THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Thursday, November 14, 2019 |A
Against
The Grain
Golden Rice
By Ed Regis
(Johns Hopkins, 234 pages, $29.95)BOOKSHELF| By Hugo Restall
W
hy has it taken more than two decades to develop
“golden rice,” the genetically modified crop that
promises to save millions of lives? The many delays
have been costly. Every year an estimated one million people,
mostly children, die, and another half a million more lose their
eyesight, from vitamin-A deficiency. Golden rice—with its
yellow grains rich in beta carotene, which the human body
turns into vitamin A—could virtually eliminate this problem
in countries where rice is the staple food.
After scientists developed the first golden-rice prototype
in 1999, it was predicted that the coalition of governments,
universities and nonprofit foundations leading the effort
would have seeds ready for farmers within three years.
Twenty years later, Bangladesh is poised to be the first
developing country where farmers can plant golden rice and
sell it for human consumption. (The U.S., Canada, Australia
and New Zealand have all approved the grain, but vitamin-A
deficiency isn’t an issue in
these countries.)
Greenpeace and other
opponents of genetically
modified foods say the lengthy
delays and false starts prove
the project was ill-conceived
from the beginning. Defenders
of golden rice, meanwhile, hold
environmentalists responsible
for impeding the project. In 2013,
for instance, vandals in the
Philippines destroyed a site where
an important test crop was ready
to be harvested. Given the number
of lives at stake, some have accused
the activists of mass murder and sought to
bring them to trial for crimes against humanity.
As Ed Regis writes in “Golden Rice: The Imperiled Birth of a
GMO Superfood,” the truth is more nuanced. Other genetically
modified crops, including those developed by companies with
deep pockets, have taken a similarly long and expensive path
to the dining table. And green activists didn’t slow down
golden rice by much, at least not directly. The real villain,
according to Mr. Regis, is the overly restrictive regulation of
all genetically modified organisms world-wide, which delayed
the progress of golden rice by more than 10 years.
Most countries’ treatment of genetically modified
organisms is based on the “precautionary principle,” which
requires that all hypothetical risks be addressed before
development can proceed. The level of risk and the potential
benefits are not weighed in the decision. Such an approach
would stymie innovation in any field, but its effect on the
breeding of new organisms is particularly harmful. The
insertion of individual, well-understood genes into an existing
crop is safer than traditional methods of genetic manipulation
such as cross-breeding. The definition of what constitutes
genetic modification, moreover, is arbitrary and many of the
restrictions imposed on it are perverse. Take, for instance, the
Rio Red grapefruit, which, as Mr. Regis tells us, is “a
genetically modified mutant fruit plant five times over ,”
including genetic manipulation via “repeated doses of thermal
neutron radiation.” Yet the Rio Red “is nowhere regarded as a
GMO, nor is it labeled, regulated, or sold as such.”Golden rice also suffered from scientific setbacks. In 2009
the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board, which is responsible for
“the global development, introduction and free distribution
of Golden Rice,” selected a prototype for testing and
development. When that effort didn’t pan out, the process had
to be restarted, setting the project back another three years.
But that delay could have been avoided or minimized: One of
the many rules regulating the development of golden rice
stipulated that, once scientists chose a particular prototype
to pursue, all previous research materials had to be destroyed
“to minimize the risk that seeds of those strains previously
experimented with but subsequently rejected for further
development work would somehow make their way onto
farmlands and contaminate crops.” This forced the team to
start from scratch with each new prototype. The pursuit of a
single prototype at a time, instead of several simultaneously,
was itself also driven by regulatory restrictions. Assuming
golden rice is a success—and there is every indication that it
will be—its backstory will be a powerful argument in favor of
scrapping the precautionary principle.
Advocates of genetically modified food don’t want all the
safeguards removed. They are quick to acknowledge that risks
do exist. But these are the same risks inherent in the
development of any new organism, genetically modified or
otherwise. The goal should be to create rules based on science
and cost-benefit analysis rather than irrational fear.
It’s probably too optimistic to hope that environmentalists
will reconsider their hatred of genetically modified foods.
Mr. Regis notes that in 2001, after Greenpeace International’s
genetic-engineering campaign coordinator, Benedikt Haerlin,
admitted that golden rice “posed a moral dilemma” for his
organization given the claims that the grain could save lives,
he quickly recanted and closed ranks against the project. This
is ironic considering that the environment also benefits from
genetically modified crops, which can reduce the area of land
under cultivation as well as the use of fertilizer and pesticide.
