, work on protein-enriched cereal grains and plant-based vaccines to fight enteric diseases is being carried out in publicly-funded research universities. Valuable research partnerships also are being formed, such as the joint project involving Michigan State University, Monsanto Company, and the Tata Energy Research Institute in India to develop a “golden mustard” that will yield cooking oil high in beta carotene. Biotech companies also are providing opportunities for researchers from developing countries to study and work in the U.S.
Private-sector companies, governments, international organizations, charitable foundations, and research universities all have an obligation to make biotechnology available to farmers in developing countries.
Back to top
