The Uncle Roger controversy: Why
people are outraged by a video about cooking rice
By Analysis by Jessie Yeung, CNN
Posted: Jul 30, 2020 1:00 PM
Updated: Jul 31, 2020 8:20 AM
On July 8, Malaysian comedian Nigel
Ng uploaded to YouTube a video titled "DISGUSTED by
this Egg Fried Rice Video," under his comedic persona "Uncle
Roger."
In the video, Ng slammed BBC
Food presenter Hersha Patel's unconventional way of cooking Chinese-style
egg-fried rice, which included draining the rice through a strainer after
boiling.
"What she doing? Oh my god.
You're killing me, woman. Drain the -- she's draining rice with colander! How
can you drain rice with colander? This is not pasta!" he exclaimed.
Shortly afterward, he groaned,
"You're ruining the rice," as Patel used tap water to wash it of
starch.
What Ng intended to be a comedic
video sparked a firestorm of dismay and disbelief as it ricocheted around the
internet, gaining more than 7 million views on YouTube and nearly 40 million on
Twitter.
Many viewers, including
Asian-American celebrities such as writer Jenny Yang, derided Patel's methods
for departing from how Chinese egg-fried rice is traditionally made. Patel
hadn't washed the rice before boiling it. She had added too much water. She
should have used day-old rice. The scrambled egg was overcooked instead of
runny.
"THIS RICE COOKING IS A HATE
CRIME," Yang joked on Twitter.
Ng, who is based in London, tried
to defuse the situation by filming a short clip with Patel announcing they are
planning a collaboration. "While this guy's blown up like nobody's
business, I've been trolled," Patel said in the video,
claiming she had been simply presenting the BBC's recipe and that "I know
how to cook rice."
The BBC has not publicly commented
on Ng's or Patel's remarks.
Rice is a staple ingredient in
Asia, and has been adopted by cuisines globally since it was first domesticated
in China more than 9,400 years ago, according to Chinese researchers.
There are countless ways to prepare rice -- you can steam it, fry it, simmer it
slowly in broth like Italian risotto or scorch it to develop a crispy crust
like Iranian tahdig.
But the issue at hand goes beyond a
difference in opinion on the varying methods of cooking rice.
The controversy over the BBC Food
clip, and the reaction it provoked within certain Asian communities, speaks to
a broader, long-standing debate about the intersection of food, ethnicity and
culture -- the fundamental question of who is allowed to cook what food.
Appropriating
and whitewashing food
Countless White chefs in recent
years have been accused of cultural appropriation by creating food from other
ethnic groups using methods and phrases that are deemed
"unauthentic," disrespectful, and sometimes outright racist.
Last year, for instance, an Asian
food critic accused celebrity chef Gordon
Ramsay of tokenism, after he launched a restaurant
described in promotional material as "an authentic Asian eating
house."
The restaurant didn't differentiate
between wildly different and unique types of Asian cuisines, lumping them all
together as generically Asian. And at the time of the opening, it did not
appear to have any Asian chefs.
"Japanese? Chinese? It's all
Asian, who cares," wrote the critic, Angela Hui, in a scathing Instagram story.
CNN reached out to Ramsay's
restaurant group for comment after the initial controversy.
Tokenism is when racial, ethnic, or
cultural diversity is emphasized only on a symbolic level, without much
substantial effort to understand that culture -- in Ramsay's case, labeling a
restaurant "Asian" without taking the time to differentiate between
these individual nuanced cuisines.
Food is not just sustenance, it
carries history and heritage, which is why many people are deeply offended when
these traditional methods of cooking are cast aside.
Sometimes chefs don't just change
up cooking methods, they blatantly insult the cuisine and culture of origin.
One notorious example is the
Chinese-inspired restaurant Lucky Lee's in New York. When it opened in 2019,
the White owner said it would serve "clean" food that wouldn't make
people feel "bloated and icky" afterwards -- the implication being
that regular Chinese food was somehow unhealthy. That sparked uproar and the
restaurant closed eight months later.
And then there are chefs who fail
to acknowledge a dish's ethnic origins at all -- the equivalent of whitewashing
food.
The New York Times food columnist
Alison Roman, also a White woman, gained internet fame for her recipe for
a "Spiced Chickpea Stew with
Coconut and Turmeric" -- which sounds an awful lot
like an Indian or Jamaican curry. But in an interview with Jezebel, she
said: "I'm like y'all, this is not a curry ... I've never made a
curry." Roman's refusal to call it a curry and her denial of its ethnic
background prompted critic Roxana Hadadi to call it "colonialism as
cuisine."
In response to the backlash, NYT
eventually added a line in Roman's recipe on their website, saying it
"evokes stews found in South India and parts of the Caribbean."
But some people have pushed back
against the idea of cultural appropriation.
Gatekeeping food prevents
innovation, some say: for
instance, fusion foods are born from chefs experimenting with different
cuisines. Many also point out that food is meant to be shared, and its power is
often directly tied to the communal eating experience.
Setting boundaries around food --
for example, saying only Chinese people can cook Chinese food, or Chinese food
can only be cooked a certain way, as those reacting to Ng's video posit --
seems like the antithesis of this sharing spirit in our globalized world.
But sharing is different from
appropriating without respect, especially when the chefs who do it profit from
portraying those foods.
A
reckoning in food media
The Uncle Roger video is the latest
in a string of incidents that have drawn attention to issues surrounding food
and culture. This summer has seen the reckoning on race and racism, embodied by
the Black Lives Matter movement, spread from the streets to newsrooms and
companies.
Within food media, Bon Appetit --
owned by Conde Nast -- is the best-known example. Current staffers, including
assistant food editor Sohla El-Waylly, accused the company of underpaying and
exploiting employees of color, and viewers called out the brand for numerous
instances of food appropriation.
