GOLDEN RICE

GOLDEN RICE

Image Caption: Golden Rice grain compared to white rice grain in screenhouse of Golden Rice plants. Credit:International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)/Wikipedia (CC BY 2.0)

Golden Rice is a variety of Oryza sativa rice produced  through genetic engineering to biosynthesize beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, in the edible parts of the rice. The research was conducted with the goal of producing a fortified food to be grown and consumed in areas with a shortage of dietary vitamin A, a deficiency which is estimated to kill 670,000 children under five years old each year.

Golden rice is different from its parental strain by the addition of three beta-carotene biosynthesis genes. The scientific details of the rice were initially published in Science in 2000, the product of an eight-year project by Ingo Potrykus of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and Peter Beyer of the University of Freiburg. At the time of the publication, golden rice was considered a significant breakthrough in biotechnology, as the researchers had engineered an entire biosynthetic pathway.

In 2005, a new variety named Golden Rice 2, which produces up to 23 times more beta-carotene than the original golden rice, was revealed. Although Golden Rice was developed as a humanitarian tool, it has been met with substantial opposition from environmental and anti-globalization activists. Golden Rice has undergone 2 years of field testing within the Philippines.

Golden Rice was designed to generate beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, in the edible portion of the rice, the endosperm. The rice plant can naturally create beta-carotene within its leaves, where it’s involved in photosynthesis. However, the plant doesn’t normally produce the pigment in the endosperm, where photosynthesis doesn’t take place. A crucial breakthrough was the discovery that a single phytoene desaturase gene (bacterial CrtI) can be utilized to create lycopene from phytoene in GM tomato, as opposed to having to introduce the multiple carotene denaturizes that are usually utilized by higher plants. Lycopene is then cyclized to beta-carotene via the endogenous cyclase in Golden Rice.

The Golden Rice was created by transforming rice with only two beta-carotene biosynthesis genes: psy (phytoene synthase) from daffodil (Narcissus pseudonarcissus) and crtI (carotene desaturase) from the soil bacterium Erwinia uredovora. The insertion of a lyc (lycopene cyclase) gene was thought to be required, but further research proved it’s already being produced in wild-type rice endosperm.

The psy and crtI genes were transformed into the rice nuclear genome and placed under the control of an endosperm-specific promoter, so they are only expressed in the endosperm. The exogenous lyc gene has a transit peptide sequence connected so it is targeted to the plastid, where geranylgeranyl diphosphate formation takes place. The bacterial crtI gene was a significant inclusion to accomplish the pathway, since it can catalyze multiple steps in the synthesis of carotenoids up to lycopene, while these steps need more than one enzyme in plants. The end product of the engineered pathway is lycopene, but if the plant accumulated lycopene, the rice would be colored red. Recent analysis has shown the plant’s endogenous enzymes process the lycopene to beta-carotene in the endosperm, giving the rice the distinguishing yellow color for which it is named. The original Golden Rice was named SGR1, and under greenhouse conditions it generated 1.6 micrograms per gram of carotenoids.

Golden Rice has been bred with local rice cultivars within the Philippines, Taiwan, and with the American rice cultivar ‘Cocodrie’. The first field trials of these golden rice cultivars were performed by Louisiana State University Agricultural Center in 2004. Field testing supplies a more accurate measurement of nutritional value and permits feeding tests to be performed. Initial results from the field tests have displayed field-grown golden rice produces four to five times more beta-carotene than golden rice that is grown under greenhouse conditions.

In 2005, a team of researchers at biotechnology company, Syngenta, created a variety of golden rice named “Golden Rice 2”. They joined the phytoene synthase gene from maize with crtI from the original golden rice. Golden Rice 2 produces 23 times more carotenoids than golden rice, and preferentially accumulates beta-carotene. To receive the Recommended Dietary Allowance, it’s estimated that 144 grams of the most high-yielding strain would have to be consumed. Bioavailability of the carotene from golden rice has been established and found to be an effective source of Vitamin A for humans.

In June of 2005, researcher Peter Beyer received funding form the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to further enhance golden rice by increasing the levels of the bioavailability of pro-vitamin A, vitamin E, iron, and zinc, and to enhance protein quality through genetic modification.

The research that led to golden rice was performed with the objective of helping children who suffer from vitamin A deficiency (VAD). In 2005, 190 million children and 19 million pregnant women, in 122 countries, were estimated to be affected by vitamin A deficiency. VAD is held responsible for 1 to 2 million deaths, 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness and millions of cases of xerophthalmia annually. Children and women who are pregnant are at the highest risk. Vitamin A is supplemented orally and by injection in areas where the diet is lacking Vitamin A. As of 1999, there were 43 countries that had vitamin A supplementation programs for children under the age of 5; in 10 of these countries, two high dose supplements are obtainable per year, which, according to UNICEF, could efficiently eradicate VAD. However, UNICEF and numerous NGOs involved in supplementation note more frequent low-dose supplementation must be an objective where it is possible.

Because many children within countries where there is a dietary deficiency in vitamin A depend on rice as a staple food, the genetic modification to make rice produce the vitamin A precursor beta-carotene is seen as an effortless and less expensive alternative to vitamin supplements or an increase in the consumption of green vegetables or animal products. It can be considered as the genetically engineered equivalent of fluoridated water or iodized salt in that it aids in preventing disease, with the exception that fluoride isn’t an elemental nutrient for survival.

Initial analysis of the potential nutritional benefits of golden rice proposed consumption of golden rice wouldn’t get rid of the issues of vitamin A deficiency, but should be seen as a complement to other techniques of vitamin A supplementation. Since then, improved strains of golden rice have been developed having adequate provitamin A to provide the total dietary requirement of this nutrient to people who eat about 75 grams of golden rice each day.

Particularly, since carotenes are hydrophobic, there needs to be an adequate amount of fat present within the diet for golden rice to have the ability to lessen vitamin A deficiency. In that respect, it’s significant that vitamin A deficiency is rarely an isolated phenomenon, but normally coupled to a general lack of a balanced diet. The RDA levels accepted in developed countries are far in excess of the amounts required to prevent blindness. Furthermore, this claim referred to an early cultivar of golden rice; one bowl of the latest version provides 60 percent of RDA for healthy children.

Critics of genetically engineered crops have raised a variety of concerns. One of these is that golden rice originally didn’t have sufficient vitamin A. This issue was solved by the development of new strains of rice. Nonetheless, there are still doubts about the speed at which vitamin A degrades once the plant is harvested, and how much remains after cooking it. A study in 2009 concluded that golden rice is successfully converted into vitamin A in humans and a 2012 study that fed 68 children ages 6 to 8 concluded that golden rice was as good as vitamin A supplements and better than the natural beta-carotene in spinach.

Greenpeace opposes the release of any genetically modified organisms into the environment and is concerned that golden rice is a Pandora’s Box that will open the door to more common usage of GMOs.

Vandana Shiva, an Indian anti-GMO activist, argued that the issue wasn’t that the crop had any particular deficiencies, but that there were potential issues with poverty and loss of biodiversity in food crops. These issues are aggravated by the corporate control of agriculture by means of controlling genetically modified organisms. By concentrating on a narrow issue (vitamin A deficiency), Shiva argued, the golden rice proponents were obscuring the larger issue of a lack of broad availability of diverse and nutritionally sufficient food sources. Other groups argued that a varied diet containing foods that are rich in beta carotene such as sweet potatoes, leafy green vegetables, and fruit would supply children with adequate vitamin A. However, Keith West of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has argued that foodstuffs containing vitamin A are either not available, or only available in certain seasons, or that they are too expensive for poor families in underdeveloped countries.

Due to a lack of real-world studies and uncertainty about how many people will use golden rice, WHO malnutrition expert Francesco Branca concludes “giving out supplements, fortifying existing foods with vitamin A, and teaching people to grow carrots or certain leafy vegetables are, for now, more promising ways to fight the problem”. More recently, author Michael Pollan, who had attacked the product in the year 2001, while still doubtful about the benefits, expressed support for the continuance of the research.

An experimental plan of golden rice being grown within the Philippines was uprooted during direct action on August 8, 2013. While the action was, at first, credited to 400 local farmers, it was later found to have been performed by a group of 50 anti-GMO activists.

Potrykus has organized an effort to have golden rice distributed for free to subsistence farmers. Free licenses for developing countries were arranged quickly due to the positive publicly that golden rice received, especially in Time magazine in July of 2000. Golden Rice was said to be the first recombinant DNA tech crop that was unarguably advantageous. Monsanto Company was one of the first companies to permit free licenses. The cutoff between humanitarian and commercial use was set at 10,000 US dollars. Thus, as long as a farmer or subsequent user of Golden Rice genetics doesn’t make more than 10,000 dollars per year, no royalties need to be paid. Additionally, farmers are allowed to keep and replant seed. Redorbit

GMO labeling is a pointless burden

GMO Labeling

Letter: GMO labeling is a pointless burden

by Monroecourier

To the editor:

This past June the state of Connecticut passed a genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling bill that would require all food manufacturers to label any food that contained genetically modified or engineered ingredients. Proponents of the bill, led by the grassroots organization GMO Free CT, claim that GM foods are harmful to our health and the environment. However there is currently no scientific evidence that GM foods are dangerous to one’s health. In fact evidence shows that GM foods benefit our health and decrease environmental impacts by improving the nutritional content of food and allowing farmers to use less land and pesticides to grow more crops.

Furthermore, GM foods undergo rigorous testing and stringent risk-assessment procedures before hitting the shelves, overseen by the Food and Agriculture Association and World Health Organization. They test for toxicity, allergenicity and possible secondary health effects from an introduced gene. Furthermore they test for potential effects on biodiversity in an ecosystem from unintended gene transfer. Presently no major dangers have been identified in the process of genetically engineering foods.

This labeling law is an unnecessary, cumbersome and expensive regulation for food manufacturers, who will now be dissuaded to sell their products in Connecticut businesses. Instead of invoking a law based on irrational fear and distrust in our food system, let’s educate the consumer on the scientific facts behind GM foods and the benefits they provide to our community and our world.

Sara Velardi
Monroe

How Spread of Bt Cotton Contaminates the Food Chain

Bharat Dogra

The author is a free-lance journalist who has been involved with several social initiatives and movements.

While hazardous GM technology was allowed to be spread more easily in cotton on the ground that it is a non-food crop, it is clear that when cattle, sheep, goats etc. feed on Bt cotton residues, then health hazards also spread to the entire food-chain.
According to the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad, “Bt (bacillus thuringiensis) toxin in its natural, non-GM form, when used as an insecticidal spray, behaves differently in the environment than Bt toxin produced in GM plants. Natural Bt toxin breaks down in daylight and only becomes active in the guts of insects. However, with GM Bt crops, the plant is engineered to express the Bt protein in every cell. If any part of the plant is eaten, the toxin is inevitably consumed.”
This threat to the food-system from Bt cotton will grow in future keeping in view the on-going efforts to find more ways of processing cottonseeds to make them consumable by human beings in attractive ways.
In this context what is most worrying is that many cattle and other farm animals have perished (or else their health has suffered badly) after eating Bt cotton residues.
According to a cover-story in the Tehelka journal, “The GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee) in January 2008, cited reports from the Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI) and the Andhra Animal Husbandry Department which showed ‘conclusive proof of safety’ to animals from Bt cotton feed.
“But when Anthra, a veterinary research organisation, filed an RTI with the IVRI asking for a copy of the report, the institute responded saying ‘no studies had been done by them and that the IVRI had not submitted any reports to the GEAC’.”
Dr Sagari R. Ramdas, co-Director of Anthra, writes: “Since 2005, shepherds and farmers from different parts of India, particularly the states of Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka and Maharashtra, have reported their cattle falling sick after it has grazed on genetically modified cotton or have been fed Bt cotton seeds and in some instances have died. Despite several reports and representations to concerned regulatory and research institutions both at national and state levels, alerting them to the seriousness of the issue, there has been a persistent reluctance amongst the scientific establishment to respond, investigate and research the core issue. On the contrary the reaction of the establishment has been bureaucratic and dismissive of the observations.
“Between 2005 and 2009 Anthra, an organisation led by women veterinary scientists researching the impact of Bt cotton on animals in different parts of India, has been closely investigating the reported morbidity and mortality observed in sheep and goat flocks, which have been grazed on harvested Bt cotton crop in Andhra Pradesh. Shepherds unambiguously declared that their animals, which had never died or fallen sick while being grazed on regular cotton fields since the past 10 years, began to exhibit morbid changes when grazed on the GM crop.
“In Haryana, there was a strong correlation between feeding Bt cotton seeds and cotton seed cake to milch animals, and drop in milk yield and several reproductive disorders such as prolapse of uterus, premature birth of calves, increase in the incidence of abortions and decrease in conception rate.”
In addition it should be noted that longer-duration studies have further confirmed the high risk of GM foods. As the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture has pointed out, “GM crops are usually approved on the basis of tests performed by the industry on rats and other animals over periods of upto 90 days. In rats, this corresponds to a human life span of about 12 years. This is much too short for long-term health effects such as organ damage or cancer to show up. The first long term independent study ‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup tolerant genetically modified maize’ by the French molecular biologist, G.E. Seralini of the Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), came out in 2012. This two-year study linked herbicide tolerant maize and the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup to premature death and cancer in rats. Although this peer reviewed study has been criticised by a number of regulators and scientists (many with industry links), this study has also received statements of support and positive comments from more than 300 scientists from 33 countries.” MAINSTREAM WEEKLY

Russia is infected with genetically modified seeds

The Russian Federation is going to tighten the legislation on GMOs. It was proposed to ban the import into Russia of products containing GMOs. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev instructed the relevant agencies to develop specific proposals on this issue by October 15.  Pravda.Ru discussed the danger of GMOs and genetically modified products with experts.

Despite the criticism, Russia currently has relatively stringent legislation on GMOs (only the EU has stricter legislation, with the United States and Canada being the most liberal in this regard).

For example, in Russia producers are required to specify the information on GMOs on the labels. The import and use of GMO seeds on the territory of Russia is also prohibited. The issue of genetically modified seeds and the use of genetic engineering in agriculture is cornerstone and strategically important.

Despite the fact that the import of seeds of agricultural crops to Russia is prohibited, violators are finding loopholes in the Russian legislation on GMOs. Alexei Alekseyenko, the deputy of the Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance, talked about it with Pravda.Ru.

"In Russia the import of genetically modified seeds is banned, but there is a danger of its illegal importation. There is a risk of GMOs spreading further into the Russian populations that are not genetically modified.
According to our information, recently quite a large batch of seeds of genetically modified crops was brought to Odessa, and there are attempts to smuggle these seeds into Russia in small batches. The seeds are registered as a food grain or as not genetically modified. That is, there is an urgent need to take very serious action on a national scale.

The seriousness of the problems with genetically engineered seeds was confirmed by head of the National Association for Genetic Security Elena Sharoikina: "Though sowing of genetically modified seeds is not allowed in Russia, no one ever checked agricultural fields, so no one knows for sure whether GMO seeds are planted. In this regard our association began agricultural GM-monitoring. These are independent control checks for the presence of GMOs in Russian fields. To date, we have managed to check the fields in the Belgorod region. GMO was not found, and we checked different varieties of corn and soybeans."

There are some problems (and not only in Russia) with control not only of seeds for agriculture, but also the control of finished products that may contain GMO, as well as farm produce. To keep track of all of this, we need many special laboratories, professionals, and a robust control system. "There were cases, and quite numerous, when modified components were found in products that were supplied as non-genetically modified. First, there was a big scandal in New Zealand in the beginning of 2000s, when a large batch of allegedly hybrid corn was supplied there from the U.S. During tests, foreign gene constructs were found in the corn. It also has to do with the fact that there is a constant antigenic drift in nature, and genetic material of modified organisms penetrates the population of non-modified ones," Alexei Alekseyenko toldPravda.Ru.

Despite the fact that in the minds of the majority a single image of GMOs has been formed, the picture is not that unambiguous. Experts even say that there are more dangerous and less dangerous GMOs (although the overall negative component is not denied. Many recent studies, including Russian ones, speak about the health dangers of GMOs):
 

"I'll talk about vegetable products. Foreign genes are introduced into the genome so that the plant starts to produce certain substances that, for example, repel pests, or reduce their dependence on herbicides and so on. That is, gene structures vary greatly.

If a plant begins producing its own herbicide, it means that this herbicide will get into our body when we eat the plant. Other gene constructs are less dangerous to the consumer, and some are even more dangerous because they were injected genes to turn these crops into technical ones so they produce a substance that will show up during the production process. Such plants are not intended for consumption. But due to the horizontal drift of the genetic structure of genes other populations are also exposed to it," Alekseyenko said.

The Chairman of the Board of Directors of "Dymov" company Vadim Dymov agreed with this observation:
"GMOs have negative traits and also positive traits, but unfortunately, the public generally is aware of the negative side, and this might be right. GMO restricting will benefit both the economy and, most importantly, the consumer society, because the most important thing is the safety of consumer products, and not the interests of the industrial and financial groups, so I support the decision of the Russian authorities.
Genetic engineering is especially dangerous in agriculture. Soy that is often cited as an example of a plant with genetically modified code is nothing compared to some other examples. Potatoes with a scorpion gene are much more serious business."  Pravda Ru

GM food fight

GM food fight



People buy vegetables and fruits in a local supermarket in Fuyang, Anhui Province in August. There is no sign for genetically modified (GM) foods. Photo: CFP

When the People's Daily on September 16 published a list of genetically modified (GM) foods permitted for import or sale in China, the goal was to highlight the stringent safety procedures required for the sale of GM foods.

But instead, the report, which included details of the approved GM crops such as cotton, rice, corn and papaya, with papaya and cotton approved for commercial plantation, prompted public discussion about whether there is sufficient information available to consumers regarding GM foods.

It also reignited the debate among the Chinese academic community, setting off a storm of vitriolic comments and outrageous debates about whether or not the food is safe, as high profile advocates and critics took to the Internet to dish out conflicting advice.

Celebrity war of words

On the morning of September 7, over 20 Net users signed up to pick and eat GM corn at the China Agricultural University in Beijing.

The activity was suggested by well-known science advocate and GM food supporter Fang Zhouzi through Weibo, who stated that "though there is no scientific research value in tasting GM corn, there is value in terms of science popularization, and opportunities should be provided for Chinese people to eat GM food every day."

Opponents of GM food quickly hit back online. Cui Yongyuan, a famous CCTV anchor, was the first to strike a blow.

"You can choose to eat GM food, but I can choose not to; you can say you know about 'science', but I have my reasons and right to doubt whether the 'science' you know about is scientific or not," responded Cui.

Fang hit back, acknowledging Cui's right to choose not to eat GM foods, but said that spreading unfounded rumors could hinder the development of China's agricultural sector. "What I have publicized is science recognized by authoritative scientific institutions around the world. What is there to doubt?" he asked.

The online quarrel lasted for a week and in a vote, Net users overwhelmingly sided with Cui. The debate between the two represented a microcosm of a wider schism in academic circles over the role GM foods should have in Chinese society.

The experts weigh in

"It would become a war of words if we only discuss whether GM foods are safe or not," Na Zhongyuan, a director with the Yunnan Institute for Ecological Agriculture, told the Global Times.

Na, one of the more radical voices in the debate, even rejects the notion that GM foods can boost crop yields. Calling it "pseudoscience", he rails against the idea that China should follow the US in this manner, saying China's situation is different.

He said most GM crops are used for processing materials in the US, not as food. "I have relatives in the US. They don't eat GM food at all," said Na, adding that GM food also poses risks to the environment.

At the direct opposite end of the spectrum, Yan Jianbing, a professor with the College of Life Science and Technology at Huazhong Agricultural University, said that GM foods are 100 percent safe. Using GM soybeans as an example, Yan said they are more productive than non-GM soybeans, and thus oil made from GM soybeans are cheaper, which benefits consumers.

Confused consumers

In fact, debate over GM technology is going worldwide. A survey by Thomson Reuters in 2010 shows that 21 percent of people in US believe GM foods are safe while 64 percent are not sure and 90 perent support to label GM foods.

Many Chinese consumers find it hard to identify whether or not products are made from GM foods. One woman, surnamed Wu, from Zhejiang Province, told the Global Times that she prefers to avoid GM food, but finds it very difficult.

 "I can't always check the labels, and when it comes to pork, there's no way to tell if the pig has been fed GM fodder," she said.

Sometimes, it is impossible. As one example, according to Fang, almost all domestically produced papayas are genetically modified. Soybean oil is another difficult purchase for those wanting to avoid GM food, as there are five times more oils made from imported soybeans when compared to those made from domestic beans. Although GM soybeans can't be planted in China, there are often no ways of checking the foreign brands.

