Rice industry body president gets wary vote of confidence
Mon, 4 July 2016
Cambodia's apex rice industry body held its
annual general meeting on Saturday, with its members unanimously re-electing
its well-connected incumbent president, Sok Puthyvuth, for a second term in
what some are calling a dress rehearsal for his political ascendancy.Puthyvuth, the son of Deputy Prime Minister Sok An and son-in-law of Prime Minister Hun Sen, was re-elected as head of the Cambodian Rice Federation (CRF) after receiving 113 out of a total 215 votes.
His lone competitor, Te Taing Por, president of the Federation of Associations for Small and Medium Enterprises of Cambodia (FASMEC), received 79 votes. Twelve board council members were also chosen
The CRF was founded in May 2014 with 213 members representing rice-farming communities, millers and exporters, with Puthyvuth elected as its first president for a two-year term. The founding members and 30 additional companies were eligible to vote in Saturday’s elections, which gave the incumbent another two-year mandate.
Puthyvuth, 36, who is also CEO of the conglomerate Soma Group, said his re-election would serve to unify the industry body, which has been rocked by internal dissent in recent months.
“I vow to strengthen the sector’s standards and production efficiency in order to compete with the international market,” he told reporters, adding that in the short run the CRF would focus on stopping illegal rice imports and providing loan packages to struggling millers.
In the longer term, the focus would shift toward building warehouses to stockpile paddy rice, expanding the market and lowering production costs to make Cambodia’s most important agricultural crop more internationally competitive, he said.
Puthyvuth had come under fire during recent months for what his critics said was ineffectual leadership as the rice sector stood on the brink of collapse.
One critic, Kann Kunthy, CEO of Battambang Rice Investment Co Ltd (BRICo), said CRF members wanted a new president, but were stuck with just two undesirable candidates.
Taing Por’s inexperience in the rice industry thwarted his election bid, leaving members to re-elect Puthyvuth despite what many thought was a poor performance during his first mandate.
Kunthy said Puthyvuth was looking to redeem himself in a second mandate, possibly to build up his leadership credibility in the public’s eye for a future foray into politics.
“Because he faced a lot of criticism of his leadership of the rice sector during his first mandate, Sok Puthyvuth wanted to continue his duties so he could build up his credibility,” he said.
“If he does a good job in the rice sector, you can expect he will use the experience to join politics in the future.”Puthyvuth insisted yesterday his election bid was strictly about improving the rice sector, but that he might one day consider taking public office.
“Right now I have no ideas about politics as I must focus on how to save the rice industry,” he said. “But later if I have the capacity to join politics then I will try.”
However, some analysts said Puthyvuth’s election trail bore all the hallmarks of a political contest, with lofty campaign promises and pre-election sweeteners to endear his constituents.
His victory comes just a week after the CRF secured an agreement with the government to distribute up to $30 million in emergency loans to struggling rice millers and exporters.
Tang Chhong Ngy, marketing manager of LBN Angkor (Kampuchea), suggested the timing of the industry aid package – just days before elections – was not a coincidence.
However, he said CRF members were more likely swayed by the belief that Puthyvuth’s name carried influence, and while some were critical of his performance during his first mandate, the recognition that about 80 per cent of the sector’s strategy had already been set up and a second mandate would give him a chance to implement the reforms.
According to Ngy, CRF members re-elected Puthyvuth mainly because “he can play an effective role in negotiating with the government as he is the son of the deputy prime minister, which makes it easier for him to raise issues to the ministries concerned”.
“However, now the pressure is on and the re-elected CRF president has to follow through on all the promises he made,” he added
Stakeholders
decry influx of smuggled rice into Nigeria
Posted on Jul 4, 2016
STAKEHOLDERS have decried the high rate of rice smuggling into the
country through the porous borders, which merchants say is leading to job and
revenue losses to the nation and investors.
Speaking on the ugly development, the stakeholders said that
businesses are closing down and thousands are being laid off on daily basis
while there is super-abundance of jobs and new businesses springing up in
neighbouring countries like Republic of Benin, Niger Republic and Cameroon
because of the increased activity in the seaports as a result of smuggled rice
coming to Nigeria.
Rice dealers who spoke with Nigerian Association of Agricultural
Journalists (NAAJ) in Lagos, said the concessionaires of Nigerian seaport are
laying off staff massively, while the shipping and clearing agents,
transporters, and other service providers that evolve as a result of activities
in the port have ground to a halt in the past one year.
Executive Director, Nigeria Agriculture Development Watch, Dr.
Johnson Idowu, lamented that shipping lines and other related businesses are
pulling out of Nigeria.
In his words: “The ripple effect of rice smuggling into the country
is mass sack and redundancy. Interestingly, the Minster of Labour will soon
come on air to issue an ultimatum to these companies not to sack.”
Idowu added that the government even contemplated the idea of
opening the land border initially for the importation of rice, which he said
was a colossal error of reasoning.
Said he: “Let us do some elementary Geography. Nigeria is bounded
in the North, West and South by Niger Republic, Republic of Benin, and
Cameroon respectively. None of these countries is a rice producing nation per
se. So what is the rationale behind opening the borders for rice importation
from these countries? The only reason there is an increase in rice importation
activities in these countries is because they have favourable tariff and policy
for rice importation.
“On this premise, unpatriotic businessmen hitherto in Nigeria as
rice importers, have since diverted their businesses to these countries.
Whereas you may not blame them, opening the land border is to encourage them
further to export rice to Nigeria from these countries. Moreover, why would we
want to continue to favour neighbours in terms of job creation and revenue
generation from rice import rather than adjust our own policies to drive our
own revenue generation, and to make businesses return?”, he said.
http://www.nigeriatoday.ng/2016/07/stakeholders-decry-influx-of-smuggled-rice-into-nigeria/
DA’s Piñol in initial talks to obtain Japan MAV rice
By Janina C. Lim, ReporterPosted on July 04, 2016
AGRICULTURE Secretary Emmanuel F. Piñol said he has sounded out Japan about providing access to the latter’s stocks of mandatory rice imports, in order to diversify the Philippines’ sources of supply.
Agriculture Secretary Emmanuel F. Piñol -- RAY JAVIL
“I have talked to the Japanese government, to its ambassador,
exploring the possibility,” said Mr. Piñol during a news conference on Friday,
when he formally assumed his post as Department of Agriculture (DA) secretary.
Mr. Piñol said the Japanese are strongly attached to their own domestic varieties of rice, leaving large quantities of imports out of favor with consumers. “You might as well sell to us,” he said he told the Ambassador, referring to Japanese imports.
The Ambassador said Japan will study whether the imported rice can be sold on under trade rules.
Mr. Piñol has signaled his intent to seek other rice sources apart from traditional suppliers such as Thailand, Vietnam, and India, noting that suppliers within the region could also suffer from the same disruptive climate phenomena that strike the Philippines, driving up prices.
“We would like to see where we can get rice at a lower cost,” Mr. Piñol said in a text message over the weekend when asked about the purpose of the policy.