Irrationally stringent regulations also stoke fear among
consumers, who naturally wonder why an organism would be
so restricted if there was no unusual risk. Yet, as Mr. Regis
tells us, “there have been no major or minor GMO disasters,
mini-catastrophes, or indeed any documented instances of
human health being compromised by the consumption of
genetically modified foods.” The precision of inserting
individual genes means the risk of allergic reactions or other
harm is significantly reduced compared to traditional
techniques.
Golden rice is the world’s first genetically modified crop
intended to benefit the consumer rather than the farmer.
The biggest obstacle to putting such environmentally friendly,
affordable and nutritious food on the world’s table is no longer
scientific but political. As golden rice becomes available, the
next step should be to educate legislators and the public about
its benefits and the reasons that millions of children had to die
waiting for it. Mr. Regis’s book, which explains the complex
science of golden rice in a manner that lay readers can
understand, will be an important contribution to that effort.Mr. Restall is a former editor of The Wall Street Journal Asia’s
editorial page.An estimated one million people—mostly
children—die annually from vitamin-A
deficiency. Golden rice could reverse that.No Country for Old Presidents
S
hould there be an upper
age limit on the presi-
dency? Former New York
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, 77,
may join a crowded and aging
field of candidates. Last month
Bernie Sanders, 78, was hospi-
talized with what the cam-
paign called “chest discom-
fort” and turned out to be a
heart attack. In September
2016, Hillary Clinton, then 68,
was privately diagnosed with
pneumonia. The campaign
concealed the diagnosis until
she was caught on camera
fainting from dehydration.
Mental health is another
concern. “Gaffes” on the cam-
paign trail drive observers to
wonder whether the slip-ups
reflect a candidate’s age and
are a sign of some greater
health concern. Voters have no
way of knowing.
Doctors’ letters during the
2016 campaign described Mrs.
Clinton as “in excellent physi-
cal condition and fit to serve as
President” and Mr. Trump as“the healthiest individual ever
elected to the presidency.”
These are value judgments, not
medical diagnoses.
Mr. Trump was 70 in Janu-
ary 2017, the oldest president
ever inaugurated for a first
term. Elizabeth Warren (71 inJanuary 2021), Joe Biden (78),
Mr. Bloomberg (78) or Mr.
Sanders (79) would beat that
record. If he wins next year, Mr.
Trump (74) would eclipse Ron-
ald Reagan (73 in 1984) as the
oldest man ever re-elected.
Any of Messrs. Biden,
Bloomberg or Sanders would
be the oldest person ever to
serve as president on his first
day in office, and each would
be older by the beginning of a
second term than Richard
Nixon was when he died (81).
John McCain (72 in 2008) and
Bob Dole (73 in 1996) were
youngsters by comparison.
Younger candidates can suf-
fer health crises too. Paul
Tsongas was a 51-year-old lym-
phoma survivor when he ran in- He claimed to be cancer-
free but didn’t disclose a 1987
recurrence until after he’d
dropped out. He suffered an-
other recurrence later in 1992
and died in 1997.
But the risk increases with
age. Jimmy Carter, 95, recently
said he couldn’t have handled
the office at 80.
The Constitution sets a
minimum age of 35 to serve as
president. Maybe it should be
amended to set an upper age
limit at 70, 75 or 80. Like the
22nd Amendment limiting
presidential terms, such an
amendment shouldn’t take ef-
fect immediately, lest it affect
the outcome of the 2020 race.
But it’s worth having a conver-
sation about age for future
presidential candidates before
an age-related crisis strikes a
president.Mr. Muller is a law profes-
sor at Pepperdine UniversityBy Derek T. Muller
Biden or Bloomberg
would be older at the
end of his term than
Nixon when he died.OPINION
A
s the impeachment
hearings kick off, Demo-
crats put on a jarring
display of rhetorical whiplash,
saying one thing this time but
something remarkably differ-
ent the next. Politicians are
often inconsistent, but this is
ridiculous.
In late September, the
whistleblower was called es-
sential. For having jump-
started the process, Demo-
cratic Rep. Adam Schiff, the
House Intelligence Committee
chairman, thanked him for
having done “a cardinal service
to the country by exposing
wrongdoing of the most seri-
ous kind.” Speaker Nancy
Pelosi also praised the whistle-
blower for “disclosing to Con-
gress a serious possible breach
of constitutional duties by the
president.”
That was then. Now that
House Democrats have voted
to proceed with impeachment
and Mr. Schiff was appointed
the lower chamber’s judge,
jury and executioner, the
whistleblower is suddenly un-
important. Maryland Rep. Ja-
mie Raskin calls him a “hero,”
but argues he’s “no longer in-
tegral to the investigation.”
Mr. Schiff announced he’ll
block any attempt to compel
the whistleblower’s testimony,
saying keeping his identity se-
cret is “our primary inter-
est”—more important than
hearing how he holds up under
questioning.