"If we don't eat GM crops like soybeans directly, we might eat oil made from them; even if we don't eat oil made from them, we might eat pork from pigs who are fed with GM materials," said Yan, indicaiting that the era of GM technology has inevitably come.

Earlier this month, 12 lawyers from four different provinces wrote a joint letter to the China Food and Drug Administration and the Ministry of Agriculture, demanding that they disclose information about GM food to meet the public's right to know and exercise free choice, the Guangzhou-based Yangcheng Evening News reported.

Shi Baozhong, one of the 12 laywers, told the Global Times that the list published by the People's Daily was not sufficient to inform consumers about GM foods. He said that the administration had agreed to give a written reply by September 16, but  they have not received a reply.

As far as the official government stance goes, most GM foods are safe. GM foods which have undergone safety evaluation and are sold in markets are as safe as non-GM foods, according to Lin Min, a member with the State Agricultural GM Crop Bio-safety Committee, cited on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Lin stated that GM foods have been on the market around the world for 17 years. People who eat GM foods account for 80 percent of the world's population, and there hasn't been proven case or safety problems related with GM food,  Xinhua News Agency reported. Global Times

GM foods make its way to China market

Every year, Wang Xiuqiong defies a particular norm in the name of tradition: She makes her own moon cakes. As summer comes to a close, supermarkets and other shops around China quickly fill up with the Chinese pastry around the Mid-Autumn Festival, which fell on Sept 19 this year. The holiday food is a popular gift for friends, family and colleagues.

But keeping with tradition can prove difficult, as Wang, a native of Beijing, soon found out. Soybean oil is Wang's secret ingredient in her moon cakes, but this year she learned that most soybean oil sold in supermarkets is genetically modified (GM). For Wang, that's a big no-no. The supermarket near her home used to have a shelf dedicated to non-GM soybean oil, but the shelf was removed several months ago. A clerk at the supermarket told Wang it's almost impossible to find non-GM soybean oil suppliers. Wang ended up using sunflower seed oil to make moon cakes this year, fearing health hazards from using GM soybean oil.

Wu Mei, an official in charge of data collection at the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Statistics, said it's quite hard to buy non-GM soybean oil in big cities, as only small oil manufacturing factories in rural areas produce it. "Over 90 percent of the soybean oil for sale in Beijing is genetically modified," she said.

Market share boom

A decade ago, the market share of GM soybean oil in the edible oil market was quite slim. According to the General Administration of Customs, the proportion was less than 2 percent in 2001. While by June 2013, it had surged to 43 percent, according to the China Soybean Industry Association, an industrial union of soybean farmers, processors and traders, as well as scientific researchers throughout China.

The change started in 2001 when China joined the WTO and imports of agricultural products increased. As a result, China's traditional agricultural industry received a heavy blow from more advanced foreign competitors, including GM soybeans from the United States and GM rapeseed from Canada and Australia. These were sold in China at lower prices than locally cultivated soybeans and rapeseed, taking a toll on domestic industries.

According to Xinhu Futures, a Shanghai-headquartered company that offers futures brokerage, investment consulting and asset management services, soybean output was 8.5 million tons in 2012 in China while 71.65 million tons were consumed. In 2012, China imported 58.38 million tons, rising 11.2 percent year on year.

China is also world's largest corn importer and much of that too is genetically modified. In 2013, the country's corn imports will total 7.2 million tons, among which 80 percent are genetically modified, according to a report from SCI International, a professional watcher of China's commodities. The report also said that most of China's imported corn comes from the United States and 95 percent of US-imported corn is genetically modified.

Xie Jiajian, an associate researcher with the Institute of Plant Protection under the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), said GM products have grabbed a big market share in global agricultural trade. As a major importer of agricultural products, China is bound to come in contact with more and more GM agricultural products.

Data from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) showed that 81 percent of the world's soybeans, 81 percent of its cotton, 35 percent of corn and 30 percent of oilseed rape was genetically modified in 2012, and most of those products have been sold to China.

The popularity of GM foods in China may be growing, but so too is the debate on whether it is safe to consume. Many Chinese resist GM foods simply because they fear it may cause cancer. "The government has allowed the import of GM soybeans, so it owes us a convincing explanation on whether or not it's safe," said Wang, the Beijing native.

