Eminent rice scientist now leads SEA centre for
agriculture
May 15, 2019
A DISTINGUISHED rice scientist
now heads the Philippine government-hosted Southeast Asian Regional Centre for
Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA).
Dr Glenn B Gregorio assumed the
top SEARCA post on May 1, 2019 for a three-year term.
For more than 50 years, SEARCA
has been strengthening capacities of institutions working in agriculture and
rural development in Southeast Asia, including Brunei Darussalam, through
graduate education and institutional development, research and development, and
knowledge management.
Dr Gregorio is also an
Academician at the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) of the
Philippines and a professor at the Institute of Crop Science of the University
of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) College of Agriculture and Food Science.
He brings with him to SEARCA not
only his expertise in plant genetics and breeding, but also his international
experience in research and administration.
While serving the International
Rice Research Institute (IRRI) for almost 30 years, Dr Gregorio has bred more
than 15 rice varieties, most of which are salt-tolerant varieties that have
greatly helped farmers in Bangladesh, India, Nigeria, and the Philippines.
ABOVE AND BELOW: The new types of
rice released in 2013 include nine salt-tolerant varieties in the Philippines,
three flood-tolerant varieties in South Asia, and six in sub-Saharan Africa;
and Dr Glenn B Gregorio
He also led efforts to develop
micronutrient-dense rice varieties to address anaemia and malnutrition in
Bangladesh, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam.
Prior to joining SEARCA, he was
also the global lead of the East-West Seed Company’s sweet corn and waxy corn
breeding programmes for South and Southeast Asia, the Latin Americas, and
Sub-Saharan Africa.
Dr Gregorio has been the
recipient of numerous awards, including Outstanding Young Scientist Award (OYS
2004) and Outstanding Publication Award given by NAST; The Outstanding Young
Men (TOYM 2004) in the field of Agriculture-Plant Breeding and Genetics; the Ho
Chi Minh Medal Award for great contribution to the cause of agriculture and
rural development in Vietnam; Ten Outstanding Youth Scientists (TOYS 1981) of
the Philippines given by the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) of the
Philippines; Honorary Scientist, Rural Development Administration (RDA), Korea;
and other awards for his outstanding research and research management
achievements.
He has authored and co-authored
at least 90 articles published in various scientific journals, chapters on rice
breeding in 14 books, and five scientific manuals and bulletins.
He mentored and supervised 20 PhD
and 27 MS graduate students and more than 40 BS students in plant breeding and
genetics at UPLB and other universities in Asia, Africa, Europe and North
America; and he continues to hone scientists and future scientists as a mentor
and teacher.
Dr Gregorio obtained his PhD in
Genetics, MS in Plant Breeding, and BS in Agriculture at UPLB. –
Text and Photos by Southeast Asian Regional Centre for Graduate Study and
Research in Agriculture (SEARCA)
Golden Rice, Part 1: The story of
a GMO crop that could save 2 billion lives
Adrian Dubock | Genetic
Literacy Project | May 15, 2019
Research was initiated in the early 1990s which led in 2000 to
the publication of the technology behind what came to be known as Golden
Rice. From the outset, the intention was to create a source of
vitamin A in the endosperm of rice, as an additional intervention for vitamin A
deficiency. Philanthropy and the public sector funded the
research. In 2001, the inventors, Professor Ingo Potrykus and Dr. (now
Professor) Peter Beyer, assigned their patents to Syngenta for commercial
exploitation as part of a transaction which obliged the company to assist the
inventors’ humanitarian
and altruistic objectives.
At the same time, the nutritional technology was donated
by its inventors for use in developing countries. The inventors
licensed a network of Asian government-owned rice research institutes to
deliver their objectives. Product development was initiated through the
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the network. The whole
network, including IRRI, worked to a common set of goals defined in licences
each institution signed with the inventors. The terms included that there would
be no charge for the nutritional technology and it would only be introduced to
publicly owned rice varieties.
This article is part one of a
four-part series on golden rice based on a book chapter Golden
Rice: To Combat Vitamin A Deficiency for Public Health. Part Two: To
Combat Vitamin A Deficiency for Public Health; Part Three: Are biofortified
crops safe for human consumption?; Part Four: Do biofortified crops make
economic sense?
Improvements were made
to the technology by Syngenta scientists. In 2005 and 2006,
pursuant to Syngenta’s legal obligations entered into with the inventors in
2001, Syngenta provided selected transformation events of the improvements to
the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board. The Humanitarian Board, via Syngenta and
IRRI, made these new versions available to the Golden Rice licensee network. In
2004 Syngenta ceased
its commercial interest in Golden Rice. From 2004 development
was again only funded by philanthropy and the public sector; the national
budgets of Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam; as
well as the US National Institutes of Health together with the Rockefeller and
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundations and USAID. Golden Rice is a not-for-profit
project: no individual, nor organization involved with its development, has any
financial interest in the outcome.
To date the Golden Rice project
has principally engaged plant scientists. Activist opposition to Golden Rice
has been led principally by non-scientists, who have been very successful in
developing a narrative about Golden Rice and GMO crops which serves the
activist’s purpose but is fundamentally
inaccurate. Further background to the development of Golden Rice,
including the political dimensions, is detailed
elsewhere.