Mrs. Pelosi frequently says
that “no one is above the law.”
Impeachment Becomes a Pratfall Comedy
She’s right. But no American
should be treated as beneath
the law’s protections, either.
That’s what Mrs. Pelosi and
Mr. Schiff are doing to Presi-
dent Trump by refusing him
one of our country’s most fun-
damental principles of juris-
prudence, namely the right of
the accused to cross-examine
his accuser.
Americans deserve to see
the whistleblower appear in
the hearings he sparked, so
that the people can judge for
themselves his credibility andmotivations. Or is the Senate
expected to remove the presi-
dent from office after a pro-
cess put into high gear by an
anonymous accuser who might
have been coached by Mr.
Schiff before launching his
complaint?
Then there are the Demo-
crats who proclaim a newfound
enthusiasm for defending
Ukraine. Former Rep. Donna
Edwards of Maryland was on
“Fox News Sunday” decrying “a
president of the United States
who withheld aid from an ally
who was on the front lines
against our chief adversary.”
New York Rep. Sean Patrick
Maloney pinpointed “the presi-
dent’s withholding of military
aid to Ukraine” as the central“subject of the impeachment
inquiry.”
Where were Democrats
when President Obama denied
lethal military assistance to
Ukraine in 2014, as Vladimir
Putin’s forces threatened its
existence? Some of the nonle-
thal aid Mr. Obama authorized
was dropped off in Poland and
transported into Ukraine by
makeshift convoys of civilian
vehicles because the White
House didn’t want to offend
the Russians by having Ameri-
can C-130s land in Kyiv. Maybe
this newfound Democratic sup-
port for Ukraine is driven less
by conviction than by hatred
of Donald Trump. Under this
president, Ukraine has re-
ceived Javelin antitank mis-
siles and other weapons it
needs to protect itself.
Then there are Democrats
and their media allies who in-
sist that congressional Repub-
licans—especially in the Sen-
ate—must keep an open mind
about “the facts” and “the evi-
dence.” These same voices are
silent about the wild state-
ments of Democratic presiden-
tial candidates who serve in
the Senate and therefore must
also participate in its trial.
While Minnesota’s Amy Klobu-
char (“My job will be to look at
the evidence”) and Colorado’s
Michael Bennet (“I’ve not
reached a conclusion”) say
they’re withholding judgment,
the other four Senate Demo-
crats running for president
sound as if their minds are
made up.
Massachusetts’ Elizabeth
Warren warns, “If Congressdoes not hold this man ac-
countable, he will break the
law again.” New Jersey’s Cory
Booker says he supports im-
peachment because Mr.
Trump is acting “like a dicta-
tor or a totalitarian authori-
tarian leader.” After refusing
to commit in September to
vote for impeachment because
it would be “irresponsible” to
decide before a trial, Ver-
mont’s Bernie Sanders now
supports Mr. Trump’s re-
moval, calling his administra-
tion “probably the most cor-
rupt...inthehistory of the
United States.” Saying the im-
peachment process “should
not take very long,” Califor-
nia’s Kamala Harris, reaching
new heights of rhetorical elo-
quence, said: “You know
what? Dude gotta go. Dude
gottago.Hegottago.”Wecan
expect more outbursts from
Ms. Harris as she campaigns
to be her party’s designated
prosecutorial hot dog.
Democrats’ inconsistency
on these topics concerning im-
peachment can be attributed
to the one thing on which
they’ve been consistent: their
desperate desire to remove Mr.
Trump from office before he
serves out his term. That
won’t happen, but Democrats’
impeachment gymnastics may
help rather than hurt the pres-
ident’s re-election campaign.Mr. Rove helped organize
the political-action committee
American Crossroads and is
author of “The Triumph of Wil-
liam McKinley” (Simon &
Schuster, 2015).Democrats didn’t care
when Obama opposed
military aid to Ukraine.
Now it’s impeachable.By Karl Rove
Nancy Pelosi
was right the
first time. The
Democrats
shouldn’t have
done this.
They should
not have tried
to make the
already over-
whelmed
American pub-
lic believe that Donald Trump’s
umpteenth “norms” violation
was a constitutional crisis. But
no, the party’s leftmost ele-
ments insisted, and the Belt-
way press insisted. Mr. Trump
had to be impeached.
Once he had survived the
Republican primaries in 2016
and then beaten Hillary Clinton
by tapping into a slice of over-
looked voters, most serious
people got on with the business
of coming to grips, if not terms,
with this unconventional, pug-
nacious presidency.