A signatory to the Uruguay Round agreement in the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs in 1993, Japan is mandated to import a specific percentage of rice for domestic consumption under minimum access volume (MAV) rules every year.
The Japanese government imports MAV rice equivalent to 3% to 5% of its annual consumption, according to DA Undersecretary for of Policy, Planning, Research & Development and Regulations Segfredo R. Serrano.
“It’s more than one million [metric tons],” said Mr. Serrano when asked about the size of Japan’s MAV imports.
Mr. Piñol added that he is set to meet on Monday with the ambassador of Myanmar to discuss further diversification of import purchases.
Mr. Piñol said the National Food Authority, removed from the DA and transferred to the office of the Presidential Assistant for Food Security and Agricultural Modernization, needs to return to DA control. He has issued a memorandum to the president on its return alongside three other agencies for “effective operations.”
Aside from the NFA, the other agencies Mr. Piñol is seeking to bring under the DA are the National Irrigation Administration, the Philippine Coconut Authority, and the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority.
Mr. Piñol said the Japanese are strongly attached to their own domestic varieties of rice, leaving large quantities of imports out of favor with consumers. “You might as well sell to us,” he said he told the Ambassador, referring to Japanese imports.
The Ambassador said Japan will study whether the imported rice can be sold on under trade rules.
Mr. Piñol has signaled his intent to seek other rice sources apart from traditional suppliers such as Thailand, Vietnam, and India, noting that suppliers within the region could also suffer from the same disruptive climate phenomena that strike the Philippines, driving up prices.
“We would like to see where we can get rice at a lower cost,” Mr. Piñol said in a text message over the weekend when asked about the purpose of the policy.
A signatory to the Uruguay Round agreement in the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs in 1993, Japan is mandated to import a specific percentage of rice for domestic consumption under minimum access volume (MAV) rules every year.
The Japanese government imports MAV rice equivalent to 3% to 5% of its annual consumption, according to DA Undersecretary for of Policy, Planning, Research & Development and Regulations Segfredo R. Serrano.
“It’s more than one million [metric tons],” said Mr. Serrano when asked about the size of Japan’s MAV imports.
Mr. Piñol added that he is set to meet on Monday with the ambassador of Myanmar to discuss further diversification of import purchases.
Mr. Piñol said the National Food Authority, removed from the DA and transferred to the office of the Presidential Assistant for Food Security and Agricultural Modernization, needs to return to DA control. He has issued a memorandum to the president on its return alongside three other agencies for “effective operations.”
Aside from the NFA, the other agencies Mr. Piñol is seeking to bring under the DA are the National Irrigation Administration, the Philippine Coconut Authority, and the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority.
http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Economy&title=da&8217s-pi&241ol-in-initial-talks-to-obtain-japan-mav-rice&id=129862
Nobel Laureates Slam Greenpeace’s Opposition to GMOs, Golden Rice
‘Greenpeace sees Golden Rice as a poster child, but if it is successful in helping stop childhood blindness it will undermine Greenpeace’s entire argument.’
The tones of plain rice (left) and Golden Rice.
Credit: Golden Rice Humanitarian Board. www.goldenrice.org
Last
week something unprecedented happened.In a letter published online and presented at a press conference at the National Press Club, Washington DC, on June 30, 2016, over 100 Nobel Laureates virtually bashed up Greenpeace over its stand against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in general and Golden Rice in particular. Golden Rice is a new type of rice that contains beta carotene, a source of vitamin A.
Sir Richard Roberts, who shared the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, organised the letter campaign. Roberts started by saying that he is not a plant biologist. He clarified that none of those who signed the letter is a plant biologist. But the vast majority of them are good scientists. They are able to speak logically. They know what is going on in the field of plant biology.
“One thing is clear to us, that there is nothing in our diet which is not genetically modified.” He lucidly explained (professor style) what he means by precision agriculture. Dr. Randy Schekman, who shared the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, and Dr. Martin Chalfie, who shared the 2008 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, joined him online. The well attended press conference was a tame affair.
The reporters appeared to be overawed by their Nobel Laureate host. The message conveyed in the letter was loud and clear. “The United Nations Food and Agriculture Program has noted that global production of food, feed and fiber will need approximately to double by 2050 to meet the demands of a growing global population,” the letter cautioned.
The scientists regret that the organisations opposed to modern plant breeding, with Greenpeace at their lead, have repeatedly denied these facts and opposed biotechnological innovations in agriculture. “They have misrepresented their risks, benefits, and impacts, and supported the criminal destruction of approved field trials and research projects,” the letter added.
“Gathering so many Laureates was not so difficult. I just asked.”
The
Nobel Laureates urged Greenpeace and its supporters to reexamine the
experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved
through biotechnology, and recognise the findings of authoritative scientific
bodies and regulatory agencies.“Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity,” they asserted.
“Greenpeace has spearheaded opposition to Golden Rice, which has the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which has the greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia,” they clarified
The scientists gave some chilling facts. The World Health Organisation estimates that 250 million people suffer from VAD, including 40% of the children under five in the developing world. Based on UNICEF statistics, one to two million preventable deaths occur annually because of VAD because it compromises the immune system, putting babies and children at great risk. VAD itself is the leading cause of childhood blindness, globally affecting 250,000-500,000 children each year. Half die within 12 months of losing their eyesight.
They urged governments “to reject Greenpeace’s campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general; and to do everything in their power to oppose Greenpeace’s actions and accelerate the access of farmers to all the tools of modern biology, especially seeds improved through biotechnology.”
The dedicated group concluded the letter fittingly by asking, “How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a ‘crime against humanity’?” The tone and tenor of this outburst reminded everyone of the emotional blackmail normally indulged in by Greenpeace! It seems a time has come for even Nobel Laureates to use such tactics, devoid of sobriety, to highlight the poignancy of the situation and bring it to the attention of the public.
This author was able to interview Sir Richard Roberts via email (edited for clarity):
KSP: How could you get endorsement of GM technology from over 100 Nobel Laureates? What was the inspiration for this effort? Do you expect that any NGO may fabricate any conspiracy theory or allege overt financial support from GM companies such as Monsanto?
RR: Gathering so many Laureates (now 110) was not so difficult. I just asked. The issues here are very clear to anyone educated in science and logic and the desire to help the developing countries and the poor nations of the world is a strong sentiment in most Laureates. We are usually all very keen to try and bring an end to the suffering we see as soon as we head into the poorer parts of the world. As for “financial” incentives, there are not any. Among the laureates who signed the letter, no one has a connection to the agro-businesses of the world (a couple who did recused themselves from signing the letter). No one is paying us for this. It is strictly a humanitarian effort. Is that so hard to understand? In contrast, I would ask: what does Greenpeace have to gain by opposing GMOs? What are their financial and political incentives?
KSP: What was the reason for the GM crops cultivation progressing significantly in USA compared to Europe? Is it because of the differences in the regulatory approach between USA and European countries? Why are Europeans more conservative?