For instance, irate viewers pointed
to the time Bon Appetit had a White chef demonstrate how to cook Vietnamese pho,
with the title "PSA: This Is How You Should Be Eating Pho." There was
also the time they "reinvented" the Filipino dessert Halo-halo by stuffing it with gummy
bears and popcorn, spurring scorn from readers.
Each time, the brand would issue an
apology and a promise to do better -- but it has been happening for years.
After this summer's explosive
allegations, the company released a statement in June, acknowledging
that "BA's recipes for Vietnamese pho, mumbo sauce, flaky bread, and
White-guy kimchi all erased these recipes' origins or, worse, lampooned
them."
"In all these cases and more,
BA has been called out for appropriation, for decontextualizing recipes from
non-White cultures, and for knighting 'experts' without considering if that
person should, in fact, claim mastery of a cuisine that isn't theirs,"
wrote Joey Hernandez, BA's research director, in the statement.
The Bon Appetit debacle also
prompted other questions about biases within established institutions. Who
chooses what dishes get more coverage? Why do publications continue to use
language that frames "ethnic" food as occasionally bizarre and often
incomprehensible -- for example, Bloomberg calling tofu a "white, chewy and
bland" food people are "learning to love?"
Bloomberg eventually removed these phrases from their article after
international backlash.
And why are "ethnic"
chefs -- a euphemism for non-Whites -- often paid less? Bon Appetit fans were
further outraged when Somali chef Hawa Hassan revealed last month that she
was only paid $400 per video, and El-Waylly blasted Bon Appetit for
only paying her $50,000 to "assist mostly white editors with significantly
less experience than me."
These themes sound abstract at
times -- but they're linked to and help perpetuate broader real-life
inequalities such as workplace discrimination, pay inequity, power imbalances
and prevailing Whiteness in the food world.
Ng and Patel may not have intended
for their respective videos, and upcoming collaboration, to raise these
questions.
But viewers' frustrations are
inherently tied to the idea that there is an authentic way to cook fried rice,
and that Patel's errors are made worse by the fact she is a non-Chinese chef
presenting herself as an authority on the dish.
"FOR ANYONE WHO IS TRYING TO
SAY THERE ARE MULTIPLE WAYS OF COOKING RICE, WELL OF COURSE THERE ARE. AND I
LOVE THEM ALL," tweeted Yang, the
Asian American writer. "BUT THIS IS *NOT* HOW YOU MAKE DELICIOUS FRIED
RICE, THE DISH OF MY PEOPLES, THE SUBJECT OF THIS VIDEO."
https://www.wlfi.com/templates/AMP?contentID=571957792
Agricultural scientists from KVK stress biological pest
control strategies When the entire world is challenged with the great threat of
environmental pollution, agricultural
scientists from By : Sentinel Digital
Desk | 30 July 2020 9:27 AM STAFF CORRESPONDENT DIBRUGARH: When the
entire world is challenged with the great threat of environmental pollution,
agricultural scientists from Krishi Vigyan Kendra Dibrugarh under Agricultural
University Assam - Hemchandra Saikia, Sanghamitra Sharma and Tilok Malaka were
seen in the fields of farmers, demonstrating the environment-friendly
biological pest control of rice pests at No.2 Charaihabi gaon under Barbaruah
Block in Dibrugarh district. Addressing the participant farmers of several
villages, Hemchandra Saikia, an expert in Agricultural Economics, reminded that
health was wealth and this would need pollution-free environment and food
stuff. "Hence, while continuing our crop cultivation to fulfill food
security and economic development, effective steps should be taken at the right
time and place to minimize the use of pesticides and chemicals," he said. "The
injudicious use of chemicals and pesticides over the years has been
contributing to environmental pollution, causing hardship to mankind," he
added. He further stated that injudicious use of pesticides might convert a
minor pest to a major form of pest to crops, besides polluting the ecosystem
and food chain and also killing the beneficial insect pests, which ultimately
would hamper both agricultural output and sound human health. As there is a
growing demand for organically produce output of agricultural crops in the
entire world, KVK scientist Saikia stressed biological control of pests
affecting crop cultivation Sanghamitra Sharma, who is expert in entomology,
demonstrated how to use biological pest control strategies against rice pests
like rice stem borer and leaf folder with the use of pheromone trap and use of
neem oil spray. The scientists also explained other means of eco-friendly rice
pest control measures like use of 'T' shaped bamboo technology through which
various birds used to eat various pests of rice by sitting in the T fitted in
the rice field. They also urged farmers to go for multiple crop cultivation to
enhance their total farm income in order to lead a respectable standard of
living. Also Watch: Protests Against CAA Picking Up; AASU Protest In Doomdooma
https://www.sentinelassam.com/north-east-india-news/assam-news/agricultural-scientists-from-kvk-stress-biological-pest-control-strategies-492024
China objects to US retaliation over grain subsidies
KEYWORDS CHINA DAVID ORDEN GRAIN
SUBSIDIES RETALIATION RICE RICE
SUBSIDIES WHEAT WHEAT
SUBSIDIES WTO DISPUTE
China Wednesday officially
rejected U.S. claims that China has failed to comply with a 2019 World Trade
Organization ruling against China’s price supports for its wheat and rice
farmers — subsidies that U.S. farmers say hurt international trade.
The U.S. recently requested WTO
authorization to hit China with “countermeasures” worth $1.3 billion, and China
railed against the request during the Wednesday meeting of the WTO’s Dispute
Settlement Body.
“China took note of the US
request and said it disagreed with the U.S. allegation that China has failed to
bring its measures into compliance with its WTO obligations,” according to a
Geneva trade official.
It’s still unclear whether or not
the WTO would agree that China is not complying with the original ruling handed
down last year. Under more normal circumstances, the disagreement would be
handed over to a WTO compliance panel, which can be appealed. But the WTO’s
appellate body has been effectively shut down because the U.S. refuses to
approve new appeals court judges.
