Of rice and men meddling

"Intellectual Pablum spooned out with all the cues for the right reaction."

-- Marshall McLuhan, describing Time Magazine.

The cover of Time Magazine's July 31st cover proclaimed: "This rice could save a million kids a year". The cover story was about "Golden Rice", a variant of white rice, genetically modified to contain Beta Carotene, which is essential to the bodies creation of Vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency, it is said, causes blindness in hundreds of thousands of children in underdeveloped countries in Asia and Africa. The stated premiss is that this rice will be a miracle cure for children who would otherwise go blind.

What the Time piece doesn't mention is kindly pointed out to us by two less widely read articles. In 'There's Nothing Like A Feel-Good Bowl Of Golden Rice. Or Not', Naomi Kline notes that while the newly developed rice may or may not have a beneficial effect, such an attractive quick fix distracts from western decisions that have been quite contrary to the welfare of developing nations.

"The boring truth is that we already have the tools to save many more than a million kids a year -- all without irrevocably changing the genetic makeup of food staples. What we lack is the political will to mobilize those resources. That was the clear message that emerged last month from the Group of Eight summit in Okinawa. One after another, the largest industrial nations shot down concrete proposals aimed at reducing poverty in the developing world."

Interesting that we suddenly care about helping out Asian children, now that it lends credibility to biotech. What is more interesting is that Time describes the GM food debate as "polarized", but simultaneously omits some crucial issues dealing with instant solutions handed down from on high.

Golden Genes and World Hunger, by Craig Holdrege and Steve Talbott, appeared in NetFuture a few weeks before the Time article. Holdrege and Talbott point out that while the emotional appeal of such a miracle solution is strong, the issues are more complex than the likes of Time and others would have us believe. The reason for Vitamin A deficiencies in Asian children, they say, is an ultra-homogenous diet. Lack of varied food sources is a direct result of none other than the first "Green Revolution", and the domination of asian agriculture by cash crops. The countries where malnutrition occurs almost always have food surplusses. However, it is the quality - and variety - of food which is essential for proper nutrition, not just quantity of Vitamin A.

Moreover, they question whether the Golden Rice panacea will really work at all for starving children.

"It is a naive understanding of nutrition -- encouraged by a habit of input-output thinking -- that says you can add a substance to food and the body will automatically use it. Beta-carotene is fat-soluble and its uptake by the intestines depends upon fat or oil in the diet. White rice itself does not provide the necessary fats and oils, and poor, malnourished people usually do not have ample supplies of fat-rich or oil-rich foods."

Perhaps, they say, it is time to look at effective solutions which have already been developed and proven effective. For example, the cultivation of vegetables locally.

Such points would seem to be essential in any discussion of the promise of 'Golden Rice', but were sadly lacking in Time's cover story. Are we interested in helping people? Time magazine certainly seems to echo such sentiments. But one wonders if our help is so conditional that we only lend it when it costs us nothing and serves our interests?