China’s GM debate heats up

Two of China’s most powerful government institutions went head to head in the controversial genetically modified (GM) food debate. Prompted by Peng Guangqian, a general from the People’s Liberation Army writing a column in China’s Global Times suggesting the GMO’s is a strategy by the West to displace China’s food security.

According to the Wall Street Journal China, Peng, who is also deputy secretary-general of China’s National Security Policy Committee, said in his column “If things change and the West cuts off our grain supply, are 1.3 billion people going to drink the northwestern wind?”

The Ministry of Agriculture, which has authority over GMO policy, reacted by posting a question and answer transcript and rejected Peng’s claims. Mr Lin Min, director of the Biotechnology Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, pointed out the US is the world’s largest consumer of GMO crops and that as China faces rising strains on its arable land, its use of “foreign resources and market coordination are inevitable.”

“This conspiracy theory is a product of Cold War thinking,” Lin said, “Government-approved GMO food and non-GMO food are equally safe…If GMO research has any benefit, it is first and foremost in the national interest.”

As the individual wealth of the Chinese people increases so does the demand on food. And the ministry have more and more turned to GMO imports to top up domestic supplies. In June, Beijing added import permits for three kinds of GMO soybeans produced by US giant Monsanto and German chemical producer BASF. In August this year, the government approved the first large-scale shipment of GMO corn from Argentina. The ministry has issued permits for every stage of domestic GMO development of China’s major crops except commercial production.AllAboutFeed

Monsanto took over regulatory bodies all over the world to lobby GMO

Monsanto took over regulatory bodies all over the world to lobby GMO

BY RT

Monsanto is trying to take full control of the world’s seed supply for a greater profit, hiding any report of damage GMO does to the ecosystem and human health, Jeffrey M. Smith, GMO researcher from the Institute for Responsible Technology, told RT.
Jeffrey M. Smith spoke about the dangers posed by GMO products and Monsanto aggressive policies on RT’s SophieCo.

SS: Do you disagree with the use of GMOs on purely scientific, medical grounds, or do you also have moral qualms as well?
JS: I have no problem with the technology per se. I think it’s important to have the technology if we can correct a defective gene in a human being with human gene therapy – that’s great. But that’s a risk that one person will take. Right now we can’t predictably and safely manipulate the genes in the way we are doing to protect health and the environment. So, to release the products of this infant science, which is prone to side-effects into the food supply and moreover into the environment where the self-propagating pollution of the gene-pool trough pollen drift and seed movement makes it irreversible – that’s not responsible at this time. Maybe in 50 to 100 years, maybe at some point in the future when we fully understand the DNA enough to make these manipulations – then it would be responsible to introduce GMOs into the outdoors or food.

SS: The advocates of GM crops say that they can help us combat poverty, starvation and diseases in the developing world – is there any truth in these claims?
JS: Not according to the experts, just according to the PR of the biotech industry. The world’s experts at feeding the world and eradicating poverty actually have the report, called “I-Stat” sponsored by the UN and the World Health Organization – and it concludes that GMOs in their current form have nothing to offer in feeding the world or eradicating poverty. There has been a promise to get people to try and promote the technology, accept the technology, but it doesn’t in fact even increase average yield, it reduces yield on average, according to independent science.

SS: But Jeffrey, from your point of view – are there any tangible benefits at all from GMOs?
JS: If you put blinders on – then yes. You see, the most popular genetically modified crop is called“roundup ready.” It’s produced by Monsanto, and they produce roundup herbicides, so the roundup ready crops are able to drink or withstand applications of roundup herbicides, which would normally kill a plant. So from a narrow farmers perspective of weeding – it’s easy, because you can spray over the top of the crops, kill all other plant biodiversity, but not the roundup ready crops. What they don’t look at are the health dangers for those who eat the crops that now have the roundup absorbed into the food portion. They don’t look at the damage to the soil, the damage to the ecosystem, the promotion of plant diseases – more than 40 of them in the US are the result of the roundup. If you look at the big picture, the current generation fails. If you narrow yourself down to one particular attribute, you can sing the praises of this flawed technology.



SS: Tell me the bigger picture, how did Monsanto get so big?
JS: Monsanto is the largest seed company in the world. Their background is quite controversial – they were continually voted the most hated and most unethical company on Earth for years and years, [even] with stiff competition. They lied about the toxicity of their former products – PCBs, Agent Orange and DDT – and they have unprecedented control around the world over regulatory bodies.
This is exemplified by the US Food and Drug Administration, where the policy on GMOs was overseen by Monsanto’s former attorney, Michael Taylor. And the policy falsely claims that the agency wasn’t aware of any information showing that GMOs were significantly different – therefore the FDA requires no safety studies and no labeling. They leave it up to Monsanto to determine if their foods are safe, and Monsanto doesn’t even have to tell the FDA or consumers if it wants to slip a GMO in our food supply.
Now, Michael Taylor – after overseeing this policy – became Monsanto’s vice-president and chief lobbyist. Now he’s back at the FDA as US Food Safety czar.
By the way the documents made public from a lawsuit revealed that the overwhelming consensus among the scientists working at the FDA was exactly the opposite of that exposed in the policy. The scientists said GMOs would be dangerous, could create allergies, toxins, and new diseases, and should be tested. Monsanto’s takeover essentially of the FDA has been replicated around the world, I've been in 37 countries and I've seen how they “capture” regulators, ministries, departments, etc., and once that happens, they discredit and dismiss any adverse findings about GMOs – they don’t even read the dossier. Unfortunately, it’s a rubber stamp situation around the world and if you trace it back, it comes down to them doing it, based on Monsanto’s own research. We’ve caught them red-handed, rigging their research to avoid finding problems, and covering up problems when they persist nonetheless.

SS: I still don’t understand how Monsanto got so big…
JS: They have paid an enormous amount of money for campaign contributions and lobbying – a recent article came out – it was $8.7 million last year. They have a very strategic way of infiltrating and influencing, in fact, what the entire biotech industry and Big Agriculture does. A former FDA official said that Big Ag – basically the regulatory agencies, the FDA, EPA and USDA, have done everything that Big Ag has asked them to do and told them to do. We see influence even in the courts. Clarence Thomas in the Supreme Court was Monsanto’s former attorney. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Willsack was the former Biotech Governor of the Year – he was given the award by Monsanto. The chief negotiator for the US is a former crop-life person, basically the trade group for Monsanto and another biotech groups. The person at the USDA used to give out money for the research – another Monsanto person. When they approve bovine growth hormone – Monsanto’s drug injected into the cows to increase milk supply – two former researchers from Monsanto took positions at the FDA at the time when the drug was approved. So they have insinuated themselves through money, revolving-door and other influence methods.



SS: Are there any countries that officially oppose GMOs?
JS: Oh yes. In fact there are many countries that do not allow GMOs to be planted on their soil. Many countries in Europe, such as Switzerland, and Peru and Venezuela in Latin America. There are countries such as Zambia that don’t allow them in the food supply. By and large, there are about six countries that do most of the growing, and maybe 90 percent of the growing, and they export the food around the world and so a lot of people are exposed. But in Europe, the big ban is not from the governments, but from the food companies. In February 1991 a gag order was lifted on a [UK] scientist, and the scientist was doing research on the GMOs to figure out how to test for safety. He accidentally discovered the GMOs were extremely dangerous, and that within 10 days they caused massive health problems for rats. He went public with his concerns and was a hero for two days at his prestigious institute, but then phone calls from the UK Prime Minister’s office to the director ended up causing him to be fired the next day, and silenced with threats of a lawsuit. But in February 1991 the gag order was lifted by the [UK] parliament and there was a firestorm in the media about the health dangers of GMOs. Within 10 weeks, the tipping point of consumer objection was achieved in Europe, so Unilever, followed by Nestle, followed by virtually every other food company committed to not feed Europeans derivatives of GMOs. The same companies feed Americans and Canadians and others derivatives of GMOs, because we haven’t raised a stink, and because the information about the health dangers has not been widely circulated on those continents.

SS: Is the GM genome reversible and can Monsanto be a force for good? We’re talking about Europe – so the problem there is that the EU requires GM products to be labeled as such, but there is a loophole there, when the imported products don’t need to be labeled. How did that happen and do you think we’ll see more and more GM crops being grown in Europe?
JS: To clarify, imported products that contain GMOs in Europe do have to be labeled, but the imported animal feed, once it’s fed to the animals, the milk and meat in Europe do not have to be labeled as genetically modified. That loophole has allowed millions of tons of genetically modified feed to enter the food supply in Europe. This has resulted, we believe, in some of the health problems. In the US we see a lot of the health problems that are associated with GMOs on the rise. We see gastro-intestinal disorders, immune system problems such as allergies and asthma, and autoimmune disease, leaky gut, diabetes, inflammatory-based diseases and reproductive disorders such as infertility. And we see a lot of these reversing in humans and livestock and lab animals when they are switching from GM to non-GM feed. However, in Europe its harder to evaluate, because people are getting exposed to GMOs as animal feed, and it may influence… it certainly does influence the health of the animals. We’ve seen damage to virtually every organ and every system in animals, potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers and testicles, inflamed immune system organs, damage to the liver and kidney, et cetera. So we don’t know the impacts of eating sick animals. And also the animals are nutrient-deficient, because roundup binds with nutrients making them unavailable to plants… for animals, their most popular dish is roundup ready soy, corn, cotton seed, canola meal, sugar beet pulp and alfalfa – so they are eating nutrient-deficient food. There is a universal deficiency among the livestock, certainly in the US, that creates more sickness in the animals. So, European consumers are largely unaware that they are still being exposed to GMOs, which may be negatively influencing their health.

SS: But if everything is as dangerous as you say it is – because I guess in America people are much more aware of what you’re saying than people here in Russia or Europe – why are the sales going up?
JS: Well, actually the sales of non-GMO labeled products are growing faster than any other category. It was the fastest growing category of food sales in 2012. The president of Whole Foods Market told USA Today that when a product becomes third-party verified as non-GMO, sales increase by 15 percent to 30 percent. Hundreds more companies are enrolling, and this is creating the tipping point. We saw the tipping point happen in Europe, and we’re seeing stage after stage of the tipping point unfolding in the US. The desire for non-GMO products, because of the concerns about health, especially for children who are most at risk, have driven a movement for labeling, so labeling laws have passed in Connecticut and Maine and are expected to pass in Washington State in the fall. More than two dozen other states have introduced labeling bills as legislation, they have not yet passed, but many expect them to pass next year as well. So we are seeing a movement against GMOs and we think this will result in their elimination from the food supply, by the food companies, who will see it as a marketing liability.

SS: That’s good to hear, that’s for sure. But, these companies like Monsanto, who produce the GMOs, they are certainly aware of all the repercussions and dangers – what do you think are the motives for them? Is it any more than just a simple case of corporate greed?
JS: First, I want to confirm what you’ve said – I spoke to a former Monsanto scientist, and he confirmed what we already knew, that when rats were damaged by Monsanto’s corn in the industry study, instead of withdrawing the corn, they rewrote the study to hide the evidence.
Similarly, he told me that three of Monsanto’s safety study testers for Bovine growth hormone, which is injected in the cows to increase milk supply – they tested the milk and found so much IGF-1, a cancer-promoting hormone in the milk, that the three Monsanto scientists refused to drink milk after that, unless it was organic, and one bought his own cow.
Now, we know from experience that [Monsanto] has this agenda to push it out. I talked to someone who was at a San Francisco conference in 1999, and he heard a Monsanto consultant [with] Arthur Andersen describe how he had worked with Monsanto’s executives by asking them first, “What’s your ideal future in 15 to 20 years?” The executives described the world in which 100 percent of all commercial seeds were genetically engineered and patented.
This would give Monsanto and a few biotech industry colleagues’ control of the world’s seed supply. When you control the seeds, you control the food. The food is the largest traded commodity, and if you have control of the food and control of the farmers, it’s an enormous control and profit motive. In addition, they want to introduce terminator technology that makes the seeds sterile. It’s not yet commercialized, but it’s targeted, if introduced, to the 1.4 billion farmers in the world that save their seed – that doesn’t pay Monsanto anything. So they want all the farmers in the world to be going to the catalogues of Monsanto for its genetically modified, patented seeds. This is an effort to replace the products of the billions of years of evolution with designer genes and designer organisms, designed for greater profit and control.

SS: So, the situation is pretty similar to how it was back in the 1970s with tobacco – the dangers of tobacco were publicly acknowledged, but people were solemnly working for profit, even though they knew it was damaging public health.
JS: The tobacco analogy is a good one, but the influence of tobacco will pale in comparison to that which GMOs can and are creating right now. You see, GMOs are in the food supply, so they affect everyone who eats, they are also released outdoors with the genes that can outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste as a permanent feature in the gene pool. So, it becomes an irreversible technology that can influence every human being, all living beings and all future generations. But, similarly to the tobacco industry, they use “tobacco science” with the biotech industry. They use the wrong detection methods, the wrong controls, the wrong statistics, and when they do find problems, they try to cover it up. This we have shown time and time again, for example in my book,“Genetic Roulette,” or in the movie of the same name.

SS: Talking about the soil, is the penetration of the GM genome in the agricultural ecosystem reversible? Or is it too late?
JS: We do know from laboratory studies that genes can transfer from the genetically modified crops into the micro-organisms in the soil, so that’s one way. We also know it can get into the little critters in the soil; we found genes there. In addition, the roundup, which is sprayed on tremendous millions of acres, more than half a million pounds more herbicides is used on GMOs because of the herbicide-tolerant crops. This roundup destroys beneficial bacteria in the soil, which provide nutrients to the plant, and it promotes the pathogens in the soil, so there are more than 40 plant diseases on the rise in the US agriculture. And the roundup – unlike what’s Monsanto been advertising – got caught out as false advertising by courts in the US and France. Roundup can persist in the soil for years and even decades. This is a huge problem – we haven’t solved the problem of fixing it, but there is the BT toxin.
The BT toxin is produced in corn and cotton. It’s designed to break little holes in the cell walls of insect stomachs to kill them, and it’s now found to break holes in human cells, possibly causing leaky gut. It gets through the cell walls and somehow gets into the bloodstream. It was found in the blood of 93 percent of pregnant women tested, and 80 percent of unborn fetuses, so now we have hole-poking toxin in the blood of our fetuses, which gets in their brain, because there’s no blood-brain barrier developed at that stage, so this is a nightmare, but the BT toxin also binds with clay and the soil and can wash into rivers, and affect the marine ecosystem, which it does, and so we’re sending this toxin on the millions of acres and ecosystems and possibly even colonizing our own gut bacteria with this gene, turning our gut bacteria into living pesticide factories. We can say this because the only human feeding study conducted on soy found that part of the gene inserted into soy-beans transfers into gut bacteria and may continue functioning. They shut down the experiment as soon as they found that, because it was a very scary thing to think that the genetically modified genes may be producing proteins, inside our digestive tract long after we stop eating GMOs. They never tested to see if eating a corn chip that produces a BT toxin might transfer the gene to the gut bacteria turning it into a living pesticide factories causing toxic and immune responses inside of us.
So whether it is the bacteria in the soil, or the bacteria in our gut, this stuff is pervasive. Furthermore, roundup kills beneficial gut bacteria and it doesn’t kill the nasty stuff, like salmonella or botulism. We know that gut bacteria is extremely important for health, for the digestive tract, digestive system, for the immune system. When you kill the beneficial gut bacteria, that problem is linked with the whole host of diseases, which have been on the rise in the US population since roundup has been used in such high quantities.