RR: There are a number of reasons of which an easier regulatory environment was just one. However, a main reason was the incredible amount of activism by Greenpeace and their allies in Europe, which exceeded that in the US. However, I would suggest you read other people’s work on the history as I am not as familiar as many people. You could contact Adrian Dubock on this issue. He will be able to send you lots of reading.
KSP: The signatories have specifically chosen Golden Rice as an example where they are asking Greenpeace to cease and desist from their campaign. Even supporters of GM technology have stated that Golden Rice is many years behind market deployment. How do you justify the choice of Golden Rice as an example in your campaign?
RR: A major reason why Golden Rice has been so slow to develop has been the very active campaign by Greenpeace to stop it. They see it as a poster child, but if it is successful in helping stop childhood blindness it will undermine Greenpeace’s entire argument. After all, it is very difficult to argue that a technology that might save millions of children from blindness is a bad thing. You also have to realise that at every step there have been both scientific and regulatory hurdles to cross. Greenpeace was one of the leading players behind the Cartagena protocol that slowed almost all development work in the area of GMOs. There are some articles relevant to this on the website.
KSP: Politicians in any country will support any technology including GM technology only if the people perceive it as beneficial (often, the perception of people has nothing to do with science). In that context, is it not more constructive to educate the masses at a grassroots level about the advantages of the technology rather than targeting NGOs such as Greenpeace?
RR: One would always like to educate the masses, but that is much easier said than done – and in general, I am rather cynical about whether politicians’ rallies do want to educate the masses. They often do better with an uneducated population than with a highly educated one that can see right through their tricks. In general, of course one would like this. However, how will you implement it at this late stage? To some extent, our campaign is hoping to help with that by getting a lot of exposure to the subject. Perhaps, the media themselves will help by running educational news pieces that focus on the science rather than on highlighting perceived controversies when there is none.
Greenpeace has published a press release. It questions the qualifications and expertise of the Nobel Laureates. The release also highlighted the conflict of interest of various pro-GMO individuals. A press release published from Manila gave many references pertaining to Golden Rice and valiantly attempted to defend the position of Greenpeace.
To directly get Greenpeace’s side of things on some of the statements made by the Nobel Laureates, this author addressed initial queries to Paul Johnston, affiliated with the Greenpeace International Science Unit (University of Exeter, UK). In response, Dawn Bickett, the content editor, sent me a copy of the press release from Manila, which primarily addressed the issues related to Golden Rice. Their responses were requested to the following specific questions:
1. The Nobel Prize winners said in part: “Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption” (emphasis added).
If your organisation has any paper in a peer-reviewed journal showing that GM crops and foodstuffs are unsafe, I would like to get a soft copy. How do you react to the emphasised statement?
2. How do you explain the stand taken by 110 Nobel Laureates against the anti-GMO activities of Greenpeace? Admittedly, not all of them have the right academic qualifications. But many of them are physicians or physicians specialised in select areas.
3. Mark Lynas and Stephen Tindale were two ardent supporters of Greenpeace. How did they turn against it?
I e-mailed that I prefer to get written answers to my questions. I wanted to avoid controversies. Paul expressed his inability to send written replies until Monday (July 5). He was willing to talk on the phone. Dawn volunteered to get another expert in the next few hours.
An email was received from Jason Schwartz, a Greenpeace a media officer, with the following message (in part):
We are trying to get our scientists in Europe and the Philippines on the line to respond to you, which is proving slightly difficult, as it is quite late in the day where they are. Unfortunately, this is not a Greenpeace USA campaign, and we do not have PhD-level expertise in this hemisphere to respond to your inquiries at this time.
Can you give me a sense for your deadline on this? How much time do we have to mobilise our overseas experts? We are eager to respond but want to do so in a level appropriate to your organisation’s needs.
In the meantime, I am posting a few other avenues for your diligent reporting. The first is a statement from our senior research specialist, Charlie Cray, shedding some insight into the American context for this letter (and its timing). The second is a spreadsheet with the names and email addresses of the signatories of the letter, showing their areas of expertise. I trust that in your diligent reporting you will consider some of the implications of these signers, their expertise, and, perhaps, even consider contacting some of them to be sure that the letter they signed and the one that was published are in concert. As you and your organisation know well, science is methodical and rigorous, and reputations and awards, though nice, do not confer blanket expertise.
The dedicated officials of Greenpeace responded to this author’s series of e-mails with admirable alacrity and speed. However, they could not provide a written response to my specific questions.
The overall protests and at times obstructionist activities of Greenpeace may have slowed down the progress in developing Golden Rice to its full potential. Admittedly, for identifiable reasons, Golden Rice is not ready for the market. The overemphasis on Golden Rice in the letter of the Nobel Laureates slightly diluted the impact of their effort. And anti-GMO enthusiasts fully exploited this overenthusiastic approach by the Nobel Prize winners to draft a caustic reply.
The report by Claire Robinson published at gmwatch.org argued that contrary to his assertion, Sir Roberts has financial interest in GMO matters. He carried out propaganda in favour of GM foods in India. According to gmwatch.org, Greenpeace was not allowed to attend the press conference and that this decision was taken by Jay Byrne, who has had a long relationship with Monsanto.
In matters connected with GMO, conflict of interest dominates and science takes a backseat.
“I agree that the language in the Nobelists’ statement is overblown. And I think it detracts from the impact of their words. They would have been better put to focusing on the issue of scientific consensus only, not on Golden Rice,” Mark Lynas, the GMO enthusiast , responded to my email.
The recent endorsement of the safety of GM crops by the US National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, followed by the present proactive statement by many Nobel Laureates, has indeed given a shot in the arm for the beleaguered GM technology
Dr. K.S. Parthasarathy is former Secretary of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board.
http://thewire.in/48074/nobel-laureates-slam-greenpeaces-opposition-to-golden-rice/
Supplyco to open 100 outlets to curb price rise
Supplyco
will open 100 special outlets to coincide with the Ramzan period.
The
number of seasonal outlets being opened on the occasion of Ramzan is being
increased with a view to keeping prices under control. As many as 64 Ramzan
fairs were opened last year, Food and Civil Supplies Minister P. Thilothaman
said.
The
Minister said the Union government’s policy of increasing the prices of
petroleum products had been contributing to price rise.
Pointing
out that the LDF government was keen on controlling prices, he said that Rs.150
crore had been allocated for market intervention.
Subsidised commodities
The
prices of subsidised commodities being sold through Supplyco outlets were not
increased since the LDF government assumed power, the Minister said at a
function organised here in connection with the opening of a Ramzan fair.
The
government took serious note of an upward trend in rice market and held
deliberations with rice millers and dealers in Andhra Pradesh from where the
commodity had been sourced.
The
government had made it clear that it would have to look for alternative
arrangements if the millers continued to resort to unreasonable hike in the
prices.
The fairs will be open from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. Apart from items
required for preparation of food items during the Ramzan period, the metro
fairs will supply vegetables.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/supplyco-to-open-100-outlets-to-curb-price-rise/110
Nobel Laureates to Greenpeace: Change Your Stance on GMOs
Sir Richard Roberts, Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine
(1993), opened the press conference asking Greenpeace to reverse its stance on
genetically engineered crops. Credit: Jenny Splitter
More than 100 Nobel Laureates are calling on Greenpeace
to reconsider its opposition to GMOs. Yesterday, representatives of the
group of Nobel Laureates, Sir Richard Roberts, Professor Martin Chalfie and
Professor Randy Schekman held a press conference at the National Press
Club to explain why 110 Nobel Laureates came together now
to support transgenic crops and ask Greenpeace to reverse its
long-held stance against GMOs.
Sir Richard Roberts, the scientist who organized the letter campaign, shared the 1993
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his team’s discovery of introns in
genes. He opened the press conference with a brief explanation of “precision
agriculture,” his preferred term for GMOs. Genetic modification of crops is
nothing new, he noted, as for thousands of
years farmers have used various techniques to select for
desirable traits. “Everything is a GMO,” explained Roberts. Transgenic
breeding is just more precise, and crucial for bringing nutritious
food to the developing world. “Why wouldn’t you want this superior technology?”
questioned Roberts.
Randy Schekman, who shared the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his
team’s discovery of the machinery regulating vesicle traffic in cells, went on
to describe the science behind golden rice, a transgenic crop
enriched with beta-carotene. Golden rice was created by a non-profit with
plans to distribute the rice for free in the developing world
but, according to scientists, protests by Greenpeace have
interfered with its development. Roberts accused Greenpeace of creating a
culture of fear, and urged the environmental group to reverse its stance.
Safety concerns about GMOs may have been prudent when the technology was
first introduced, but now decades later it’s clear these concerns haven’t come
to fruition. As Roberts quipped, “we’ve had forty years of GMOs now
but Greenpeace is still living in the 80s.”
Nina Fedoroff said that campaigns against genetically engineered
crops have resulted in attacks against scientists. Credit: Jenny Splitter
According to Martin
Chalfie, who shared the 2008 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for discovering the
important Green Fluorescent Protein widely used in research, Greenpeace’s
objections to GMOs are an ever-moving target. First the organization complained
golden rice had too little beta carotene, then apparently too much. These
objections, according to Chalfie, aren’t based on science at all. Schekman
added that he’s baffled by Greenpeace’s decision to embrace
scientific consensus on climate change but reject it for GMOs.
In addition to preventing important developments in agriculture,
these scientists also expressed concerns for their vocation. Some
scientists are afraid to come forward, Roberts noted bluntly. “All of us who
use genetic engineering in our work have been concerned,” agreed Chalfie.
Nina Federoff, professor of plant biology, added that the US Right to
Know’s FOIA campaign has had a severe impact on many public
scientists, noting in particular the break-in to Professor Kevin Folta’s office at the
University of Florida just a few days prior to this conference.
As I left the press conference, two men, one from Greenpeace and
the other from Food and Water Watch, stopped each attendee as they
left the room, protesting that they weren’t allowed in to the press
conference. “Are you with the press?” they asked each person who filed past
them. Both Greenpeace and FWW have argued that the golden rice project has problems that have nothing to do with
the anti-GMO movement, citing a paper critical of the project.
Greenpeace activists protest Golden Rice at the Philippine
Department of Agriculture in Manila in 2008. Credit: Greenpeace/Luis Liwanag
Accusations that anyone is blocking genetically engineered ‘Golden’
rice are false. ‘Golden’ rice has failed as a solution and isn’t currently
available for sale, even after more than 20 years of research. As admitted by
the International Rice Research Institute, it has not been proven to actually
address Vitamin A Deficiency. So to be clear, we are talking about something
that doesn’t even exist.
Adrian Dubock, former project manager for the Golden Rice project
at the International Rice Research Institute, has now written a response defending the work.
Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) remains a killer in many parts of the
developing world. And rice feeds half the world every day. Rice has to be
polished for storage or it goes rancid, and polished rice contains no
pro-vitamin A. There is no new data on the mortality reducing impact of
providing a source of vitamin A to those that need it, as the positive effects
are so clear in a research context that to withhold it would be unethical. And
only Random Controlled Trials can and have isolated the one cause which relates
to mortality: such data have demonstrated the 23 – 34% of global under 5 years
child mortality can be prevented by an accessible source of vitamin A.
Many wonder why Greenpeace and others oppose the Golden Rice
project so vociferously when its goals are free and life-saving food.
As Washington Post columnist Tamar Haspel tweeted — “Here’s the thing about Golden Rice. Don’t you want
it to succeed?”
The text of the letter is below.
To the Leaders of Greenpeace, the United Nations and Governments around the world
The United Nations Food & Agriculture Program has noted that
global production of food, feed and fiber will need approximately to double by
2050 to meet the demands of a growing global population. Organizations opposed
to modern plant breeding, with Greenpeace at their lead, have repeatedly denied
these facts and opposed biotechnological innovations in agriculture. They have
misrepresented their risks, benefits, and impacts, and supported the criminal
destruction of approved field trials and research projects.
We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience
of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through
biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory
agencies, and abandon their campaign against “GMOs” in general and Golden Rice
in particular.
Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly
and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as
safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production.
There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for
humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been
shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global
biodiversity.
Greenpeace has spearheaded opposition to Golden Rice, which has the
potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a
vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which has the greatest impact on the poorest people
in Africa and Southeast Asia.
The World Health Organization estimates that 250 million people,
suffer from VAD, including 40 percent of the children under five in the
developing world. Based on UNICEF statistics, a total of one to two million
preventable deaths occur annually as a result of VAD, because it compromises
the immune system, putting babies and children at great risk. VAD itself is the
leading cause of childhood blindness globally affecting 250,000 – 500,000 children
each year. Half die within 12 months of losing their eyesight.
WE CALL UPON GREENPEACE to cease and desist in its campaign against
Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in
general;
WE CALL UPON GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD to reject Greenpeace’s
campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through
biotechnology in general; and to do everything in their power to oppose
Greenpeace’s actions and accelerate the access of farmers to all the tools of
modern biology, especially seeds improved through biotechnology. Opposition
based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped.
How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this
a “crime against humanity”?
