Philippines Court Ruling Deals Deathblow to Success of GMO Golden Rice

Genetically modified Golden Rice was once seen as the answer to vitamin A deficiency in Asia and Africa, where rice is the staple food.  But a recent court ruling in the Philippines, the very country where rice breeders first came up with the idea of Golden Rice, has brought more than 30 years of crop development to an abrupt halt.

As reported in Science magazine, a Philippine Court of Appeals in April 2024 revoked a 2021 permit that allowed the commercial planting of a Golden Rice variety tailored for local conditions. The ruling resulted from a lawsuit by Greenpeace and other groups, who for many years have opposed the introduction of all GMO (genetically modified organism) crops as unsafe for humans and the environment.

Millions of poor children in Asia and Africa go blind or even die each year from weakened immune systems caused by a lack of vitamin A, which is produced in the human body through the action of a naturally occurring compound, beta-carotene.

So the discovery by Swiss plant geneticist Ingo Potrykus and German biologist Peter Beyer in the 1990s that splicing two genes – beta-carotene from daffodils, the other from a bacterium – into rice could greatly increase its beta-carotene content caused considerable excitement among nutritionists. Subsequent research, in which the daffodil gene was replaced by one from maize, boosted the beta-carotene level even further.

The original discovery should have been heralded as a massive breakthrough. But widespread hostility erupted once the achievement was publicized. Potrykus was accused of creating a “Frankenfood,” evocative of the monster created by the fictional mad scientist Frankenstein, and subjected to bomb threats. Trial plots of Golden Rice were destroyed by rampaging activists.

Nevertheless, in 2018, four countries – Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the U.S. – finally approved Golden Rice. The U.S. FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has granted the biofortified food its prestigious “GRAS (generally recognized as safe)” status. This success paved the way for the nonprofit IRRI (International Rice Research Institute) in the Philippines to initiate large-scale trials of Golden Rice varieties in that country and Bangladesh.

Greenpeace contends that currently planted Golden Rice in the Philippines will have to be destroyed, although a consulting attorney says there is nothing in the Court of Appeals decision to support that claim. And while Bangladesh is close to growing Golden Rice for consumption, the request to actually start planting has been under review since 2017.

The Philippines court justified its ruling by citing the supposed lack of scientific consensus on the safety of Golden Rice; the consulting attorney pointed out that “both camps presented opposing evidence.” In fact, the judges leaned heavily on the so-called precautionary principle – a concept developed by 20th-century environmental activists.

The origins of the precautionary principle can be traced to the application in the early 1970s of the German principle of “Vorsorge” or foresight, based on the belief that environmental damage can be avoided by careful forward planning. The “Vorsorgeprinzip” became the foundation for German environmental law and policies in areas such as acid rain, pollution and global warming. The principle reflects the old adage that “it’s better to be safe than sorry,” and can be regarded as a restatement of the ancient Hippocratic oath in medicine, “First, do no harm.”

Formally, the precautionary principle can be stated as:

When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

But in spite of its noble intentions, the precautionary principle in practice is based far more on political considerations than on science. A notable example is the bans on GMO crops by more than half the countries in the European Union. The bans stem from the widespread, fear-based belief that eating genetically altered foods is unsafe, despite the lack of any scientific evidence that GMOs have ever caused harm to a human.

In the U.S., approved GMO crops include corn, which is the basic ingredient in many cereals, corn tortillas, corn starch and corn syrup, as well as feed for livestock and farmed fish; soybeans; canola; sugar beets; yellow squash and zucchini; bruise-free potatoes; nonbrowning apples; papaya; and alfalfa.

One of the biggest issues with the precautionary principle is that it essentially advocates risk avoidance. But risk avoidance carries its own risks.

We accept the risk, for example, of being killed or badly injured while traveling on the roads because the risk is outweighed by the convenience of getting to our destination quickly, or by our desire to have fresh food available at the supermarket. Applying the precautionary principle would mean, in addition to the safety measures already in place, reducing all speed limits to 16 km per hour (10 mph) or less – a clearly impractical solution that would take us back to horse-and-buggy days.