But not these people. The
political and media left con-
vinced themselves it was
somehow possible to make the
Trump presidency end before
its November 2020 sell-by
date.Sohereweare,three
long years later, with Adam
Schiff ending his opening im-
peachment statement by quot-
ing Benjamin Franklin about “a
republic, if you can keep it.”
That bad, huh?
The testimony by the two
U.S. ambassadors was fascinat-
ing, especially the account
given by Bill Taylor, who like
many others had the misfortune
of finding himself in the center
The Take Down Trump Project
of one of Mr. Trump’s impetu-
ous foreign-policy decisions.
In what he admitted was a
“lengthy” statement, Mr. Tay-
lor described how the U.S.’s
single-channel policy of help-
ing Ukraine defend itself from
Vladimir Putin’s Russia sud-
denly became “two channels”
after Rudy Giuliani introduced
Mr. Trump’s monomania over
an earlier Ukrainian govern-
ment’s possible collusion with
Democrats to defeat him in
2016.
Ambassador Taylor was
correct that what the U.S. had
been doing in Ukraine com-
ported with the Trump Na-
tional Security Strategy of re-
sisting persistent aggressions
by Russia and China. In early
2019, that included helping
Ukraine’s newly elected gov-
ernment and its young presi-
dent, Volodymyr Zelensky,
stand up to Mr. Putin’s mur-
derous little green men in
eastern Ukraine.
Mr. Taylor’s substantive
point was that the Trump-Giu-
liani channel undercut a sound
U.S. policy course when sud-
denly military assistance to
Ukraine got caught up in Mr.
Trump’s desire, or need, to
have the Ukrainians investi-
gate the Bidens.
So what else is new? Inter-
nal policy battles of this inten-
sity are a constant of govern-
ment life. Other than draggingin the Bidens, this is hardly
different from a host of similar
Trumpian foreign-policy inter-
ventions: his decision after the
first summit with Kim Jong Un
to reduce military exercises
with South Korea; the 2018 de-
cision to withdraw U.S. troops
from Syria, which caused De-
fense Secretary Jim Mattis to
resign; his decision in 2017 to
impose tariffs on virtually all
the major U.S. trading part-
ners, no matter the effect on
domestic farmers and busi-
nesses; his decision last month
to pull U.S. forces in northern
Syria away from the Kurds,
who he said “didn’t help us
with Normandy.”
My own favorite of still-
born Trump foreign-policy
ideas was his tweet, days be-
fore the anniversary of 9/
this year: “Unbeknownst to al-
most everyone, the major Tali-
ban leaders and, separately,
the President of Afghanistan,
were going to secretly meet
with me at Camp David on
Sunday.” The Taliban at Camp
David—now that would have
been impeachable.
All these decisions, and not
least the events with Ukraine,
are absolutely valid voting is-
sues for the next election. If
you’re disgusted by the
Trump-Giuliani Ukraine back-
channel, don’t vote for him. If
you think Mr. Trump’s protec-
tionism and isolationism arebad for America’s future, don’t
vote for him.
It would have been valid as
well if the Democrats had cho-
sen to conduct normal over-
sight hearings into the Ukraine
whistleblower’s complaint—
with witnesses called and
questioned by both sides and
the public allowed to watch
and decide. But why are Amer-
icans being forced to endure
the elevation of the Ukraine
saga into the current impeach-
ment melodrama?
Presumably the Democratic
left and its allies believe the
faux gravity of “impeachment”
will grind down Mr. Trump’s
support at the margin and jack
up anti-Trump turnout. One
wonders.
Once past the inevitable
vote in the House to impeach,
and then assuming Mitch
McConnell bothers to hold a
Senate trial, this will be over
by the end of January. With
impeachment, the Democrats
finally will have dropped their
nuclear device on Donald
Trump. After that, what’s left?
No doubt many voters are
sitting on the Trump bubble,
uncertain whether to sign up
for another spin with him or
whatever the Democrats are
supposed to represent now.
Medicare for All? Former GOP
House Speaker John Boehner’s
wheel-spinning term looks like
a legislative golden age com-
pared to what Mrs. Pelosi has
done with her majority.
What the speaker may have
recognized this summer is that
the activists’ take down Trump
project was turning into three
wasted years, and that voters
might go looking for someone
to blame for that. Once the
Adam Schiff show closes, un-
decided voters will have about
10 months to decide if his poli-
tics of pursuit and retribution
has been worth the trouble.
Write [email protected].Once the Adam Schiff
show closes, voters
will decide if it was
worth the trouble.
WONDER
LAND
By Daniel
Henninger
Reps. Adam Schiff and Devin Nunes at Wednesday’s hearing.SAUL LOEB/PRESS POOL/EPA/SHUTTERSTOCK