From: Ingo Potrykus

I had the privilege of participating (with delay) in the Greenpeace press conference at the BioVISION conference at Lyon and my response includes also my conclusions from that public discussion with Benedict Haerlin (Genetic Engineering Coordinator, Greenpeace International) and Bruno Rebelle (Executive Director, Greenpeace France).

I am happy to acknowledge, that Greenpeace is arguing on a rational basis. I certainly prefer this to the spreading of rumors such as "that people, eating Golden Rice, will lose their hair and sexual potency".

I also acknowledge, that Greenpeace has identified a weak point in the strategy of using Golden Rice for reducing vitamin A-deficiency. I am glad, that even Greenpeace realizes, that this is the only argument left, because all the other standard arguments are, probably, no longer valid. We will know for sure of course only, when all the standard biosafety assessments have been performed. These assessments can, however, only be done in connection with field release experiments and I am, therefore, happy, that Greenpeace stated, that they will not interfere with field release and proper testing, and I understood, that also Greenpeace does not see any immediate environmental risk, which would justify to prevent field testing or to destroy test fields of Golden Rice.

I also acknowledge, that Greenpeace accepts a moral responsibility in context with the Golden Rice strategy, and that its major concern is with the proper handling and the effectiveness of the approach. And Greenpeace wants to be assured, that alternative, traditional interventions are not competed but rather complemented. I confirmed at the above mentioned press conference (and I repeat it here), that my views are identical to those of Greenpeace in this respect, and that I share Greenpeace's disgrace about the heavy PR campaign of some agbiotech companies using results from our experiments, which were exclusively done within public research institutions, and using exclusively public funding. I stressed, however, also, that I am grateful to all those companies, which donated free licenses of IPR's and TPR's to allow for the humanitarian use of Golden Rice in developing countries.

Now to the questions (raised in the Internet release), how much rice people would have to eat, and whether traditional interventions are effective enough (and the Golden Rice approach, therefore, useless). For the first question we need far more data, than we have to date. Let me, therefore, first answer the second question: all statistical data available demonstrate, that traditional interventions leave us every year with 500 000 blind children and millions of death caused by vitamin A-deficiency. This would probably not change too much with an even larger financial commitment, because many of those, suffering from the deficiency can not be reached by the interventions. IFPRI, the International Food Policy Research Institute considers curing of the deficiency by improving the content in the missing micronutrients of the basic staple foods the most sustainable approach. Therefore: we need complementation and the Golden Rice approach is, obviously, the right one, especially because it is not restricted to rice, but will also be applied to wheat, cassava, sweet potato, banana, and further basic food security crops. It also includes already measures against iron deficiency, and hopefully soon, also against deficiencies in essential amino acids.

How effective is Golden Rice? We will know a correct answer only after having data from 1) the varieties bred by the plant breeders, 2) from bioavailability studies, 3) from nutritional studies with vitamin A-deficient people (the calculations of Greenpeace, using "daily allowance" values from healthy people and the concentration of provitamin A in the first experimental prototype, give not more than vague indications).

The calculations of Greenpeace are based on RDA-values, which, as nutritionists say, are to some extent luxurious recommendations, representing a "nice to have"-supply, which also considers the multiple effects of vitamin A and especially of provitamin A. The latter, besides being a provitamin, has one additional effect per se, which is to act as a free radical scavenger, thus preventing typical diseases in developed countries, such as diseases of the cardio-vascular system and some sorts of cancer. There is consent, that the amounts required in the prevention of those severe symptoms of vitamin A deficiency we are facing in developing countries are significantly lower than given by RDA-values. However, due to the lack of adequate studies, there are evidently no reliable data currently available about those doses and this will be subject of further investigations.

We want to provide rice, which has enough provitamin A, that it has a clear beneficial effect on vitamin A-deficient people - not 100% of the "daily allowance". Experienced nutritionalists tell us that this is a realistic goal with our approach, as we are, possibly, already in the 20-40% range of the daily allowance. (Using the Greenpeace argument for 100% would mean people would have to eat between 5-2.5 times 300 g of rice, which is 0.75 to 1.5 kg, not 9. Of course, our goal is to have an effect with 300 g).

Data to answer all these questions can now be produced, because we finally have solved the IPR/TPR problems which prevented, so far, handing out of Golden Rice seeds for field experiments. We are, of course, also working on an increase in provitamin A concentration, and there are several possibilities we are testing.

We have good reasons to believe, that the approach has a fair chance to be successful. We have to be patient for a few years, until this can be verified or falsified. In our collaboration with India all starts with a careful needs assessment, in which the pros and cons of Golden Rice are compared and related to all other possible interventions, in numerous different social and economic environments, and throughout the country. The decision, whether or not Golden Rice will be developed in India, will depend upon the outcome of this study. I would consider this a very responsible exploitation of a promising technology, and I could imagine, that even Greenpeace should be able to support that.

Scientists are frequently reminded to take over responsibilities for their work. It is my believe that with the structures and collaborations being now in place we have done all that is possible to ensure the safe and cost-free introduction of Golden Rice to the benefit of people who most urgently need it. In this context I also appreciate very much that Greenpeace seems to be willing now to take over similar responsibilities for their actions as well. This has not been evident in the past in the case of Golden Rice.

Prof. Dr. Ingo Potrykus
Im Stigler
54 CH-4312
Magden, Switzerland

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **