However, there have been several harsh criticism and scepticism about its efficacy and ability to deliver the promised goods. In a public statement last week, the co-developer of Golden Rice, the Swiss scientist Ingo Potrykus, refuted claims by anti-technology activists that the product is useless. He was responding to what is termed as ``erroneous and misleading claims'' by environmental organisations - most recently including Greenpeace - that have tried to discredit Golden Rice and the motives of its developers.Golden rice was created by Dr Potrykus and German scientist Peter Beyer in a publicly funded research programme aimed at meeting the dire nutritional needs of low-income populations in the developing world.

According to the United Nations, at least a million children around the world die every year from severe Vitamin A deficiency, and nearly half a million more go blind.

"We want to provide rice that has enough provitamin A to have a clear beneficial effect on Vitamin-A deficient people," wrote Dr Potrykus in a public statement released on the AgBioView Listserv, a web-based forum on biotechnology and sustainable agriculture.

Activists have claimed that Golden Rice does not include enough provitamin-A to be beneficial. But, according to Dr Potrykus, ``their calculations are based on "luxurious recommendations, representing a `nice to have' supply." He adds that "experienced nutritionists tell us that (ours) is a realistic goal, as we are, possibly, already in the 20 per cent to 40 per cent range of the daily allowance."

It was also widely published that the golden rice is a fantasy dreamed up by the biotechnology industry to mute criticism against its several other products and products proposed to be developed.

Dr Potrykus said that the research was totally funded by public sector and charitable contributions, and was never intended to boost the reputation of biotech corporations. "The Golden Rice project was started in 1990 when nobody thought that it might help improve acceptability of the technology."Professor CS Prakash, director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University and president of the AgBioWorld Foundation, also has questioned activists' reasons for rejecting Golden Rice.

He said that the ``critics condemned biotechnology as something that is purely for profit, that is being pursued only in the West, and with no benefits to the consumer. Golden Rice proves them wrong, so they try to discredit it any way they can."

Dr Prakash is joined in his support for this and other advanced plant breeding developments by more than 3,000 scientists, including five Nobel Prize winners, who have signed a Declaration in Support of Agricultural Biotechnology. However, the scientists, including Dr Potrykus, admit that Golden Rice will not solve the problem of malnutrition by itself. They call for additional efforts to address the many needs of developing world farmers.