Another potential route is for
both sides to ask for an arbitration panel, which could issue a final ruling
that can’t be appealed.
A WTO dispute panel ruled in 2019
that China was unfairly calculating its support prices for wheat and rice
farmers, pushing subsidies far higher than it was allowed in 2012 through 2015.
China did not appeal the ruling and the U.S. accepted the win the case that it
began in 2016.
Related Articles
Interested in more coverage and
insights? Receive a free month of Agri-Pulse West.
But China’s newly proposed way of
making the calculations is just as unfair as the old method, U.S. government
and industry sources tell Agri-Pulse. China says the fact
that it has set new procurement limits on how much wheat and rice it can buy
solves the dispute. The U.S. argues that the new limits are far above what
China buys, making them meaningless.
The Chinese proposal, while
potentially complying with WTO precedent, is basically “sleight of hand,” says
David Orden, a professor at Virginia Tech University’s Department of
Agricultural and Applied Economics. “By announcing these limits, China is
saying it is now in compliance. The limit is more than the expected
procurement, so it’s not going to have any real effect on what they procure.”
For more news, go to www.Agri-Pulse.com.
Iran runs out
dollars, India's basmati rice exports may fall 20%
Islamic Republic
ordered nearly 30 per cent of India's basmati rice exports in financial year
2019-20, buying 1.3 million tonnes
Topics
Basmati rice | Iran | India
Dilip Kumar Jha
| Mumbai Last Updated at July 30, 2020 11:51 IST
Indian exporters said they have cut shipments to Iran because of
delay in payments linked to the Islamic nation running out of dollars
India’s basmati rice exports to Iran may decline 20 per cent this
financial year as the West Asian nation fails to make payment due to US
economic sanctions, said a study.
Iran ordered nearly
30 per cent of India’s total basmati rice exports in financial year
2019-20, buying 1.3 million tonnes. The US economic sanctions have paralysed
business in Iran, which is battling the crisis for a year now.
Indian exporters said they have cut shipments to Iran because of delay in payments linked
to the Islamic nation running out of dollars.
“Iran, which imports around 1.3 million tonne annually, is
expected to register 20 per cent lower volume from India as payment-related issues continue
from last fiscal because of US sanctions,” said a Crisil study.
Data compiled by the Agricultural and Processed Food Export
Development Authority (Apeda) showed India exported 4.45 million tonnes basmati rice (worth $4.33 billion) in
financial year 2019-20 as compared to 4.41 million tonnes ($4.72 billion) the
year before. India recorded 4.01
million tonnes (worth $4.17 billion) for the financial year 2017-18.
“Exports to Iran is currently on halt due to delay in payment
receivables. Owing to economic sanctions, dolalr availability remained scarce.
But, Iran market is set to open very soon,” said Gurnam Arora, Joint Managing
Director of Kohinoor Foods Ltd, the producer and exporter of Kohinoor brand
basmati rice.
Indian rice exporters are exploring opportunities in South East
Asia and South America to compensate for exports to Iran. Demand from European
Union, the Middle East, South East Asia and the South American countries has
increased.
“There will be no impact of decline in export volume to Iran on
India’s overall shipment of basmati rice as demand from other markets has increased,” Ashwini Arora,
Director, L T Foods, the producer of Daawat brand basmati rice, had said in a
recent interaction with Business Standard.
Demand for basmati remained strong in nationwide lockdowns to
contain the coronavirus outbreak, prompting rice companies to accept orders by
seeking higher advances or letters of credit. They plan to use the advance
monies to cut working capital debt. The aromatic rice demand from the US, the
UK and the Middle East (excluding Iran), which account for more than half of
India’s annual basmati export, has increased because these countries are
building food security buffers amid the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Crisil report said the average export realisation at Rs 63 per
kg this fiscal compared with Rs 69 per kg in the last fiscal. Realisation from
the domestic market, accounting for 2 million tonne sales annually, is seen
stable at Rs 52 per kg on strong retail demand.
Packs of rice urgently recalled
because they might contain glass
The Food Standards Agency said the possible presence of glass makes the products "unsafe to eat"x
The Food Standards Agency (FSA)
offices in London (Image:
Bruno Vincent/Getty
to
send you these newsletters. Sometimes how we use your data, and your rights.
You can unsubscribe at any time.
A
number of Uncle Ben's rice packets are being urgently recalled because they
might contain glass.
Mars
Food UK is recalling Uncle Ben's Brown Basmati ready to heat rice pouches as a
precaution due to the "possibility of the presence of glass". It's
not been stated how glass may have got into the packets.
A
notice issued by the Food Standards Agency on Monday (July
27) said certain batches of the product are unsafe to eat.
The
250g Uncle Ben's Brown Basmati pouches which have been affected, including
their best before dates, are listed below:
·
November 17, 2020
·
December 8, 2020
·
December 9, 2020
·
January 8, 2021
·
January 18, 2021
·
January 19, 2021
·
March 2, 2021
·
March 16, 2021
·
March 20, 2021
·
May 24, 2021
·
June 14, 2021
·
June 15, 2021
·
July 3, 2021
·
July 19, 2021
The
company says no other products or best before dates are affected by this recall.
Find out how you can get more news from SurreyLive straight to
your inbox HERE.
Any customers who have purchased
the above items should return them to the store from where they were bought or
dispose of them and contact the Uncle Ben's consumer care line on 0800 952 1234
for a full refund.
Spain's Ebro sees profits rise as coronavirus pandemic boosts
rice, pasta sales
MADRID (Reuters) - Spain’s Ebro
Foods (EBRO.MC)
said its net profit increased by 38% in the first half of the year as demand
for its pasta and rice was driven higher by a change in consumer habits during
the coronavirus pandemic.
