GEED 10083-Science, Technology, and Society

ARTICLE REVIEW
The Politics of Golden Rice

a. What is the article all about?

The article discusses how genetic knowledge and strategies for

introducing genes from one organism to another have permitted new crop
kinds that were previously unattainable using existing crop breeding
methodologies.
Complex national and international restrictions deriving from the
UN's Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological
Diversity govern research and development of these GMO-crops to the point
where they are helpful to growers and consumers in most countries. The
Protocol was created in response to initial concerns that such technology
posed unusual risks to both humans and the environment. Those concepts
have been demonstrated to be false in a comprehensive and authoritative
manner. Despite this, the Protocol has created enormous regulatory barriers
to the development of GMO crop technology, at a high cost to global society
and in direct contrast with many other UN goals. The Protocol's suspicion is
also extensively employed for political reasons, whether overtly or secretly.
It also covers the Golden Rice delay caused by the mentioned GMO
agricultural laws, which officials believe were necessary to develop because
the crop posed no dangers to the environment or human health if widely
 cultivated and consumed. The GMO-crop will be allowed for planting by
farmers and consumption by consumers in that country only once an
applicant has requested for regulatory clearance and the regulators have
considered it safe.
Concerns regarding the influence of the new field of genetic research
on human health and the environment were raised during the discussion of
the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity and its Cartagena Protocol
on Biosafety. Furthermore, the article discusses how the Cartagena Protocol
Foundations of the opposition to GMO-Crops, which were originally
thought to be rock, are actually sand, how suspicion of GMO-crops has
slowed the development of golden rice, the vulnerability of science
institutions to suspicion of anti-GMO-crop bias, and the Cartagena
Protocol's greater risk to the environment and human health than GMO-
crops.

b. What is the Cartagena Protocol? Why is it said that the foundation of

its opposition to GMO crops was initially considered “rock”, but
actually “sands”?

Biotechnology, as well as the trade and movement of genetically

modified organisms (GMOs) around the world, is an important intersection
in the link between international trade and the environment. GMOs are
essentially organisms whose genetic makeup has been changed with by
humans, for example, to make a plant exhibit a desirable genetic quality. The
Protocol further states that all living modified organisms (LMOs) in
commerce must be labelled, stating the requirements for safe storage,
transportation, and the source of additional information about the organism.
 The foundations of the Cartagena Protocol, which were previously
thought to be rock, are actually sand. Different interest groups have utilized
and highlighted this to support their own perspectives. The CBD's and, in
particular, the Cartagena Protocol's concerns support most, if not all, of the
arguments against genetic modification of crops. The scientific proof
showing GMO-crops were as safe for humans as crops grown by other
means grew to the point where no sensible person or organization with even
a basic comprehension of science could reject it. Furthermore, evidence was
emerging that GMO crops delivered significant economic and environmental
benefits in many ways.
Since the technology is incorporated in the seed, no production,
packaging, distribution, or cultural change is necessary for populations to
improve their nutritional status and take advantage of existing possibilities
with biofortified Golden Rice. The agricultural science, cooking capabilities,
and flavor of the variety into which the nutritional feature is introduced will
be same. And each grain is identified by its golden color, which allows for
selection. Fortification and supplementation do not provide these benefits in
terms of correcting micronutrient deficiencies, and so are not sustainable for
low-income people. To justify the higher prices demanded by poorer
productivity, the organic sector wants consumers to believe that 'organic
food' is more nutritious, tastes better, is better for the environment, and is
safer than food produced by conventional agriculture, all of which are false.
Therefore, in order to keep the fear of GMO crops alive, organic
growers and their groups are able to fulfil their business goals. Another
reason the organic food lobby dislikes GMO crops is that nothing could be
more organic than GMO plants using their own genomes to improve
nutrition, more efficiently use water or nitrogen from the air, and control
 only the insects that consume the crop. Possibly because in the case of
contributed qualities, such as the source of vitamin A in Golden Rice, there
is no way for a firm to profit from people's choices.

c. What are the points mentioned by the author why golden rice was
politicised?