Sincerely,
|
Zhores I. Alferov
|
2000
|
Physics
|
|
Sidney Altman
|
1989
|
Chemistry
|
|
Hiroshi Amano
|
2014
|
Physics
|
|
Werner Arber
|
1978
|
Medicine
|
|
Richard Axel
|
2004
|
Medicine
|
|
David Baltimore
|
1975
|
Medicine
|
|
Paul Berg
|
1980
|
Chemistry
|
|
Bruce A. Beutler
|
2011
|
Medicine
|
|
Elizabeth H. Blackburn
|
2009
|
Medicine
|
|
Gunter Blobel
|
1999
|
Medicine
|
|
Paul D. Boyer
|
1997
|
Chemistry
|
|
Sydney Brenner
|
2002
|
Medicine
|
|
Mario R. Capecchi
|
2007
|
Medicine
|
|
Thomas R. Cech
|
1989
|
Chemistry
|
|
Martin Chalfie
|
2008
|
Chemistry
|
|
Steven Chu
|
1997
|
Physics
|
|
Aaron Ciechanover
|
2004
|
Chemistry
|
|
Claude Cohen-Tannoudji
|
1997
|
Physics
|
|
Leon N. Cooper
|
1972
|
Physics
|
|
Elias James Corey
|
1990
|
Chemistry
|
|
Robert F. Curl Jr.
|
1996
|
Chemistry
|
|
Johann Deisenhofer
|
1988
|
Chemistry
|
|
Peter C. Doherty
|
1996
|
Medicine
|
|
Richard R. Ernst
|
1991
|
Chemistry
|
|
Sir Martin J. Evans
|
2007
|
Medicine
|
|
Eugene F. Fama
|
2013
|
Economics
|
|
Edmond H. Fischer
|
1992
|
Medicine
|
|
Jerome I. Friedman
|
1990
|
Physics
|
|
Andre Geim
|
2010
|
Physics
|
|
Ivar Giaever
|
1973
|
Physics
|
|
Walter Gilbert
|
1980
|
Chemistry
|
|
Alfred G. Gilman
|
1994
|
Medicine
|
|
Sheldon Glashow
|
1979
|
Physics
|
|
Roy J. Glauber
|
2005
|
Physics
|
|
Joseph L. Goldstein
|
1985
|
Medicine
|
|
David J. Gross
|
2004
|
Physics
|
|
Roger Guillemin
|
1977
|
Medicine
|
|
Sir John B. Gurdon
|
2012
|
Medicine
|
|
John L. Hall
|
2005
|
Physics
|
|
Lars Peter Hansen
|
2013
|
Economics
|
|
Serge Haroche
|
2012
|
Physics
|
|
Leland H. Hartwell
|
2001
|
Medicine
|
|
Harald zur Hausen
|
2008
|
Medicine
|
|
James J. Heckman
|
2000
|
Economics
|
|
Dudley R. Herschbach
|
1986
|
Chemistry
|
|
Avram Hershko
|
2004
|
Chemistry
|
|
Gerardus ‘t Hooft
|
1999
|
Physics
|
|
H. Robert Horvitz
|
2002
|
Medicine
|
|
Robert Huber
|
1988
|
Chemistry
|
|
Tim Hunt
|
2001
|
Medicine
|
|
Louis J. Ignarro
|
1998
|
Medicine
|
|
Elfriede Jelinek
|
2004
|
Literature
|
|
Daniel Kahneman
|
2002
|
Economics
|
|
Eric R. Kandel
|
2000
|
Medicine
|
|
Wolfgang Ketterle
|
2001
|
Physics
|
|
Aaron Klug
|
1982
|
Chemistry
|
|
Brian K. Kobilka
|
2012
|
Chemistry
|
|
Roger D. Kornberg
|
2006
|
Chemistry
|
|
Herbert Kroemer
|
2000
|
Physics
|
|
Finn E. Kydland
|
2004
|
Economics
|
|
Leon M. Lederman
|
1988
|
Physics
|
|
Yuan T. Lee
|
1986
|
Chemistry
|
|
Robert J. Lefkowitz
|
2012
|
Chemistry
|
|
Anthony J. Leggett
|
2003
|
Physics
|
|
Jean-Marie Lehn
|
1987
|
Chemistry
|
|
Michael Levitt
|
2013
|
Chemistry
|
|
Tomas Lindahl
|
2015
|
Chemistry
|
|
Rudolph A. Marcus
|
1992
|
Chemistry
|
|
Barry J. Marshall
|
2005
|
Medicine
|
|
Eric S. Maskin
|
2007
|
Economics
|
|
John C. Mather
|
2006
|
Physics
|
|
Craig C. Mello
|
2006
|
Medicine
|
|
Robert C. Merton
|
1997
|
Economics
|
|
Hartmut Michel
|
1988
|
Chemistry
|
|
James A. Mirrlees
|
1996
|
Economics
|
|
Paul L. Modrich
|
2015
|
Chemistry
|
|
William E. Moerner
|
2014
|
Chemistry
|
|
Mario J. Molina
|
1995
|
Chemistry
|
|
Edvard Moser
|
2014
|
Medicine
|
|
May-Britt Moser
|
2014
|
Medicine
|
|
Kary B. Mullis
|
1993
|
Chemistry
|
|
Ferid Murad
|
1998
|
Medicine
|
|
Erwin Neher
|
1991
|
Medicine
|
|
Ryoji Noyori
|
2001
|
Chemistry
|
|
Sir Paul Nurse
|
2001
|
Medicine
|
|
Christiane Nusslein-Volhard
|
1995
|
Medicine
|
|
Arno Penzias
|
1978
|
Physics
|
|
Stanley B. Prusiner
|
1997
|
Medicine
|
|
Jose Ramos-Horta
|
1996
|
Peace
|
|
Sir Richard J. Roberts
|
1993
|
Medicine
|
|
Bert Sakmann
|
1991
|
Medicine
|
|
Bengt I. Samuelsson
|
1982
|
Medicine
|
|
Randy W. Schekman
|
2013
|
Medicine
|
|
Brian P. Schmidt
|
2011
|
Physics
|
|
Richard R. Schrock
|
2005
|
Chemistry
|
|
Phillip A. Sharp
|
1993
|
Medicine
|
|
Hamilton O. Smith
|
1978
|
Medicine
|
|
Oliver Smithies
|
2007
|
Medicine
|
|
Thomas A. Steitz
|
2009
|
Chemistry
|
|
Joseph H. Taylor Jr.
|
1993
|
Physics
|
|
Daniel C. Tsui
|
1998
|
Physics
|
|
Harold E. Varmus
|
1989
|
Medicine
|
|
Sir John E. Walker
|
1997
|
Chemistry
|
|
J. Robin Warren
|
2005
|
Medicine
|
|
Arieh Warshel
|
2013
|
Chemistry
|
|
James Watson
|
1962
|
Medicine
|
|
Eric F. Wieschaus
|
1995
|
Medicine
|
|
Frank Wilczek
|
2004
|
Physics
|
|
Robert Woodrow Wilson
|
1978
|
Physics
|
|
Ada E. Yonath
|
2009
|
Chemistry
|
article8803169.ece
https://www.biofortified.org/2016/07/110-nobel-laureates-greenpeace-gmos/
LSU
Rice Research Station enjoys good weather, crowds for field day
Jul 1, 2016 Forrest Laws |
Delta Farm Press
RSS
EMAIL
inShare
Comments 0
You need to have the latest version of Adobe Flash Player to view
this content.
Please click here to continue.
They start the tours early at the H. Rouse Caffey Rice Research
Station’s annual field day. (You can see the shadows of tour participants from
the early morning sun in the photo of Drs. Steve Linscombe and Adam Famoso that
accompanies this article.)
