USA: KICKSTARTER AND GROWING PLANT PROJECT

USA

Kickstarter Bans GMO Rewards For Crowdfunded Projects, Cheering Some Activists And Dismaying Some Synthetic Biologists

The very public debate over GMOs has flared up in the news, state and federal legislatures and now … online crowdfunding platforms?

Kickstarter, which has launched everything from space telescopes and iPhone accessories to comic books and independent films, made waves on July 31 when the company updated its rules to specify that project creators cannot offer genetically modified organisms as rewards to backers. Restricting rewards isn't without precedent. Some of the stuff creators couldn't send out to backers of their projects aren't all that surprising, like alcohol, tobacco and weapons. But project creators also cannot send sunglasses, nutritional supplements and bath or cosmetic products, just to name a few.

The GMO rule change came in the wake of one of the first major successful GMO projects on Kickstarter:Glowing Plant. The project is the brainchild of three young men who are developing glowing Arabidopsis thaliana (thale cress) plants and glowing roses by inserting a gene for bioluminescence that is originally derived from fireflies. Anyone that gave more than $40 to the project gets glowing plant seeds or a seedling of their own.

Normally, Glowing Plant’s genetic manipulation would be expected to draw attention from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But because the glowing plants are made with a particular engineering method -- a “gene gun” that smashes plants with a small metal particle coated with DNA, rather than the alternative path of infecting the plants with a plant pest that contains the gene to be added -- Glowing Plant’s creators say the seeds and plants can be distributed without further scrutiny from the USDA.

Some say the gene gun justification is a loophole in the regulatory scheme. Similar cases have been upheld before -- in 2011, for example, the USDA ruled that Scotts Miracle-Gro’s GM Roundup-resistant bluegrass was not subject to regulation because the company inserted the herbicide resistance trait with a gene gun. But Glowing Plant team member Antony Evans says the project is conducting its own safety tests on the plants, modeled after the USDA’s standards.

By the end of its campaign in early June, Glowing Plant smashed its funding goal, raising just over $484,000 when it had initially sought only $65,000. But the project also provoked fierce opposition from anti-GMO activists, who worried that Glowing Plant seeds would find their way into the wild and disrupt ecosystems, and who were especially unsettled by the fact that the GMOs would not be examined by the USDA before being distributed. In late May, while Glowing Plant was still raising funds, an environmental organization called ETC Group started up a petition on Avaaz.org (currently standing at around 14,000 signatures) asking Kickstarter to add bioengineered lifeforms to their prohibited list. ETC Group also launched its own “Kickstopper” fundraiser on IndieGogo, aiming to raise funds to combat Glowing Plant and to create a comic book about their campaign.

When Kickstarter eventually made the call to ban GMO rewards, it didn’t affect Glowing Plant -- the money was already theirs. But the team, which envisioned their luminescent leaves as standard-bearers for future DIY synthetic biology projects on Kickstarter, was nonetheless perturbed. Evans said that since Glowing Plant was selected by Kickstarter editors as a “project of the day” and highlighted on the front page of the website, it was a bit of a surprise when word of the rule change got to them.

“We’ve written to them and asked them about it, and they have not responded,” Evans said.

Evans pointed out that Kickstarter has written extensively about previous rule changes, like a recent ban on self-help guides that was enacted this year. That rule change was prompted by backlash over a “seduction guide” that some critics called a how-to guide to rape. After initially taking a stance against canceling the project, Kickstarter wrote an apologetic blog post in June reversing course and explaining the ban on pickup guides and similar material.

The rollout of the GMO reward ban has been accompanied by much less fanfare. Kickstarter told The Verge last week that they aim “to be as open as possible while protecting the health and creative spirit of Kickstarter for the long term.”

“It’s notable that they use the word ‘health’ in their response,” David Holmes wrote on PandoDaily. “One of the big points made by anti-GMO activists is that they’re not safe to eat. However, there is no substantial peer-reviewed scientific evidence to suggest that any GM foods on the market today are harmful to humans.”

A Kickstarter representative told the International Business Times that in that particular statement, the word “health” was specifically meant to refer to the health of the Kickstarter community, and not as a wink and a nod to anti-GMO activists.