A few years ago, at Tufts University,
USA, I gave a presentation about Golden Rice. The symposium was organized by
the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy whose strategic
aims today include ‘Reduce nutrition-related health inequities’
and ‘Promote food systems that increase agricultural sustainability while
improving human health.’ I was dismayed to learn that the anti-GMO and
anti-Golden Rice activists’ narrative was widely accepted by the
participants—all of whom were studying or working in nutrition and well aware
of nutritional inequities in public health.
Without adoption, that is,
regular growth and consumption of Golden Rice by populations in countries where
rice is the staple and VAD is problematic, Golden Rice cannot deliver any
public health and welfare benefits. Adoption requires
cooperative working by different specialists, including
medical, nutritional and public health specialists. This chapter is designed to
answer anticipated questions from such specialists, to facilitate adoption of
Golden Rice as an additional intervention for vitamin A deficiency.
Rice, diet and deficiency
Rice is the most
important staple crop: more than half of the global population eats
it every day. In some countries, 70–80% of
an individual’s calorie intake is from consumption of rice.
For storage without becoming rancid, the husk and the aleurone
layer of rice have to be removed. What remains after polishing–white rice, the
endosperm–contains small amounts of fat and is an excellent source of
carbohydrate for energy but contains no micronutrients. Yet humans require both
macronutrients (carbohydrates, proteins, fats) and micronutrients (minerals and
vitamins) for a healthy life. Like all plants, rice obtains its minerals from
the soil. Vitamins are synthesized by plants and/or animals, including humans.
Human health is best served by a
‘balanced diet’ that is varied, containing both macronutrients and
micronutrients, including animal products and, as sources of provitamin A,
coloured fruits and vegetables. Micronutrient sources are insufficiently represented
in the diets of many people in countries where rice is the staple. The reasons
often include poverty: such dietary components are
expensive compared to the cost of rice. In countries where rice
is the staple, the average consumption is 75.20 kg/capita/year. Of those
countries where micronutrient deficiencies are common, consumption
increases to 150 kg/capita/year. In such populations
micronutrient deficiencies, like poverty itself, often occur as part of an
intergenerational cycle.
For the past 15 years, 800
million people—more than 10% of the global population—are hungry every day.
These chronically hungry individuals lack
sufficient calories in their daily diet; indeed over the past 3
years, the trend is upward. Even more alarming is that 2 billion people—almost
25% of global population—are micronutrient deficient; they suffer from ‘hidden
hunger,’ with important associated morbidity
and mortality and related economic impact. Figure
1 shows that over the 20-year period 1990–2010, the rate of
reduction of chronic hunger (that is, macronutrient—carbohydrate, proteins and
fats—dietary insufficiency) has been faster than the rate of reduction for
hidden hunger (that is, dietary insufficiency of minerals and vitamins).
Dr. Matin Qaim, member of the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board and
one of the authors of the paper from which Figure
1 is extracted, has commented: ‘In the future the hidden hunger
[e.g. micronutrient deficiency] burden will be larger, [than chronic hunger –
principally carbohydrate deficiency] unless targeted efforts to reduce
micronutrient malnutrition are implemented at larger scale.’
Interventions for micronutrient
deficiencies include supplementation (with pills, syrups or capsules
containing micronutrients) and fortification (adding
micronutrients to processed food). Both interventions require some level of
manufacturing and/or distribution infrastructure.
With the creation
of Golden Rice in 1999—the first purposefully created
biofortified crop—a new term was required: ‘biofortification.’ The word was first
used in 2002 and first
definedin 2004: “biofortification” is a word coined to refer to
increasing the bioavailable micronutrient content of food crops through genetic
selection via plant breeding.’ In 2003 ‘Harvest Plus’ a not-for-profit
public-sector programme started to biofortify staple crops by conventional
plant breeding, to benefit the poor, and progress with biofortification through
conventional plant breeding was rewarded by the World
Food Prize in 2016.
The intention of biofortification
is to deliver public health benefits to populations which are micronutrient
deficient, through consumption of the staple crop including the extra nutrition
within the edible part of the crop. In this way minimal cultural change is
required to food—production, processing or consumption—systems. For the most
marginal members of the population, this biofortification approach overcomes
the inherent access, cost and non-sustainability difficulties of
supplementation and fortification. In 2017 the World Bank recommended that
biofortified staple crops should be the norm rather than the exception:
‘conventionally’ bred biofortified crops and also genetically engineered
crops—gmo crops—were both
recommended with Golden Rice specifically mentioned.
For Golden Rice to deliver
benefits, it has to be grown and consumed within target countries where VAD
remains problematic despite significant progress with other interventions,
notably vitamin A capsules, which have undoubtedly saved millions of lives and
will save more, since they were introduced (accompanied
by controversy) in the 1990s. And success or failure with Golden
Rice will directly affect future adoption also of high zinc, high iron and high
folate rice and their impact on public health for hundreds of millions of
people. All these traits, introduced to the endosperm of rice, necessitated
using GMO techniques, and all cost no more than white rice to
the grower or consumer. Eventually, as the end point of product development, it
is planned to include all these nutritional traits together in
multi-micronutrient-Golden Rice.