Next: 

Science vs Politics: The Precautionary Principle

Greatly intensifying the attack on modern science is invocation of the precautionary principle – a concept developed by 20th-century environmental activists. Targeted at decision making when the available scientific evidence about a potential environmental or health threat is highly uncertain, the precautionary principle has been used to justify a number of environmental policies and laws around the globe. Unfortunately for science, the principle has also been used to support political action on alleged hazards, in cases where there’s little or no evidence for those hazards.

The origins of the precautionary principle can be traced to the application in the early 1970s of the German principle of “Vorsorge” or foresight, based on the belief that environmental damage can be avoided by careful forward planning. The “Vorsorgeprinzip” became the foundation for German environmental law and policies in areas such as acid rain, pollution and global warming. The principle reflects the old adage that “it’s better to be safe than sorry,” and can be regarded as a restatement of the ancient Hippocratic oath in medicine, “First, do no harm.”

Formally, the precautionary principle can be stated as:

When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

But in spite of its noble intentions, the precautionary principle in practice is based far more on political considerations than on science. It’s the “not fully established scientifically” statement that both embraces the principle involved and, at the same time, leaves it open to manipulation and subversion of science.

A notable example of the intrusion of precautionary principle politics into science is the bans on GMO (genetically modified organism) crops by more than half the countries in the European Union. The bans stem from the widespread, fear-based belief that eating genetically altered foods is unsafe, despite the lack of any scientific evidence that GMOs have ever caused harm to a human.

In a 2016 study by the U.S. NAS (National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine), no substantial evidence was found that the risk to human health was any different for current GMO crops on the market than for their traditionally crossbred counterparts. This conclusion came from epidemiological studies conducted in the U.S. and Canada, where the population has consumed GMO foods since the late 1990s, and similar studies in the UK and Europe, where very few GMO foods are eaten.

The precautionary principle also underlies the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), the 1992 treaty that formed the basis for all subsequent political action on global warming. In another post, I’ve discussed the lack of empirical scientific evidence for the narrative of catastrophic anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change. Yet Irrational fear of disastrous consequences of global warming pushes activists to invoke the precautionary principle in order to justify unnecessary, expensive remedies such as those embodied in the Paris Agreement or the Green New Deal.

One of the biggest issues with the precautionary principle is that it essentially advocates risk avoidance. But risk avoidance carries its own risks.

Dangers, great and small, are an accepted part of everyday life. We accept the risk, for example, of being killed or badly injured while traveling on the roads because the risk is outweighed by the convenience of getting to our destination quickly, or by our desire to have fresh food available at the supermarket. Applying the precautionary principle would mean, in addition to the safety measures already in place, reducing all speed limits to 10 mph or less – a clearly impractical solution that would take us back to horse-and-buggy days.  

Another, real-life example of an unintended consequence of the precautionary principle is what happened in Fukushima, Japan in the aftermath of the nuclear accident triggered by a massive earthquake and tsunami in 2011. As described by the authors of a recent discussion paper, Japan’s shutdown of nuclear power production as a safety measure and its replacement by fossil-fueled power raised electricity prices by as much as 38%, decreasing consumption of electricity, especially for heating during cold winters. This had a devastating effect: in the authors’ words,

“Our estimated increase in mortality from higher electricity prices significantly outweighs the mortality from the accident itself, suggesting the decision to cease nuclear production caused more harm than good.”

Adherence to the precautionary principle can also stifle innovation and act as a barrier to technological development. In the worst case, an advantageous technology can be banned because of its potentially negative impact, leaving its positive benefits unrealized. This could well be the case for GMOs. The more than 30 nations that have banned the growing of genetically engineered crops may be shutting themselves off from the promise of producing cheaper and more nutritious food.

The precautionary principle pits science against politics. In an ideal world, the conflict between the two would be resolved wisely. As things are, however, science is often subjugated to the needs and whims of policy makers.

Next: Challenges to the CO₂ Global Warming Hypothesis: (1) A New Take on the Carbon Cycle