On Wednesday, The Verge published further responses from Kickstarter cofounder and communications head Yancey Strickler. Strickler confirmed that the rule change stemmed from the Glowing Plant project, but said it wasn’t a reflection on that individual venture or the creators, or a judgment on the field of synthetic biology as a whole.

“The Glowing Plants project sparked a debate in the scientific community about Kickstarter being used to release genetically modified organisms to the public. … To better understand the debate, we reached out to a few scientists, researchers and others in the biohacking world for their perspective,” Strickler told The Verge. “What emerged is that the scientific community is unsettled on the best practices and ethics of releasing genetically modified organisms into the world.”

The company may also be trying to avoid a legal tangle with the rule change. While people can only create Kickstarter projects in the U.S., U.K. and Canada, backers can contribute from anywhere, including European Union countries that place strict rules on importing GMOs.

Plus, Kickstarter has never been quite comfortable with housing projects that cross too deeply into experimental science -- Strickler told The Verge as much, saying some science projects are “outside of [Kickstarter’s] core focus.” While Kickstarter does make space for science-themed creative and technological works, straight-up research projects would not be allowed under its guidelines; for that, scientists are increasingly turning to other science-focused crowdfunding startups like Microryza and Petridish.org.

“We do allow [GMO projects] -- we encourage them,” Microryza cofounder Cindy Wu said in a phone interview. “Of course, it’s different for us because we don’t provide any sort of awards, so distribution of GMOs isn’t an issue for us.”

Meanwhile, Glowing Plant is on target to start shipping out its luminescent Arabidopsis seeds and seedlings by the summer of 2014. Evans says that before the ban was enacted, the Glowing Plant team had toyed with the idea of doing a similar Kickstarter project every year. Now, they’ll probably still pursue crowdfunding, but on a different platform like Indiegogo.

“We personally believe that this technology has a lot of power to do good in the world,” Evans says. And crowdfunding “makes it possible for all groups to participate in this revolution.” INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES

AUSTRALIA: GMO stance 'hurting state'

AUSTRALIA

GMO stance 'hurting state'

MAINTAINING Tasmania's ban on the commercial release of genetically modified organisms will put the state's farmers at a significant disadvantage.

According to CropLife Australia chief executive officer Matthew Cossey.

Tasmania's GMO moratorium is currently under review and Mr Cossey would encourage anyone making a public submission later this month to think critically about this issue and seek out the facts.

Mr Cossey was one of several speakers at the third annual Peracto Industry Seminar held at the Devonport Waterfront Function Centre.

He discussed the importance of innovation, and the very real obstacles obscuring the path to a future where Australia's agriculture leads the world both in sustainability and productivity.

In his speech in 2012 he said a record 17.3 million farmers, in 28 countries planted more than 170 million hectares of genetically modified crops.

"This represents an annual growth rate of 6 per cent over 2011 plantings," Mr Cossey said.

"The unprecedented and continually increasing adoption rates of this technology are testimony to the value millions of farmers worldwide are placing on GM crops."

CropLife Australia represents the agricultural chemical and crop biotechnology, or plant science sector in Australia.

The plant science industry is currently worth more than $1.5 billion a year to the Australian economy and directly employs thousands of people across the country

Mr Cossey said as the peak industry body he had a vested interest in the success of the crop biotechnology industry.

"However, the scientific consensus around the safety of genetically modified food and crops is as strong as the scientific consensus around climate change, as is the science around the environmental benefits of GM crops," he said.

Mr Cossey said the nation's farming sector clearly held the potential to become Australia's biggest and most important strength over this century.

"Demand will continue to increase for food, feed and fibre as the world's population grows to nearly 10 billion by 2050," he said.

In 2012 Australia grew 688,000 hectares of GM crops, made up of 512,000 hectares of GM cotton and 176,000 hectares of GM canola.

Mr Cossey said the enhanced Australian farm income from GM crops was estimated at $688 million for the period of 1996 to 2011.

"The benefits for 2011 alone (are estimated) at $205.95 million," he said.

Australian cotton farmers have been using GM technology since 1996, and today almost all the nation's crop is comprised of GM varieties exclusively.

"Australian cotton growers are realising an average gain of over $180 per hectare from using the technology," he said.

Mr Cossey said since 2008, farmers in some states have had access to the technology in canola.

