CHINA: GM rice taste test in Wuhan aims to quell doubts

GM rice taste test in Wuhan aims to quell doubts

About 260 Chinese volunteers participated in a taste test of genetically modified rice, hoping to reassure the public about the food.

The volunteers savored cakes and porridge made from GM rice at a campaign initiated by pro-GM internet users on Saturday at Huazhong Agriculture University in Wuhan, capital of central China's Hubei province. The rice included "golden rice," grown by the university and modified to be rich in beta carotene.

GM food remains controversial nearly two decades after being introduced to the commercial market, as there is still no consensus on whether or not it is harmful to humans.

"Today, genetically engineered food is everywhere. My wife buys modified soy oil all the time, even after she became pregnant months ago," said Zhu, a participant who works in IT at a bank in Wuhan.

The volunteers, from 20 provinces and municipalities, signed up for the event via QQ, a popular instant messaging tool.

"Maybe we are all skeptics at the beginning. But some day we must believe the things we used to distrust," said another volunteer from Shanghai. "We should not blindly object to high and new technology, like genetic modification."

Similar taste tests have been staged since May in more than 20 cities, drawing over 1,000 participants.

"The taste test is the best way to popularize GM food," said Yan Jianbing, a pro-GM professor with the School of Life Sciences at Huazhong Agriculture University. Such events dispel doubts abound GM food and raise its acceptance by the public, he added.

"A plight facing us is that our country has resisted commercializing GM food and we're missing out on a huge opportunity," Zhang Qifa of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Dean of School of Life Sciences at the Wuhan university, told volunteers in T-shirts reading: "Love Science, Support Genetic Modification".

GM crops are more resistant to disease and pests, and need less pesticide and chemical fertilizer, said Zhang.

The campaign has apparently failed to convince critics concerned about health risks and environmental impact. "What we don't know is far more than we do know. Scientists also have very limited knowledge," said Chen Xirui, a 36-year-old teacher in Wuhan.

GM rice was at the center of a storm when it emerged that 25 children in central China's Hunan province were fed US-grown "golden rice" as part of a research program led by a professor from Tufts University in 2008. A probe by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) showed Tang Guangwen of Tufts, along with researchers from the China CDC and Zhejiang Academy of Medical Sciences, conducted the test without telling parents that GM food was used. Several CDC officials and researchers were punished for certifying the test and concealing information.

Tang was banned from conducting human body research for two years, and families of the children each received 80,000 yuan (US$13,000) in compensation from local authorities.

In November 2009, the Ministry of Agriculture granted biosafety certificates for two pest-resistant GM rice varieties and one variety of corn, making China the first country in the world to give the nod to field trials of GM staple foods.Xinhua

GM Debate Not Settled, Say European Scientists

Controversy erupts after World Food Prize awarded to Monsanto

Protesters demonstrate against Monsanto in Los Angeles on May 25. A European coalition of scientists is challenging claims that the debate around genetically modified foods is settled and that GM foods are safe. (Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images)

In the wake of biotech giants Monsanto and Syngenta being awarded the World Food Prize, a European coalition of scientists is challenging claims that the debate around genetically modified foods is settled and that GM foods are safe.

The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, which consists of more than 90 scientists, academics, and physicians, released a statement Monday in response to “sweeping claims” that GM products are safe.

“We strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is ‘over,’” the group said in a statement.

“The claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.”

The coalition cites several studies that suggest GM crops and foods can be toxic or allergenic, and raises the concern that many GM products remain under-tested.

Controversy erupted last week after the World Food Prize, known as the Nobel prize of agriculture, was awarded to three researchers—including Monsanto’s Robert T. Fraley—who played prominent roles in developing genetically engineered crops.

Those who view GM foods as an answer to world hunger lauded the decision. Others, however, were outraged, saying the technology is overhyped, under-tested, and unsustainable. Critics also pointed to recent rulings in nine countries that have restricted or banned the field release or commercialization of certain GM crops.

The neutrality of the food prize itself was also questioned, as it relies on funding from corporate, private, and government contributions. Among its donors are Monsanto and the Syngenta Foundation.

“There’s a lot of money at stake if GM food safety is questioned, so we worry that important questions are being ignored,” said Lucy Sharratt, coordinator for the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN), which has long opposed GMOs.

“Industry funding is undermining the integrity of science, and industry campaigns are eroding the public understanding of the scientific process.”

No Evidence of Harm: Monsanto

Monsanto maintains that its GM products are safe, and that seeds with genetically engineered traits have been tested more than any other crops “in the history of agriculture,” with no evidence of harm to humans or animals.

“We place the highest priority on the safety of our products and conduct rigorous and comprehensive testing on each,” said Trish Jordan, public and industry affairs director for Monsanto Canada. 

