Hubbry Logo
Genetically modified riceGenetically modified riceMain
Open search
Genetically modified rice
Community hub
Genetically modified rice
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Genetically modified rice
Genetically modified rice
Genetically modified rice
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Rice plants being used for genetic modification

Genetically modified rice are rice strains that have been genetically modified (also called genetic engineering). Rice plants have been modified to increase micronutrients such as vitamin A, accelerate photosynthesis, tolerate herbicides, resist pests, increase grain size, generate nutrients, flavors or produce human proteins.[1]

The natural movement of genes across species, often called horizontal gene transfer or lateral gene transfer, can also occur with rice through gene transfer mediated by natural vectors. Transgenic events between rice and Setaria millet have been identified.[2] The cultivation and use of genetically modified varieties of rice remains controversial and is not approved in some countries.

History

[edit]

In 2000, the first two GM rice varieties both with herbicide-resistance, called LLRice60 and LLRice62, were approved in the United States. Later, these and other types of herbicide-resistant GM rice were approved in Canada, Australia, Mexico and Colombia. However, none of these approvals triggered commercialization.[3] Reuters reported in 2009 that China had granted biosafety approval to GM rice with pest resistance,[4] but that strain was not commercialized. As of December 2012 GM rice was not widely available for production or consumption.[5] Research suggests that since rice is a staple crop across the world, improvements have potential to alleviate hunger, malnutrition and poverty.[6]

In 2018, Canada and the United States approved genetically modified golden rice for cultivation, with Health Canada and the US Food and Drug Administration declaring it safe for consumption.[7]

As of 2021, salt-tolerant "seawater" rice in China had been planted on 400,000 ha (990,000 acres) in soils with up to 4 grams of salt per kilogram, with yields averaging 8.8 tons per hectare, according to Qingdao Saline-Alkali Tolerant Rice Research and Development Center.[8]

Traits

[edit]

Herbicide resistance

[edit]

In 2000–2001 Monsanto researched adding glyphosate tolerance to rice but did not attempt to bring a variety to market.[9][10] Bayer's line of herbicide resistant rice is known as LibertyLink.[11] LibertyLink rice is resistant to glufosinate (the active chemical in Liberty herbicide).[10] Bayer CropScience is attempting to get their latest variety (LL62) approved for use in the EU. The strain is approved for use in the US but is not in large-scale use. Clearfield rice was bred by selection from variations created in environments known to cause accelerated rates of mutations.[12] This variety tolerates imidazole herbicides.[13] It was bred by traditional breeding techniques that are not considered to be genetic engineering.[12][13] Clearfield is also crossbred with higher yielding varieties to produce an overall hardier plant.[12]

Nutritional value

[edit]
Main article: Golden Rice

Golden rice with higher concentrations of Vitamin A was originally created by Ingo Potrykus and his team. This genetically modified rice is capable of producing beta-carotene in the endosperm (grain) which is a precursor for vitamin A. Syngenta was involved in the early development of Golden Rice and held some intellectual property[14] that it donated to non-profit groups including the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) to develop on a non-profit basis.[15] The scientific details of the rice were first published in Science Magazine in 2000.[16]

Golden Rice grains (right) compared to regular rice grains (left)
Golden Rice plants being grown in greenhouse

The World Health Organization stated that iron deficiency affects 30% of the world's population. Research scientists from the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics (ACPFG) and IRRI to are working to increase the amount of iron in rice.[17] They have modified three populations of rice by over expressing the genes OsNAS1, OsNAS2 or OsNAS3. The research team found that nicotianamine, iron, and zinc concentration levels increased in all three populations relative to controls.[18]

Pest resistance

[edit]

Bt rice

[edit]

BT rice is modified to express the cryIA(b) gene of the Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium.[19] The gene confers resistance to a variety of pests including the rice borer through the production of endotoxins. The Chinese Government is doing field trials on insect resistant cultivars. The benefit of BT rice is that farmers do not need to spray their crops with pesticides to control fungal, viral, or bacterial pathogens. Conventional rice is sprayed three to four times per growing season to control pests.[20] Other benefits include increased yield and revenue from crop cultivation. China approved the rice for large-scale use as of 2009.[21] Resistance management is needed in southeast Asia to prevent loss of efficacy of Bt in rice.[22][23]

Allergy resistance

[edit]

Researchers in Japan are attempting to develop hypoallergenic rice cultivars. Researchers are trying to repress the formation of allergen AS-Albumin.[20]

Japanese researchers tested genetically modified rice on macaque monkeys that would prevent allergies to cedar pollen, which causes hay fever. Cedar allergy symptoms include itchy eyes, sneezing and other serious allergic reactions. The modified rice contains seven proteins from cedar pollen (7Crp) to block these symptoms by inducing oral tolerance.[24] Takaiwa is conducting human clinical trials with this 7Crp protein as an oral vaccine.[25]

C4 photosynthesis

[edit]

In 2015 a consortium of 12 laboratories in eight countries developed a cultivar that displayed a rudimentary form of C4 photosynthesis (C4P) to boost growth by capturing carbon dioxide and concentrated it in specialized leaf cells. C4P is the reason corn and sugarcane grow so rapidly. Engineering C4 photosynthesis into rice could increase yields per hectare by roughly 50 percent. The current cultivar still relies primarily on C3 photosynthesis. To get them to completely adopt C4P, the plants must produce specialized cells in a precise arrangement: one set of cells to capture the carbon dioxide and to surround other cells that concentrate it. Some (possibly dozens of) genes involved in producing these cells remain to be identified. Other C3P crops that could exploit such knowledge include wheat, potatoes, tomatoes, apples and soybeans.[26]

Production of recombinant proteins

[edit]

Human serum albumin (HSA) is a blood protein in human blood plasma. It is used to treat severe burns, liver cirrhosis and hemorrhagic shock. It is also used in donated blood and is in short supply around the world. In China, scientists modified brown rice as a cost-effective way to produce HSA protein. The Chinese scientists put recombinant HSA protein promoters into 25 rice plants using Agrobacterium. Out of the 25 plants, nine contained the HSA protein. The genetically modified brown rice makes the same amino acid sequence as HSA. They called this protein Oryza sativa recombinant HSA (OsrHSA). The modified rice was transparent. OsrHSA was soon sold to replace cow albumin for growing cells.[27] Clinical trials were started in China in 2017, and in the US in 2019.[28] The same Oryzogen company makes other recombinant human proteins from rice.

Ventria Bioscience uses a proprietary system known as Express Tec for producing recombinant human proteins in rice grains.[29] Their most notable variety produces human Lactoferrin and Lysozyme.[29] These two proteins are produced naturally in human breast milk and are used globally in infant formula and rehydration products.[29][30]

Submergence resistance

[edit]

While rice grows in water, it cannot survive floods which in 2010 led to loss of 4 millions of tons of rice in India and Bangladesh alone. Addition of a single gene Sub1A[31] was sufficient to allow rice to survive underwater for up to two weeks. The gene is in the public domain.[32]

Salt tolerance

[edit]

Salt-tolerant rice has been successfully cultivated in soils containing 4 grams of salt per kilogram. This involved tweaking the interaction of two genes.[33]

Experimental

[edit]

Herbicide-induced oxidative stress has been experimentally mitigated in vivo in a high-melatonin transgenic model.[34][35] Overexpression of oxalate oxidase increased in vivo resistance to Rhizoctonia solani.[36]

[edit]

United States

[edit]

In the summer of 2006, the USDA detected trace amounts of LibertyLink variety 601 in rice shipments ready for export. LL601 was not approved for food purposes.[37] Bayer applied for deregulation of LL601 in late July and the USDA granted deregulation status in November 2006.[38] The contamination led to a dramatic dip in rice futures markets with losses to farmers who grew rice for export.[37] Approximately 30 percent of rice production and 11,000 farmers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas were affected.[37] In June 2011 Bayer agreed to pay $750 million in damages and lost harvests.[37] Japan and Russia suspended rice imports from the U.S., while Mexico and the European Union refused to impose strict testing. The contamination occurred between 1998 and 2001.[39] The exact cause of the contamination was not discovered.

