PDA

View Full Version : China Close to Production of 'Safe' Genetic Rice


Dialectic
Mar 12th, 2005, 02:52 PM
China Close to Production of 'Safe' Genetic Rice

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid
=585&e=1&u=/nm/20050311/sc_nm/science_china_gmo_dc

By Nao Nakanishi

HONG KONG (Reuters) - As early as this year, China could start commercial production of a new breed of genetically engineered rice.

If adopted, it would be the world's first large-scale plantation of a major transgenic food crop and, some scientists say, would provide an environmentally friendly answer to the food problems of the world's poor.

But those who fear that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) present a danger to the natural crop balance say Beijing's haste to develop the rice has more to do with a drive to bring the income levels of its farmers in line with others who have prospered more from China's red-hot economic development.

Scientists in China, the world's top rice producer and consumer, say Beijing is looking to mass produce Xa21 rice, which contains a gene from an African wild rice.

Government officials have remained tight-lipped about plans to introduce any form of GMO rice.

The Xa21 strain, which was developed through publicly funded international research, is resistant to bacterial blight -- one of the most serious crop diseases in Africa and Asia, which can cause devastating yield loss as it spreads in water droplets.

As it derives from a wild rice gene, it has emerged as front-runner in the race to be the first GMO rice crop, ahead of insect-resistant BT rice, which contains a toxic bacterial gene.

The scientists say Beijing hopes Xa21 will help convince skeptics of the safety of genetically modified organisms, while moving China a step forward in its quest to become a global leader in biotechnology.

"Many scientists in China think the Xa21 rice is relatively safe for the environment and health, as its gene comes from a wild rice," Dayuan Xue, professor at Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences, told Reuters.

CHANGE OF HEART

Should China approve commercial production of the rice, it would be the first time that the country had approved a large GMO project since 1999, when a global consumer outcry over the safety of genetically modified foods persuaded the government to stop.

It would also be in stark contrast to Monsanto Co.'s decision last year to halt plans to introduce the world's first GMO wheat in Canada and the United States.

At present, herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant soy, cotton, corn and rapeseed account for most of the GMOs grown commercially worldwide. Of the four, China has allowed only GMO cotton.

Clive James, chairman of the ISAAA, a group with industry and public foundation support that promotes biotech as a way to halt global hunger, sees huge significance in China's Xa21 project.

"In the near term, the one single event that is likely to have the greatest impact is the approval and adoption of ... (GMO) rice in China," he said in a 2004 report.

"That will herald a new chapter in the debate ... which will be increasingly influenced by countries in the South (developing countries), where the new technology can contribute the biggest benefits and where humanitarian needs are the greatest."

Jia Shirong, a professor from the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing, said that -- after eight years of laboratory study and field trials -- his team had applied to the government to start commercial output of Xa21 hybrid Japonica rice in the central province of Anhui, half the size of Italy.



"The field performance has been excellent," Jia told Reuters in a telephone interview. "Farmers can reduce yield losses and chemical use. Our research data showed that the transgenic rice is as safe as the traditional rice."

Jia said the Xa21 strain was created through international cooperation that included the participation of the International Laboratory for Tropical Agricultural Biotechnology (ILTAB) in the United States, partly funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.

Pamela Ronald, from the University of California at Davis, identified and cloned the Xa21 gene in 1995 from a wild species native to Mali. With the help of ILTAB, she transformed the gene into a cultivated species.

Many scientists from the International Rice Research Institute had worked on the wild rice species from Mali since 1977 and found it could withstand various bacterial blights.

POTENTIAL AND CAUTION

Some say there is no need for Xa21 as there are already rice varieties resistant to bacterial blight. "The introduction of the GMO rice means taking an unnecessary risk," said Sze Pangcheung from Greenpeace in China.

Xue from the Nanjing Institute said China had had problems with insect-resistant GMO cotton, of which it is the world's top grower. In some areas, farmers needed as many chemicals as before, because the number of non-targeted pests increased, he said.

"We should take time and look at it more carefully," he said.

But asked about the possible commercialization of Xa21 rice, Ronald told Reuters: "It would be a big step for consumers ... There is a lot of potential in this technology."

She said the University of California at Davis, which has the patent for the Xa21 gene, distributed it without charge for research purposes and for use in less developed countries.

If a company wanted to commercialize a product using the gene, it would pay royalties into a fund Ronald established in 1996, so that some of the financial benefits would be shared with Mali.

Asked if China needed to pay for the patent, she said: "Usually in China, you have government agencies that distribute seeds free to farmers. In that case, there are no fees."