“The science and safety behind genetic modification and other advanced breeding techniques are well-established and strongly supported by the scientific community.”

A 2011 study by researchers at the University of Sherbrooke in Quebec found that pregnant women who ate livestock fed with GM corn retained in their bodies and in their umbilical cords the toxic pesticides implanted in the corn through the genetic modification.

GM corn grown in Canada has been predominantly used for animal feed, processed-food ingredients, and biofuels. More recently however, GM sweet corn has made its way—unlabelled—onto store shelves.

Results of a test released this week by CBAN found GM sweet corn in grocery stores, roadside stands, and farmers’ markets in Ontario, B.C., Nova Scotia, and Alberta.

Fifteen of the 43 samples purchased tested positive—meaning that approximately 35 percent of the samples were genetically modified. Samples from Sobeys and Walmart did not test positive.

“The high number of positive results in our small sample size alerts consumers to the fact that they could be unknowingly buying GM sweet corn. At the very least, GM sweet corn should be clearly labelled so consumers can make a choice,” said Sharratt.

CBAN said sweet corn is the first GM “whole food” grown in Canada. Theepochtimes

OPINION: Labels for all the wrong reasons

OPINION: Labels for all the wrong reasons

Tracy Warner's column

He can be reached at warner@wenatcheeworld.comor 665-1163.

I have had many conversations lately about genetically modified foods, not surprising under the circumstances. Not all, but most have been pleasant exchanges among people with differing opinions. The discussion usually doesn't lead to debate over whether food derived from genetically engineered plants is good or bad, dangerous or safe. It's more often about who sells the stuff.

Friends, acquaintances, intelligent people I admire, tell me I am mistaken. I am wrong to oppose labeling GM foods and wrong to oppose Initiative 522 that would require it. The primary reason, they say, is I should fear corporate behemoths intending to dominate American agriculture for profit and greed. Monsanto, the international food sciences and chemical giant, which markets widely used genetically modified seed for corn, soy and other crops, is the perfect suspect. I must loath Monsanto. The sign wavers and protesters in butterfly suits and crop-ripping vandals have a legitimate point. If Monsanto is opposed to GMO food labels, and it is in a big way, then any sensitive and sensible person should support them.

Well, it's hard to argue with that. I'm not going to defend Monsanto, or its corporate history. You can't win there. To the best of my recollection I've never had any contact with Monsanto and it certainly hasn't offered to put me on the payroll or slipped me bucks under the table. Maybe they sent me an email press release or two -- I used to be the farm writer here -- but they didn't sway me since I can't remember them. Actually, bribes have been constantly non-existent in my career. A phone company lobbyist once offered to take me to a fancy golf course to talk telecommunications bills, but I turned him down (discussing legislation while golfing is not my idea of fun. If you are me, golf is never fun). So much for my career as a corporate shill.

If bad guys sell seed to farmers, shouldn't I want large, conspicuous, front-facing labels on the products that originate with that transaction? "Partially produced by genetic engineering" becomes code -- brought to you by the people we strongly dislike.

Since when did we start labeling food based on corporate policy? Food labels supply a vague list of ingredients and some nutritional information. They don't say anything about plant breeding or agricultural practices or what brand of herbicide the farmer used, because beyond ideology that doesn't make any difference in what goes in your mouth. Your partially hydrogenated vegetable oil or lecithin might be processed from oil seed with different and perhaps oddly manipulated genome, but that doesn't matter. The strands of protein floating around in the seed's cell nucleus aren't the issue, because none are likely to affect you. And you don't label food if the seed company once sold nasty chemicals to the Defense Department. You don't label food because the wrong company sold herbicide to farmers in Iowa. You don't label food if you want people to buy your product and not their's.

I happened across a policy statement from the American Phytopathological Society on this issue. Never heard of them? These are plant pathologists, the studiers of plant disease. They are scientists, but they have a stake here. "APS has long opposed regulating food, feed and fiber products based solely on the particular technologythat was used to create the varieties/cultivars. Thus, APS advocates regulating on the basis of the products derived and not the breeding process. Gene transfer to achieve disease resistance, as well as nutrition, color and taste, have a long history in plant hybridization and cytogenetics. These techniques are considered conventional in breeding even though they constitute gene mobilization from both species and genera to recipient plants. Currently there are several efforts to require labeling for products derived from plants produced using molecular genetic manipulation. ... To date, no documented and reproducible studies have shown harm to human or animal health associated with GM crops ... Thus, labeling foods as GM would be considered arbitrary and capricious and would be confusing to consumers. Further, such labeling could reduce the availability and use of biotechnology for the management of plant diseases."

Those pesky scientists, they actually like technological progress. They don't want to scare people away from it for no reason beyond politics and brand loyalty. Imagine. Maybe they don't hate Monsanto enough.