SS: Well, that’s really scary. I know there were huge anti-Monsanto protests across the US and Canada back in May – who were the organizers, who turned out in support of it?
JS: The Facebook post came in March about Monsanto, they expected a few thousand – they got more than 2 million protesters in 52 countries. This shows just how concerned and how motivated people are around the world to protect their food supply and their agriculture and their environment from Monsanto and GMOs.  - RT

Argentine farmers get the green light

Argentine farmers get the green light
Argentine farmers expect China to soon approve their one remaining variety of genetically modified corn yet to be certified for import by the commodities-hungry Asian country.

Corn growers across Argentina’s vast Pampas farm belt want to push quickly into the Chinese market, while fellow grain exporter Brazil is stuck on the sidelines, waiting for Beijing to approve its genetically modified corn varieties.

China, whose corn market has long been dominated by the United States, allowed its first major Argentine shipment of the grain to enter the country in August.

Traders in Buenos Aires say the 60,000-metric-ton (66,100 tons) included some corn of the MIR-162 strain, which has not yet gotten approval from Beijing. But apparently not enough, if any, MIR-162 was in the cargo to cause problems with Chinese customs.

“It’s called asynchronicity,” says Fabiana Malacarne, biotechnology chief at Argentina’s ASA seed industry chamber. “Importing countries permit a low-level presence of non-approved strains.”

The Chinese have signaled likely approval of MIR-162 imports later this year or in early 2014, she adds.

“The only issue with China is MIR-162 ... which is tough to detect,” says an Argentina-based corn trader with a major export company who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

There is broad scientific consensus that food derived from genetically modified crops poses no greater risk than that from conventional ones. However, advocacy groups argue the risks of GMO food have not been adequately identified.

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.

China wants meat

Chinese demand is rising for grain-based pork, cattle and chicken feed as the country’s expanding middle class wants more meat in its diet.

The U.S. is the world’s top corn exporter, followed by Brazil, which is lobbying China to approve its GMO corn. Argentina, which ranks third, clinched an import deal with China last year.

Various corn varieties are mixed in Argentina’s farm-side silos before being trucked to the country’s export hubs, making it hard to know which GMO strains are contained in which cargoes.

Aside from MIR-162, all corn strains grown in Argentina — MON-810, T-25, Bt-11, NK-603, TC-1507, GA-21, MON-89034, MON-88017, Bt-176 and MIR-604 — are already approved for import by China, Malacarne says.

Companies such U.S.-based Monsanto and Swiss agrochemicals group Syngenta stand to gain from more use of seeds engineered to increase yield and allow growers to plant in areas lacking optimum corn-growing weather.

“Now that the mechanics are flowing and the first big cargo has gotten into China, we expect future shipments to go smoothly,” says Martin Fraguio, head of Argentine corn industry chamber Maizar.

China imports corn mainly from the U.S.

Besides bilateral agreements, China requires safety certificates for GMO corn imports. Last month’s landmark Argentine corn shipment was imported by Chinese state-owned trading house COFCO.

Futures traders see China as a wild card in their attempt to pencil in price projections.

Chicago corn prices have fallen 28 percent since January after hitting record highs during the North American drought in the summer of 2012. Many analysts and traders expect prices to fall further on prospects for a U.S. bumper crop this season.

Argentina’s 2012 and 2013 crop is harvested, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates it at a record 26.5 million metric tons (28.7 million tons). Oscar Solis, Argentina’s deputy agriculture secretary, says the crop is likely to come in at 32.1 million metric tons, with between 22 million and 24 million metric tons going for export.Agweek

Scientists plan to launch thousands of GM insects into fields as alternative to using chemicals Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2410484/Scientists-launch-thousands-GM-insects-fields-alternative-chemicals.html#ixzz2ducrBatT Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Frankenflies to battle pests: Scientists plan to launch thousands of GM insects into fields as alternative to using chemicals

Thousands of GM insects developed by British scientists are set to be the first released into fields in Europe as an alternative to chemical pesticides.

The plan is to release a large number of genetically modified olive flies that would be used to kill off wild pests that damage the crop.

The technology is the brainchild of experts at British company Oxitec, who insist the GM insects are better for the environment that spraying crops with chemical pesticides.

However critics fear the development could put human health at risk if people eat the flies or their larvae if they reach food products.

