A few things have come together at the same time in that serendipitous way that makes me value even more the pattern detecting abilities of dear old Homo sapiens. First, I blog a feature that takes quite a close look at what the Gates Foundation is trying to do with (for?) agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. Then I read a post from Marcelino over at Biopolitical arguing that the best way to help the poor may be to give them money. And finally, Karl over at The Inoculated Mind, introducing our post on high-carotene maize, says this: “Grrr, the opposition to humanitarian efforts such as golden rice sure gets my blood boiling … perfect for this weather”.
And I think, hmmmn, I feel a hypothesis creeping up on me.
Let’s go back first to Marcelino. He quotes Robin Hanson, an economist, who says:
A suspiciously large fraction of people who claim to care about the third world poor believe that the best way to help is to pursue their favorite hobby or career, and not to just give the poor money. Medical researchers seek disease cures, computer folk build laptops or subversive software, musicians hold concerts to inspire donations, policy wonks lobby governments to build schools, and so on.
That certainly seems true of the Golden Rice effort. The reasons it is unlikely to help the third world poor are many. Even the new improved version does not contain very much in the way of vitamin A precursors; you would have to eat an awful lot of it each day — probably an amount impossible to ingest in a day — to overcome the levels of malnutrition seen among the poorest children. The people who need it most are not going to be able to afford it — indeed, they are often out of the cash economy completely. And as for giving them seed and expecting them to grow it, their effort would probably be much more successful ploughed into more diversity in their fields and in their diets. Dark green leafy veg and orange fruits could make a much greater contribution than golden rice.
So the idea that Golden Rice was created, or given away, to help the third world poor does seem a little far-fetched. At the very least, the idea wasn’t thought through very carefully.
Then there’s the Gates Foundation’s support for agricultural research, which to me on the outside often seems to be suspiciously like using the previous generation’s weapons to fight the generation before that’s battles. Now, Gates wants results, and he wants impact. So, why not let two (or more) methods fight head to head?
Take two villages, or even two countries. Give one a bunch of cash to spend with scientists and others solving problems in a genuinely participatory way, trying some weird stuff (like agricultural biodiversity) along the way. For the other, put the usual advice to work in the usual ways. Give them both, say, five years. Then see which has improved most.
Simplistic, I know, but what, actually, is wrong with the idea? Smart people (not just me) are criticizing current approaches with sensible suggestions. Humour them, listen to them, do the experiment; then one way or another we’ll know. And smart people, as opposed to those who merely have an axe to grind, will change their opinion based on the results.
Something like this could have been tried with the Millennium Villages, but as far as I know it hasn’t. I wonder what would happen if you created the equivalent of a voucher system for research and development, and gave poor people in rural areas a choice of how to use their vouchers.
Hi Jeremy,
My “Grrr… blood boiling” comment was an attempt to make the golden rice / golden maize fit with the trying-to-warm-up winter theme of my tangled bank post. It was not intended to suggest that the Golden Maize or your post angered me in some way.
Alternative suggestions like golden maize are always good. It could help, although it would be a considerable challenge to generate locally-adapted varieties of golden maize and get people to grow and eat them, which isn’t to say that it can’t be done.
What I find interesting, however, is that some of the alternatives are automatically considered superior to the golden rice project – why? Because transgenic technology is being used in the golden rice project, and some people have an underlying philosophical issue that prevents them from accepting such changes. I suggest reading Lee Silver’s Challenging Nature for a look at the philosophical issues involved. Actually I’m trying to get him on my show. :)
One interesting thing to think about is that there is also a biofortified rice that has high iron content, and people don’t raise objections to that project. I find that rather interesting.
I find a few of your criticisms of the golden rice project, although well-meaning, inaccurate. You suggested that the poor people will not be able to afford it – but it will be given to them. The people working on the project are introgressing the inserted genes into local varieties so they can grow it themselves. One of the most important things we can do for developing countries is help them build their agriculture and economies so they can sustain themselves, and not make them dependent upon constant donations of money or goods. (Indeed, many of the alternatives suggested is to simply provide them vitamins, which will cost an incredible amount of money annually)
If our agricultural subsidies, for example, stop undercutting the prices of farmers in the developing world, they can make a living growing food, and not risk growing cash crops to export to buy food. Getting more diverse crops into their agricultural system is also a part of the process, and especially improving their economic situation, which is limiting their ability to grow more foods, or afford to buy them. But that is a long term process, whereas a biofortified rice can help them meet their own needs very soon and continue to do so on their own, which is important.