"Despite only restricted access, in 2012 approximately 10 per cent of the total national canola crop was genetically modified," he said.

"GM canola realised a financial benefit of around $73 per hectare.

"An analysis of National Variety Trial results from 2009-2012 also confirm the significant yield benefits."

Farmers in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia now have the opportunity to choose if they want to grow approved GM canola varieties.

Mr Cossey said that Tasmanian farmers are being denied these agronomic, economic and environmental benefits.

"The government of Tasmania has decided, ostensibly for trade and marketing reasons, to deny Tasmanian farmers access to this technology, despite it being available to the majority of their competitors on Mainland Australia and to our most significant global agricultural competitors," he said.

Mr Cossey said all regulation should be proportionate with the associated risk, cost and benefit to the community.

"Unnecessary regulation brings with it an unnecessary burden on innovation," he said.

"Such unnecessary burden and restriction will only hinder Australian agriculture."

Mr Cossey said the current gene technology regulatory system in Australia already imposed a much greater level of regulatory burden on the industry than occurred in many other countries.

"This burden is exacerbated by unclear and inconsistent market interventions by state governments," he said.

Looking ahead, Mr Cossey said it was imperative to move the conversation on GM crops (and agricultural biotechnology more broadly) forward, for the sake of Australia's national interest.

"It is our responsibility as representatives of the agricultural industry in Australia to move the conversation into a new paradigm based in future benefit," he said

"To do that will take new thinking, new structures, and increased co-operative operations across the agricultural sector.

"No state should be left behind as we move into that new future for farming." THE ADVOCATE

CHINA

China approves first shipment of Argentine GMO corn shaking world markets

China has approved its first shipment of genetically modified Argentine corn, Buenos Aires-based trade sources said, which could mean that the Asian giant may eventually import GMO crops from other producers like the United States.

The sources, as reported in the Buenos Aires media said Chinese health authorities cleared 60.000-tons of genetically modified Argentine corn. The cargo was already headed inland to be used as hog and chicken feed.

Benchmark Chicago corn futures fell briefly after the market learned about the shipment. Argentina competes for market share with the United States, the leading world corn exporter. But CBOT corn futures, which were already depressed due to good US crop weather, ended the session mixed.

US farmers could eventually benefit from China finally opening the door to GMO corn imports. Demand for corn-fed pork and poultry has boomed in China as a growing middle class can afford a higher-protein diet.

The Argentine corn was imported by China's state-owned trading house COFCO and left Argentina about a month ago, said three Buenos Aires-based grains trading sources with knowledge of the situation.

The market knew since May that Argentine corn was headed to China. But questions lingered as to whether it would be approved for entry by the AQSIQ, China's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine.

“The cargo has now been approved by the AQSIQ and the vessel has been discharged in China. The corn is officially imported and on its way to end customers,” said a source at a major trading company in Buenos Aires.

Chicago corn prices have fallen sharply from record highs last summer, and many analysts and traders expected prices to fall further on prospects for a US bumper crop this season.

In contrast to last year, the world is expected to be awash with corn for the foreseeable future, keeping prices in check. Argentina's 2012/13 crop is nearly all harvested.

China is seen by corn futures traders as a wild card in their attempt to pencil in specific price projections. Most Argentine corn is genetically modified. A small amount was allowed into China late last year as a test case under a China-Argentina GMO deal signed in February 2012. MERCOPRESS

INDIA: Farmers' group demand clearance for GM crops

Farmers' group demand clearance for GM crops







A group of farmer organisations Wednesday appealed to the union government to allow field trials of genetically modified (GM) crops as that will increase productivity. 

Farmers from Consortium of Indian Farmers Association (CIFA), All India Co-ordination Committee of Farmers Associations among others expressed disappointment over a Supreme Court technical expert committee recommending an indefinite moratorium on the field trials of GM crops. 

"We face several farm productivity challenges like high labour cost, insects, diseases, unpredictable water and nutrient availability. GM crop can offer us some choices of solutions," Chengal Reddy, secretary general, CIFA told reporters here. 

According to the farmer organisations, delay in access to new technology like GM crops will put farmers back by several decades. 