The trial would involve releasing genetically modified male olive flies which would mate with the wild females with the result that all the female offspring would die at the larvae or maggot stage.

In theory, this would lead to a big reduction in the olive fly population so allowing the trees to produce fruit without using chemical sprays.

The Oxford-based firm has applied to Spanish regulatory authorities for permission to carry out a netted field trial of its GM ‘Frankenfly’.

If successful, further trials would be carried out in Greece and Italy, while the company also hopes to be able to use GM insects in British fields.

Oxitec has developed a genetically modified strain of the diamond back moth, whose caterpillars are known to attack cabbages, broccoli and similar crops in fields in this country. It would destroy the wild pests in the same way as the GM olive flies.

Laboratory trials with the GM olive flies led to the elimination of the wild pests in less than two months.

The system has also completed greenhouse testing.

Oxitec’s Dr Martha Koukidou, who is leading the trial, said: ‘Our approach is aimed not only at controlling the olive fly, but also to avoid harming other species.

‘By using our form of genetic sterility our flies are designed to eliminate the pest and not to stay in the environment.’

The company has applied to the Catalan regulatory authorities for permission to conduct a field evaluation of its olive fly strain, in accordance with EU regulations.

The trial would take place under a net canopy surrounding 24 trees and carried out in partnership with the Spanish company, OpenNatur.

Its spokesman, Victor Perdrix, said: ‘We have been looking for a highly effective and environmentally sound solution for olive fly. We believe this holds great potential.’

Oxitec insisted it has the support of some olive farmers, such as Paul di Calabiana Willan, who is based in Como, northern Italy.

He said: ‘On the mountain terraces here, agriculture depends on the success of olive plantations, but in recent years the olive fly pest has wiped out several harvests. The main weapon against the olive fly is a chemical which has been banned in some countries. Nothing else is effective.

‘In my view the use of GM insects to eradicate this pest is a necessary step towards achieving zero pesticide use.’

The Oxitec chief executive, Hadyn Parry, accused critics of the technology who warn of danger to health and the environment of scaremongering.

‘By using our form of genetic sterility our flies are designed to eliminate the pest and not to stay in the environment.’
- Oxitec’s Dr Martha Koukidou

He said: ‘European agriculture is facing some severe challenges.

‘The burden of agricultural pests is ever present while the number of control approaches is shrinking in the face of insecticide resistance and de-registration of existing chemical treatments.

‘To survive and prosper, European farming will need to evaluate and embrace new solutions and new technologies which are effective, sustainable and safe. If approved, this evaluation will be an important step to bringing an exciting new approach to the farmers who need it.’

However, Dr Helen Wallace, director of GeneWatch UK, warned: ‘Releasing Oxitec’ s GM fruit flies is a deeply flawed approach to reducing numbers of these pests, because large numbers of their offspring will die as maggots in the fruit.

‘Not only does this fail to protect the crop, millions of GM fruit fly maggots (most dead, but some alive) will enter the food chain where they could pose risks to human health and the environment.

‘Oxitec’s experiments should not go ahead until rules for safety testing and plans for labelling and segregation of contaminated fruits have been thoroughly debated and assessed. If these issues are ignored, growers could suffer serious impacts on the market for their crops.’ DailyMail

Africa: Genetically Modified Crops - - 'Fear of the Unknown'

A new report on the state of African agriculture is scathing about opposition to planting genetically-modified crops as a way of growing more food for the continent.

The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa titles a section of its 200-page report, released today, "The Farce about Genetically Modified Crops" and goes on to say:

The introduction of genetically modified (GM or GMO) crops has attracted much debate among seed companies, policy makers, and the general public in Africa.

First it is important to point out that GM crops have been subject to more testing worldwide than any other new crops, and have been declared as safe as conventionally bred crops by scientific and food safety authorities worldwide.

A recent European Union (EU) report concludes that more than 130 EU research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, concur that consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from conventional crops. Such well-known organizations as the World Health Organization, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the European Food Safety Authority have come to the same conclusion.