China

[edit]

The Chinese government does not issue commercial usage licenses for genetically modified rice. All GM rice is approved for research only. Pu, et al., stated that rice engineered to produce human blood protein (HSA) requires a lot of modified rice to be grown. This raised environmental safety concerns about gene flow. They argued that this would not be a problem because rice is a self-pollinating crop, and their test showed less than 1% of the modified gene transferred in pollination.[27] Another study suggested that insect-mediated gene flow may be higher than previously assumed.[40]

General and cited sources

[edit]
  • Boyle, Rebecca (1 November 2011). "Rice Is Genetically Modified to Produce Human Blood Protein". POPSCI.com. Popular Science. Retrieved 8 April 2012.
  • Weller, Keith (23 May 2006). "Rice Collection Identifies Valuable Traits". USDA.gov. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved 28 April 2012.
  • Grusak, Michael A (28 April 2010). "ARS Photo Library". USDA.gov. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  • Sharma, Arun K.; Sharma, Manoj K. (2009). "Plants as Bioreactors: Recent Developments and Emerging Opportunities". Biotechnology Advances. 27 (6): 811–832. doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2009.06.004. PMC 7125752. PMID 19576278.
  • Diao, X; Freeling, M; Lisch, D (2006). "Horizontal Transfer of a Plant Transposon". PLOS Biology. 4 (1): e5. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040005. PMC 1310652. PMID 16336045. Open access icon
  • Gray, Nathan (2011). "GM Rice Research May Give Hope to Micronutrient Deficient (September/October, 2011)". NutraIngredients.com. Retrieved 8 April 2012.

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ Sharma & Sharma 2009.
  2. ^ Diao, Freeling & Lisch 2006.
  3. ^ Fraiture, M.-A.; Roosens, N.; Taverniers, I.; De Loose, M.; Deforce, D.; Herman, P. (June 2016). "Biotech rice: Current developments and future detection challenges in food and feed chain". Trends in Food Science & Technology. 52: 66–79. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2016.03.011. hdl:1854/LU-7105457.
  4. ^ "China gives safety approval to GMO rice". Reuters. 27 November 2009.
  5. ^ The state of play: genetically modified rice, Rice Today, Jan-Mar 2012.
  6. ^ Demont, M.; Stein, A. J. (2013). "Global value of GM rice: A review of expected agronomic and consumer benefits". New Biotechnology. 30 (5): 426–436. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2013.04.004. PMID 23628812. S2CID 7434257.
  7. ^ Coghlan, Andy (30 May 2018). "GM golden rice gets approval from food regulators in the US". New Scientist. Retrieved 7 June 2018.
  8. ^ Micu, Alexandru (14 October 2022). "A significant rice in productivity: China's output of GMO "seawater rice" doubled over the last 2 years". ZME Science. Retrieved 31 October 2022.
  9. ^ Baldwin, Ford (2 February 2009). "Rice Weed Control Technology". Delta Farm Press.
  10. ^ a b Williams, Bill J.; Strahan, Ron; Webster, Eric P. (June–July 2002). "Weed Management Systems for Clearfield Rice". Louisiana Agriculture.
  11. ^ Gunther, Marc (27 June 2007). "Genetically Engineered Rice Gets into the U.S. Food Supply". CNNMoney. Retrieved 11 November 2011.
  12. ^ a b c Croughan, Tim (2003). "Clearfield Rice: It's Not a GMO". LSU AgCenter. Retrieved 25 November 2020.
  13. ^ a b "E0019 Clearfield® Rice" (PDF). Mississippi State University Extension. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 November 2020.
  14. ^ Christensen, Jon (21 November 2000). "SCIENTIST AT WORK: Ingo Potrykus; Golden Rice in a Grenade-Proof Greenhouse". New York Times.
  15. ^ Golden Rice and Intellectual Property: Public-Private Partnership and Humanitarian Use, Golden Rice Humanitarian Board website.
  16. ^ Ye, X; Al-Babili, S; Klöti, A; et al. (January 2000). "Engineering the provitamin A (beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm". Science. 287 (5451): 303–5. Bibcode:2000Sci...287..303Y. doi:10.1126/science.287.5451.303. PMID 10634784. S2CID 40258379.
  17. ^ Iron biofortification Archived 6 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine, ACPFG website.
  18. ^ Gray 2011.
  19. ^ Fujimoto, H.; Itoh, K.; Yamamoto, M.; Kyozuka, J.; Shimamoto, K. (1993). "Insect Resistant Rice Generated by Introduction of a Modified δ-endotoxin Gene of Bacillus thuringiensis". Bio/Technology. 11 (10): 1151–1155. doi:10.1038/nbt1093-1151. PMID 7764096. S2CID 21129991.
  20. ^ a b "GMO Compass: Rice". Archived from the original on 9 March 2012. Retrieved 5 March 2012.
  21. ^ James, C. "China approves biotech rice and maize in landmark decision".
  22. ^ Cohen MB, Romena AM, Aguda, RM, Dirie A, Gould FL (4–8 November 1996). Evaluation of resistance management strategies for Bt rice. Pacific Rim Conference on the Biotechnology of Bacillus thuringiensis and its Impact on the Environment, Chiang Mai, Thailand (2nd ed.). Bangkok: Entomological and Zoological Association of Thailand, Kasetsart University, Mahidol University, National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, National Research Council of Thailand, Department of Agriculture of Thailand (published 1998). pp. 496–505.
  23. ^ Matteson, P. C. (2000). "Insect Pest Management in Tropical Asian Irrigated Rice". Annual Review of Entomology. 45 (1). Annual Reviews: 549–574. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.549. ISSN 0066-4170. PMID 10761589.
  24. ^ Coghlan, Andy (3 July 2009). "GM Rice Makes Allergies Easy to Stomach". NEWSCIENTIST.com. Reed Business Information Ltd. Retrieved 29 April 2012.
  25. ^ Takaishi, S; Saito, S; Kamada, M; Otori, N; Kojima, H; Ozawa, K; Takaiwa, F (2019). "Evaluation of basophil activation caused by transgenic rice seeds expressing whole T cell epitopes of the major Japanese cedar pollen allergens". Clinical and Translational Allergy. 9: 11. doi:10.1186/s13601-019-0249-8. PMC 6381677. PMID 30828418.
  26. ^ Bullis, Kevin (December 2015). "Speeding Plant Growth to Feed the World | MIT Technology Review". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 29 January 2016. Retrieved 30 December 2015.
  27. ^ a b Boyle 2011.
  28. ^ Liu, Kun; Zhou, Lihua (13 August 2019). "FDA approves new biotechnology". China Daily. Wuhan. Retrieved 2 February 2020.
  29. ^ a b c "Ventria Bioscience: improving global accessibility of life-saving recombinant medicines and other biotechnology products". Ventria.com. Retrieved 12 November 2012.
  30. ^ "Kansas Welcomes Altered Rice Crops from Ventria". Sacramento Business Journal. 27 November 2011.
  31. ^ "Sub1A". funricegenes.github.io. Retrieved 16 March 2020.
  32. ^ Brand, Stewart (2010). Whole Earth Discipline. Penguin Books. ISBN 9780143118282.
  33. ^ Micu, Alexandru (14 October 2022). "A significant rice in productivity: China's output of GMO "seawater rice" doubled over the last 2 years". ZME Science. Retrieved 31 October 2022.
  34. ^ Park, Sangkyu; Lee, Da-Eun; Jang, Hyunki; Byeon, Yeong; Kim, Young-Soon; Back, Kyoungwhan (1 August 2012). "Melatonin-rich transgenic rice plants exhibit resistance to herbicide-induced oxidative stress". Journal of Pineal Research. 54 (3). Wiley: 258–263. doi:10.1111/j.1600-079x.2012.01029.x. ISSN 0742-3098. PMID 22856683. S2CID 6291664.
  35. ^ Arnao, Marino B.; Hernández-Ruiz, Josefa (2014). "Melatonin: plant growth regulator and/or biostimulator during stress?". Trends in Plant Science. 19 (12). Elsevier: 789–797. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2014.07.006. ISSN 1360-1385. PMID 25156541. S2CID 38637203.
  36. ^ Molla, Kutubuddin A.; Karmakar, Subhasis; Chanda, Palas K.; Ghosh, Satabdi; Sarkar, Sailendra N.; Datta, Swapan K.; Datta, Karabi (1 July 2013). "Rice oxalate oxidase gene driven by green tissue-specific promoter increases tolerance to sheath blight pathogen (Rhizoctonia solani) in transgenic rice". Molecular Plant Pathology. 14 (9). Wiley: 910–922. doi:10.1111/mpp.12055. ISSN 1464-6722. PMC 6638683. PMID 23809026. S2CID 38358538.
  37. ^ a b c d Bloomberg News (1 July 2011). "Bayer Settles With Farmers Over Modified Rice Seeds". New York Times.
  38. ^ "USDA DEREGULATES LINE OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED RICE". USDA.gov. USDA. 24 November 2006. Archived from the original on 5 October 2011. Retrieved 11 November 2011.
  39. ^ Berry, Ian (1 July 2011). "Bayer to Pay Rice Farmers for Gene Contamination". WSJ.com. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 8 March 2012.
  40. ^ Pu; Shi; Wu; Gao; Liu; Ren; Yang; Tang; Ye; Shen; He; Yang; Bu; Zhang; Song; Xu; Strand; Chen (2014). "Flower-visiting insects and their potential impact on transgene flow in rice". Journal of Applied Ecology. 51 (5): 1357–1365. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12299.
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Genetically modified rice