According to the author of the article, there is a growing trend among

environmental activists to take on initiatives that they are difficult to succeed
in the near future. They will never put a stop to the advancement of
genetically modified organisms; they will never put a stop to nuclear or
fossil fuel energy; they will never put a stop to sustainable forest
management for wood production; and they will never put a stop to fish
breeding. This opens the door to an infinite propaganda campaign, which in
turn supports an endless fundraising campaign to fund even more
propaganda. It's a brilliant political tactic, except they didn't come up with it
their own; it just turned out that way. Also, because elections they won are
already over, and as they steadily abandoned science and rationality in favor
of zero-tolerance rules, they ultimately ended up with campaigns that were
impossibly difficult. Unfortunately, we will be subjected to these campaigns
for an indefinite period of time. Because, according to its supporters, Golden
Rice has an activism issue. They claim that if anti-science activists hadn't
stopped it, the rice would have saved millions of children's lives by now.
They pick out Greenpeace, which has campaigned against Golden Rice
approval as part of its broader anti-GMO stance.
 Furthermore, once an application has sought for approval and the
regulators have deemed it safe, the GMO-crop will be approved for planting
by farmers and consumption by consumers in that country. Obtaining
regulatory approval is obviously time-consuming and costly, but legislation
is only one facet of what may be properly described as societal fear of crop
plant genetically engineered. The 'Politics of Golden Rice' can be defined as
the total of all societal suspicions about Golden Rice and its consequences.

d. What are your thoughts about the article? Do you agree or disagree that
“politics” somehow impede the development of GMO-crop technology?

In response to the article, I agree that politics impedes or delays the

development of GMO crop technology in some way. Some regulations are
unnecessary owing to rules, and there have previously been given studies
and research that establish it is safe and will not affect the environment and
humans. Although additional trials and resources were still required for it to
be fully developed and be effective, it was clear that it would take time, and
politics just added to the delay.
We would have achieved higher production of quality crops if the
GMO-crop technology had not been delayed, and this would assist a large
number of people, particularly those who cannot afford high-priced
commodities with healthy nutrients. As a result, crop expenses would have
been lower, and people would be able to eat higher quality food. GMO
adoption can also help farmers in developing countries earn more money.
GMO adoption and progress has been fuelled by economic value rather than
a localized agricultural problem like pests or diseases, but it has not been
without controversy. That is why politics is frequently engaged.
e. Do you agree that its conclusion that society incurs pain, environmental
damage, and deaths due to the delays in advancement in agricultural
science caused by national and international regulations?

Yes, I agree to the conclusion that society incurs pain, environmental

damage, and deaths due to the delays in advancement in agricultural science
caused by national and international regulations because it really does. The
restrictions set by national governments that are contributors to the UN's
Convention on Biodiversity and its Cartagena Protocol, according to the
article, are too responsible. The ideas and concerns that the Cartagena
Protocol is based on were debated 50 years ago and have since been proven
to be unjustified. Nonetheless, they fuel suspicions of a helpful and harmless
crop breeding evolution, aside from the immediate expenses.
Additionally, it was reported that in 2010, vitamin A deficiency killed
more children than HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, or malaria combined. In that
single year, there were almost 2 million deaths that may have been avoided.
Every single day, 6000 preventable fatalities, largely of young children,
occur. Although Golden Rice is an eye-opening example of the implications
of GMO-crop development delays, many other crop features that can help
the environment and human health are also being gravely delayed. They
decided that the Cartagena Protocol should be terminated for modern
biotechnology crops. After that, deconstruct the network of linked industries
like biosafety research, government committees, pointless international
meetings, data briefings, and so on. All of these processes should return to
the procedures used to approve all other crop types, releasing the true
capabilities of agricultural and nutritional research and seed breeding, as
well as the full potential of contemporary plant genetics for the benefit of
humanity and the environment.
 Despite the remaining doubts, the biotechnology industry, and all of
its agencies, including WHO, UNICEF, and FAO, take a more resilient,
scientifically and religiously supported policy stance on GMO-crops through
the Cartagena Protocol, which reconciles the respective needs of trade and
environmental protection with respect to a rapidly growing industry.