College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

Friedman researchers' ethics questioned for feeding children genetically modified rice

By Michael Del Moro

Print this article

Published: Monday, April 6, 2009

Updated: Monday, April 6, 2009

Researchers at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy have come under fire for a study involving feeding genetically modified food to children.

In February, a group of 32 scientists from around the world sent an open letter to the school, citing code violations and inadequate preparatory research. A Wales-based group against genetically modified food coordinated the initiative.

The study, which took place last year, studied the extent to which a genetically modified form of rice, known as Golden Rice, can be used to combat vitamin A deficiency, which may be responsible for 500,000 cases of blindness per year. Golden Rice is fortified with vitamin A.

According to the 32 scientists who signed the letter, the study violated the Nuremberg Code, a set of ethical research principles for experiments conducted on humans, because it was conducted on children between the ages of six and 10 and did not take into account risks associated with excessive vitamin A in the body.

The letter was addressed to Professor Emeritus Robert Russell, who stepped down in July as director of the Jean Mayer United States Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging. He denied that Tufts had violated any ethical boundaries.

The scientists called the use of human subjects for genetically-modified feeding experiments "completely unacceptable" and said that all of the trials should be suspended until the researchers can prove that they followed medical ethical guidelines.

Tufts issued a formal response to the letter stating that the university "fully supports its researchers and their work with Golden Rice." The statement also said that the entire study followed the necessary research procedures and received approval from internal review boards in the United States and China.

Joe Cummins, a professor emeritus of genetics at the University of Western Ontario and one of the signatories of the letter, said he would not have opposed the study if animal testing had been conducted before feeding the rice to children.

"I found it rather outrageous in the sense that the children were brought into the study prior to the use of experimental animals," Cummins told the Daily. "That seems backwards to me. ... It shouldn't really be a jump directly from the crop to the children without adequate testing."

Russell said that animal testing would have been "meaningless" because animals break down beta-carotene, the precursor to vitamin A, in a much different way than humans do, making the study of the animal process inapplicable to the human case.

Humans do not directly digest vitamin A but rather produce it as a result of the metabolizing of beta-carotene. The precursor is present in many vegetables naturally, including carrots and spinach, but these foods are not widely available for some children in the developing world, which has led to the exploration of genetically modified rice.

But Cummins explained that studies have shown that certain levels of vitamin A and its precursors can be toxic for humans.

"There are well-established studies that show that even those [foods] with vitamin A precursors can cause toxicity in people who are overexposed to them," he said, citing a particular study in Japan that resulted in vitamin A poisoning in a young girl.

The levels of beta-carotene found in the singular meal of Golden Rice fed to the students during the study, however, were ten times less than those found in a carrot, according to Russell.

Cummins also decried what he called a troubling trend of researchers feeding children genetically modified foods.

With respect to the Friedman School study, he said his main contention was that proper informed consent was never obtained.

But Russell denied that assertion.

"That's a ridiculous accusation, totally untrue," Russell told the Daily. "We underwent every single approval -- both in the U.S. and in China -- that was needed."

Russell said the researchers received approval from both country's governments as well the Food and Drug Administration and got informed consent from the parents of the children who were fed the rice. If any of the children showed a reluctance to participate, they were not required to take part in the study.

According to Russell, researchers also gave the students school supplies as a form of non-monetary compensation for their participation in the study.

Researchers observed no negative side effects, he added.

Though the official results of the study will likely be released in several months, Russell said preliminary analyses have shown high levels of bioavailability -- the degree to which the rice can be used in the body -- in some of the children's blood samples. The feeding study caused no reported allergies or adverse reactions.

Russell said the accusations from the scientific community were likely attributable to a more general negative attitude toward genetically modified foods.

"In the [United States], we have a very different attitude towards genetic modification than Europe has; we are exposed to those products and have been for a long time," he said. "These are politically motivated people, and I'm sorry that they feel these extremes."