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Genetically modified rice comprises varieties of Oryza sativa, the primary cultivated rice species, engineered via recombinant DNA technology to express targeted traits such as pest resistance, herbicide tolerance, or elevated nutritional profiles not achievable through conventional breeding. The initial transgenic rice plants emerged in 1988 through protoplast transformation techniques, marking early advancements in cereal crop biotechnology. Among the most prominent developments is Golden Rice, created in the 1990s by inserting genes for phytoene synthase from maize and carotene desaturase from bacteria to enable β-carotene biosynthesis, thereby providing provitamin A to combat widespread vitamin A deficiency (VAD) in rice-reliant regions of Asia and Africa. Scientific assessments affirm the compositional equivalence and safety of genetically modified rice to non-engineered counterparts, with peer-reviewed studies demonstrating no adverse health effects in animal models or human bioavailability trials for from . Deployments like insect-resistant Bt rice have reduced pesticide applications and boosted yields in field trials, while heat-tolerant variants have shown up to 20% higher grain output under stress conditions. Despite empirical evidence of benefits, genetically modified rice has encountered regulatory delays and opposition, primarily from activist groups citing unsubstantiated environmental or health risks, impeding dissemination of despite approvals in select countries and projections that its adoption could avert hundreds of thousands of VAD-related child deaths annually. These hurdles underscore a disconnect between rigorous data—showing no increased allergenicity, , or unintended ecological impacts—and public or policy perceptions influenced by non-scientific narratives.

History

Early research and development (1980s–2000)

The initial efforts to genetically modify rice focused on developing reliable transformation protocols for this monocotyledonous crop, which proved challenging compared to dicots due to recalcitrance in tissue culture and regeneration. In the mid-1980s, researchers began experimenting with protoplast isolation and direct DNA uptake methods, laying the groundwork for stable gene integration. By 1988, the first fertile transgenic rice plants were regenerated via electroporation- or polyethylene glycol-mediated protoplast transformation, incorporating selectable marker genes that conferred resistance to antibiotics or herbicides to facilitate selection of transformed cells. During the 1990s, these techniques enabled the targeting of agronomic traits, particularly insect resistance. In 1993, Japanese researchers successfully introduced a modified cryIA(b) δ-endotoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis () into rice protoplasts, yielding transgenic plants that expressed the protein and exhibited mortality against striped stem borer larvae in assays, marking an early for pest-resistant varieties. Similar Bt constructs were pursued in and elsewhere, with lab and contained field tests confirming gene stability and efficacy against lepidopteran pests, though expression levels varied and required optimization. Parallel work addressed nutritional deficiencies prevalent in rice-dependent populations. In the late 1990s, a multinational team led by Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer developed the first Golden Rice prototypes by integrating two transgenes: the phytoene synthase (psy) gene from daffodil (Narcissus pseudonarcissus) and the bacterial phytoene desaturase (crtI) from Erwinia uredovora, enabling de novo beta-carotene biosynthesis in the endosperm. These proof-of-concept plants, achieved in 1999 and verified in 2000, produced up to 1.6 μg/g of beta-carotene per gram of dry endosperm, a modest but pioneering step toward combating vitamin A deficiency without altering staple consumption patterns. Early evaluations confirmed the pathway's functionality through HPLC analysis of carotenoid accumulation, though yields were later enhanced in subsequent iterations.

Key milestones and approvals (2000–present)

In 2000, the United States approved the first genetically modified rice varieties, LLRice60 and LLRice62, engineered for herbicide resistance through the insertion of the bar gene from Streptomyces hygroscopicus. These approvals allowed for their use as food and feed, marking the initial regulatory acceptance of transgenic rice in a major market, though commercial cultivation remained limited due to market and regulatory factors. China's Ministry of Agriculture issued biosafety certificates in October 2009 for two insect-resistant Bt rice varieties, Cry1Ab/Cry1Ac-expressing Huahui No. 1 and Bt Shanyou 63, developed by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Hubei Academy of Agricultural Sciences, respectively. These certificates also covered herbicide-tolerant rice lines incorporating the bar gene. Despite empirical field trials demonstrating yield benefits and reduced pesticide use, commercialization was postponed beyond the certificates' 2014 expiration due to public opposition and policy caution, resulting in no widespread planting. Experimental cultivation continued under controlled conditions into the 2020s amid food security imperatives. Regulatory progress for , a beta-carotene-biofortified variety developed by the (IRRI), accelerated in the late 2010s. and approved it for food use in 2017, followed by in 2018 and the (FDA) in May 2018, which determined the GR2E event posed no risks beyond conventional rice based on compositional analysis. The granted a biosafety permit for commercial propagation in 2021, enabling limited planting. However, in April 2024, the Philippine Court of Appeals revoked this permit, citing unresolved safety uncertainties despite prior regulatory reviews, effectively halting cultivation. China maintained biosafety certificates for environmental release of select GM rice varieties into the 2020s but deferred full commercialization, prioritizing imports and trials for traits like pest resistance and tolerance amid national grain self-sufficiency goals. In , a shift toward occurred with the May 2025 release of DRR Rice 100 (Kamla), a CRISPR-Cas9-edited variety from the exhibiting 25% higher yield and without foreign DNA integration, alongside Pusa DST Rice 1 for resilience. These approvals reflect regulatory adaptation to precise editing techniques, bypassing transgenic hurdles while enhancing agronomic performance under abiotic stresses.

Genetic Engineering Techniques

Transgenic methods

Transgenic methods for rice involve the insertion of foreign DNA (transgenes) into the genome to confer novel traits, primarily through two established techniques: tumefaciens-mediated transformation and particle bombardment (biolistics). In -mediated transformation, the bacterium's (T-DNA) region from a binary vector is mobilized into rice cells, typically using embryogenic calli derived from mature seeds or immature embryos as explants; this method favors integration of single or low-copy transgenes, reducing silencing risks compared to physical methods. Particle bombardment, alternatively, propels DNA-coated or microparticles into target tissues using a , enabling direct without biological vectors, though it often results in higher transgene copy numbers. The cassette typically includes a promoter for tissue-specific or constitutive expression (e.g., CaMV 35S or ubiquitin promoters), the coding sequence of interest (such as Bt Cry genes for demonstration of integration), a terminator for transcription termination (e.g., NOS or 35S terminators), and a gene like hygromycin phosphotransferase (hpt) or neomycin phosphotransferase (nptII) conferring resistance to antibiotics such as hygromycin or kanamycin. s enable identification of transformed cells by growth on selective media, with hygromycin-based systems predominant in rice protocols due to their efficacy in callus selection. Following transformation, rice calli are regenerated into plants via on hormone-supplemented media, with transformation efficiencies reported at 20-60% for optimized protocols in japonica varieties, though lower (5-20%) in recalcitrant indica types without genotype-specific refinements. Stability is assessed through molecular analyses (e.g., Southern blotting for copy number, PCR for presence) and testing across T1-T3 generations, confirming Mendelian segregation and minimal unintended mutations, as yields more predictable integration sites than bombardment. These methods have enabled stable transgenic lines since the , with ongoing refinements focusing on marker-free systems to excise selectable genes post-selection via .

