China must switch to growing GM food before it's too late: scientist

Agricultural expert warns of crisis if country does not start growing modified crops and continues to rely on foreign imports

Agricultural expert warns of crisis if country does not start growing modified crops and continues to rely on foreign imports. Photo: AP

A leading agricultural scientist's unusually frank endorsement of growing genetically modified food has reignited a debate over whether the country should reconsider its long-time distaste for the controversial food source.

Professor Wu Kongming, a member of the influential Chinese Academy of Engineering, said the country risked increasing grain shortages and a dangerous dependence on foreign food imports if it continued to shun GM food.

"The conflict between food demand and supply in our country does not allow us to put aside the development of GM technology any longer," Wu, who is also vice-president of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, told China National Radio.

"China's situation has determined that we cannot follow the countries with very rich land resources to use traditional methods to satisfy our demand," he said.

"Our way out is to use modern technology to support the development of our agriculture."

China imports about 80 million tonnes of grains, such as soya beans, rice and wheat, each year, some of it genetically modified. To produce that amount of food domestically, the country would need 53 million more hectares of farmland, 44 per cent more than there was now, Wu said.

The imports had not only reduced food security but also strained global food supply, he said, adding that the country was running out of time to switch to GM food production.

Genetic modification, which is banned for staple grains such as rice and wheat on the mainland, could help crops better weather droughts, pests and diseases, as well as help farmers achieve higher yields, Wu said.

"As the imbalance gets worse, we may have to give up cotton and oil production to ensure a stable grain supply," he said. "To China, that is a dangerous signal."

Wu's remarks make him one of the few agricultural scientists to speak up for GM food on the mainland, where opposition to the products is deep-rooted and widespread.

Many mainlanders share the concerns of people elsewhere that using GM crops could cause unforeseen damage to the environment, such as introducing engineered genes into the wild.

Others fear eating such food could endanger health, although the World Health Organisation describes the risk of allergic reactions or transfers of antibiotic resistance as low.

Some hardline communists also argue that GM crops - often produced by large Western multinational companies - could provide a back door for an attack on the country's food supply.

A GM-rice researcher with the Chinese Academy of Sciences' Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology said most of the mainland's scientific community agreed with Wu, but few dared to speak up.

"If I openly defended the technology, my mobile phone would probably ring from dawn to dusk tomorrow with hate calls. That has happened to a colleague of mine," said the researcher, who declined to be named.

"In this country, public fear over GM food is bigger than the fear of atomic bombs."

Online, Wu's remarks drew mostly negative comments.

"The scientists can't prove GM food is safe unless they eat it every day," an internet user from Hefei , Anhui , wrote on Sohu.com's discussion board.

Yu Jiangli , of Greenpeace China's food and agriculture team, said people feared the inherent uncertainty of the technology.

"GM food may solve the food shortage in the short term, but in the long term it could bring other issues," she said.

"In China, there are many alternatives to improving food productivity, such as improving field management and reducing consumer waste, which are safer and more sustainable."

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as We need gm food now, says scientist

Washington state battles over GM food

Washington state battles over genetically modified food 

Washington state is the next battleground in an ongoing effort by food activists to get products containing genetically engineered ingredients labeled.