The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) says concerns over GM foods are unnecessary. China's GM foods must comply with three principles: First, the food must be traced back to its origins; second, the food should have a label saying it's genetically modified; third, the food should be controlled within certain regions so that all residents have the right to know and to choose. The MOA has also called on experts to promote GM foods throughout China. So far, the MOA has approved the import of GM cotton, soybeans, corn and oilseed rape.

An attitude change

As long as no attempts are made to change the population's attitude toward GM foods, skepticism will continue.

Research on GM grains in China goes back to Yuan Longping, father of hybrid rice. Chinese people have generally accepted hybrid rice but not GM soybeans, mainly because of a lack of promotion and popularization.

"The fact is, people are surrounded by GM foods, even if they are unaware of it," said Deng Zhixi, deputy director of the Research Center for Rural Economy under the MOA. "No matter if it is in China or the United States, you can't survive without eating GM foods. There are less and less non-GM foods now. We should take a more rational approach toward it." Deng said the United States had led the world in the GM breeding technology. If China is mired in endless disputes instead of following the lead of the United States, food security could once again rear its ugly head in the future.

Huang Dafang, director of the Biotechnology Research Institute under the CAAS, said GM technology has yielded great social, economic and biological benefits during its 17 years of development. According to a report from the ISAAA, 28 countries planted GM crops in 2012.

There are three types of GM products. The first are products that are able to survive environmental challenges, such as insect-resistant, disease-resistant and frost-resistant products. Most GM products belong to this category. The second type enhances quality and nutrition. This group includes GM soybeans. The third type is for medical use, such as vaccines and medicine.

But everyday Chinese are unaware of the variations and uses of GM products, experts lament. "Changing people's attitude toward GM foods is a long process," says Huang. "The most urgent need is to clear their doubts and fear." ECNS

Cultivation of GM crops, plants urgent: Farmers

Indonesia

Cultivation of GM crops, plants urgent: Farmers 

Farmers say there is a growing need to shift to genetically modified (GM), or transgenic, seeds to cope with irrigation problems, climate change, pests and land conversions amid a rising demand for foodstuffs.

Farmers and Fishermen’s Society (KTNA) chairman Winarno Tohir said Indonesia was struggling to feed its 250 million population with damaged irrigation systems, which led to droughts during the dry season, adverse weather conditions that were not forecast, pest and weed outbreaks and land that had been converted to non-food plantations.

For example, local rice production was currently 9 percent below the nation’s total rice consumption, according to the KTNA’s latest study, with the gap estimated to widen further in line with the country’s 
economic growth.

“Coupled with a growing population, all these problems could lead us to 12 million tons in rice deficit alone by 2030 if we keep trying to solve them with our outdated agricultural technology,” Winarno said in a conference on Wednesday. “Hence, we’ll only become a market for other producing countries.”

He said the government needed to support farmers with biotech seeds through a genetic revolution program, to help them increase food production amid a growing amount of stagnant land.

In the long run, he said, the technology could help farmers cut their expenses and raise income.

Biotechnology has been applied by 16.7 million farmers in 29 countries around the world, including 19 developing countries, and has resulted in the cultivation of 160 million hectares of land in 2011 compared to 1.7 million hectares in 1996.

No biotechnology products have been cultivated, however, since a government regulation on biosafety and genetically engineered foods was first introduced in 2005, according to Winarno.

Among the industries in high need of transgenic crops was animal husbandry, which needed corn for livestock feed, he said.

Corn consumption is continuing to rise, with corn imports reaching 780,000 tons in the first quarter of this year, three times as much as the 260,000 tons imported in the same period last year, Agriculture Ministry data shows.

Central Statistics Agency (BPS) data also shows that grain consumption increased by an average 8 percent each year between 2000 and 2012, while corn yields increased on average by only 6 percent and corn per planted hectare increased by only 1 percent per annum.

KTNA data, meanwhile, shows that the country has spent US$2.5 billion on corn imports, 76 percent of which are transgenic.

A recent study by the Bogor Institute of Agriculture in West Java showed that the country could boost its corn production by 14 percent by applying biotechnology.

The National Genetically Modified Product Biosafety Commission (KKHPRG) actually approved the first genetically altered sugarcane crop earlier this year.

Commissioner Bambang Purwantara said that drought-resistant transgenic sugarcane seeds would be ready to be planted next year, the same year the country was expected to start growing transgenic corn. Jakarta Post