Comments

6 comments
Mary
Wed Apr 8 2009 05:36
Didn't the PR campaign for Golden Rice first kick off in 2000 with a TIME magazine cover saying it could save a million kids a year or something similar? There wasn't any mention then that it was at proof of concept stage! No wonder people are sceptical about what's going on nearly a decade later.
Brian
Wed Apr 8 2009 05:17
That's a pretty grotesque and patronising attitude from NALW, if I may say so. So the researchers involved in these human feeding trials are pure and honest scientists, motivated by high ideals, and other senior scientists from all over the world who express concerns about these studies are motivated by petty politics? Come off it -- you must do better than that. Kindly give these people credit for being scientists with real scientific and ethical concerns. The fact that these studies received approval from the internal review boards in China and the US may or may not be significant. What were these boards told about the projects, and what parameters did they work to? Were they told, for example, that Golden Rice is genetically modified? Were they told precisely which version of GR2 was fed to children? And were they told that animal testing that should have been done in advance of human trials was never actually done?
NALW
Tue Apr 7 2009 06:39
@Brian: It's not the 32 signees that are damned, is it? It's the signees who damn. But if theirs is a SCIENTIFIC concern, why is it that "a Wales-based group against genetically modified food coordinated the initiative" (and not a professional associations of clinicians or a scientific body of nutritionists)?! So from the outset this is a political initiative... The thing is just that some find something wrong whatever is done involving GMOs, not matter whether the arguments are consistent or not - like there not being enough beta-carotene in Golden Rice, then too much... So another argument of such groups is that Golden Rice is "proof" that genetic engineering is a failure and nothing but big promises because it is already years since the first proof of concept study was published and Golden Rice is still not available to help the poor - conveniently neglecting (a) that it is them throwing a wrench into the works whenever and wherever possible and (b) that a proof of concept study cannot be put into practice at once. So Golden Rice is criticized for moving ahead too slowly - and when it it moves ahead (like now through feeding trials) it is also criticized... (And obviously without feeding trials it was criticized that it would be completely uncertain whether the beta-carotene would be absorbed at all and that no money should be put into such uncertain projects...) It's rather this kind of catch-22 "arguments" that are funny, not any potentially valid concerns about human studies. Only in this case, whom do I trust, that everything is OK because "the entire study followed the necessary research procedures and received approval from internal review boards in the United States and China" or a politically motivated initiative by people who are happy to exploit ANY argument that fits their firmly-held beliefs and that have not shown to be open to rational discussions and scientific arguments?
Brian
Tue Apr 7 2009 04:17
So 32 scientists (many of them with direct experience of feeding trials) are damned as being "politically motivated" just because they express concerns about scientific ethics and about the premature use of children in feeding trials involving an inadequately described GM rice? Those are perfectly valid SCIENTIFIC concerns, and Russell and his colleagues should address them properly, as scientists, without resorting to cheap jibes. It is just not good enough for Russell to say that animal feeding trials would have been "meaningless" in this case -- such trials are absolutely essential in the case of all novel foods and drugs, not because the animals (be they rats or primates) are perfect models but because they allow identification of unintended side-effects prior to carefully phased human studies on volunteers. Russel seems to be blissfully unaware of the established protocols used by nutritional biochemists. So it is especially worrying that the institutional review boards in this case apparently allowed him and his research team to use children as guinea-pigs.
Siegfried
Mon Apr 6 2009 20:29
Further proof that so-called 'bioethicists' will complain about literally anything.
No angry letters wanted...
Mon Apr 6 2009 13:12
Funny, first Golden Rice is criticized for not being effective because it was suggested it would contain too little beta-carotene (Greenpeace illustrated this with photo a young women sitting in front of a mountain of "mock" Golden Rice that represented the amount of rice Greenpeace suggested she would need to eat to cover her RDA of vitamin A), and now Golden Rice is criticized for potentially being toxic because it contains too much of it?! (Not to mention that it is vitamin A that can be toxic if overdosed and not beta-carotene - in this context, Golden Rice actually should be safer than currently practiced supplementation with mega-doses of vitamin A...)






log out