That’s because by mid-day it gets rather warm in the rice fields at
the station near Crowley in Southwest Louisiana. Temperatures have been known
to climb above 100 degrees with the relative humidity not far behind.
Heat wasn’t a factor at least for the early portion of this year’s
event, and whether it was the cool northerly breeze for the first hour or so or
the “hot-off-the-press” information being provided by LSU AgCenter researchers,
the field day drew more than 500 farmers and industry members to the station on
Wednesday (June 29).
“This is probably the largest crowd we’ve had for a number of
years,” said Dr. Linscombe, who is resident director at the station and rice
breeder for the LSU AgCenter. “We had more people that went on the field tour
this year than we’ve had in a long time.
“That’s encouraging because it tells us people have an appreciation
for the research that’s being done here at the station. We think we had a very
good program out on the field tour. You know here at the station we have
several what I’ll call ‘veteran scientists’ that have been around a while. But
we also have a good mix of new young scientists that have brought a breath of
fresh air. They’re very dedicated and doing a good job for us.”
Linscombe also cited the speakers for the indoor program at the
field day as another draw for the field day. They included representatives of
the Louisiana Rice Research Board, the LSU AgCenter, the USA Rice Federation,
the Louisiana Farm Bureau and Cornell University.
‘Always an inspiration’
The presentation by Dr. Susan McCouch, professor in the Department
of Plant Breeding and Genetics at Cornell, was especially meaningful to
Linscombe.
“Dr. Susan McCouch is always an inspiration to me,” he said. “She
traveled a long way to be with us, but she really does articulate what is
coming down the road in the future efforts in rice variety development.”
Dr. McCouch, who published the first molecular map of the rice
genome in 1988, said genomic research conducted during the past 25 years is
just now having practical applications in plant breeding. The challenge now is
to manage the huge amount of information being generated from the genetic work.
“There’s too much information for a single individual to make sense
of it,” she said, adding researchers should consider the “Walmart approach” of
using massive computer capacity to analyze and collect data. “I think the
things that are coming will be exciting for all of you.”
She said she believes the Rice Research Station, which she called
one of the “premier rice research facilities in the world,” will continue to
play a major role in the future of rice production.
Dr. Linscombe said rice acres are up slightly in Southwest
Louisiana, although rice prices are not where farmers would like them to be.
Price ‘bump’ needed
“The outlook is not real rosy on price,” he said. “We certainly
could use a little bump in the price. The thing I tell our producers – and I’ve
seen evidence of it several times in my career – it doesn’t take much for
something to happen to cause rice prices to go up.
“You don’t wish misfortune on anybody anywhere, but we live in such
a dynamic world price-driven situation with rice that things can change pretty
dramatically.” (Long-grain rice prices currently are projected at $11 per
hundredweight and medium-grain rice is projected at $11.30, making both
eligible for Price Loss Coverage under the 2014 farm bill.
(Michael Deliberto, agricultural economist with the LSU AgCenter,
said the 440,000 acres of rice in Louisiana shows a significant decrease of
medium-grain acreage by 54 percent and a 36 percent increase in long-grain
acreage. Nationwide, rice acreage is 3.1 million acres this year, with the
smallest medium-grain crop since 1986.)
“Our rice producers are a dedicated group,” said Linscombe. “Our
rice acreage through good years and bad has remained relatively stable in
Louisiana. I can’t overstate how important our checkoff funds are for us here.
Our Rice Research Board that administers those funds does a great job on a
volunteer basis, and we’re extremely appreciative of the support we have from
our Louisiana rice industry.”
During his stop, Dr. Linscombe discussed the herbicide-resistant
Provisia project he’s been working on for less than four years. Provisia seed
from two lines that were selected during the breeding process at the Rice
Research Station could be available for commercial production by 2018. The
technology will be a good complement for Clearfield rice to manage red rice and
other wild, weedy rice, he said.
Tank mix partners
Dr. Eric Webster, a LSU AgCenter weed scientist, is working to see
how the Provisia herbicide reacts when tank mixed with other herbicides. “Every
herbicide you could spray on a rice crop, we have mixed it with Provisia,” he
said.
Herbicides such as propanil, RiceBeaux, Grasp and Grasp Xtra, can
become ineffective when they are mixed with Provisia.
Dr. Jim Oard, the LSU AgCenter hybrid rice breeder, said his hybrid
rice program includes a Provisia line. “So far the material looks quite good,”
he said
Another researcher, Dr. Dustin Harrell, AgCenter rice research
agronomist and Extension rice specialist, is trying to determine the optimum
amount of fertilizer and the seeding rate to use with the prospective Provisia
lines.
For more information on the LSU AgCenter and its research efforts,
visit www.LSUAgCenter.com.
http://deltafarmpress.com/rice/lsu-rice-research-station-enjoys-good-weather-crowds-field-day
Golden Rice, pictured in the right hand, is
genetically modified to contain beta-carotene, the source of vitamin A. (Photo:
Golden Rice Project)
BERKELEY
(CBS SF) — A University of California, Berkeley scientist
is among the 100-plus Nobel laureates urging Greenpeace to halt its
campaign against the use of genetically engineered Golden Rice to address
Vitamin A deficiencies in developing nations.Randy Schekman, a professor of cell and developmental biology at the UC Berkeley and 2013 Nobel laureate, signed the laureates’ open letter to Greenpeace, the United Nations and international governments, released on Wednesday.
Schekman told CBS San Francisco via email Thursday that Greenpeace is “responsible in large measure for delays in the development and distribution of Golden Rice, through their concerted effort to challenge the application of biotechnology to any use in the agricultural sector.”
The laureates who signed the letter maintain that genetically modified organisms (GMOs), also known as genetically engineered foods, could help solve world hunger and malnutrition.
According to the United Nations Food & Agriculture Program, global production of food, feed and fiber will need to more than double by 2050 to meet the demands of a growing global population.
But Greenpeace maintains that it is not blocking Golden Rice and claims even the International Rice Research Institute – a nonprofit group which has develop Golden Rice – has not found it to sufficiently address Vitamin A deficiency.
The letter, signed by 110 Nobel laureates argues that Greenpeace is leading the opposition campaign to “modern plant breeding” and went on to “urge Greenpeace and its supporters to re-examine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against ‘GMOs’ in general and Golden Rice in particular.”
The laureates say genetically engineered foods are safe and that there isn’t a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome from consumption of GMO foods.
“Opposition based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped. How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a “crime against humanity”? the laureates write in the letter.
In a rebuttal, Greenpeace said in a statement: “Accusations that anyone is blocking genetically engineered ‘Golden’ rice are false. ‘Golden’ rice has failed as a solution and isn’t currently available for sale, even after more than 20 years of research.”