Genome editing approaches

Genome editing in rice employs site-specific nucleases, such as CRISPR-Cas9, to introduce precise modifications like knockouts or small insertions/deletions, often without incorporating foreign DNA, distinguishing it from transgenic methods that rely on random insertion of external genes. This approach, first demonstrated in rice protoplasts in 2013, enables targeted at endogenous loci, reducing the risk of unintended genomic disruptions compared to the positional variability in transgene integration. Advanced variants, including high-fidelity Cas9 enzymes, further minimize off-target effects, with editing efficiencies exceeding 80% in some rice cultivars for multiplex targeting of multiple sites simultaneously. For disease resistance, CRISPR-Cas9 has been used to knock out susceptibility genes, such as those encoding SWEET transporters vulnerable to bacterial blight (Xanthomonas oryzae), yielding mutants with up to 100% resistance in field trials without altering agronomic traits. Similarly, editing promoter regions or transcription factors like ERF922 has enhanced rice blast resistance by disrupting pathogen-inducible promoters, with triple mutants showing significantly reduced lesion sizes under controlled inoculations. These edits mimic natural allelic variations, avoiding the stable foreign DNA that triggers stringent transgenic oversight in many jurisdictions. In abiotic stress tolerance, SDN-1 (site-directed nuclease 1) editing of the DST gene, which encodes a zinc finger transcription factor regulating stomatal closure, has produced varieties with improved drought and salinity endurance. India's Pusa DST Rice 1, derived from the Maruteru 1010 cultivar and released in May 2025 by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, features DST knockouts via CRISPR-Cas9, boosting yields by 9.66% to 30.4% in saline-alkaline soils and enabling survival under water deficits equivalent to 20% field capacity. This non-transgenic outcome circumvents certain genetically modified organism regulations, as no heterologous sequences persist post-editing. Compared to transgenic rice, genome editing offers superior precision through homology-directed repair or base editing for single-nucleotide changes, contrasting with the 10-20% off-target integration risks in Agrobacterium-mediated transgenesis. Regulatory frameworks in regions like the United States and India treat SDN-1 products akin to conventionally bred crops if free of transgenes, expediting approvals and lowering development costs by up to 50% relative to full transgenic dossiers. However, persistent challenges include verifying absence of residual editing components and ensuring long-term stability across generations.

Specific Traits and Modifications

Insect and pest resistance

Genetically modified rice varieties engineered for insect and pest resistance primarily incorporate genes from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that encode Cry proteins, such as Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac, and Cry2A, which produce insecticidal toxins targeting lepidopteran pests including the striped stem borer (Chilo suppressalis) and rice leaf folder (Cnaphalocrocis medinalis). These transgenic lines disrupt the pests' midgut epithelium upon ingestion, leading to mortality and reduced plant damage. In China, where rice stem borers cause annual losses exceeding 10% of production, Bt rice development has focused on these traits since the 1990s, with multiple lines demonstrating high expression levels of Cry proteins in field conditions. Field trials in have confirmed the efficacy of Bt rice against target pests. For instance, Bt lines like Shanyou 63 expressing Cry1Ab/1Ac have shown yield increases of 60–65% compared to non-Bt rice under natural infestation without insecticide applications, attributable to minimized stem borer and leaf folder damage. Most Bt rice events developed in provide effective control of major lepidopteran pests, with and field data indicating reduced larval survival and plant injury rates. Adoption in experimental plots has correlated with 50–60% fewer pesticide sprayings over two-year studies in , lowering use while maintaining yields. Long-term cultivation studies further support the stability and environmental profile of Bt rice for pest resistance. A 2017 analysis of Bt rice variety Kefeng-6, grown continuously for multiple seasons, found no accumulation of Bt proteins in and no significant alterations to microbial functioning or carbon cycling processes, indicating minimal persistence of toxins post-harvest. These findings align with broader assessments showing that Bt rice residues decompose without adversely affecting composition or activity over extended periods.

Herbicide tolerance

Herbicide-tolerant genetically modified rice varieties are engineered to withstand specific broad-spectrum herbicides, facilitating effective post-emergence weed control while preserving crop vigor. Tolerance to is commonly conferred by the bar or pat genes, sourced from such as , which encode phosphinothricin-N-acetyltransferase enzymes that acetylate and thereby detoxify the herbicide's active ingredient. These transgenes, first introduced into rice via Agrobacterium-mediated transformation as early as 1996, allow farmers to apply glufosinate for controlling diverse weeds, including grasses and broadleaves, without selective crop damage. Glyphosate resistance in rice is typically achieved through overexpression or mutation of the endogenous or bacterial EPSPS gene, which encodes 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase, a key in the targeted by . Mutant variants, such as those with T173I and P177S substitutions (TIPS), exhibit reduced glyphosate sensitivity due to altered binding while retaining sufficient catalytic activity for plant metabolism; field evaluations of rice lines overexpressing these variants confirmed tolerance levels enabling up to 1.5-2 times the standard glyphosate application rates. Similarly, naturally evolved EPSPS alleles from glyphosate-resistant weeds like have been transferred to rice, yielding stable resistance in transgenic plants. In regions with intense weed pressure, such as southern , field trials of herbicide-tolerant rice hybrids have shown improved weed management outcomes, with reductions in biomass correlating to higher grain yields through minimized competition for resources; pre-commercialization assessments reported net productivity gains from integrated herbicide use alongside reduced manual labor for weeding. This agronomic utility extends to conservation practices, where tolerance enables no-till or minimum- systems by substituting mechanical disturbance with chemical control, thereby curbing rates that can exceed 10-20 tons per hectare annually in conventional fields. In , economic modeling of such approaches in production highlights cost savings from lower inputs and enhanced weed suppression of resistant species like spp., though commercial deployment of GM herbicide-tolerant awaits broader regulatory alignment.

Nutritional biofortification

Nutritional of genetically modified rice focuses on enhancing content, particularly provitamin A , to address widespread deficiencies in staple-dependent populations. represents a primary example, engineered to synthesize beta-carotene in the , a tissue typically lacking this precursor to . The GR2E event, developed in 2005, expresses the maize phytoene synthase (psy1) gene and the bacterial phytoene desaturase (crtI) gene from ananatis, achieving beta-carotene levels of 20–35 μg/g in milled grain under field conditions. These concentrations provide sufficient bioavailable beta-carotene to fulfill a significant portion of the estimated average requirement (EAR) for in preschool children from typical daily rice consumption. Clinical studies show that consuming cooked elevates serum equivalently to pure beta-carotene supplements, with one cup (approximately 100–150 g cooked) delivering 30–50% of the EAR for children aged 6–59 months. Compositional analyses from multi-location field trials indicate that Golden Rice maintains nutritional equivalence to non-genetically modified rice in macronutrients, minerals, and other vitamins, both raw and after cooking, with beta-carotene stability preserved despite color changes in cooked grain. impacts approximately 190 million preschool-aged children worldwide, primarily in and , contributing to immune impairment and 250,000–500,000 annual cases of preventable blindness. Deployment of has faced over 20 years of delays since its initial prototype, attributed to regulatory hurdles and organized opposition from anti-biotechnology groups rather than unresolved safety issues, correlating with an estimated 1–2 million excess blindness cases among children in affected regions during this period.