"Farmers in other parts of the world have moved several steps forward. They now access the latest scientific technologies in the seeds they sow," said Bhupinder Singh Mann of the Shetkari Sanghatana. 

The farmers expressed hope that the Supreme Court will take a decision in their favour. 

The apex court committee last month recommended indefinite moratorium till the government comes out with a proper regulatory and safety mechanism. IANS 

Ghana to test four genetically modified crops

The West African country of Ghana announced Friday it would begin testing four genetically modified crops for commercial production. The new GM crops include cowpea, cotton, high-protein sweet potato and nitrogen-efficient, water-efficient and salt-tolerant rice.

The GM cotton, sweet potato and rice are being developed under the Crops Research Institute (CRI) of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. The Bt cowpea is being developed by the Savanna Agricultural Research Institute (SARI).

Field trials for the Bt cotton and GM rice are already planted and underway, but trials for the cowpea and sweet potato have not been done, according to Ghanaweb.com.

The news about the four new GM crops was announced at an event held for journalists to help them report on the issues of biotechnology more accurately.

Eric Okoree, a representative of the Ministry of Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation, said a technical advisory committee had been formed to conduct risk assessment into all GM applications in the country, adding that institutional bio-safety had been certified for two research institutions—the CRI and the SARI, Ghanaweb.com reported.

PHILIPPINE: GM Rice Grown in Philippines Nearly Ready for Food Safety Evaluation

Philippine

GM Rice Grown in Philippines Nearly Ready for Food Safety Evaluation

A genetically modified variety of rice grown in the Philippines as a means to improve malnutrition will soon be submitted to authorities for biosafety evaluations, according to BBC.

The rice, known as “Golden Rice” and which is engineered to produce beta-carotene — a plant pigment that the body converts into vitamin A — will help nourish the 1.7 million Filipino children who suffer from a vitamin A deficiency, a condition which reduces immunity and can cause blindness.

After more than two decades of boosting beta-carotene levels in the rice, scientists are just weeks away from submitting the product to the Philippines’ food safety regulators.

Two-thirds of Filipino households don’t eat enough to meet their daily dietary requirements, and most of the calories they do consume come from rice; the average Filipino eats 100 kilograms (dry weight) of rice per year.

Although some say the GM rice is a dangerous way to address malnutrition as well as threatens the country’s staple food, scientists estimate that just one cup of the rice could supply up to 50 percent of an adult's recommended daily intake. THE DAILY MEAL

CHINA: NATION POISED TO IMPORT MORE GMO PRODUCTS

CHINA

Nation poised to import more GMO products

China's recent move to allow imports of genetically modified Argentine corn could be a sign that the country is ready to buy more GMO food products from the global market.

Argentina's Ministry of Agriculture said on Wednesday that China's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine cleared 60,000 metric tons of GMO Argentine corn, which will be processed as chicken and hog feed.

The first shipment of Argentine GMO corn entered China on Friday. The corn was exported by Bunge Ltd's Argentina branch and imported by COFCO, China's largest grain trader, after orders from two animal feed processors in southern China.

China has bought foreign corn before, but this is the first time that the country's demand for the grain has pushed the government to import such a large shipment of GMO corn from Argentina.

Gustavo Martino, the Argentine ambassador to China, said that China's feed industry will benefit from more diversified sources of grain supply and increased competition in the market, which is now dominated by a sole supplier - the United States - which has 99 percent of the country's corn import market.

"After this, we should expect more shipments to come from Argentina next year, because import licenses have already been granted in China and it's likely that Argentine corn from the last harvest has already been sold," Martino said.

"Both Argentina and US corn are GMO corn, where the level of biotech production has reached around 90 percent of their respective domestic total for corn production," he added.

In the first half of the year, the Ministry of Agriculture has approved imports of seven types of GMO crops, including three kinds of soybeans and two types of corn and cotton. The valid period for imports of the products runs from 2013 to 2018.

"Importing GMO corn can be a useful method to prevent the inflation of corn prices, which is caused by unpredictable shortages, speculation and unfavorable weather conditions," said Yang Dongcai, a researcher at the Beijing-based institute of bio-technology at the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences.

"The current level of Chinese corn production is very high on an Asian basis but, on a global basis, it's still at a level where improvements can be made," Yang said.

