Slashdot Mirror
China Pulls Plug On Genetically Modified Rice and Corn
sciencehabit writes China's Ministry of Agriculture has decided not to renew biosafety certificates that allowed research groups to grow genetically modified (GM) rice and corn. The permits, to grow two varieties of GM rice and one transgenic corn strain, expired on 17 August. The reasoning behind the move is not clear, and it has raised questions about the future of related research in China.
Considering this is the country that put melamine in milk and cadmium in toys, this speaks volumes.
I would like to know their official justification.
So get out, Monsanto, you dirty capitalist pigs!
Seriously, though, this means little. China will use their own knockoff version now and market it, as well.
I have been a daily slashdot visitor since about the year 2001. Just now I was redirected to a full page ad that I would associate with crappy, suspicious websites.
I don't want to be another complainer, but this site is begging me to stop visiting. I am not very happy.
Public skepticism about GMO's has been growing in China and the government there is extremely concerned with anything that can enrage popular discontent. They know and are very fearful that a movement or protests against GMO's can quickly snowball and morph into anti-government protests. China is extremely mindful of protests because its reliance on global trade and the internet means that they way it can respond is much more limited. Another Tienanmen Square would be a complete disaster with severe repercussions for the government.
The ruling party has a lot of engineers and technical people, but the corner cutting happens mostly in the construction and manufacturing industries. No, what the higher ups do is not cutting corners, but filling those industries with people they think they can get bribed from. And the mass suppression before protests get out of hand (ie, start being effective).
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Sigh.
There are many GMOs that do different things. People always talk about herbicides resistant because it sound scary. oooOOOooohhh.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
According to the info @ http://www.plosone.org/article...
The GMO rice requires much less application of pesticide than the non GMO counterparts (2 applications versus 5)
If the GMO rice is approved then the pesticide industry in China (both local / international vendors) will stand to lose a lot of sales
It could be their lobby which had killed the GMO rice
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Uh, no. You don't know how China works. Look what happened to Bo Xilai. China's ruling party has real problems, so there's no need to keep pandering to Cold War era myths about how the Chinese government operates.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Correct. Instead of a lobby that everybody can potentially be aware of, you just pay the fine to the politician directly.
It produces Bt, which is toxic to certain orders of insects, not to humans. And before someone comes along and says that it is still toxic, remember that gapes and chocolate are toxic to dogs, and dogs are a lot more closely related to humans than lepidopterans.
Oh, and every plant produces insecticides anyway. It's only alarming if you don't know much about plant biochemistry. Give something that can't swat back at the trillions of things out there trying to eat them a few hundred million years to come up with defenses and they develop things chemical defenses, like caffeine (yep, it has insecticidal properties, ever wonder why coffee evolved to have it right in it's seeds?), piperine (a yummy insecticide, turns out black pepper's original plan was to not have things eat its offspring), maysin (found even in your non-GMO corn) solanine (tomatoes and potatoes, don't eat this) and falcarinol (found in carrot a neurotoxin in high enough quantities).
You mean like wheat, a hybrid of three species, and strawberries, another hybrid?
Or corn, bred to be so radically different from its ancestral teosinte that most people wouldn't even recognize it?
Or carrots, which were not orange until humans bred them to be that way?
Or cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kohlrabi, kale, and Brussel's sprouts, which are all the same species with various genetic mutations dramatically altering their form?
Or apples, which are selected from somatic mutations and grafted onto root stocks?
Or citrus, which is altered through selecting radiation induced mutations?
Or pluots, which had to have their embryos cut out of the parent plant and cultured in vitro because they would have never developed naturally?
Or seedless watermelons, which are bred from chemically induced chromosome doubled watermelons?
Or tomatoes, which have genes introgessed from other wild species?
Oh, you're just referring to the thing you knew was unnatural, not all the things you were utterly clueless about. Well, since it would be such a bother to admit your initial premise and driving belief are completely inane, I'll wait while you move the goalpost to attempt to justify your irrationality.
You forgot two of the best-known ones: nicotine (tobacco) and capsasin (hot peppers).
Plants are pretty much natural chemical weapons factories, as far as insects go. That's why swapping those "toxins" around isn't necessarily going to do any harm to humans, depending on the choice of toxin (nicotine would be a problem, but capsasin wouldn't be).
There are also other GM techniques that would be of great benefit that have nothing to do with toxins, such as the attempt to generate a version of rice with the C4 photosynthetic system instead of the C3, which would increase yields significantly if successful.
Not every GMO contains nicatoids
No GMO crop is modified to produce neonicotinoids, although some anti-GMO people have tried to conflate these separate issues because GMO crops, like non-GMO crops, may be sprayed with them.
Monsanto deserves a firey death for setting back non-psychopathic GMO's by 30 years or more.
I do not believe this is Monsanto's fault. The mainstream opposition to genetic engineering started with the Flavr Savr tomato, which was released before Monsanto released any GE crops. The blame lies with activist/interest groups like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Navdanya, Organic Consumer's Association, ect. and other groups that saw genetic engineering as an opportunity to further their own social, political, or financial interests. Those 'psychopathic' GMOs you mention are insect resistant crops (reduced insecticide use), herbicide tolerant (sounds bad, actually results in lower environmental impact via the substitution of harsher herbicides and the promotion of no-till agriculture) and virus resistant crops, with drought tolerant corn recently approved (no independent data on its impact yet though).
