Grains of delusion (2/22/2001) The biotech lobby is selling the idea that genetically engineered (GE) crops, starting with golden rice, will solve problems of malnutrition. This is an ambitious goal for a small grain of rice. The malnutrition agenda is drawing in support from every major agricultural biotech company, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and its main funder, the Rockefeller Foundation. But at the end of the day, the main agenda for golden rice is not malnutrition but garnering greater support and acceptance for genetic engineering amongst the public, the scientific community and funding agencies1. Given this reality, the promise of golden rice should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Little change seen for US biotechnology policy - despite fears on Monsanto links (2/13/2001) Despite allegations by some in the US anti-biotechnology lobby that the Bush Administration will be cosy with Monsanto and other major biotech corporations, the little evidence thus far available suggests it will strike a pose very similar to that of the previous Clinton Administration when it comes to biotech food issues. The leading officials of both US political parties have strikingly similar, supportive views about agricultural biotechnology.
Genetically engineered 'golden rice' is fool's gold (2/13/2001) Genetically engineered "Golden Rice" containing provitamin A will not solve the problem of malnutrition in developing countries according to Greenpeace. The Genetic Engineering (GE) industry claims vitamin A rice could save thousands of children from blindness and millions of malnourished people from vitamin A deficiency (VAD) related diseases. But a simple calculation based on the product developers' own figures show an adult would have to eat at least twelve times the normal intake of 300 grams to get the daily recommended amount of provitamin A.
USDA needs a new attitude (2/1/2001) The editorial board of the St. Louis Post Dispatch today wrote that "outgoing Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman has painted a disturbing portrait of his department's boosterish attitude toward genetically modified foods. At the U.S. Department of Agriculture, one of three agencies charged with overseeing biotech foods, a no-questions-asked attitude prevails, Mr. Glickman said."