Growing a Second Green Revolution
The ‘golden rice’ champion on the
bewildering campaign to stop a miracle food that could save millions of
children from blindness and death.
By Hugo Restall in the Wall Street
Journal
Los Baños, Philippines
Robert Zeigler is an
environmentalist, but he is also a plant scientist. And that has led him to
question the motives of an environmental movement that opposes genetically
modified crops despite overwhelming evidence that they are safe.
As director general of the
International Rice Research Institute, Mr. Zeigler is pushing the development
of “golden rice,” a genetically modified variety that began in the lab about
two decades ago. Geneticists inserted a gene into the rice plant that allows it
to produce beta carotene, which makes its grains yellow.
Because the human body converts beta
carotene to vitamin A, golden rice has the potential to dramatically improve
the lives of millions of people around the world, particularly in Africa and
Southeast Asia, where vitamin A deficiency is an especially common malady that
can cause blindness and increases the risk of death from disease. Children are
particularly vulnerable: “An estimated 250,000 to 500,000 vitamin A-deficient
children become blind every year, half of them dying within 12 months of losing
their sight,” according to the U.N. World Health Organization.
Golden rice thus sounds like a
godsend—but don’t tell that to activists opposed to anything that falls in the
category of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. In August 2013, anti-GMO
vandals broke into the International Rice Research Institute’s research
facilities and destroyed field trials of golden rice.
The attack set back the program by
only a few months, and Mr. Zeigler still hopes to bring the new variety to
market in the next two to three years. But the episode was a reminder that
environmental groups will campaign hard to put political obstacles in his way,
and try to scare farmers and consumers off the yellow rice.
Greenpeace is petitioning the
Philippine government to ban GMOs and promote organic farming. The organization
says that vitamin A deficiency can be tackled with more balanced nutrition and
calls golden rice a “Trojan horse” designed to overcome public resistance to a
dangerous technology.
More than just golden rice is at stake.
Total rice production is stagnant but populations are growing. Asia badly needs
a second “green revolution” of increased yields—Mr. Zeigler estimates that the
harvest must increase to 550,000 tons of milled rice a year by 2035 from
450,000 tons today.
One important way to achieve that is
through genetic modifications that will produce higher-yielding varieties, and
the International Rice Research Institute will be central to that effort.
Founded in 1960 with funding from governments and the Ford and Rockefeller
foundations, the IRRI was one of the leading institutions in the original green
revolution of the ’60s and ’70s. Transgenic technology is becoming an important
part of its research arsenal.
Mr. Zeigler is an avuncular 63, but
he maintains a grueling schedule. He is just back from Nepal, where a deal was
signed for India, Bangladesh and Nepal to accept the others’ approvals of new
rice varieties, and he will give the keynote address at the World Rice Congress
in Bangkok next week. Sitting in his office, he looks out on rice fields that
the institute has cultivated since 1963 to test whether high-yield varieties
will exhaust the soil (so far so good). Nearby is a refrigerated gene bank that
holds seed samples of more than 117,000 rice varieties used in crossbreeding
programs.
Golden rice is a proof of concept in
several ways, he explains. It started out showing that “you could engineer a
relatively complex trait into a staple food that addressed a major dietary
deficiency in hundreds of millions of people.” But on the way to market, golden
rice ran into difficulty not of the radical-protester variety: The difficulty
and expense of developing a GM food beyond the lab turned out to be much harder
than golden rice’s champions initially understood.
For instance, the Philippine
government has a well-established process for assessing rice varieties that are
already approved in other countries. The IRRI had to work with the authorities
to develop new procedures to certify a GM crop developed in the country.
Then there was the problem that the
original patent-holders stipulated that golden rice could not be sold for a
profit. While the rice will be provided to farmers at a low cost, eliminating
all profits meant that it would be excluded from existing marketing and
distribution channels.
Finally there are the extra
safeguards imposed on any transgenic crop, even though they are safer than
those developed using traditional breeding. Crossbreeding different rice
varieties runs the risk of creating a weed that can’t be killed without
destroying the crops it infests, whereas GM rice can incorporate a single
well-understood gene into an existing variety.