"If a farmer plants a seed with Xa21 in it, he or she can harvest the seed and save some for replanting," she added. (Additional reporting by Niu Shuping in Beijing)

KeJia Sista
Mar 15th, 2005, 03:06 PM
This is sad news. It opens the door to problems that may surface years from now, and by then the damage will be wide spread.

Much of the problems with agriculture are related to the so-called 'green revolution' where toxic pesticides and herbacides were wide spread. Or from the turn from family farms to mass corporate farms. Traditional farmers have experience of hundreds of years which has been pushed aside as farming is turned into a sort of factory farming.

There are ecological solutions to farming problems, but these solutions don't always sit well with capitalist planning.

Look at the havoc Monsanto is wreaking.

Nature survives due to variety. The fewer the choices the closer to doom. Lets say this new rice appears successful and stands up against the "blight" and replaces most crops.

And later we find it is not resistant to a new disease; and it is killed off world wide, after millions have switched over to this "money maker".

This is not even considering that it might have a side effect when its eaten.

Ke Jia

ric
Mar 15th, 2005, 03:19 PM
This is sad news. It opens the door to problems that may surface years from now, and by then the damage will be wide spread.

Much of the problems with agriculture are related to the so-called 'green revolution' where toxic pesticides and herbacides were wide spread. Or from the turn from family farms to mass corporate farms. Traditional farmers have experience of hundreds of years which has been pushed aside as farming is turned into a sort of factory farming.

There are ecological solutions to farming problems, but these solutions don't always sit well with capitalist planning.

Look at the havoc Monsanto is wreaking.

Nature survives due to variety. The fewer the choices the closer to doom. Lets say this new rice appears successful and stands up against the "blight" and replaces most crops.

And later we find it is not resistant to a new disease; and it is killed off world wide, after millions have switched over to this "money maker".

This is not even considering that it might have a side effect when its eaten.

Ke Jia



The Xa21 strain, which was developed through publicly funded international research, is resistant to bacterial blight -- one of the most serious crop diseases in Africa and Asia, which can cause devastating yield loss as it spreads in water droplets.



Thats why this rice is being made^. Wanna help poor and hunger or worry about issues that might NOT affect us later on? Diversity in nature is going to happen regardless if this rice goes commerical. It's not like there is ONLY one kind of rice out there

Mon$anto is another story. I don't see how you can compare whats the agenda behind this and what those fools are doing at Monsanto?

Yes, you are right about one thing, we don't not know the long term effects of eating GM foods. Hey, you drink milk that probably has Bovine hormones, eat veggies/fruits that have been GM, and have a nice BIG PLUMP steak dinner. Its not like human being are growing a third eye or something



:lol:

Infectious
Mar 15th, 2005, 06:56 PM
This is not even considering that it might have a side effect when its eaten.

Ke Jia

With that, I think you're going into "alarmist" territory. What's the difference between genetically modifying a plant (not with weird things like fish genes) and selectively cross breeding for generations? Selective cross-breeding also modifies the plant.

ric
Mar 17th, 2005, 01:23 PM
This is not even considering that it might have a side effect when its eaten.

Ke Jia

With that, I think you're going into "alarmist" territory. What's the difference between genetically modifying a plant (not with weird things like fish genes) and selectively cross breeding for generations? Selective cross-breeding also modifies the plant.

Exactly

NAs made corn from weed( not the one you smoke)

KeJia Sista
Mar 17th, 2005, 02:04 PM
[quote]The Xa21 strain, which was developed through publicly funded international research, is resistant to bacterial blight -- one of the most serious crop diseases in Africa and Asia, which can cause devastating yield loss as it spreads in water droplets.

Thats why this rice is being made^. Wanna help poor and hunger or worry about issues that might NOT affect us later on? Diversity in nature is going to happen regardless if this rice goes commerical. It's not like there is ONLY one kind of rice out there

Mon$anto is another story. I don't see how you can compare whats the agenda behind this and what those fools are doing at Monsanto?

Yes, you are right about one thing, we don't not know the long term effects of eating GM foods. Hey, you drink milk that probably has Bovine hormones, eat veggies/fruits that have been GM, and have a nice BIG PLUMP steak dinner. Its not like human being are growing a third eye or something

:lol:

I dont drink milk or eat steak. :)

I'm coming from two directions here. One is the Native view that you make choices based on how they will affect the seventh generation. I know that is a far cry from how "Americans" are raised to think. So while you and I may not have a third eye, our grandkids may have a birth defect. Not so dramatic as a third eye, but something that makes them uncomfortable. The other direction is that when there is a big profit to be made; we can depend on corporate scientists to give us the best case scenerios.