Yang said the government has realized this and is paying close attention to GMO crops, because it wants to boost corn production beyond the current levels. CHINA DAILY

Fears of genetically modified food aren’t based in reality

OPINION
Fears of genetically modified food aren’t based in reality

Ken Pieksma

I am concerned about the misinformation being presented as fact in the discussion of genetically modified food.

The world’s population is expected to reach 9 billion people by 2050, and the arable land available to feed the 9 billion continues to shrink. Conventional agriculture must be prepared to embrace new technology.

One key element of meeting these goals is genetic engineering, also referred to as biotechnology. Genes are introduced into crops that enhance several desirable traits, such as resistance to pests and herbicides, harsh environmental conditions, improved product shelf life and increased nutritional value. These introduced genes may or may not be native to the species.

It has been nearly 20 years since the first genetically modified crops were grown. Some 28 countries cultivate them commercially, and many hundreds of millions of people safely eat GM food, directly or indirectly, on a regular basis.

In the Treasure Valley alone, it is estimated that greater than 90 percent of the field corn produced for feed and grain is GM. In all those years, there is zero medical evidence that GM food is detrimental to one’s health in any manner.

Indeed, evidence would suggest otherwise, that GM products can be healthier for human consumption due to the decreased use of harmful pesticides and herbicides. Calestous Juma, a professor of international development at Harvard, points out that the use of transgenic crops has prevented the spraying of 473 million kilograms of toxic pesticides, reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 23.1bn kg — equivalent to taking 10.2 million cars off the road — and saved 108.7 million hectares of land from being turned into farmland.

Rather than creating environmental havoc, GM crops have, by and large, been better for the environment than growing the equivalent conventional crops with relatively lower yields and higher chemical input.

No one has died or fallen ill directly as a result of eating GM food. Studies’ showing that it damages the health of laboratory animals have been discredited by credible scientific authorities.

Accusers have suggested my company, Monsanto, is just a multinational agrochemical behemoth merely looking to increase profits at the expense of consumer health. My experience has been quite the opposite. Our core values are founded in aiding the farmer, sustainability, and more nutritious food.

Monsanto has made a commitment to double yields in corn, soy, and cotton by 2030 in high technology-adopting countries. The focus for every meeting I have witnessed in my 23 years with the company is always on farmers and consumers. We have a vested interest in safe and healthy food.

The possibilities of genetically enhanced food are impossible to ignore. Vitamin A-enriched rice (golden rice) could save the lives of millions of children and aid in the prevention of vitamin A-deficient blindness in Third World countries.  We have the technology. We can produce crops that are “Round-Up Ready,” have a natural bacillus that is completely harmless to mammals but protects plants from insects. We have the technology to minimize loss from drought. One can only imagine what the future possibilities are. The fact that several private and public entities are investing in GM crops is indicative of that.

GM foods are tested extensively by the USDA and other government agencies. They must pass rigorous regulations to enter the market. You can rest assured they are safe.

I agree with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which states that genetically modified foods have no greater risk than those conventionally produced. Today’s GM products are the most researched and tested agricultural products in history. Please go to http://gmoanswers.com/ to answer any questions you may have.

I recently visited one of the largest fresh market producers of sweet corn in Florida. During flowering and up to seed set, the field is sprayed with a pesticide every other day to prevent worm damage to the sweet corn ears. That would be in the neighborhood of 10 to 12 applications of pesticide. Pesticide usage in a typical sweet corn genetically enhanced field could be decreased by up to 85 percent.

As for me and my house, we’ll eat the GM corn. PRESS TRIBUNE

Hawaii Is at the Forefront of GM Crops

Hawaii Is at the Forefront of Genetically Modified Crops

H. Sterling Burnett

(Sterling.Burnett@ncpa.org)

H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA)

When people think of Hawaii, they probably imagine beautiful sunsets over white sand beaches, bountiful waves, colorful clothing, and spasmodic volcanos. For the average person, what probably doesn’t leap to mind when thinking about Hawaii is the food they eat and Hawaii’s agriculture industry. It should, however, because Hawaii is at the forefront of modern, high-output agriculture: biotech farming.