Consider this; do you really think the same people who lie about university, NGO, and publicly developed GE crops are going to be honest about Monsanto? These anti-GMO groups aren't just opposing Monsanto's crops, they're opposing, vandalizing, and slandering all GE crops. Golden Rice, BioCassava, Bangladeshi Bt eggplant, Rainbow papaya, HoneySweet plum, CSIRO's low GI wheat (destroyed by anti-science thugs), INRA's disease resistant grape rootstock (also destroyed), Rothamsted's insect repelling wheat, VIB's cisgenic potatoes (also destroyed), ect. All publicly developed, all opposed (or destroyed) by anti-GMO groups. Put Monsanto's blame where it is due, but this one is not on them.
It produces Bt, which is toxic to certain orders of insects, not to humans.
The problem isn't killing off a few humans. Plenty more where they came from. Disrupting ecosystems due to unintended consequences could be far more destructive.
E.g. Transfer natural insecticide "X" from plant Q to plant P, insect A (that had never encountered plant Q) eats P and accumulates X; insect B eats insect A and dies from X, is no longer around to eat insect C, which swarms and displaces insect D, which had an essential role in pollenating crop S...
Of course, X could get transferred from plant Q to P naturally or by old-fangled horticulture - but this will happen gradually, even horticulture will probably take decades, giving ecosystems time to adapt, but GM can make the transfer and roll out the GMO around the world within a few years. Plus, with GM, X might come from a plant from another continent, a seaweed, a jellyfish...
Now, if we could only be sure that the firms making GMO crops were painstakingly exploring all possible ecological side effects, and would scrap a new product at the first hint of any possible problem on a "better safe than sorry" basis, then the benefits of GMO might outweigh the risks. Unfortunately, these are probably the same people who thought that putting diseased sheeps' brains into cattle feed was a good idea, who are resisting attempts to ban neonicatinoids until its absolutely 100% proven beyond all doubt that they're killing bees, and think a 1m strip of ploughed land around a GMO trial field will prevent cross-pollenation.
Plus, as others have pointed out, the problems of food supply are caused by poor infrastructure, overpopulation, growing high-value crops for 1st-world markets instead of food and over-reliance on single crops. These are not generally helped by increasing yields in the already-overproducing rich nations who can afford to buy GMOs.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
No corruption in the Chinese government? Either you're a troll or a party member.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Golden rice is OPEN SOURCE. Monsanto and its lawyers are nowhere in sight. And no, golden rice has no magical effects on other species around it.
Right on schedule the moving goalpost away from 'genetically changing a plant is bad' to 'the way I don't like is different therefore bad'. If you note, you'll see that everything I mentioned are actually all quite different. Various types of somatic and induced mutations, selective breeding, biotech facilitate wide crossing/embryo rescue, artificial chromosome alteration...very different from genetic engineering, where a single well known gene is inserted. Why not lump genetic engineering in with everything else and select the chromosomal duplication to be the pariah? After all, that is also an entirely different thing, which I don't think is particularly meaningful, but means about as much as your argument. What I personally do is both more and less extreme than transgenics, depending on how you want to view it. The lumping of everything as 'conventional breeding' to make a dichotomy between it and genetic engineering is a very simplistic view.
without the slightest idea (or any way of finding out) what the effects will be in the long term.
Fallacy number two, the straw man. Do you really think the scientific community, which overwhelmingly supports GE crops (don't even try to deny this), does not pause to consider such things? Perhaps you could explain your long term fears in less vague terms?
But that doesn't matter, does it? To those whose only reality is profit, there is no future beyond the current quarter.
Sorry, the corporate card has no bearing on scientific topics. Save it for politics.
The Chinese government remembers the opium wars, and exploitation of China over profits, and disregard for their welfare in it. What do you think would happen with GMO plants that you don't own, and not only in the intellectual property sense, where it could be pirated, but you don't own it because it's not fertile seed, and you have to keep going back to the original manufacturer for a survival, after he successfully convinced you to get rid of all seeds able to produce fertile seeds themselves, so you no longer have a means to go back to them if seed prices go up, by, mm, say 10 million times of their present cost? And that price is not an overstatement, there is a huge amount of money to be made blackmailing the whole world's population over their stomachs. Everybody has to eat, no matter what the price, therefore the price, in absence of excess supply, which of course would be artificially created by withholding GMO seeds, tends to infinity. To withhold GMO seeds all you have to do is create artificial catastrophies around the available funds of seeds, and lose much of the supply like that. Supply/demand, with a hard demand, is a really easy way to make money if you can cut the supply hard and fast. But only after the alternatives to run to, such as traditional fertile seeds have been abandoned, and it's not possible to have them as an option.
Disrupting ecosystems due to unintended consequences could be far more destructive.
This is agriculture. We're producing food for billions of people on a very large chunk of the earth's land, I'd say the environmental disruption thing has already happened. The question is no longer about causing environmental harm, it is about minimizing it. Could Bt crops have negative environmental impacts? Wrong question, the issue is if they are superior to spraying insecticides.
Your hypothetical about gene transfer, if you were referring to a jump from a GE crop to related wild species, that is something that environmental impact studies (they are done!) considers on a case by case basis. It depends on the gene, the location, the species, the environment. If you were referring to a jump to non-related species, while technically possible, it is wildly implausible, and that GE is involved is no more reason to suspect it will happen than to suspect that, say, the gene for the insecticidal PA1b protein will jump from pea to lettuce.
These are not generally helped by increasing yields in the already-overproducing rich nations who can afford to buy GMOs.
Which is why technology transfer to developing countries so that they can work towards improving food security has always been a goal.