Abiotic stress tolerance

Genetically modified rice varieties have been engineered to enhance tolerance to abiotic stresses such as flooding, , and suboptimal photosynthetic conditions, primarily through targeted introductions that modulate physiological responses like quiescence under submergence or in saline environments. These modifications address limitations in conventional breeding by enabling precise overexpression or editing of stress-responsive s, potentially expanding cultivable land in flood-prone or salinized regions. A prominent example is the engineering of flood tolerance via the Sub1A gene, which encodes an ethylene-responsive factor that promotes underwater quiescence, reducing energy consumption and elongation to preserve carbohydrates. Overexpression of Sub1A in transgenic rice confers survival during prolonged submergence, with plants enduring up to 14–17 days of complete flooding compared to 4 days for non-tolerant varieties, as demonstrated in early experiments. This trait has been validated in field trials, where Sub1-enhanced lines maintain yield stability under conditions prevalent in rainfed lowland systems. For salinity tolerance, overexpression of the vacuolar Na⁺/H⁺ antiporter gene OsNHX1 sequesters excess sodium ions into vacuoles, mitigating cytoplasmic toxicity and maintaining cellular turgor in salt-stressed plants. Transgenic expressing OsNHX1 exhibits improved growth and survival under high (e.g., 150–200 mM NaCl), with reduced Na⁺ accumulation in shoots and enhanced K⁺/Na⁺ selectivity, as shown in cellular and whole-plant studies. Such modifications are particularly relevant given that approximately 20% of global irrigated land is affected by , limiting productivity in coastal and arid zones. Efforts to engineer C4 photosynthesis into rice, a C3 crop, aim to boost and resilience to high temperatures, , and low CO₂ availability by introducing bundle sheath and CO₂-concentrating mechanisms from C4 species like . The international C4 Rice Project has achieved partial pathway installation, including NADP-malic subtypes, yielding experimental lines with 20–50% potential gains in light-use efficiency and /nitrogen economy under stress, though full integration remains in progress as of the . Recent genome-editing advances, such as altering vein density for Kranz precursors, mark key milestones toward climate-resilient varieties.

Other specialized traits

Researchers have developed transgenic rice lines using (RNAi) to suppress expression of major allergenic proteins, including 33 kDa, 26 kDa, and 14-16 kDa proteins, which are implicated in rice allergies. In one study, these modifications reduced the content of the targeted to nearly undetectable levels in mature seeds, as confirmed by immunoblot analysis, without altering overall seed morphology or yield. Further advancements involved crossing RNAi lines targeting high-molecular-weight (HMW) allergens, such as 60 kDa and 52 kDa proteins, with lines suppressing major , resulting in substantial reductions across multiple allergen classes, verified through and digestibility assays showing decreased IgE-binding potential. Rice has also been engineered as a for producing pharmaceutical proteins, particularly for oral vaccines, leveraging its seed storage capacity for stable, scalable expression. A prominent example is MucoRice-CTB, a transgenic expressing a modified B subunit (CTB) under an endosperm-specific promoter, achieving accumulation levels of approximately 2-10% of total seed soluble protein, which enables cost-effective production without . Phase I clinical trials in 2021 demonstrated the safety of powdered MucoRice-CTB as an oral , eliciting mucosal immune responses comparable to traditional injectables while avoiding cold-chain requirements. These applications highlight rice's utility in molecular for antigens and antibodies, with protein yields enhanced by targeting deposition in protein bodies or vacuoles for protection against degradation.

Safety and Scientific Evaluation

Human health assessments

The ' 2016 report on genetically engineered crops concluded that there is no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between current GE crops and conventionally bred crops, based on comprehensive reviews of compositional analyses, , and allergenicity data. This assessment included rice varieties, finding no verified cases of adverse health effects from consumption over two decades of commercialization and research. A 2015 survey of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) members revealed that 88% of scientists agreed genetically modified foods are safe for human consumption, reflecting broad expert consensus supported by thousands of peer-reviewed studies on GM crops generally. Toxicology studies on GM rice varieties, such as those expressing Cry1Ab/Ac insect resistance proteins, have consistently shown no adverse effects in subchronic and long-term feeding trials at exposure levels up to 70% of the diet. For instance, a 90-day subchronic study of β-carotene-enriched transgenic (similar to prototypes) in Wistar rats reported no treatment-related changes in clinical signs, body weights, organ , or blood biochemistry compared to non-GM controls. Similarly, extended one-generation tests on insect-resistant GM found no impacts on fertility, offspring viability, or developmental parameters. Allergenicity assessments for GM rice follow guidelines, incorporating bioinformatics, serum IgE testing, and digestibility assays; , for example, exhibited no to known allergens and no reactivity in human serum tests from allergic individuals. These protocols confirm that introduced proteins in GM rice do not pose greater allergenic risks than those in conventional rice, which itself contains low levels of endogenous allergens. Epidemiological data from , where GM rice varieties like Bt rice have undergone extensive field trials and limited commercial cultivation since the early , show no population-level signals of increased allergies, cancer, or other health issues attributable to consumption. Systematic reviews of animal and human studies on GM foods, including rice, report no verified adverse events beyond those expected from conventional counterparts, underscoring the absence of causal links to claimed risks like toxicity or oncogenicity.

Environmental risk analyses

Gene flow from genetically modified (GM) rice to wild relatives occurs at low rates, typically below 1%, owing to rice's predominant and reproductive barriers such as differing flowering times and genetic incompatibilities. Field experiments in have documented hybridization frequencies to weedy or wild ranging from 0.003% to 2.49%, with no evidence of transgene persistence leading to invasive "superweeds" in over 15 years of Bt rice trials and limited commercialization in . This mirrors the experience with , deployed commercially since 1996 across millions of hectares without documented cases of Bt creating herbicide-resistant weeds or ecological disruptions. Assessments of non-target effects from Bt rice indicate negligible risks to beneficial arthropods and aquatic organisms. Hazard quotient analyses for Cry1Ab, Cry1C, and Cry2A Bt rice events yielded values below 1.0 for eight non-target , including predators, , and decomposers, signaling no appreciable under field conditions. Meta-analyses of arthropod communities in Bt rice fields show minor shifts, such as slight parasitoid declines offset by detritivore increases, but overall equivalence to non-Bt rice ecosystems when pesticides are minimized. Theoretical concerns over Bt toxin persistence in or have not materialized in empirical data, as proteins degrade rapidly and exhibit specificity to target lepidopterans, sparing broader invertebrate populations. Deployment of insect-resistant GM rice has reduced pesticide applications by 37-68% in modeled scenarios, diminishing non-target impacts from chemical sprays that often affect pollinators and soil biota more severely than targeted traits. In Chinese field evaluations, rice cut insecticide use by over two-thirds compared to conventional varieties, lowering environmental impact quotients (EIQ) through decreased loads and spray frequencies. These reductions outweigh potential localized effects, as evidenced by sustained predator populations in long-term trials and analogies to , where ecosystem services like pest predation remained intact despite initial theoretical apprehensions. Higher yields from GM rice traits support land-sparing strategies, enabling equivalent or greater production on reduced acreage and preserving natural habitats for . Empirical data from global GM crop adoption demonstrate no expansion in cultivated land despite output increases of 21.6% on average, countering critiques by allocating spared land to conservation rather than conversion. Farm-level studies confirm that intensified yields via traits like Bt resistance maintain or enhance local metrics, such as invertebrate diversity, by curtailing broad-spectrum reliance and , which otherwise degrade habitats. This causal link—higher productivity correlating with lower habitat pressure—holds across regions, with no verified instances of GM rice exacerbating wild species declines post-release.