Salvation after Sugar Collapse
Biotech agricultural companies took advantage of the collapse of Hawaii’s sugar industry in the 1980s to buy land and introduce genetically modified crops for research and ultimately commercial seed sale. Hawaii’s climate makes it ideal for biotech experimentation and new varietal development because it allows biotech companies to get three or four planting seasons in every year.

From tiny acorns, mighty oaks grow, and so it has been with Hawaii’s seed industry. Companies including DuPont, Pioneer, Syngenta, Dow, BASF, and Monsanto all operate in Hawaii. From humble beginnings, the seed industry, at more than $243 million annually, is the largest segment of Hawaii’s agricultural sector. In 2010, the agriculture companies exported more than 9.7 million pounds of seed, half of which was genetically modified. The seed industry alone employs approximately 1,400 people. 

Seed companies point out genetically enhanced crops both provide employment and keep land in agriculture at a time when fertile farmland elsewhere is being developed for other uses. 

Biotech’s Environmental Benefits
Environmental activists have raised a variety of objections to the planting of biotech crops in Hawaii, including that they are harmful to human health and encourage the indiscriminate use of chemicals. The answer to these charges in Hawaii, as elsewhere, seems to be, “where’s the evidence?” 

Despite hundreds of studies, none have found legitimate evidence of harm to public health from genetically modified crops that have gone into commercial production. Instead, genetically modified crops are improving human nutrition by increasing crop yields and making food less expensive.

Similarly, genetically modified crops are improving the environment. Improving crop yields means less land is developed for food production. Also, some genetic modifications allow farmers to reduce the amount of pesticides needed—the plants are engineered to either enhance their own natural defenses against insects and weeds or to use defenses imported from other subspecies or species. A second type of modification enables a crop to withstand higher doses of certain pesticides when such pesticides are needed for crop protection.

“Study after study shows that the development of biotech crops has improved the environmental performance in agriculture,” said Greg Conko, executive director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “It has reduced the need to spray chemical insecticides and reduced the amount of older, more environmentally harmful herbicides, replacing their use with more benign, less toxic herbicides with limited persistence in the environment.”

“Genetic modification has enhanced food production in the United States and throughout the world while simultaneously improving environmental conditions,” said Jay Lehr, science director for the Heartland Institute, which publishes Environment & Climate News. “Genetic modification breakthroughs are among the greatest scientific advances of the past century.”

More Viable Papaya Crop
In Hawaii, seed crops are not the only things that are being bio-engineered. Along with corn (which is the largest crop), wheat, soybean, sorghum, and canola are also benefiting from genetic modification. In addition, in the late 1980s, the University of Hawaii began developing a papaya strain resistant to the Papaya Ringspot Virus. The new, genetically modified papaya plants are no longer susceptible to infection, allowing farmers to cultivate the fruit even when the historically debilitating virus is widespread.

Hawaiian farmers began commercially growing the first virus-resistant papayas in 1999.  Bio-engineered papayas now cover approximately 2,400 acres, three quarters of the total Hawaiian papaya crop.

These papayas have been approved for consumption both in the United States and in Canada, and several Asian countries are developing genetically modified papaya varieties resistant to their local virus strains. 

What happens in Hawaii does not stay in Hawaii, it would seem. HEARTLAND

PHILIPPINE: GM rice approval 'edging closer'

PHILIPPINE

GM rice approval 'edging closer'

By Charlotte Ashton
The World Tonight

Scientists in the Philippines are weeks from submitting a genetically modified variety of rice to the authorities for biosafety evaluations.

They claim it could be in the fields within a year, but national regulators will have the final say.

Supporters say it will help the 1.7 million Filipino children who suffer vitamin A deficiency - which reduces immunity and can cause blindness.

But campaigners say "Golden Rice" is a dangerous way to tackle malnutrition.

They say that it threatens the Philippines' staple food.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

Malnutrition is a broader issue, therefore the solution needs to be broader also”

Dr Chito MedinaMASIPAG

The fields at the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice), in Nueva Ecija, just north of Manila, look just like the other thousands of rice paddies that make up the Luzon landscape.

Apart from the tall fences surrounding them, you would never guess they were being used to grow rice that had been genetically modified to produce beta-carotene.

The body converts beta-carotene into Vitamin A and scientists estimate that one cup of Golden Rice could provide up to 50% of an adult's recommended daily intake.