Washington state is the next battleground in an ongoing effort by food activists to get products containing genetically engineered ingredients labeled. California voters rejected a similar initiative 53% to 47% in a bruising and expensive election in 2012.
Initiative 522 goes before voters Nov. 5. It would require that foods containing ingredients from genetically engineered plants be labeled as such. Some opponents believe these foods are dangerous to humans, though there is little scientific evidence of that. Others feel large agribusinesses such as Monsanto, which sell these seeds, have too much control over the food supply.
"We believe that we have a right to know what's in our food," said Elizabeth Larter, the Seattle-based communications director for the Yes on 522 campaign. "This campaign is not about whether GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are good or bad; this is really just providing more information for consumers."
The labeling effort is being funded by grass-roots donations and a large contribution from Dr. Bronner's Magic All-One, a California soap company founded in the 1960s. It is known for labels featuring fine print advocating world peace and admonitions to dilute the liquid soap for multiple uses.
"This is about chemical companies buying up the seed companies," said David Bronner, president of the company, on a video prominently placed on its website. Opponents to labeling "understand that if they lose in Washington state, game over," he said of why the company is supporting the initiative and encouraging others to do so.
The Washington state effort is part of an ongoing fight by those opposed to genetically engineered crops to push for labeling.
"In 2013 alone there have been 26 states that have introduced labeling legislation," says Katey Parker with the Just Label It coalition, a pro-labeling group based in Washington, D.C.
According to The Seattle Times, Washington's Yes on 522 campaign so far has raised $4.8 million.
Squaring off on the other side is a coalition of food manufacturers and seed producers that thus far has raised a war chest of $17.2 million. That's a state record. The top five contributors were the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences and Bayer CropScience, according to the No on 522 Coalition.
Those opposed to labeling say it will falsely mislead consumers into thinking that products that contain genetically engineered ingredients are "somehow different, unsafe or unhealthy," said Brian Kennedy of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a food industry group based in Washington, D.C.
"I-522 is a complex, costly and misleading initiative that will raise grocery costs for Washington state consumers at a time when few can afford it," he said.
Genetically engineered crops have a gene from another plant inserted into them to give them some ability they didn't have before.
There are two common genetic modifications. One is for herbicide tolerance: Plants are given a gene that protects them from harm when a farmer sprays them with herbicides to kill weeds. The other is a gene from a soil bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis that allows plants to produce their own insecticide.
In the United States a huge proportion of commodity crops are genetically engineered: 97% of the nation's sugar beets, 93% of the soybeans, 90% of the cotton and 90% of the feed corn, according to the 2013 figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
About 60% of the papaya grown in the United States, all in Hawaii, has been genetically engineered to allow it to withstand the ringspot virus, which virtually wiped out papaya production in the islands in the 1980s, according to International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. Very small amounts of genetically engineered zucchini, yellow squash and sweet corn are also sold in the United States.
Connecticut passed GMO labeling legislation in June, but it doesn't go into effect until four other New England states pass labeling laws. Maine has passed a bill that won't go into effect "until five other states, or any amount of states with a total population of 20 million, enact" a similar one. Maine's governor has said he will sign it in January.
"Basically, they don't want to go it alone," says Rebecca Spector with the Center for Food Safety, which supports labeling. "They want other states in their region to pass it, so if there is a legal challenge, they can pool resources to support each other."
The Food and Drug Administration does not require foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled because it considers them "functionally equivalent" to conventionally grown crops.
That's somewhat disingenuous, said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University. "There is plenty of precedent for FDA requiring process labeling. Think of 'made from concentrate' or 'previously frozen.'"
Nestle does not believe GMO ingredients are harmful, but thinks companies should label them because when they don't, it appears they have something to hide. "If they had just labeled from the start, as the original GMO product, the Calgene Flavr Savr tomato did, none of this opposition would have built up," she said.
Gregory Jaffe, who directs the biotechnology program of the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, D.C., says the real answer would be to give FDA mandatory authority to ensure that these crops are safe to eat before they get to market. Currently FDA oversight is voluntary.
Despite fears on the part of some consumers, "there's an international consensus among the best scientists and regulators around the world that foods made from those crops are safe to eat," says Jaffe. "But that doesn't justify FDA not taking a hard look at them before they get to market."
In September 66% of Washington voters said they would vote for labeling, says Stuart Elway, whose Seattle firm conducts polls in the state.
Those numbers may change as both sides roll out their ad campaigns, he said. "I was watching TV the other night and saw a couple different ones on the anti-side. They've got the former secretary of agriculture for the state and a farmer. They're well produced so they're rolling out the heavy guns," Elway said.
Caitlin Carter of Maple Valley, Wash., says she wants labeling. "I feel I have a right know the source of my food."
Some of the information she's read made the argument that labeling will be costly to consumers, "but I'm not convinced," the marketing executive, 37, said. Even if it did, that's her decision, she feels. "It's like buying organic: I get to make the choice."
Many who study the food industry believe that were labeling to be required, companies would stop using genetically engineered ingredients because of fears consumers would reject them. "It's just like with transfats, when you had to label them they stopped using them," said Nestle, author of Eat, Drink, Vote: An illustrated guide to food politics. 
"There is a segment of the anti-GMO population who thinks that GMOs are really bad, and this is their way of getting rid of them," Nestle says. "Well, we live in a democratic society. If they want to control the way the game is played, they have to be willing to let other players try to control it as well." USA TODAY