Adoption and Production

Commercialization in China

In October 2009, 's Ministry of Agriculture granted biosafety certificates for the commercial production of two insect-resistant genetically modified rice varieties, Huahui No. 1 and Bt Shanyou 63, both incorporating the Bt cry1Ab gene for resistance to lepidopteran pests, permitting cultivation in Province. Despite these approvals, full-scale commercialization did not occur, as subsequent production permits were withheld amid concerns over potential market rejection in export destinations sensitive to GM content, given 's role as a major rice exporter. Pilot and demonstration plantings proceeded on a limited basis in provinces including and during the 2010s, covering areas typically under 300 hectares annually across select fields, where field trials demonstrated 10-20% reductions in pesticide applications, equivalent yields or slight increases of up to 10%, and corresponding net profit gains for farmers due to lower input costs. These efforts maintained GM rice's national planting share below 1%, constrained by policy caution to avoid cross-contamination with conventional varieties destined for international markets, which could impose traceability and labeling demands from importers like the . Facing yield plateaus in conventional amid rising domestic demand, intensified GM crop approvals in the early 2020s, including 37 new genetically modified corn varieties in December 2023 to address broader staple crop stagnation, signaling a policy pivot toward for . For specifically, experimental field trials continued, such as the 2023 second harvest of a high-stature GM variety engineered for improved resistance, while CRISPR-Cas9 edited hybrids targeting traits like bacterial resistance advanced through regulatory pipelines with expedited reviews, potentially enabling wider adoption by 2025 to enhance self-sufficiency without traditional transgenic risks. This trajectory reflects government-driven prioritization of yield stability over export preservation, though large-scale rice commercialization remains pending final production approvals.

Status in the United States and other regions

In the United States, no genetically modified varieties are commercially cultivated, primarily due to the 2006 contamination incident involving CropScience's unapproved LibertyLink 601 (LL601) event, which inadvertently entered the commercial and triggered rejections, a 14% drop in rice futures prices, and over $1 billion in economic losses for farmers. This event heightened industry aversion to GM rice commercialization, reinforced by 's production of approximately 40% of U.S. —much of it medium- and short-grain varieties exported to markets like and the that demand non-GM certification—and the California Rice Commission's support for a moratorium on GM field-testing to protect viability. While limited field trials for herbicide-tolerant traits, such as those developed by Cibus achieving performance targets in 2023 tests, continue under regulatory oversight, no such varieties have progressed to widespread adoption amid ongoing dependencies, with U.S. comprising about 5% of global exports. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has nonetheless approved imports of specific GM rice events for food use, determining in May 2018 that event GR2E poses no safety risks requiring premarket review, facilitating tolerance for potential adventitious presence in imported rice. Regulatory approvals for GM rice extend to and /, where issued no-objection status for GR2E in March 2018, affirming its safety for consumption despite no planned domestic marketing, and Food Standards Australia approved it in December 2017 similarly for import tolerance without commercialization intent. In contrast, the exemplifies regulatory setbacks influenced by activist litigation: after approving commercialization in 2021, the Court of Appeals revoked the permit in April 2024 following a Greenpeace-initiated , halting despite appeals from the Philippine to the for reversal.

Recent genome-edited varieties

In the 2020s, genome editing tools like CRISPR-Cas9 have accelerated rice improvement by enabling precise, targeted mutations without foreign DNA insertion, unlike transgenic methods, thus allowing rapid stacking of traits such as stress tolerance while often bypassing stringent GMO regulations in import-sensitive markets. India approved its first such varieties in May 2025: DRR Dhan 100 (Kamala), derived from the Samba Mahsuri parent by ICAR-Indian Institute of Rice Research using CRISPR-Cas9, which enhances drought and low-fertilizer tolerance alongside a 19% yield increase and 20-25 days earlier maturity. Pusa DST Rice 1, developed by ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute from MTU 1010, knocks out the DST gene to improve salinity and drought resistance, yielding 9.66-30.4% higher in alkaline or saline soils compared to the parent. These SDN-1 edits, absent transgenes, position them for broader adoption where transgenic imports face bans. CRISPR applications for disease resistance include 2024 studies targeting susceptibility genes like Pi21 and OsSULTR3;6, achieving over 90% editing efficiency in varieties such as 58B and conferring enhanced resistance to rice blast fungus without yield penalties. Multiplex editing of Pi21 alongside Bsr-d1 and ERF922 has similarly mimicked natural resistance alleles, improving broad-spectrum protection. The International Rice Research Institute's 2025 identification of the OsIRO2 gene variant, integrable via editing into breeding pipelines, supports drought-tolerant lines with up to 27% yield gains under water stress in and trials, prioritizing climate-vulnerable regions.

Economic and Agronomic Impacts

Yield and cost benefits

In farmer-conducted pre-commercialization trials in , Bt rice varieties exhibited yield increases of 6 to 9% relative to non-GM counterparts. These outcomes, documented in surveys spanning 2002 to 2003 across eight villages in two provinces, reflect effective suppression of stem borer and folder pests, which conventionally cause losses without equivalent chemical reliance. Cost reductions stem from diminished pesticide quantities and application labor, with usage falling by 80% in GM plots during these trials. Such input savings, outweighing seed premiums in net terms, elevate farm profitability; associated gains reached 15% in analyzed fields. Labor demands for drop correspondingly, often halving time spent on spraying activities and supporting expanded cultivation amid regional labor constraints. Longitudinal surveys affirm these dynamics yield sustained net income uplifts at the household level, decoupling productivity from high-variable-cost conventional practices and mitigating dependency concerns through inherent trait-driven efficiencies.

Pesticide reduction and sustainability

Adoption of Bt rice varieties in has led to substantial reductions in applications, with field trials and farmer surveys indicating decreases of 60-80% compared to conventional rice cultivation. These reductions stem from the expression of toxins targeting lepidopteran pests like the stem borer, minimizing the need for broad-spectrum sprays. In regions where Bt rice was trialed between 2002 and 2010, farmers reported applying 15 pounds fewer per acre, equivalent to an 80% drop in targeted use. This pesticide decline correlates with improved farmer outcomes, including fewer incidences of acute poisonings and chronic neurological symptoms from exposure. Studies document reduced invisible burdens, such as diminished pesticide-related illnesses, which previously affected rural applicators through contact and during manual spraying. Commercialization projections suggest that widespread Bt rice adoption could cut overall pesticide use by over two-thirds, further alleviating risks in high-exposure Asian rice systems. Herbicide-tolerant GM rice facilitates shifts to conservation tillage practices, enabling no-till or reduced-till methods that preserve . These approaches reduce fuel consumption for machinery by 20-40% and curb by minimizing plowing, which disrupts and . In herbicide-tolerant systems, post-emergence replaces mechanical cultivation, conserving moisture and lowering carbon emissions from operations. GM rice contributes to by aiding the closure of yield gaps—differences between actual and potential harvests—without necessitating expansion. FAO analyses indicate rice yield gaps of 10-60% globally, often due to pest pressures and inefficient inputs; GM traits address these by stabilizing outputs under variable conditions, aligning with models for intensified production on existing farmland. This input-efficient intensification supports long-term viability, reducing pressure on ecosystems while maintaining amid .

Controversies and Public Reception

Activist opposition and delays

Activist groups, notably , have mounted campaigns against genetically modified rice, asserting unsubstantiated risks of toxicity and ecological harm, which have protracted field trials and approvals. On August 8, 2013, intruders destroyed a demonstration plot in the ' Bataan province, comprising over 100 square meters of crop just prior to a , an act attributed to anti-GMO militants rather than local farmers as initially claimed. endorsed the broader opposition, framing as unnecessary amid alternative nutrition strategies, despite its design to combat via beta-carotene enrichment. Such interventions have imposed extended timelines on deployment; Golden Rice prototypes emerged in 2000, yet regulatory commercialization in the lagged until 2021, only for a April 2024 court decision—prompted by petitions from and allied NGOs—to suspend biosafety authorization and halt seed distribution. These obstructions correlate with persistent burdens, where an estimated 250,000–500,000 children in and annually progress from deficiency-induced blindness to death, exacerbating immune vulnerabilities in rice-dependent populations. Analyses link rollout impediments to forgone mitigations, with pre-intervention data projecting 1–2 million preventable under-5 deaths yearly from vitamin A shortfalls, a toll sustained through activist-fueled hesitancy. Misinformation propagated by these efforts manifests in consumer aversion, unanchored by documented incidents from approved GM rice strains. A 2022 nationwide survey of 564 Chinese respondents across eight provinces revealed predominant resistance to GM rice uptake, driven by amplified risk perceptions over trust in safety validations, with only marginal support for commercialization. This sentiment persists despite China's own approvals of GM varieties like Bt rice in 2009, underscoring how non-empirical critiques override evidence of equivalence to conventional counterparts.