OPINION: L.A. Considers Banning GMOs

L.A. Considers Banning GMOs

The City of Angels may prohibit the sale and distribution of genetically modified organisms to become the biggest GMO-free zone in America. But it’s not just about ridding Los Angeles of them. As one of the councilmen who proposed the measure puts it, “so goes the West, so goes the rest of the country.”

Introduced on Friday by City Councilmen Paul Koretz and Mitch O’Farrell, the ordinance aims to protect personal and communal gardens from catching the GMO bug. These DNA-altered organisms are mainly used by large farms, but Koretz and O’Farrell want to have the ban in place in case the seeds and plants are intended to be sold to home gardeners. Although L.A. wouldn’t be the first place to disallow the sale of genetically modified organisms—in California alone, Mendocino and Marin counties and the city of Arcata all have bans in place—the proposition is meant to get the ball rolling in the rest of the states by using L.A.’s influential position to inspire similar movements. The Huffington Post offers more information on the proposed ordinance:

“The pending ordinance would be symbolic more than anything else, but we do feel it’s an important step to have the second-largest city in the nation declare itself as against genetically modified seeds,” said [David King, head of Learning Garden and Seed Library of LA].
Joanne Poyourow, executive director of Environmental Changemakers of LA, said targeting city gardeners is easier than large farmers.
“Right now, it is very challenging to save that diversity in the farmlands, but we think we can provide significant help in saving that diversity by saving seeds within the cities,” said Poyourow, who also worked on the motion.
Poyourow is part of a community of heirloom seed-savers in LA. “Our objective is to preserve a large area where heirloom seeds can safely be saved,” she said.
O’Farrell said he thinks the worldwide decline of honeybees is the “canary in the coal mine” for GMOs. U.S. World commercial beehives declined 40 to 50 percent in 2012, with the suspicions of some beekeepers and researchers falling on powerful new pesticides incorporated into plants themselves. In California, almond agriculture, which depends on bees, has been hit especially hard. About 80 percent of the nation’s almonds are produced in central California.
“A growing number of problems are being traced to GMOs,” Koretz said in a statement. In addition to loss of bees, he cited “the evolution of ‘superbug’ insects which are growing immune to the pesticides engineered within GMO crops” and “‘seed drift’ (for example the recent finding of GMO-pollinated wheat growing in an Oregon farmer’s field).”
Proponents of GMOs—including food, biotech and chemical companies—say there is no research proving that genetically modified food has less nutritional value than non-modified food. They also point out that genetic modification allows for insect- and weather-resistant crops that can help meet a rising global food demand.
The LA motion comes weeks before Washington state will vote on ballot initiative 522, which calls for labeling food products that contain genetically modified ingredients.
Last November, Californians narrowly defeated Proposition 37, which would have made California the first state to require that genetically modified food be labeled. Monsanto, Kraft and Coca-Cola were among companies contributing to what became a $46-million “No on Prop 37” radio and television campaign. Proponents raised $9.2 million.

The ban would not address the sale of genetically modified foods.

Ghanaians in mix of GMO debate

Global Information Network | October 24, 2013

(GIN)—Members of Food Sovereignty Ghana (FSG) and other environmental groups took the issue of food security to the streets in a march through Accra that linked up virtually with seven African countries from South Africa to Kenya.

It was the second annual march against genetically modified seeds, bioengineered food and its corporate backers, coupled with the perceived risks to small farmers incomes and to health.

This month, activists in Kenya, Ghana, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Egypt and South Africa came out in force. Activists in Accra carried signs saying, “GMO will make Ghanaian farmers poor” and “Our Food Under Our Control!!!”

Public opposition to GM crops has grown in recent years. Critics assert that DNA-altered crops require massive chemical inputs, which destroy local biodiversity and poison the water tables; create superweeds; and cause organ damage, sterility, and diabetes and obesity in mammals. Nevertheless, the Ghana government continues to lean toward GMOs and a field trial of GMO cow peas is currently underway.

Perhaps most important to African farmers, imported GM seeds are the intellectual property of the multinationals and cannot be saved for future use as is the practice of small farmers worldwide. Seed purchases every year versus the saving of seeds year to year are a heavy if not unsustainable burden on small farmers, warns Food Sovereignty Ghana.

The “control of our resources by multinational corporations and other foreign entities,” must be avoided, FSG said on their Facebook page.

They cited a recent UN report, which noted that hunger is not caused by a food shortage but by “a lack of purchasing power and/or the inability of the rural poor to be self-sufficient.”

“The engagement in the market was very surprising and drew a lot of curiosity,” said Ras Aswad Nkrabea, the group’s director of mobilization. “It resulted in us being invited to meet with the market queens in the near future to make sure they are well informed about these issues.”