The
company, which says it is the world’s second-largest rice seller and maker of
dry and fresh pasta, said on Wednesday its net profit rose to 102.8 million
euros (93.11 million pounds) on sales that climbed 23% to 1.67 billion euros.
Ebro
Foods’ operating costs also increased as it tried to keep pace with demand.
“The
rice division’s sales could have been even stronger if some of our plants had
not been close to full capacity,” Ebro said in an statement, noting that dry
pasta demand had also risen.
Demand
for staple foods increased in all countries affected by lockdowns as people
stayed home, cooking their own food. Demand also benefited from panic buying
when lockdowns were first announced as consumers feared running out of food.
Ebro
Foods, which owns brands such as Garofalo in Italy, Panzani in France and Tilda
in Britain, reported adjusted earnings before interest taxes, depreciation and
amortization (EBITDA) of 227.5 million, up 42.8%.
The
company expects demand to stay strong, though closer to normal levels, in the
second half of the year, as long as no lockdowns are imposed to fend off
second-wave contagions.
Reporting by Emma Pinedo; Editing
by Inti Landauro and Jan Harvey
Our Standards:The Thomson
Reuters Trust Principles.
Rice Prices
as on : 31-07-2020 03:51:33 PM
Arrivals in tonnes;prices in Rs/quintal in
domestic market.
|
Arrivals |
Price |
|||||
|
Current |
% |
Season |
Modal |
Prev. |
Prev.Yr |
|
|
Rice |
||||||
|
Wansi(UP) |
1000.00 |
- |
1303.00 |
2560 |
- |
21.33 |
|
Bangalore(Kar) |
837.00 |
-32.66 |
126579.00 |
4650 |
4650 |
3.33 |
|
Mandya(Kar) |
418.00 |
422.5 |
5608.00 |
2850 |
2450 |
- |
|
Sultanpur(UP) |
200.00 |
NC |
7707.00 |
2315 |
2325 |
-15.82 |
|
Varanasi(Grain)(UP) |
120.00 |
20 |
2417.00 |
2700 |
2660 |
13.21 |
|
Gondal(UP) |
114.50 |
4.09 |
8265.50 |
2420 |
2420 |
-1.22 |
|
Dadri(UP) |
85.00 |
-15 |
2025.00 |
5950 |
5930 |
- |
|
Hardoi(UP) |
80.00 |
33.33 |
8632.80 |
2430 |
2440 |
-3.19 |
|
Kalipur(WB) |
74.00 |
13.85 |
3124.00 |
2400 |
2400 |
6.67 |
|
Bindki(UP) |
70.00 |
-22.22 |
5920.00 |
2550 |
2530 |
7.59 |
|
Kasimbazar(WB) |
62.50 |
NC |
1650.00 |
2680 |
2660 |
1.13 |
|
Sealdah Koley Market(WB) |
55.80 |
-0.36 |
484.00 |
2700 |
2700 |
- |
|
Kanpur(Grain)(UP) |
50.00 |
11.11 |
5815.00 |
2300 |
2300 |
-6.12 |
|
Sahiyapur(UP) |
50.00 |
66.67 |
2647.00 |
2560 |
2560 |
5.13 |
|
Kopaganj(UP) |
49.00 |
-5.77 |
1824.00 |
2585 |
2580 |
5.73 |
|
Choubepur(UP) |
48.00 |
95.92 |
2391.85 |
2600 |
2570 |
-2.80 |
|
Azamgarh(UP) |
45.00 |
-10 |
5531.70 |
2565 |
2565 |
4.69 |
|
Aligarh(UP) |
40.00 |
-20 |
4412.00 |
2550 |
2540 |
0.39 |
|
Ghaziabad(UP) |
40.00 |
-33.33 |
2705.00 |
2850 |
2850 |
-2.73 |
|
Gorakhpur(UP) |
40.00 |
-11.11 |
1104.70 |
2570 |
2560 |
- |
|
Beldanga(WB) |
40.00 |
14.29 |
1525.00 |
2700 |
2700 |
8.00 |
|
Lakhimpur(UP) |
37.00 |
5.71 |
2856.00 |
2440 |
2450 |
4.72 |
|
Saharanpur(UP) |
37.00 |
27.59 |
2699.50 |
2750 |
2750 |
-5.82 |
|
Teliamura(Tri) |
35.00 |
NC |
524.00 |
2900 |
2900 |
NC |
|
Faizabad(UP) |
35.00 |
2.94 |
1574.00 |
2430 |
2430 |
2.32 |
|
Basti(UP) |
34.00 |
6.25 |
1732.00 |
2570 |
2560 |
6.20 |
|
Meerut(UP) |
34.00 |
-2.86 |
959.50 |
2810 |
2810 |
-5.39 |
|
Firozabad(UP) |
33.00 |
13.79 |
1712.60 |
2575 |
2590 |
- |
|
Hapur(UP) |
30.00 |
-14.29 |
1247.00 |
2670 |
2670 |
-10.40 |
|
Khalilabad(UP) |
30.00 |
-14.29 |
1835.00 |
2550 |
2550 |
13.33 |
|
Muradabad(UP) |
30.00 |
-14.29 |
1677.00 |
2620 |
2600 |
2.34 |
|
Madhoganj(UP) |
30.00 |
20 |
3708.50 |
2430 |
2435 |
8.00 |
|
Memari(WB) |
30.00 |
100 |
144.00 |
2500 |
2450 |
11.11 |
|
Mathura(UP) |
29.00 |
11.54 |
3088.50 |
2540 |
2560 |
-1.17 |
|
Bidar(Kar) |
28.00 |
21.74 |
167.00 |
2400 |
2400 |
-4.00 |
|
Bankura Sadar(WB) |
28.00 |
16.67 |
2281.00 |
2600 |
2600 |
8.33 |
|
Paliakala(UP) |
27.50 |
57.14 |
710.00 |
2420 |
2430 |
7.08 |
|
Mainpuri(UP) |
26.00 |
-3.7 |
4054.50 |
2610 |
2600 |
-0.76 |
|
Agra(UP) |
25.00 |
25 |
3496.50 |
2610 |
2630 |
0.38 |
|
Shamli(UP) |
25.00 |
11.11 |
1256.90 |
2785 |
2785 |
0.91 |
|
Asansol(WB) |
24.00 |
1.87 |
1247.01 |
3100 |
3100 |
9.15 |
|
Durgapur(WB) |
23.50 |
-2.08 |
1204.25 |
2700 |
2760 |
2.66 |
|
Muzzafarnagar(UP) |
23.00 |
53.33 |
4539.00 |
2785 |
2785 |
-5.75 |
|
Kolaghat(WB) |
23.00 |
NC |
252.00 |
2400 |
2450 |
-4.00 |
|
Tamluk (Medinipur E)(WB) |
23.00 |
-4.17 |
282.00 |
2400 |
2450 |
-4.00 |
|
Utraula(UP) |
22.50 |
7.14 |
565.70 |
2420 |
2420 |
- |
|
Champadanga(WB) |
22.00 |
22.22 |
738.00 |
3200 |
3200 |
14.29 |
|
Vilaspur(UP) |
21.00 |
-4.55 |
1684.20 |
2640 |
2640 |
5.18 |
|
Egra/contai(WB) |
21.00 |
16.67 |
575.00 |
2600 |
2600 |
13.04 |
|
Sehjanwa(UP) |
20.00 |
-33.33 |
2538.50 |
2580 |
2560 |
19.44 |
|
Jaunpur(UP) |
19.00 |
-38.71 |
1577.50 |
2600 |
2600 |
10.17 |
|
Etawah(UP) |
18.00 |
50 |
2600.50 |
2500 |
2535 |
-5.30 |
|
Farukhabad(UP) |
18.00 |
38.46 |
1195.00 |
2480 |
2500 |
-6.42 |
|
Medinipur(West)(WB) |
18.00 |
20 |
143.00 |
2900 |
2900 |
1.75 |
|
Rampur(UP) |
16.00 |
14.29 |
695.50 |
2630 |
2630 |
2.73 |
|
Tundla(UP) |
16.00 |
255.56 |
297.50 |
2600 |
2630 |
0.58 |
|
Unnao(UP) |
15.50 |
3.33 |
30.50 |
6675 |
6650 |
96.32 |
|
Badayoun(UP) |
15.00 |
36.36 |
1102.50 |
2620 |
2600 |
4.38 |
|
Gazipur(UP) |
15.00 |
-3.23 |
2200.50 |
3250 |
3250 |
0.62 |
|
Banda(UP) |
12.00 |
100 |
365.50 |
2430 |
2455 |
3.18 |
|
Etah(UP) |
12.00 |
71.43 |
449.50 |
2570 |
2580 |
-0.77 |
|
Bharthna(UP) |
12.00 |
-14.29 |
2352.00 |
2550 |
2540 |
-3.77 |
|
Jangipura(UP) |
12.00 |
-14.29 |
680.00 |
2580 |
2600 |
10.26 |
|
Partaval(UP) |
11.50 |
-36.11 |
803.00 |
2515 |
2550 |
10.07 |
|
Bahraich(UP) |
11.00 |
46.67 |
1126.50 |
2380 |
2400 |
-2.06 |
|
Robertsganj(UP) |
11.00 |
-21.43 |
322.60 |
2500 |
2490 |
7.07 |
|
Jhijhank(UP) |
10.00 |
100 |
401.50 |
2500 |
2530 |
- |
|
Raath(UP) |
9.00 |
50 |
255.60 |
2350 |
2350 |
- |
|
Barhaj(UP) |
9.00 |
-91 |
10305.00 |
2580 |
2580 |
7.50 |
|
Mohamadabad(UP) |
8.00 |
14.29 |
867.80 |
2500 |
2480 |
- |
|
Kayamganj(UP) |
8.00 |
-20 |
1997.00 |
2510 |
2520 |
-5.28 |
|
Devariya(UP) |
8.00 |
-11.11 |
1088.50 |
2570 |
2565 |
6.20 |
|
Ajuha(UP) |
8.00 |
14.29 |
409.00 |
2500 |
2500 |
2.04 |
|
Rasda(UP) |
8.00 |
-27.27 |
535.00 |
2625 |
2630 |
1093.18 |
|
Naugarh(UP) |
7.50 |
-25 |
3758.50 |
2550 |
2555 |
5.15 |
|
Raibareilly(UP) |
7.50 |
-11.76 |
1639.50 |
2465 |
2465 |
12.56 |
|
Karvi(UP) |
7.50 |
-16.67 |
646.00 |
2430 |
2420 |
2.75 |
|
Fatehpur(UP) |
7.30 |
12.31 |
2302.00 |
2515 |
2520 |
7.02 |
|
Atarra(UP) |
6.00 |
-14.29 |
860.50 |
2425 |
2450 |
4.30 |
|
Mawana(UP) |
6.00 |
-14.29 |
284.20 |
2800 |
2790 |
- |
|
Chandoli(UP) |
5.00 |
66.67 |
90.70 |
2600 |
2585 |
11.83 |
|
Kasganj(UP) |
5.00 |
25 |
498.50 |
2600 |
2590 |
1.96 |
|
Nadia(WB) |
5.00 |
NC |
270.00 |
3800 |
3800 |
NC |
|
Indus(Bankura Sadar)(WB) |
5.00 |
-16.67 |
1182.00 |
2800 |
2800 |
1.82 |
|
Mirzapur(UP) |
4.50 |
12.5 |
307.00 |
2645 |
2660 |
9.52 |
|
Auraiya(UP) |
4.00 |
14.29 |
260.10 |
2520 |
2530 |
-4.18 |
|
Jahangirabad(UP) |
3.50 |
-22.22 |