March 24, 2014: Greenpeace, Organic farmers,
and consumer groups rally to urge the Philippines’ Agriculture Secretary
Proceso Alcala not to approve genetically modified Golden Rice for commercial
consumption. (Luis liwanag/Greenpeace)
Schekman
said one reason for the letter to Greenpeace was to counter the
organization’s claims that scientists are divided on the benefits and potential
dangers of GMO foods. Schekman maintains that the “vast majority of
professional life scientists … actively support this work and its use in
solving the world’s pressing needs.”According to the World Health Organization, around 250 million people suffer from Vitamin A deficiency globally and about 40 percent of those people are children under five years old in the developing world. Vitamin A deficiency is also the leading cause of childhood blindness, from which between 250,000 and 500,000 children suffer globally each year, WHO reports.
Stanford University professor and 2014 Nobel laureate William Moerner was among the laureates who signed the letter. He discussed Golden Rice and GMOs with young scientists last year, saying the use of Golden Rice “really could have an impact” on the global demand for food.
But skeptics of GMO agriculture, such as Prof. Marcello Buiatti with the Department of Genetics at the University of Florence cite concerns about the unknown long-term effects of using GMOs, such as the unknown implications of GMOs leaking into the environment through cross-pollination.
Other critics say the International Rice Research Institute may be heavily influenced by the private funding they have accepted from agricultural biotechnology corporations, including Bayer, Monsanto and Syngenta.
In addition, the International Rice Research Institute’s Golden Rice program was run from 2003 to 2013 by former Monsanto executive of 20 years, Gerard Barry.
The laureates’ letter came just two days before Vermont became the first U.S. state to require all GMOs be labeled as such.
While Vermont’s 2014 law took effect on Friday, federal legislation pending in Congress, if passed, could override Vermont’s labeling requirement with a more lenient national labeling standard.
By Hannah Albarazi – Follow her on Twitter: @hannahalbarazi
Pro-GMO Campaign exploits Nobel Laureates to attack Greenpeace and Fool the People
Global Research, July 02, 2016
GMWatch 30 June 2016
In highly emotive language, the letter, published by a shadowy website called supportprecisionagriculture.org, claims, “Greenpeace has spearheaded opposition to Golden Rice, which has the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which has the greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia.”
The letter calls upon Greenpeace: “to cease and desist in its campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general”, and upon governments “to reject Greenpeace’s campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general; and to do everything in their power to oppose Greenpeace’s actions and accelerate the access of farmers to all the tools of modern biology, especially seeds improved through biotechnology. Opposition based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped.”
The letter ends with an impassioned rhetorical question:
“How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a ‘crime against humanity’?”
The problem with this picture is that the “emotion and dogma” in this case do not belong to Greenpeace but to those who claim or imply that GM golden rice is ready to deploy and that only anti-GMO activists are holding it back.
That’s because in reality, as Prof Glenn Davis Stone pointed out in a peer-reviewed study co-authored with development expert Dominic Glover, GM golden rice still isn’t ready and there’s no evidence that activists are to blame for the delay.
In 2014 the body responsible for the rollout of golden rice, the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), announced that the rice had given disappointing yields in field trials and needed further R&D to produce a crop that farmers would be willing to grow. Stone commented, “The rice simply has not been successful in test plots of the rice breeding institutes in the Philippines, where the leading research is being done.” Stone’s study showed that the rice is still years away from being ready.
And far from the rice being held up by over-stringent regulations fostered by over-zealous anti-GMO activists, as some pro-GMO campaigners have claimed, Stone pointed out that GM golden rice “has not even been submitted for approval to the regulatory agency, the Philippine Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI).”
Indeed, how could it have been submitted to regulators, given that IRRI says it’s not ready for release and that it hasn’t been tested for toxicity, let alone efficacy in combating vitamin A deficiency in the target malnourished populations?
As Greenpeace stated in its response to the campaign:
“Accusations that anyone is blocking genetically engineered ‘golden’ rice are false. ‘Golden’ rice has failed as a solution and isn’t currently available for sale, even after more than 20 years of research. As admitted by the International Rice Research Institute, it has not been proven to actually address Vitamin A Deficiency. So to be clear, we are talking about something that doesn’t even exist.”
Authority over expertise
The laureates’ letter relies for its impact entirely on the supposed authority of the signatories. Unfortunately, however, none appear to have relevant expertise, as some commentators were quick to point out. Philip Stark, associate dean, division of mathematical and physical sciences and professor of statistics at the University of California, Berkeley, revealedon Twitter his own analysis of the expertise of the signatories: “1 peace prize, 8 economists, 24 physicists, 33 chemists, 41 doctors”. He added that science is “about evidence not authority. What do they know of agriculture? Done relevant research? Science is supposed to be ‘show me’, not ‘trust me’… Nobel prize or not.”
Devon G. Peña, PhD, an anthropologist at the University of Washington Seattle and an expert in indigenous agriculture, posted a comment to the new campaign’s website in which he called the laureates’ letter “shameful”. He noted that the signatories were “mostly white men of privilege with little background in risk science, few with a background in toxicology studies, and certainly none with knowledge of the indigenous agroecological alternatives. All of you should be stripped of your Nobels.”
The lack of expertise among the letter signatories contrasts markedly with that of the man whose work the new propaganda campaign seems to be attempting to discredit. Glenn Davis Stone – who has never opposed GM golden rice – is an expert on crop use and technology change among poor farmers, including rice farmers in the Philippines, the country targeted for the golden rice rollout – if it ever happens. He has been following the evidence on the progress of golden rice for years and has published extensively on the topic.
In other words, unlike the laureates, he knows what he’s talking about.
Who is behind the letter?
The new propaganda campaign is said to have been organized by Sir Richard J. Roberts. Roberts is a Nobel Laureate in physiology or medicine for the discovery of genetic sequences known as introns, and chief scientific officer for New England Biolabs. According to their website, New England Biolabs are “a collective of scientists committed to developing innovative products for the life sciences industry… a recognized world leader in the discovery, development and commercialization of recombinant and native enzymes for genomic research.”
Given these facts, it is surprising that Roberts claims that he has “no financial interest in GMO research”.
According to the writer and researcher Colin Todhunter, Roberts has been propagandizing for GM food and crops in India. Todhunter says Roberts’ speech included emotional blackmail in the form of a claim that millions of people in the third world would die of starvation unless GM crops were introduced, as well as highly questionable assertions about the safety of the technology.
Conflicts of interest and bias aside, if you think it’s unlikely that Roberts alone would be able to mobilize over a hundred Nobel laureates to launch a campaign that gives patently false information about a GM crop that may never see the light of day in real farmers’ fields, you are not alone.
So who’s really behind the laureates’ letter?
Some odd goings-on at the press conference announcing the letter may give a clue. Tim Schwab of the NGO, Food & Water Watch and a Greenpeace representative tried to attend the press event, held at the National Press Club. However, Schwab reported, “We were barred at the door from entry – by none other than Jay Byrne, whose long relationship with Monsanto needs no elaboration.”
Byrne is a former Monsanto PR man who now heads the PR firm to the biotech industry, v-Fluence.