Regulatory and ethical debates

The regulatory debate surrounding genetically modified (GM) rice centers on the tension between the , which mandates caution in the face of uncertain risks, and the concept of substantial equivalence, which posits that GM crops comparable in composition and safety to conventional varieties require no additional oversight beyond standard assessments. Proponents of substantial equivalence argue that empirical data from over two decades of commercialization demonstrate no unique hazards from GM rice relative to those produced via or conventional breeding, as risk profiles align with historical agricultural practices yielding thousands of varieties without novel regulatory frameworks. Critics invoking precaution highlight potential long-term ecological or uncertainties, though reviews indicate these concerns lack substantiation from post-market surveillance data showing negligible differences in allergenicity, , or environmental persistence. Ethically, GM rice like , engineered to combat in rice-dependent regions, underscores arguments for technological intervention to alleviate over protracted aid dependencies, with trials confirming its efficacy in delivering bioavailable beta-carotene equivalent to 50% of daily requirements for at-risk populations. Advocates contend that withholding such innovations perpetuates harm, as delays in deployment—spanning over 20 years due to regulatory and activist scrutiny—have contributed to preventable blindness in hundreds of thousands of children annually in developing countries, prioritizing unsubstantiated fears over verifiable nutritional benefits. Equity critiques from opponents, often emphasizing corporate influence or biodiversity erosion, overlook causal evidence that GM empowers local farming without displacing traditional crops, as yield-neutral modifications target deficiencies rather than expansionist models. Efforts toward evidence-based deregulation advocate harmonized international standards to mitigate non-tariff trade barriers, as divergent approaches—such as stringent labeling or import bans—have fueled disputes under World Trade Organization frameworks, exemplified by ongoing challenges to measures lacking scientific justification. In 2023, U.S. agricultural stakeholders pressed for WTO reforms to enforce science-driven approvals, arguing that precautionary overreach distorts markets and hinders technology transfer to food-insecure nations without commensurate risk reduction. Such harmonization aligns with first-principles evaluation, where regulatory friction yields no empirical safety gains but impedes causal solutions to hunger via proven agronomic tools.

Frameworks in major producers

In , the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) administers a phased regulatory system for genetically modified (GM) crops under the 2001 Agricultural GMO Safety Administration Regulations, encompassing laboratory containment, greenhouse trials, confined field tests, environmental safety release, and production safety certificates. This multi-stage process, involving risk assessments for , toxicity, and allergenicity, typically requires 5–10 years from initial field trials to final certification, with approvals prioritizing national food security and domestic innovation over export compatibility. For example, certificates for two GM rice events—Bt Shanyou 63 and Bt Huahui 1—were issued in August 2009 after over a decade of and trials starting in the . The employs a product-based, coordinated framework across three agencies: the FDA evaluates food and feed safety via voluntary consultations focusing on compositional equivalence and nutritional profiles, often resolving within 6–24 months for non-novel traits; the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) assesses plant pest risks through petitions for deregulation, with low-risk determinations expedited under streamlined rules since 2020; and the EPA reviews pesticidal traits. This approach enables faster market entry—typically 2–4 years total—for GM rice traits deemed low-risk, though rice developers must navigate export sensitivities to markets like and the that impose traceability requirements. No mandatory pre-market approval exists, allowing self-determination post-consultation if data support safety. In the , Directive 2001/18/EC mandates process-triggered, case-by-case authorizations with exhaustive environmental impact assessments, molecular characterization, and socio-economic analyses, supplemented by Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 for food/feed uses; approvals demand EFSA opinions followed by Commission decisions amid member-state opt-outs, yielding timelines of 3–7 years or longer due to litigation and public input. A de facto moratorium on new GM authorizations from 1998–2003, lifted formally in 2004, persists in practice for cultivation, with zero GM rice events approved for EU growth despite global precedents like China's 2009 rice approvals, correlating with reduced biotech innovation as developers relocate R&D to less restrictive jurisdictions. Among other major producers, India's Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) under the Environment Ministry follows a tiered review akin to China's—moral and scientific scrutiny, field trials, and clearance—but has approved no transgenic GM rice for commercialization as of October 2025, reflecting prolonged deliberations on environmental despite ongoing trials since 2000.