The rice has been engineered so that the precursor chemical is expressed in the edible grain as well as in the non-edible leaves, where it occurs naturally.

Ready to roll

It has taken scientists more than two decades to boost the beta-carotene in Golden Rice to meaningful levels. But Dr Antonio Alfonso, who leads the project at PhilRice, says the product is now ready.

Speaking to the World Tonight programme, he said: "My increased confidence comes from the fact that... our data, aside from being mostly available now, are as expected and, therefore, unlikely to raise new questions or concerns on the part of the regulators.

"But we have to recognise people's fear. That's exactly why we have regulation for establishing safety: food safety feed safety, environmental safety, safety to humans, safety to animals, these are all considered in our current regulatory system in the Philippines."

The stakes are high. Rice is by far the most important crop in the Philippines, with the average Filipino eating 100kg (dry weight) per year.

There are other ways to tackle Vitamin A deficiency, but supporters say Golden Rice is the best

Two thirds of households don't eat enough to meet their dietary energy needs, and most of the calories they do get come from rice.

Anti-GM campaigners fear Golden Rice threatens the nation's food security, through as-yet unknown long-term effects on natural varieties resulting from cross-pollination.

Daniel Okompo, sustainable agriculture campaigner for South East Asia at Greenpeace says rice is too precious to tinker with: "Golden Rice is one of our biggest battles to date mainly because it's our staple. Rice is eaten by more than half of the world's population every day.

"And if you have Golden Rice out there or any genetically modified rice that will eventually contaminate our rice varieties, this is a very big problem, especially for the farmers who don't want to plant [GM] rice," he said.

"We don't know how this variety will evolve and that's why we think it should be contained in laboratories."

No silver bullet

Mr Okompo advocates more government spending on their Organic Agriculture Programme. In fields outside the town of Tayabas in south Luzon, Dr Chito Medina, national coordinator of charity MASIPAG, is working with farmers to improve the diversity of their crops using organic growing techniques.

He argues that a more diverse harvest contains naturally high levels of Vitamin A and other nutrients, making Golden Rice redundant.

"Malnutrition is a broader issue, therefore the solution needs to be broader also," he explained.

"The more important thing is alleviating poverty, providing more diverse seeds to farmers so they can grow more diverse crops and having more diverse food and a more balanced diet. Then there would be no vitamin deficiencies at all.

"There are so many natural sources of Vitamin A, especially in tropical countries: almost all green and leafy vegetables, yellow vegetables and fruits like mangos and cantaloupes."

Dr Medina added: "We have a variety of sweet potato which has five times the level of Vitamin A than there is in Golden Rice. Ecologically, this is more sustainable and it's the way agriculture should be in the future.

"Economically, it generates more income for farmers because there are fewer expenditures: they don't have to buy chemical pesticides, fertilisers or seeds."

'Superior solution'

The Philippines government has no official position on Golden Rice, pending the results of the forthcoming tests. Through mandatory fortification of flour and voluntary fortification of widely-consumed, cheap products like instant noodles, they've already reduced Vitamin A deficiency from 40% of the population in 2003 to 15% in 2008.

At the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Banos, south of Manila, where much of the development of Golden Rice took place, Bruce Talantino, its deputy director-general, accepts that it is only one of a variety of strategies for dealing with Vitamin A deficiency.

But Jovita Raval from the National Nutrition Council says the authorities "welcome any strategy that can help with the reduction of malnutrition especially micronutrient deficiencies".

But he says Golden Rice is still the superior solution: "The problem with the usual attempts to deal with Vitamin A deficiency, which is to provide supplements is that it's a never ending expense. They eat rice every day and farmers will grow this rice the same way and they will sell it in the same way," he said.

He rejects allegations that the true purpose of Golden Rice is to serve as a poster boy for an unpopular industry. Agribusiness giant Syngenta funded much of the research, but Mr Talantino says they don't stand to profit from fields of Golden Rice.

"They have given up the rights to making any money from it. They have signed off their commercialisation rights and given us the license. We're not doing this for glory, we're not doing this for money," he said.

"IRRI is a non-profit institution, which is meant for research for the benefit of mankind, always funded by public and government funding. And we'll continue to do that for as long as we exist." BBC