Schwab commented that it was “a bizarre choice for this campaign to have Byrne play bouncer.” He added, “Byrne said only credentialed press were allowed to attend. Seconds later I saw a representative from CSPI (an NGO) entering the room. Byrne said some NGOs were invited to attend. Really? Why not Greenpeace – the subject of this campaign?”
Schwab tweeted, “Nobel laureate #gmo #goldenrice press event would be a lot more credible if industry guy wasn’t blacklisting NGOs.”
Why now?
The timing of this press event may be significant. Could it be timed to coincide with the run-up to the GMO labelling vote in Senate, with the added ‘bonus’ of burying Stone’s inconvenient golden rice critique?
Whatever the answer to that question, the ‘supportprecisionagriculture.org’ campaign is shamelessly exploiting a group of Nobel laureates in a propaganda exercise that is actively misleading the public, the media, and governments.
Update 30 June, 20:00 hrs: GMWatch has been alerted to the fact that the website for the laureates’ letter is supportprecisionagriculture.org, but the .com version, supportprecisionagriculture.com, reroutes to the Genetic Literacy Project, which US Right to Know calls an “agrichemical industry front group… with unknown funding that regularly attacks activists, journalists and scientists who raise concerns about the health and environmental risks of genetically engineered foods and pesticides.” Its executive director is Jon Entine.
Update 1 July 2016: A GMWatch reader has pointed out to us that the second organizer of the laureates’ letter alongside Richard J. Roberts is Phillip A. Sharp, who works at the David H. Koch Institute at MIT.
An article for the website Science Alert about the “107 laureates” publicity stunt describes Sharp only as “the winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physiology”.
What the article fails to mention is that Sharp is a biotech entrepreneur with interests in GMO research. In 1978 he co-founded the biotechnology and pharmaceutical company Biogen and in 2002 he co-founded Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, which uses RNAi gene silencing genetic engineering technologies to manufacture therapeutics.
To be clear, GMWatch does not oppose the use of genetic technologies in contained use situations, such as medicine, as long as there is informed consent by the patient to the therapy and no risk to non-target populations and the environment. However, Sharp’s interests in biotech companies should be disclosed in any GMO advocacy exercises he engages in, just as they would be if he were to publish a paper on GMO technologies in any reputable scientific journal.
Does Sharp’s interests in medical biotech constitute a conflict of interest when it comes to his advocacy for GM in food and agriculture?
It is true that medical uses of GM are separate from food and ag uses and are regulated by different laws. It is a perfectly cogent position to oppose genetic engineering in food and ag while supporting medical use or remaining neutral to it.
However, from a crude industry perspective, the less public concerns there are around GM technologies, the better. That’s presumably why industry lobby groups like BIO represent food and ag alongside other sectors of the biotech industry, including medicine. And why we should treat lobbying for GM crops by medical biotech entrepreneurs with the same skepticism as if they were involved in the GM crops industry
Farmer-friendly app
Here is
a useful tool launched in Bihar for farmers. The Web-based app — Crop Manager
for Rice-based Systems (CMRS) — can be used on a computer, a smart phone or a
tablet.
Developed
to help farmers increase their net income and keep productivity going, it
provides those with rainfed or irrigated farms customised guidelines for
rice-based cropping systems and nutrient management.
CMRS
uses a farmer’s answers to questions on farming practices to automatically
generate a rice, wheat, or rabi maize management guideline. Adapted, evaluated,
and verified through the collaboration of the International Rice Research
Institute with the Indian Council for Agricultural Research — RCER, Bihar
Agricultural University (BAU) and others, it can be used by crop advisers,
extension workers and agri service providers.
(This article was published on July 1, 2016)
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/specials/india-interior/farmerfriendly-app/article8797708.ece
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)
The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) is a non-profit independent rice research and training organization. IRRI’s research is done under the framework of the CGIAR Research Program on Rice, known as the Global Rice Science Partnership (GRiSP), which the institute also leadsIRRI develops new rice varieties and rice crop management techniques that help rice farmers improve the yield and quality of their rice in an environmentally sustainable way. The Institute works with its public and private sector partners in national agricultural research and extension systems in major rice-growing countries to do research, training, and knowledge transfer. Its social and economic research also informs governments to help them formulate policy to improve the equitable supply of rice.
IRRI’s mission is to reduce poverty and hunger, improve the health of rice farmers and consumers, and ensure environmental sustainability through collaborative research, partnerships, and the strengthening of national agricultural research and extension systems.
http://www.cgiar.org/about-us/research-centers/international-rice-research-institute-irri/
DA boss eyes self-sufficiency in rice in 2 years, seeks P30 billion
This is what the newly appointed DA Secretary Emmanuel Piñol wants to happen within his first few years in the post.
image: http://www.mb.com.ph/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/280813_OVERTHERICEFIELD01_ERWIN-BELEO_LUNALU.jpg
(MB file photo)
“We have
to have rice sufficiency in two years time. If this is not achieved, I will
kick them [regional directors] out. I will give to them all the things that
they need like irrigation, seeds, fertilizers, etc.,” Piñol during his turnover
ceremony held on Friday.“This admin is results oriented. Any director that can’t do that they will be asked to resign,” he added.
The new agri chief did not provide any target on his ideal amount of production, only reiterating that all the regions must be self-sufficient in terms of rice in the next couple of years.
“It depends on how much rice is needed per region. If all the regions are rice sufficient, ergo, the whole country is rice sufficient,” Piñol said.
To achieve this, Piñol said he will ask the national government a budget of P30 billion to be utilized for the first two cropping seasons.
According to the International Rice Research Institute, rice self-sufficiency is achieved when production exceeds consumption.
As of now, only 4.6 million hectares of land in the country is allotted for rice farming. In 2015, palay production was lower at 18.15 million metric tons (MT), going down by 4.31 percent from the 18.97 million MT output in 2014.
During his term, Piñol swore to beef up rice production, also targeting to plant rice in another 1 million hectares of land.“As most of the country is very mountainous and consists of many small islands, suitable land is limited to expand rice production into without affecting wetlands, forests, or areas producing other crops. Urban areas also continue to expand rapidly,” IRRI argued.Some of the regions in the county are also not suited to growing rice. This includes Calabarzon, CAR, Eastern Visayas, Central Visayas, Zamboanga Peninsula, and Soccsksargen.
Piñol likewise said the country should have a buffer stocking of at least six months at any given time. This is more than 600 percent higher than what is required by law.
The National Food Authority (NFA) is only required by law to have at least 15-day buffer stock at any given time, and 30-day buffer stock during lean months.
“My vision towards the end of this administration is to come up with grain supply stocks for six months… We must be rice sufficient. It’s a must, not a choice,” he specified.
He also said that he will work towards the vision of making rice as an export commodity in the country.
As of now, the Philippines is one of the world’s top rice importers, buying more than a million tons of rice annually, mostly from Thailand and Vietnam.“Rice could be a potential export commodity provided we lower the cost of production and increase productivity,” Piñol said
Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/da-boss-eyes-self-sufficiency-in-rice-in-2-years-seeks-p30-billion/#H1kd3L00gqBgxq1B.99