Secondly and equally important, given low adoption of improved crops by smallholder farmers in most countries, GMO crops are unlikely to impact Africa food security in the near future given low marginal yield gains over conventionally bred seeds.

As of 2012, GM crops were being grown in 20 developing countries and eight industrial countries conferring beneficial traits such as herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, and nutritional enhancement.

Despite the potential advantages, adoption of GM crops in Africa has been slow and marred by controversy. At present, only four African countries --- Burkina Faso, Egypt, Sudan, and South Africa --- have fully commercialized GM crops....

Most African countries are at various stages of creating enabling environments for GM crop commercialization. Five countries (Cameroon, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria and Uganda) are currently conducting field trials of biotech crops, the final step before full approval for commercialization.

There is growing public opposition to GM crops in Africa that is best described as a fear of the unknown.

Unless milled, the import of GMO foods is currently banned in Angola, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. More important to seed sector development, these bans signal the arbitrariness and unpredictability of public policy. AllAfrica

It’s China vs. China in GMO Food Fight

It’s China vs. China in GMO Food Fight

China’s fierce public debate on genetically modified food, long a political hot potato in a country obsessed with how to feed its 1.3 billion citizens, has become the subject of a spat between big guns from two of its most powerful governing institutions.

Two weeks ago, a major-general in the People’s Liberation Army took to a popular newspaper to publish (in Chinese) a series of pointed rhetorical questions about Beijing’s policy allowing more trade in genetically modified grains, suggesting that genetically modified organisms, or GMO, are a strategy by which a Western conspiracy to supplant China’s food security is taking shape. GMOs are organisms that have had their genetic blueprint artificially re-engineered; for example, crops altered to become bug-resistant.

“If things change and the West cuts off our grain supply, are 1.3 billion people going to drink the northwestern wind?” Peng Guangqian, who is also deputy secretary-general of China’s National Security Policy Committee, wrote in a column for the nationalist daily Global Times.

On Sunday, the Ministry of Agriculture – which has authority over GMO policy – fired back, posting a question-and-answer transcript (in Chinese) featuring an official from its GMO Security Committee rebutting Mr. Peng point by point. Lin Min, who is also director of the Biotechnology Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, flatly rejected Mr. Peng’s claim that “many scientists through experiments have proven GMO food is highly linked to cancer and infertility.”

Mr. Lin also pointed out that the U.S. is the world’s largest consumer of GMO crops and said that as China faces rising strains on its arable land, its use of “foreign resources and market coordination are inevitable.”

“This conspiracy theory is a product of Cold War thinking,” Mr. Lin said, dismissing Mr. Peng’s concerns. “Government-approved GMO food and non-GMO food are equally safe…If GMO research has any benefit, it is first and foremost in the national interest.”

Ministry officials and scholars have raised points similar to Mr. Lin’s in the course of nearly two decades of debate over the advent of GMO food in China. But Mr. Lin’s riposte to Mr. Peng was remarkable for its emphatic tone and invocation of stock phrases – “national interest,” “Cold War thinking” – more often reserved for discussions of defense policy.

The ministry has a sizable stake in the debate. As China’s food demand rises with its affluence, the ministry has increasingly turned to GMO imports to buffer domestic supplies. In June, Beijing added import permits for three kinds of GMO soybeans produced by U.S. giant Monsanto and German chemical producer BASF. Last month, the government approved the first large-scale shipment of GMO corn from Argentina. The ministry has issued permits for every stage of domestic GMO development of China’s major crops except for the final hurdle: commercial production.

Mr. Peng’s essay for the Global Times gives a clue to the ministry’s hesitation. There is a large and rising reservoir of public resistance toward GMO food. China has for more than a decade allowed the use of GMO soybeans, but its move in June to add the three herbicide- and insect-resistant strains from Monsanto and BASF triggered a public firestorm. In July, an official from the soybean association of Heilongjiang, a major agricultural province, made headlines when he told local media that people who consume GMO soy oil were more vulnerable to cancer. There is no scientific consensus on these claims, and Mr. Lin pointed to Western studies that appear to debunk them.

