Golden Rice is a famous example of the possible benefits of genetically modified organisms. It was originally engineered in 2000 in order to produce ß-carotene to combat vitamin A deficiency world-wide (Ye 2000). This was proposed as an interesting and unique solution to a problem that effects millions of people, mainly in impoverished countries in Africa and Southeast Asia (Dawe 2002). In particular, it could help cure child blindness that plagued countries in the global South (Dawe 2002). In 2000, media attention was huge, and TIME magazine proclaimed “This Rice Could Save a Million Kids a Year” (Philpott 2016). It also held interesting implications for the the future of food consumption. If we can, should we make mass-produced food healthier, without the use of fortification? Like many technologies before it, this held promise of a bright, new future where technology saves us from some the biggest problems around. However, despite the promise of greatness, Golden Rice failed to take off and, over 15 years after its inventing, it has never been planted commercially.
This failure that Golden Rice has become has resulted from several factors. First, the Golden Rice doesn’t plant at the same yields or is as consistent as regular rice plants (What Is… 2016). While further studies and research is being done by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the Philippine Rice Research Institute, Golden Rice is not yet at a point where is makes economic sense to instate the rice on a commercial scale (What Is… 2016).
In addition, there is backlash among many who are cautious or against the rise of GM foods. Many developing nations have adopted the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, a set of regulations for the cautious and limited testing of GM life (Philpott 2016). The US and other developed countries do not instate such restrictions resulting in development of GM products that is quicker and conducted with less caution. On top of this, anti-GM activists strongly oppose any research and have gone to such lengths as burning crops planted by the IRRI (Philpott 2016). These political and social barriers make it difficult for the continued research needed for the possibility of an economically feasible Golden Rice, and even then it is hard to say that the research will pay off with a superior rice.
The implementation of Golden Rice was held back by several factors. The original implementation seemed smooth with humanitarian, free access granted to Golden Rice seeds for global farmers looking to make less than $10,000 annually (Dobson 2000). The principal inventor, Professor Ingo Potrykus, stated in 2000,‘‘I now very much hope that others having intellectual property rights used in the development of golden rice will follow the generous example of Monsanto and also provide a royalty-free license for the humanitarian use of the technology and its transfer to developing countries” (Dobson 2000). While the humanitarian intentions are clear, the development is still held back by political, social, and technological limitations.
Learning from this, it is clear that technology alone is no way to fix any problem. While the Golden Rice seemed potentially world-changing in theory, it still has yet to become a practical invention, and it may never achieve that status. A great, radical idea and tech demo are not enough to fix a wicked problem on the scale of global health concerns. The limitations of a technology and society have to be taken into consideration. However, Golden Rice is certainly not a total failure. Even if it is never commercially produced, the innovative idea has changed what is considered possible with GM foods. If not Golden Rice, maybe some other GM food will make healthier food widely accessible.
- Dawe, D., R. Robertson, and L. Unnevehr. 2002. “Golden Rice: What Role Could It Play in Alleviation of Vitamin A Deficiency?” Food Policy 27 (5–6): 541–60. doi:10.1016/S0306-9192(02)00065-9.
- Dobson, R. 2000. “Royalty-Free Licenses for Genetically Modified Rice Made Available to Developing Countries.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 78 (10): 1281.
- Paine, Jacqueline A., Catherine A. Shipton, Sunandha Chaggar, Rhian M. Howells, Mike J. Kennedy, Gareth Vernon, Susan Y. Wright, et al. 2005. “Improving the Nutritional Value of Golden Rice through Increased pro-Vitamin A Content.” Nature Biotechnology 23 (4): 482–87. doi:10.1038/nbt1082.
- Philpott, Tom. 2016. “WTF Happened to Golden Rice?” Mother Jones. February 3. http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2016/02/golden-rice-still-showing-promise-still-not-field-ready.
- “What Is the Status of the Golden Rice Project Coordinated by IRRI?” 2016. International Rice Research Institute. Accessed April 4. http://irri.org/golden-rice/faqs/what-is-the-status-of-the-golden-rice-project-coordinated-by-irri.