256.00 |
2650 |
2650 |
-0.93 |
|
Tulsipur(UP) |
3.50 |
16.67 |
98.60 |
2420 |
2420 |
- |
|
Akbarpur(UP) |
3.50 |
16.67 |
408.60 |
2450 |
2450 |
0.82 |
|
Kalyani(WB) |
3.50 |
NC |
91.00 |
3450 |
3450 |
1.47 |
|
Chhibramau(Kannuj)(UP) |
3.40 |
-2.86 |
614.20 |
2500 |
2460 |
-3.85 |
|
Jayas(UP) |
3.30 |
17.86 |
726.90 |
2300 |
2300 |
12.20 |
|
Mothkur(UP) |
3.00 |
7.14 |
17.60 |
2480 |
2490 |
- |
|
Fatehpur Sikri(UP) |
3.00 |
-11.76 |
151.30 |
2585 |
2560 |
0.98 |
|
Mahoba(UP) |
3.00 |
-14.29 |
470.60 |
2470 |
2460 |
9.05 |
|
Achalda(UP) |
3.00 |
-25 |
352.90 |
2500 |
2520 |
13.12 |
|
Kosikalan(UP) |
2.90 |
11.54 |
251.70 |
2540 |
2550 |
0.40 |
|
Naanpara(UP) |
2.80 |
-33.33 |
675.00 |
2400 |
2400 |
2.13 |
|
Uluberia(WB) |
2.80 |
3.7 |
61.10 |
2700 |
2700 |
-6.90 |
|
Chitwadagaon(UP) |
2.50 |
25 |
478.10 |
2620 |
2640 |
24.76 |
|
Baberu(UP) |
2.20 |
46.67 |
91.60 |
2420 |
2420 |
8.76 |
|
Bishnupur(Bankura)(WB) |
2.10 |
5 |
202.70 |
2600 |
2600 |
NC |
|
Khurja(UP) |
2.00 |
-20 |
213.60 |
2633 |
2660 |
-2.48 |
|
Buland Shahr(UP) |
2.00 |
-33.33 |
162.90 |
2630 |
2685 |
-2.59 |
|
Muskara(UP) |
2.00 |
25 |
81.70 |
2400 |
2450 |
3.23 |
|
Safdarganj(UP) |
2.00 |
NC |
91.50 |
2400 |
2400 |
- |
|
Khatra(WB) |
2.00 |
100 |
106.50 |
2600 |
2550 |
NC |
|
Charra(UP) |
1.90 |
-5 |
124.80 |
2550 |
2550 |
0.99 |
|
Mugrabaadshahpur(UP) |
1.80 |
NC |
75.50 |
2510 |
2515 |
12.05 |
|
Bareilly(UP) |
1.50 |
-80 |
1999.50 |
2600 |
2585 |
3.59 |
|
Shikohabad(UP) |
1.50 |
-40 |
270.00 |
1526 |
2600 |
-48.27 |
|
Wazirganj(UP) |
1.50 |
NC |
52.50 |
2610 |
2580 |
- |
|
Panichowki(Kumarghat)(Tri) |
1.40 |
7.69 |
59.60 |
2950 |
2950 |
- |
|
Jhansi(UP) |
1.40 |
-12.5 |
151.20 |
2485 |
2480 |
4.63 |
|
Bharuasumerpur(UP) |
1.20 |
-33.33 |
31.10 |
2500 |
2500 |
28.21 |
|
Alibagh(Mah) |
1.00 |
NC |
92.00 |
4200 |
4200 |
90.91 |
|
Murud(Mah) |
1.00 |
NC |
91.00 |
4200 |
4200 |
90.91 |
|
Melaghar(Tri) |
1.00 |
NC |
65.70 |
3000 |
2800 |
11.11 |
|
Lalganj(UP) |
1.00 |
-33.33 |
276.50 |
2350 |
2350 |
- |
|
Anandnagar(UP) |
0.90 |
-18.18 |
218.60 |
2540 |
2555 |
5.83 |
|
Gurusarai(UP) |
0.90 |
NC |
25.00 |
2485 |
2485 |
7.58 |
|
Dahod(Guj) |
0.80 |
-66.67 |
1035.90 |
4200 |
4200 |
5.00 |
|
Atrauli(UP) |
0.70 |
16.67 |
8.00 |
2550 |
2560 |
- |
|
Maudaha(UP) |
0.70 |
16.67 |
34.50 |
2350 |
2360 |
0.43 |
|
Achnera(UP) |
0.60 |
-14.29 |
41.60 |
2610 |
2580 |
1.95 |
RPT-Asia Rice-Virus slows Indian
exports; heavy flooding hits Bangladesh
Harshith Aranya
(Repeats story published on July 30
with no changes to text)
* Nearly 50,000 hectares of paddy
fields in Bangladesh submerged
* Thailand prices rise to
$465-$483/t from last week’s $450–$482
* Vietnam’s Jan-July rice exports
seen down 1.4%
By Harshith Aranya
BENGALURU, July 30 (Reuters) -
India’s rice export prices rose this week as the worsening coronavirus crisis
in the country caused logistical snags, while widespread flooding in Bangladesh
severely damaged crops.
India’s 5-percent broken parboiled
variety RI-INBKN5-P1 was quoted at $380-$385 per tonne this week, up from last
week’s $377-$382 per tonne.
Rice exporters in India are
struggling to fulfil orders due to limited availability of containers and
workers at mills and the biggest handling port Kakinada on the east coast.
Rice loadings have slowed down as
the Kakinada port could load around 8,000 tonnes of rice a day for only five
vessels, with others forced to wait in anchorage, said B.V. Krishna Rao,
president of the Rice Exporters Association.