Adoption of Golden Rice requires public health professionals as
well as agricultural and other professionals, to work together in each country.
Any skepticism created by the past 18 years of negative activist influence will
prevent success, if not positively addressed by all involved. For billions of
people, the stakes could not be higher.
Adrian
Dubock holds a PhD from Reading University in reproductive
physiology and ecology. He is the executive secretary of the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board
The GLP featured this article
to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. The viewpoint is the
author’s own. The GLP’s goal is to stimulate constructive discourse on
challenging science issues.
As
per WaterAid’s report , seven percent of the rural po"/>
ABDUL LATIF, POORVI GAUR, RISHABH JAIN, TAMANNA RAFIQUE |
15 MAY, 2019
Traveling across the barren lands of rural Rajasthan, India, and
Sindh, Pakistan
As per WaterAid’s
report , seven percent of the rural population living in India
have no access to clean water. A report by Pakistan
Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) reveals that 44 percent of the
total population in Pakistan is living without access to clean
drinking water. In rural areas, 90 percent of the total population lacks such
access.
Traveling across the barren lands of rural Rajasthan, India, and Sindh, Pakistan further, reveals the grim crisis at hand.
Traveling across the barren lands of rural Rajasthan, India, and Sindh, Pakistan further, reveals the grim crisis at hand.
(Left: Fish-Nurseries are dry; no water is available in the
coastal areas of Badin District, Pakistan for the fish farms, Right: The
semi-arid climate of places such as Omri village, Rajasthan with poor rainfall
makes it necessary for the villagers to conserve water.)
Badin district of Sindh province, Pakistan has a population of over 1.8 million and the Karauli district of Rajasthan has a population of 82,960. People in both these areas depend mostly on groundwater for the cultivation of crops - mainly rice.
The rural population of both India and Pakistan is highly vulnerable to the extreme effects of weather and climate change.
Badin district of Sindh province, Pakistan has a population of over 1.8 million and the Karauli district of Rajasthan has a population of 82,960. People in both these areas depend mostly on groundwater for the cultivation of crops - mainly rice.
The rural population of both India and Pakistan is highly vulnerable to the extreme effects of weather and climate change.
(Sanjha Gir in Omri village, Rajasthan is a community-owned
traditional harvested rainwater storage wetland used for effectively harnessing
water resources. The water collected in the Johad is a result of only one day
of rain. This water is used for irrigating the field, drinking water by
animals, and other domestic purposes. During the dry season, when the water in
these Johad starts decreasing, the Johad itself becomes a place for cultivating
crops.)
(The few man-made ponds of Talib Khaskeli in Badin, Pakistan are
used to store water. Similar to the case of Rajasthan, India even this water is
used for cattle husbandry and other household activities.)
(Left: Young children with their mothers wash their clothes near
water storage. The very fact that the villagers are satisfied with the unclean
water to carry out household activities shows how limited they are in terms of
water availability in Badin, Pakistan. Right: A young kid carries water from a
nearby hand pump to carry out household chores in Masalpur, Rajasthan).
(Women belonging to Masalpur, Rajasthan have to travel long
distances to fetch water from nearby hand pump. Due to the initiative of
organizations like Tarun Bharat Sangh, the water available in this area has
finally become fit for drinking. The villagers are still waiting for the
government to take initiative towards the problem of water).
( Villagers across Indo-Pak are still dependent on matkas to get
their water from far away ponds and wells. Location-Hallipura,Rajasthan and
Badin,Sindh)
(Chaman Singh in a Jal-Sanrakshan meet in Masalpur,Rajasthan)
(Chaman Singh from Tarun Bharat Sangh stands beside the newly
built pokhar(man-made pond) Location-Omri,Rajasthan)
(Naseema Bibi, 64, resident of Imamwah, Badin, fills her gallon
of water from government supplied water in Shahnawaz Chowk, Badin, Pakistan).
(Left: A young kid quenches his thirst from the government
supplied water in Kachi Mola, Badin, Pakistan Right: Tarun Bharat Sangh’s
initiative of building cemented water tanks has proved to be of great use for
the villagers in Halli Pura, Rajasthan, India).
(Jagan Baai, 67, belonging to Masalpur, Rajasthan has to wait
for hours to fill her pots as the flow of the water is very less. “We have no
other option but to travel long distances to fetch water,” she says)
The problem of water scarcity looms large in rural areas of both India and Pakistan. Owing to the lack of government initiatives to address the problem, locals from various villages have had to take matters into their own hands and come up with innovative ways of conserving water.
This shows how even at the most local level, the residents are overcoming the problem of climate change and its impact on water resources.
The problem of water scarcity looms large in rural areas of both India and Pakistan. Owing to the lack of government initiatives to address the problem, locals from various villages have had to take matters into their own hands and come up with innovative ways of conserving water.
This shows how even at the most local level, the residents are overcoming the problem of climate change and its impact on water resources.