International trade and approvals

The Commission, comprising 188 member countries, adopted guidelines in 2003 for the risk analysis of foods derived from recombinant-DNA technology, emphasizing science-based safety assessments comparable to those for conventional foods.13958-X/fulltext) These voluntary standards, referenced in sanitary measures, affirm that genetically modified (GM) foods pose no greater risk to human health than non-GM counterparts when subjected to equivalent evaluations. However, adoption varies, with some nations disregarding these principles in favor of precautionary restrictions, complicating global rice trade where GM varieties could address yield and nutritional deficits. In January 2018, the U.S. (FDA) completed a favorable safety consultation for Huahui No. 1, a pest-resistant GM developed by Chinese researchers, deeming it safe for and use as or feed in the United States. This approval proceeded despite China's domestic in commercializing the variety—stemming from and regulatory hesitancy—and coincided with escalating bilateral trade frictions, including U.S. tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods announced in September 2018. Such cross-border endorsements highlight potential for GM in mitigating tariff-induced disruptions to agricultural exchanges, though actual exports remain limited by differing national approvals and traceability demands. The , ratified by 173 parties since 2003, governs transboundary movements of living modified organisms, permitting importing countries to invoke the and socio-economic factors under Article 26 to reject shipments absent conclusive risk data. Critics argue this framework enables non-scientific barriers, as evidenced by the April 2024 Philippine Court of Appeals decision revoking commercial propagation permits for and Bt eggplant, prioritizing activist concerns over prior regulatory safety affirmations aligned with Codex standards. Quantitative analyses estimate that regulatory delays and import rejections under such protocols have imposed global opportunity costs exceeding billions in foregone yields and environmental gains from GM crops, including rice varieties engineered for pest resistance and enhanced nutrition. These dynamics underscore persistent asymmetries in international approvals, where empirical safety validations often yield to localized opposition, constraining trade flows and scalable benefits.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10379675/
  2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82001-0
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3791249/
  4. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jafc.9b01524
  5. https://www.science.org/content/article/rice-genetically-engineered-resist-heat-waves-can-also-produce-20-more-grain
  6. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-80958-6
  7. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2120901118
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8713968/
  9. https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-021-00578-9
  10. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Timeline-of-transgenic-rice-history-at-the-worldwide-level-A-and-of-transgenic-rice_fig2_299513185
  11. https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt1093-1151
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8540055_Achieving_successful_deployment_of_Bt_rice
  13. https://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how1_sci.php
  14. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/golden-rice
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224415302028
  16. https://www.reuters.com/article/economy/china-gives-safety-approval-to-gmo-rice-idUSPEK37812/
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11388839/
  18. https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=5114
  19. https://www.science.org/content/article/china-pulls-plug-genetically-modified-rice-and-corn
  20. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.01226/full
  21. https://non-gmoreport.com/unapproved-gmo-rice-varieties-frequently-contaminate-conventional-rice/
  22. https://foodsystems.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SABP_10_October_2021.pdf
  23. https://www.fda.gov/media/113719/download
  24. https://allianceforscience.org/blog/2018/05/us-fda-approves-golden-rice/
  25. https://www.science.org/content/article/what-philippine-court-ruling-means-transgenic-golden-rice-once-hailed-dietary
  26. https://phys.org/news/2024-04-philippine-court-blocks-gmo-golden.html
  27. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Agricultural%2520Biotechnology%2520Annual_Beijing_China%2520-%2520People%2527s%2520Republic%2520of_CH2024-0001
  28. https://www.nature.com/articles/d44151-025-00078-2
  29. https://icar.org.in/en/union-agriculture-minister-shri-shivraj-singh-chouhan-announces-two-genome-edited-rice-varieties
  30. https://foodsystems.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/SABP_05_May_2025.pdf
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S017616172100050X
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC150518/
  33. https://en.bio-protocol.org/en/bpdetail?id=4143&type=0
  34. http://gaolab.genetics.ac.cn/en/publication/en2016/202205/W020220518612694233071.pdf
  35. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9291973/
  36. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1009687511633
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214514119300868
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226209686_Comparison_of_promoters_and_selectable_marker_genes_of_use_in_Indica_rice_transformation
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9219106/
  40. https://plantmethods.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1746-4811-7-49
  41. https://www.maxapress.com/article/doi/10.48130/SeedBio-2023-0004
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8761593/
  43. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132667
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8525367/
  45. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2020.00575/full
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982223005407
  47. https://www.ucdavis.edu/blog/genome-editing-used-create-disease-resistant-rice
  48. https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/13/21/2972
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11201548/
  50. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32549675/
  51. https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=21330
  52. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/genome-edited-rice-varieties
  53. https://india.mongabay.com/2025/06/india-releases-genome-edited-rice-draws-both-applause-and-alarm/
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468014124001675
  55. https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/united-states-crops-food/
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10591184/
  57. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-08072-2_17
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5085622/
  59. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-ento-120709-144810
  60. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-04997-8
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214514121001136
  62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32516520/
  63. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2021.756116/full
  64. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24098085_Genetically_Modified_Rice_Yields_and_Pesticides_Assessing_Farm-Level_Productivity_Effects_in_China
  65. https://californiaagriculture.org/api/v1/articles/109257-minimum-tillage-could-benefit-california-rice-farmers.pdf
  66. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022316625004146
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2682994/
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3417220/
  69. https://www.philrice.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Final-Golden-Rice-FAQs-ENGLISH-October-2022.pdf
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6646955/
  71. https://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how8_tests.php
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10416138/
  73. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/26/gm-golden-rice-delay-cost-millions-of-lives-child-blindness
  74. https://www.goldenrice.org/
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6886445/
  76. https://cropgeneticsinnovation.ucdavis.edu/engineering-submergence-tolerance-rice
  77. https://ricetoday.irri.org/thinking-beyond-the-sub1-gene-making-rice-survive-longer-and-yield-more/
  78. https://academic.oup.com/pcp/article/45/2/146/1814950
  79. https://soilhealth.ucdavis.edu/soil-challenges/salinity
  80. https://c4rice.com/
  81. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2020.564463/full
  82. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.05.21.595093v1
  83. https://academic.oup.com/pcp/article/52/12/2190/1821694
  84. https://thericejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12284-014-0019-0
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1904174/
  86. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-04701-w
  87. https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/focus/en/press/z0508_00165.html
  88. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pbi.12423
  89. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects
  90. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424534/
  91. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/23/an-elaboration-of-aaas-scientists-views/
  92. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8196761/
  93. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0890623823000989
  94. http://www.allergenonline.org/golden%2520rice%25202%2520bioinformatics%2520farrp%25202006.pdf
  95. https://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how3a_biosafety.php
  96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9426681/
  97. https://www.plantbreedbio.org/journal/view.html?doi=10.9787/PBB.2013.1.2.162
  98. https://ejournal.brin.go.id/annales/article/download/7239/5479
  99. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/4056/naranjocabreview2009.pdf
  100. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651320310538
  101. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5506656/
  102. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0104270
  103. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/20/chinese-grown-gm-rice-significantly-reduces-pesticide-use-improves-farmer-health/
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7518756/
  105. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8489.12171
  106. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1514
  107. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2023.0216
  108. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11005809/
  109. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-020-0685-4
  110. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/01/approved-chinese-developed-gmo-rice-boosts-yields-reduces-pesticide-not-available-countrys-farmers-consumers/
  111. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/522898
  112. https://s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/giannini_public/b6/2e/b62e5dfe-83f4-4302-9b03-778674febd24/v9n1_2.pdf
  113. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fes3.409
  114. https://asiasociety.org/policy-institute/chinas-genetically-modified-dilemma
  115. https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20564-new-gmo-alert-gmo-rice-isn-t-on-the-market-but-it-s-still-showing-up
  116. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12218729/
  117. https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2011/07/750-million-settlement-in-gm-r.html
  118. https://www.seegerweiss.com/environmental-litigation/llrice-genetically-modified-rice/
  119. https://www.farmprogress.com/rice/california-rice-commission-supports-gm-rice-testing-moratorium
  120. https://ipmdata.ipmcenters.org/source_report.cfm?sectionid=35&controltypeid=0&sourceid=2479
  121. https://investor.cibus.com/news-releases/news-release-details/cibus-2023-field-trial-results-move-developed-traits-closer
  122. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/rice/rice-sector-at-a-glance
  123. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/genetically-modified-foods-other-novel-foods/approved-products/golden-rice-gr2e.html
  124. https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=16278
  125. https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=21080
  126. https://www.icar-iirr.org/index.php/en/component/content/article?id=282&Itemid=258
  127. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2126802
  128. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/16/11/1263
  129. https://www.irri.org/news-and-events/news/new-rice-gene-variant-boosts-yield-under-drought-irri
  130. https://agrotech.space/2025/08/13/irri-identify-drought-resistant-rice/
  131. https://english.cas.cn/newsroom/archive/china_archive/cn2005/200909/t20090923_41232.shtml
  132. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1108972
  133. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25576299/
  134. https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/genetically-modified-rice-china-benefits-farmers-health-study-finds
  135. https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/10/default.asp
  136. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07388551.2016.1180588
  137. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5250645/
  138. https://www.fao.org/4/x6905e/x6905e0h.htm
  139. https://riceforafrica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/fao_19.pdf
  140. https://www.fao.org/4/ak542e/ak542e12a.pdf
  141. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23632042
  142. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1245017
  143. https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/golden-rice-attack-in-philippines-anti-gmo-activists-lie-about-protest-and-safety.html
  144. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/25/greenpeace-blocks-planting-of-lifesaving-golden-rice-philippines
  145. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2022/01/05/viewpoint-unnecessary-delays-activist-maneuvers-slow-rollouts-of-nutritionally-enhanced-golden-rice/
  146. https://www.agweb.com/news/crops/crop-production/hostage-gmo-hysteria-golden-rice-saga-lingers-malnourished-suffer
  147. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1600583/
  148. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.813862/full
  149. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362744005_Genetically_Modified_Rice_Do_Chinese_Consumers_Support_or_Go_Against_It_Based_on_the_Perspectives_of_Perceived_Risk_and_Trust
  150. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424533/
  151. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1023686900879
  152. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6918800/
  153. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6132390/
  154. https://med.nyu.edu/departments-institutes/population-health/divisions-sections-centers/medical-ethics/education/high-school-bioethics-project/learning-scenarios/gmos-the-golden-rice-debate
  155. https://academic.oup.com/book/3882/chapter/145413105
  156. https://www.usarice.com/news-and-events/publications/usa-rice-daily/article/usa-rice-daily/2023/11/13/usa-rice-joins-ag-groups-going-on-the-offensive-to-ask-for-wto-market-access-proposal
  157. https://cei.org/blog/the-modified-state-of-the-gmo-debate/
  158. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2025.2520664
  159. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9755788/
  160. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-new-plant-varieties/programs-food-new-plant-varieties
  161. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5033226/
  162. https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/european-union-crops-food/
  163. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6686985/
  164. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6343535/
  165. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/food-genetically-modified
  166. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us-gives-safety-approval-to-chinese-genetically-modified-rice-strain-idUSKBN1FC1FY/
  167. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2018/september/ustr-finalizes-tariffs-200
  168. https://bch.cbd.int/cms/ui/collaboration/download/download.aspx?id=90
  169. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fes3.100
  170. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5927647/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.