Internet discussion boards, including China’s Twitter-like microblogging service Sina Weibo, have long nurtured a hotbed of opposition to GMO’s policy advances. Despite the ministry’s latest riposte to Mr. Peng, the commentary suggests the agriculture ministry has a long way to go in convincing the public on the safety of GMO food – and not least from the top brass in its own military.

“Lin Min supporting Monsanto, that’s nothing new,” wrote a blogger called Lu Yongyan, who appeared based on his Weibo account to also be a PLA general. “If GMO is that good, you should enjoy it together with the Americans, [but] don’t deceive the Chinese people.”

“Those who are advocating for giving the green light to GMO food are all modern traitors and lackeys!” another blogger called Lit Night said. –Chuin-Wei Yap WSJ

INDIA The current debate on GM crops in India is fragmented

Where society meets science

The current debate on GM crops in India is fragmented

Sachin Chaturvedi

The writer is editor, 'Asian Biotechnology and Development Review' and senior fellow, Research and Information System for Developing Countries, Delhi.

With a recent statement in the Lok Sabha on the success of genetically modified crops, Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar further polarised the ongoing debate on such crops in India. Though this was not the first time he has aired his views, the platform he chose further confused those trying to understand the eventual policy of the government. The regulation of GM crops is actually with the ministry of environment and forests, which appears dismissive of them. It does not seem to have made an effort to bring the regulatory apparatus (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, GEAC) back on track, which was thrown into disarray in 2010 when a moratorium on Bt Brinjal was announced by the current minister's predecessor, even though it had been approved by the GEAC. Moreover, the statement has come at a time when all eyes are on the Supreme Court, whose technical expert committee has submitted its report on whether field trials of GM crops can continue.

The current debate on GM crops in India is highly fragmented. Those of us that have been watching the GM debate for the last two decades-plus across different countries are no longer amused. It is quite possible to have different perspectives and ideas about new technologies. Some may oppose them due to apprehensions or reservations, while some may promote them with an eye towards the commercial opportunities they offer.

In his statement, Pawar left no stone unturned to establish the necessity and success of genetic modification. He articulated the Bt cotton success story and called for a "sensible approach" on GM crops. The very next day, certain civil society actors came up with counter-arguments. This is not so different from the debates on nuclear power plants and nano-materials, which only goes to show how urgently India needs to work on establishing a science-society dialogue, so we can rationally respond to technological solutions before the debates take the shape of an anti-technology movement.

It is high time that we, as a society, developed institutional mechanisms for technological assessments where, along with the safety aspects, knowledge streams from the social sciences are brought in to assess social and economic implications. There is the need to explore the social determinants of policymaking in terms of public perceptions of risk and benefit. Basically, this means we ought to explore the ways in which the public influences the policymaking process, so that science and technology policymaking is more ethical and appropriate for society as a whole. This can largely be done through a three-step exercise, that is, cognition, expression and consultation. Cognition enables the public to collect information and identify risks and benefits, and provides the opportunity to consider the ethical concerns related to new technologies. The idea of expression is to create the right platforms for the public to express opinions on new technology. Finally, consultation enables the public to participate in the decision-making phase of policymaking. In this context, it is important to pose certain issues of key significance. What institutions and channels are there to enable or facilitate the public's cognition, expression and consultation? How does public trust in science, and the public perception and literacy of science and technology influence this?

For instance, the agriculture minister mentioned that only a few states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Karnataka are open to field trials, and the rest have closed their doors. This requires the three-stage process to reflect on the social context of each region, how local value systems may influence eventual policymaking, and how the social challenges are being faced in different states. This information would have to be complemented with carefully planned public perception surveys, but in some cases, the role of institutions or channels to facilitate the public's cognition by, for example, informing the public about the benefits and risks of technology, is also significant.

In the absence of such mechanisms, we will continue to be vulnerable to sudden outcries on specific products and technologies based on hysteria and ill-informed perceptions. Recently, the Indo-Swiss programme for developing millet crops has made a positive beginning by getting sociologists and economists to work with scientists to explore models that would be the most efficacious. Projects like this may present new models for Indian science and technology policymaking.IE