As for whether the new golden rice will meet the Vitamin A needs or not, let me quote the Golden Rice Project FAQ: (http://www.goldenrice.org/Content3-Why/why3_FAQ.html)
This is not enough to convince me that golden rice will ‘fix’ this deficiency problem, what we need to do is to a controlled study to determine how effective the biofortification has been. It is one of the great challenges for the biofortification strategy – proving that the changes help.
It’s certainly a topic I’m interested in, as it not only fuses my research interests in the healthful content of plant-based foods, but also the public perception and knowledge of plant genetics.
P.S. Have you heard of Micro-loans?
Isn’t Afghanistan a case of throwing money at a country with little result? The whole issue of poppy eradication with alternatives has been a billion dollar business for someone, and there’s little evidence of any result.
Is 70g of rice per day an awful lot in countries where people eat between 200-400 g per day? That’s what the new version of Golden Rice can do. Please, get an update on your facts.
BW, Jorge
Ah, but did they throw money at Afghanistan and say “Here, spend your way out of poverty”? Or did they say “Here, buckets of cash to eliminate poppies”?
Personally I think Afghanistan should be admitted to the elite ranks of countries allowed to produce opiates legally. There’s a global shortage of medicinal opiates, and Afghanistan is perfectly suited to grow the raw material. Get it out of the hands of criminal elements and I suspect everyone (except the criminals) would indeed benefit.
It is very difficult to figure out how to best help out people in other countries. If I remember the Afghanistan issue, the buckets of cash went to warlords and not where it would have made a difference.
Good point about the legalized opiates. I remember a protest sign that hit the news a few years ago, when the Bush Administration was trying to connect drugs and terrorism… the sign read: Help Support the WAr on Terror. Buy California Marijuana.
I like Jeremy’s voucher idea. It goes in the direction of placing agricultural innovation in a rights-based development paradigm. It could be one type of realization of the right to food. Throwing cash would not contribute to realizing rights. Actually a lot of money (and seed!) throwing already goes on, and not only in Afghanistan, to buy votes for instance. Indeed, gifts are rarely free. That’s why I prefer rights.
The next step would be to make such “innovation rights” part of state-led allocation scheme. Farmers can then hire experts, and a market for research products can develop. Agricultural research and extension, on the other hand, could then be privatized, except for those services that concern public goods (whose definition should be debated).
The type of innovations produced in such a system would be radically different from those produced by the current system, shaped largely by the Green Revolution experience. Agricultural diversity could benefit from a voucher-based innovation system, as the innovation monopoly of large research institutes would lessen and their role would change. The demand for innovation would originate from the diverse experiences of farmers.
Hi Karl
Thanks for stopping by and for your interesting and thoughtful comments. I’ve addressed some of your points in a new post that will go live tomorrow morning. I want to take this opportunity to address some of the others.
I understood that, and it was a good theme; in any case, I didn’t interpret it as anger at me, but at the opposition to Golden Rice as a humanitarian effort. It was that, and the Robin Hanson quote, that prompted me to ask whether these humanitarian efforts were the most effective approach.
Easier than engineering the wide diversity of rice varieties needed to cope with the diverse growing conditions across Asia, let alone the rest of the world.
I happen to think that most of the objections raised against genetically engineered foods are without substance, but given that some people do object, wouldn’t it be easier to change tack rather than attempt to fight an unwinnable battle? I know it seems like — horror — defeat. But if the goal is to help poor people, then victory consists in actually reducing vitamin A deficiency, no matter how you do it. Orange-fleshed sweet potato is doing just that.
I agree; we’ve blogged often about varietal differences in nutrient levels, not just in rice but in many other crops. Indeed, many people know that red and black rice varieties are good for anemia. I think you are right in your implication that the reason people don’t object to high iron varieties is precisely because they were not genetically engineered. And again, I ask, why not go with the flow, even though you know it is “wrong”?
I’m prepared to wait and see how many of the local rice varieties that the poorest farmers depend on successfully receive the golden genes conventionally. With education, maybe they will make contribution. And I agree that supplements are expensive. The 2004 Copenhagen Consensus nevertheless ranked dealing with malnutrition — by biofortification and supplements — the 2nd most cost effective investment in development. They didn’t say much about dietary diversity, probably because there isn’t a vast body of evidence. (Would it be too cynical to suggest that one reason there is so little evidence is that nobody, save poor malnourished people, stands to gain much from the widespread adoption of dietary diversity?) I’ll be interested to see how malnutrition and hunger fares in the 2008 Copenhagen Consensus.
Agreed 100% on the downside of agricultural subsidies.
Point taken, and extended here.
Me too! (Obviously.)
Yes. Why?