I-522: Deceptive ‘truth’ about food and science

I-522: Deceptive ‘truth’ about food and science

byThe News Tribune

An initiative that touts itself as protecting the public’s “right to know” ought to guarantee accurate and complete information. Initiative 522 does the opposite – one of multiple reasons voters should reject it in November.

Initiative 522 would require the labeling of certain genetically modified foods. (Chris West/TVW)

The initiative would mandate that packaged foods with a detectable trace of a biotech nutrient – in the most minor ingredient – be emblazoned with “genetically engineered,” “partially produced with genetic engineering” or “may be partially produced with genetic engineering.”

Its drafters say they were modeling the mandate on Europe’s labeling requirement. But the differences demonstrate the extremism behind I-522. The European Union doesn’t put a screaming headline on the front of the box – it puts the information on the side, along with other nutritional information.

It also exempts food with GE content as high as 0.9 percent. That allowance is critical in an age when scientific equipment can detect molecules at levels of parts per million or lower. I-522 demands 0.0 percent as of 2019. If an unlabeled box tested positive for a minuscule level of a GE ingredient, the initiative would invite “any person” to bring a lawsuit against the farmer, food processor or storeowner who sold it.

The measure specifies that plaintiffs can recover their legal expenses, but doesn’t offer the same remedy to farmers or other defendants who prevail in court. This is a recipe for intimidation and extortion lawsuits, a reason that associations representing the vast majority of Washington farmers oppose the initiative.

Lumping together major GE ingredients and nutritionally insignificant residues is one way I-522 misleads. Another is the fact that I-522 stigmatizes some foods that have no genetically modified ingredients.

The sucrose from genetically modified sugar beets, for example, is chemically and nutritionally identical to the sucrose from “natural” sugarcane. Yet the beet sugar would have to carry the fright headline while the cane sugar wouldn’t. I-522 is targeting the politically incorrect plant – and its farmers – not the nutrient itself.

There’s no consistency. Cheeses, for example, are exempted from labeling even if they are processed with enzymes from genetically modified fungi. All fast food and other restaurant fare – much of our diet these days – is exempted.

So the measure would mislead by omission and also mislead by inclusion. I-522 doesn’t live up to its own truth-in-packaging claims.

What’s most misleading is the premise of the labeling – that there’s something so suspect about genetic modification that the public must be warned on the front of box. All genetic modification for any reason whatsoever – even to enhance a crop’s nutritional value or help the plant survive droughts and farms conserve water. This is crank thinking, not science.

GE opponents will cite a relative handful of studies that supposedly raise alarms about the entire technology. That’s not how science works. It reaches conclusions through broad research and growing scientific consensus, not isolated reports from outliers with Ph.Ds.

Contrary to opponents’ claims, extensive research – many hundreds of studies – has been done on GE crops and foods. Also contrary to their claims, much of that research has been done by independent scientists, not just Monsanto and other vested interests. More than 100 research projects have been funded by the European Union, which as been notably cautious about biotech foods.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and independent panels of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association and the EU’s European Commission have reviewed the studies and concluded that GE foods on the market are fundamentally as safe as others.

That’s another nutritionally important fact that I-522’s sponsors want to keep from the public. There are responsible, science-based ways to label the GE ingredients of foods. The drafters of I-522 chose a scarlet letter.