In neighbouring Bangladesh, heavy
floods have submerged nearly 50,000 hectares of paddy fields, the country’s
agriculture ministry officials said.
Thailand’s benchmark 5-percent
broken rice RI-THBKN5-P1 prices rose to $465-$483 on Thursday, from $450–$482
quoted last week.
Traders say prices increased
slightly as the baht strengthened against the U.S. dollar.
“The market is expecting a new batch
of off-season rice next month, and if the output is good then the prices could
drop... but at the moment, supply remains a concern,” a Bangkok-based trader said.
In Vietnam, rates for 5-percent
broken rice RI-VNBKN5-P1 stayed unchanged from a week earlier in the $440-$450
per tonne range.
“Domestic paddy price, however, has
risen significantly over the recent days as traders are hoarding the grain in
anticipation of higher prices due to the return of COVID-19 to Vietnam,” a
trader based in the Mekong Delta province of An Giang province said.
“Exporting activities are quiet this
week because many traders hesitate to sign new export contracts, fearing they
cannot purchase enough rice to fulfil the contracts,” the trader added.
Rice exports in the first seven
months of 2020 from Vietnam were forecast to drop 1.4% from a year earlier,
government data released on Wednesday showed. (Reporting by Rajendra Jadhav in
Mumbai, Ruma Paul in Dhaka, Khanh Vu in Hanoi and Panu Wongcha-um in Bangkok;
Additional reporting by Swati Verma; Editing by Ramakrishnan M.)
SunRice says this season's rice price still
'very high' despite 40 per cent drop
By Verity
Gorman and Cara Jeffery
SunRice said it's had positive
feedback from growers about this season's rice price.(ABC
Rural: Cara Jeffery)
Australia's largest rice processing company
insists the price it has offered farmers to grow rice this season is "very
high", despite an almost 40 per cent drop on last season's price.
Key points:
·
SunRice has
reduced the contract price for a medium grain rice variety to $475 a tonne,
down from $750 a tonne last season
·
CEO Rob Gordon
said the price is still "very high"
·
Rice growers
said there is optimism about the season ahead
Last year SunRice put a record fixed-price
contract on the table of $750 a tonne for medium grain variety Reisiq in an
effort to encourage more growers to plant the crop.
But this year the company reduced the contract
price to $475 a tonne for the same variety.
SunRice chief executive Rob Gordon said despite
the drop he's had positive feedback from growers.
"Last year's $750 was in reality a price
we needed to pay in the midst of a drought when water prices were
extraordinarily high," Mr Gordon said.
"This $475 price reflects a return to
normal with water levels starting to be at a more normal level in the
Riverina."
The price drop comes at a time when the general
security water allocation in the Murray River is at just 2 per cent.
Hope for a better season ahead
"We're still early in the season and the
Bureau of Meteorology is calling a wetter-than-average winter and spring so we
are hopeful the allocation will build," Mr Gordon added.
"The outlook at the last allocation was
there should be a half reasonable allocation by November on the basis of a dry
to average set of inflows."
Low water allocations and tough seasonal
conditions resulted in the 2020 rice crop being the second lowest on record at
just 45,000 tonnes.
·
Mr Gordon said contract signing started with
growers this week and there had already been a good level of interest from
farmers eager to return to growing rice.
"A number of people who went to other
crops in recent years haven't necessarily had the best experiences," he
said.
"This year pricing on cotton and corn is
well off and this price is highly competitive for growers' water."
President of the Ricegrowers' Association of
Australia Rob Massina farms in the southern Riverina and agreed there is
optimism about the season ahead.
"It's all about the availability of water
at the end of the day," Mr Massina said.
"If the predicted rainfall comes to
fruition that will be the positive kick that the rice industry needs to make
sure we can continue to provide Australian rice on Australian shelves."
Posted Yesterday
China objects to US retaliation over grain subsidies
KEYWORDS CHINA DAVID ORDEN GRAIN
SUBSIDIES RETALIATION RICE RICE
SUBSIDIES WHEAT WHEAT
SUBSIDIES WTO DISPUTE
China Wednesday officially
rejected U.S. claims that China has failed to comply with a 2019 World Trade
Organization ruling against China’s price supports for its wheat and rice
farmers — subsidies that U.S. farmers say hurt international trade.
The U.S. recently requested WTO
authorization to hit China with “countermeasures” worth $1.3 billion, and China
railed against the request during the Wednesday meeting of the WTO’s Dispute
Settlement Body.
“China took note of the US
request and said it disagreed with the U.S. allegation that China has failed to
bring its measures into compliance with its WTO obligations,” according to a
Geneva trade official.
It’s still unclear whether or not
the WTO would agree that China is not complying with the original ruling handed
down last year. Under more normal circumstances, the disagreement would be
handed over to a WTO compliance panel, which can be appealed. But the WTO’s
appellate body has been effectively shut down because the U.S. refuses to
approve new appeals court judges.
Another potential route is for
both sides to ask for an arbitration panel, which could issue a final ruling
that can’t be appealed.
A WTO dispute panel ruled in 2019
that China was unfairly calculating its support prices for wheat and rice
farmers, pushing subsidies far higher than it was allowed in 2012 through 2015.
China did not appeal the ruling and the U.S. accepted the win the case that it
began in 2016.
Interested in more coverage and
insights? Receive a free month of Agri-Pulse West.
But China’s newly proposed way of
making the calculations is just as unfair as the old method, U.S. government
and industry sources tell Agri-Pulse. China says the fact
that it has set new procurement limits on how much wheat and rice it can buy
solves the dispute. The U.S. argues that the new limits are far above what China
buys, making them meaningless.