Solving the problems facing golden
rice will demonstrate that publicly funded entities can use transgenic
technology to enhance food security. While companies like Monsanto make important contributions, Mr.
Zeigler believes governments can play a crucial role when there is no clear
business model.
Rice is a good example. It is
self-pollinating, so farmers can buy a new variety and then save some of the
grain to plant next year. Some firms sell sterile hybrids, but these have
weaknesses that have confined them to a small share of production. Rice farmers
have tended to be poor and isolated and produce on a small scale, hardly an
appealing market demographic.
Yet the returns to society as a
whole from higher-yielding rice varieties are staggering. The IRRI’s semi-dwarf
varieties, including the famous IR8, saved India from famine in the 1960s. And
they provided good investment opportunities for the World Bank across the
region, since they responded well to better growing conditions. Up went dams
and fertilizer factories, and up went Asian incomes and living standards.
However, about half of Asia’s rice
farmers were left behind because they tilled marginal land, prone to drought,
flooding and other problems. The 1960s breeding technology didn’t have answers
for them. But today the rice institute is developing varieties that have better
resistance and grow well on poorer land. That will be one part of a new jump in
yields.
The environment will also benefit
from the second green revolution, as crops will require less water, fertilizer
and pesticides. There will be opportunities to use GM technology to develop new
varieties faster and more safely—as long as the green activists don’t succeed
in demonizing them.
“The question is, will this
fantastic technology that has the ability to address so many serious human
needs be limited so that only short-term, high-profit products of the private
sector will be enjoyed, or will the broader public be able to benefit from
them?” Mr. Zeigler asks. “And I think it’s a pretty important question. You
can’t destroy the public sector’s ability to take advantage of this and move it
forward and then at the same time complain that it’s only the multinationals
that use the technology.”
GM food has become a casualty of the
anticapitalist ideology of the environmental movement, he explains. “You see
that jingoism used when people talk about corporate farming, it is a code word
for evil.” This obscures the fact that the fundamental science behind GM is
sound.
Mr. Zeigler can’t resist a
comparison to partisans on the right who he says willfully misrepresent science
in a similar way: “If you strip away the actual words and look at the argument
structure, it’s exactly the same as the climate-change deniers,” he says, and
“the anti-fracking people. If you’re not tied to the science and the facts, you
can say just about anything.”
Nevertheless, the environmentalists
are his main target: “This is the thing that drives me crazy. As you’ve
probably figured out, my politics are a little bit to the left and I feel that
society has roles to play, etc. And to see my former allies just throwing out
any association with fact and what I’d like to think of as truth, it’s very
disheartening because I look at the position of the left on the environment and
GMO technology as being totally indefensible.”
Mr. Zeigler also says that
governments need to stop trying to control prices in ways that prevent
incentives from reaching the farmer. Shortsighted export bans during the spike
in food prices in 2008 further disrupted an already thin and distorted market.
And he cites the lack of clear property rights in many countries as a deterrent
for farmers to invest in their land.
Private companies may also be able
to take advantage of the telecommunications revolution that has put cellphones
in the hands of rice farmers. The kinds of tailored information services that
help big American farmers make decisions based on satellite images and big data
could be provided to small farmers at little marginal cost.
Ideally Mr. Zeigler would like to
see the public and private sectors working on GM food in parallel, each focused
on what it does best. A partnership of that sort underpinned the original green
revolution, but it has been lost.
That’s because the world has become
complacent about food security. The assumption is that grain shortages are a
thing of the past and we can concentrate on better nutrition and how to meet
the demand for meat. While those are legitimate goals, “if we take our eye off
the basic staples, we could run into trouble,” Mr. Zeigler warns.
He makes a good case that mass
starvation is the kind of risk that governments should make contingency plans
for and invest in solutions. Even on current trends, the International Rice
Research Institute has a significant role to play. And if the institute can get
golden rice to market, it will have forged a key part of the second green
revolution.
Mr. Restall is the editorial-page
editor of The Wall Street Journal Asia.
No comments:
Post a Comment