I have no problem with selective cross-breeding, because as you say, it happens over a period of generations. Its not just humans getting a third eye; but the effect on the land, animals, birds, fish.

Some say there is no need for Xa21 as there are already rice varieties resistant to bacterial blight. "The introduction of the GMO rice means taking an unnecessary risk," said Sze Pangcheung from Greenpeace in China.

One of the best ways to help poor farmers is through crop rotation and not depleting the land by a single crop. Even more important is to let a country grow what it needs to feed itself first, rather than farming primarily for sale to a first world country.

How does research data show it's safe? I suppose those in the Third World who will be the first beneficiaries of this rice will let us know.

"Many scientists in China think the Xa21 rice is relatively safe for the environment and health, as its gene comes from a wild rice," Dayuan Xue, professor at Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences, told Reuters.

Sorry Ric, even Dayuan doesn't seem as convinced as you.

Ke Jia

ric
Mar 21st, 2005, 05:38 PM
Ke Jia

well I don't think one person POV is going to change the fact whats real situation or problem at hand which is: starving people. Also this rice has another species 's set of genes. how can that be any worse than stickin salmon genes into a Tomato. Now that could be breeding ground for something really weird




second, this story has or is not in same league as Mon$anto.


third,

Money makes the world go around

da Tao
Mar 21st, 2005, 09:27 PM
I know a few things about biotech, agriculture, economics and development because of my training, contacts and interests. You all have some good points, but I feel that some more background info is useful.

Proactive disclosure: Degree in biomedical engineering, currently in contact with various syngenta employees regarding development matters, an agriculture bio/chem giant.

First is how many of the rice strains came about before the ability to create recombinant DNA. Even before humans got involved, the biodiversity came from cross-pollenation, spontaneous mutations (irradiation, replication errors, etc) and environmental selection. When we figured out what was going on, we started to artifically pollenate and select (picking the trait we want to grow and discarding the rest).

We got bored of sitting around waiting for freak events to happen. So people irradiated the rice and treated it with chemicals to introduce mutations (along with older methods). This is a NON-specific crapshoot - before being able to read the genome no one could guess what the result would be. We are in fact eating some of this genetically modified rice strains right now.

So exactly is so special about this new-frangled technology? Now we can read the chromosomes of the rice plant and know which gene creates which proteins which affects things like high stalk, yield per plant, resistance to drought, pest, etc. Now we can cut out the exact pieces of DNA from others and paste it in our seed. Since the function of each gene is studied, people can actually predict the result a head of time. I met a professor that can take genes from some other plants and put them into rice so that the rice will create a molecule that is the precursor of vitamin A. (Many people in the developing world goes blind due to lack of vitamin A in their diets.)

Can things go wrong? Yes, of course. It is possible that you have a plant that creates toxic rice and spread like weeds, strangling "normal" rice strains... etc... This is more likely to happen ACCIDENTALLY if you try one of the older (non-GM) mutation approaches. It is not likely to happen in PLANNED genetic modifications because of the checking and planning done beforehand. The technology does however make dangers like this to be done EASIER on PURPOSE.

More to come on this issue.

Dialectic
Mar 21st, 2005, 09:45 PM
A very brief note: I believe that we currently already have the productive capacity to feed the world's poor and hungry. Feeding them is not so much a production issue as it is an economic/ distribution issue. We can create enough food, but we cannot economically support its production for a sustained period.

I'm going to give a very simple example here (which da Tao may confirm or deny if he has the expertise), but basically, let's say you have a population of mice. Due to various behavioural and genetic traits, some mice are doing better than others: some are better at getting food, reproducing, healing, etc., while others are hungry, smaller, weaker. So within this population you got some healthy mice, some smart, some dumb, some hungry, etc.

You increase the population's food supply.

What happens? The population increases. As far as I know, there is no population of organisms that doesn't follow this basic rule, not even self-directing, free-thinking humans (we're talking on a large scale, not on an individual basis).

So now you have a larger population, and since distribution channels/ networks, power structures, hierarchies, etc. don't magically disappear with increased wealth/ food, you get more of everything: healthy mice, smart mice, dumb mice, and yes, hungry mice.

From what I know, simply increasing the food supply will not solve world hunger: we will end up with more hungry people. It can be part of a solution, but an effective, wide-vision solution would require economic and political planning/ manipulation as well.

Infectious
Mar 21st, 2005, 10:02 PM
Dialectic, I've heard theories that local production is better for sustaining populations than giant combines.