The Chinese proposal, while
potentially complying with WTO precedent, is basically “sleight of hand,” says
David Orden, a professor at Virginia Tech University’s Department of
Agricultural and Applied Economics. “By announcing these limits, China is
saying it is now in compliance. The limit is more than the expected
procurement, so it’s not going to have any real effect on what they procure.”
https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/14166-china-objects-to-us-retaliation-over-grain-subsidies
India’s support price for rice under WTO lens as US, EU question
‘peace clause’
Amiti Sen New Delhi | Updated
on July 30, 2020 Published
on July 30, 2020
- SHARE
- SHARE
Six countries ask India 25 questions on additional notification
obligation, trade impact
India’s minimum support programme
(MSP) for rice is under scrutiny at the World Trade Organisation with the US
and the EU challenging the increase in subsidies beyond ceiling (de minimis)
limits in the marketing year 2018-19.
Invocation of the ‘peace clause’
by India to justify the subsidies was also questioned by the opposing members
who posed several queries on the various conditions, including notification
requirements, that are to be met for the purpose as decided at the Bali
Ministerial meet, a Geneva-based official told BusinessLine.
“The main challengers of the
invocation of the ‘peace clause’ were the US, EU, Canada, Brazil, Japan and
Paraguay who registered a total of 25 questions in relation to India’s
additional notification obligations, reporting methodologies and the trade
impact of the support,” the official said.
Earlier this year, India had
informed the WTO that it had breached the subsidy limit fixed at 10 per cent of
the value of food production for developing countries (under the Agreement on
Agriculture) for rice in 2018-19. It had provided subsidies worth $5 billion to
rice farmers against rice production worth $43.67 billion in the period.
Peace clause
New Delhi invoked the ‘peace
clause’ of the WTO agreed to at the Bali Ministerial meeting in December 2013
while breaching the subsidy limits. As per the ‘peace clause’, no action will
be taken against India, or other developing countries, in case the subsidies on
their food procurement programmes breached the ceiling of 10 per cent of value
of production.
While the peace clause is
supposed to remain in perpetuity till a permanent solution on public
stockholding for food security is mutually agreed to by members, it comes with
a series of conditions related to notification obligations and ensuring food
security of other countries.
India, in its defence, said the
breach of de minimis limits for rice was covered by the ‘peace clause’, and it
has submitted full information in line with the specific notification
requirements of the decisions, some members were not convinced.
New Delhi’s stance
New Delhi maintained that the
marketing year 2018-2019 was the only year that it exceeded the de minimis
support for rice. It clarified that although India’s public stockholding
programmes covered rice, wheat, coarse grains and pulses, only the support on
rice breached given limits, the official said. “India also stated that the
850,000 tonnes of rice stocks subsequently sold on the domestic market were not
allowed for export, preventing the risk of distorting global markets,” he
added.
India also said that it will give
the full-detailed responses in the Agriculture Information Management System
(AGIMS) on the WTO in due course and that it is open for bilateral
consultations with members with further questions.
The EU said that more evidence
was needed on how India ensured the rice stocks are not dumped on the global
market. It also said that all the information on the products covered by the
public stockholding programme should be provided in order to tell for sure that
only rice support exceeded the limits.
Other countries said that they
would go through India’s responses carefully before discussing future action.
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/agri-business/rice-prices/article32239318.ece#
Myanmar govt raises minimum rice price; exports risky but promising
30 Jul 2020
Photo:
Mar Naw
Myanmar govt raises minimum rice price; exports risky but promising
The government has raised this year’s floor price for rice in view
of higher agricultural and production costs, said U Soe Tun, executive
committee member of the Myanmar Rice Federation (MRF).
For the 2020 monsoon and summer 2021, the price has been set at K520,000 for
every 100 baskets, according to the committee for protecting rights and
enhancing economic welfare of farmers last week. One basket weighs 46lb or
20.86kg.
In fiscal 2018-19, the minimum rice price was set at K500,000 for every 100
baskets. “The rice floor price is calculated based on cost. Now it is revised
as costs have increased,” U Soe Tun said.
But the higher prices also implies more export revenue for Myanmar in
the year ahead. Export prices are already rising, and are now up by about
US$10-$15 per tonne compared to earlier in the year, according to the MRF.
Notably, Myanmar can now officially export broken rice to China after
the two governments agreed to include in this year's export contract. “In the
past, China bought broken rice from Vietnam only. Now it can also buy from
Myanmar so the export market looks more promising,” said U Soe Tun.
According to MRF projections, Myanmar is expected to export between 2.5
million and 3 million tonnes of rice and broken rice next year. China is the
main buyer of rice from Myanmar, followed by Malaysia and the Philippines as
well as countries in Africa and the EU.
Between October 1, 2019 and July 10, rice export volumes rose to 2.2
million tonnes worth more than US$666 million, up by 360,000 tonnes and $100
million year-on-year, respectively, according to the MRF.
There are risks to these forecast though. Two weeks ago, Thai imports of
Myanmar broken rice collapsed due to a sudden drop in demand, traders said.
"The Thais have stopped importing due to falling prices at home. Now,
there is hardly any demand," U Maung Myint Oo of Klohtoo Wah Co, a local
trading house.
Prior to the collapse, Myanmar exported about 500 tonnes of broken rice a
week to Thailand. “It also doesn’t work for the Thais that we have increased
our export duties from 32pc to 52pc. The quality of Myanmar broken rice is not
good enough because traders mix it with lower quality products. Therefore, the
Thais are reluctant to buy it too,” said Ko Kyaw Thu, a local trader.
Despite better overall export numbers, there are also risks of a further
drop in trade with China at the border. Between October 1, 2019 and July 10,
border rice exports fell to just $93.6 million, which is down by $171 million
in the previous period last year, according to the MRF.
This is due to China clamping down on illegal trade, and, more recently,
additional precautionary measures taken to control the spread of COVID-19. - Translated
