Genetically Modified Rice and Corn To Grow in China, then the World

23 7 Loading
genetically modified rice

Genetically modified rice is likely to see widespread adoption in China in the next two to three years.

China grows a lot of rice – about 60 million tonnes a year. It also consumes most of that, only exporting around 1% of its crop. So, high demand for production with little fear of export restrictions? Sounds like a recipe for genetic modification. According to Reuters, China recently approved the commercial use of genetically modified rice and corn to be phased in probably within the next two to three years. Both strains of GM grains were created locally. Huazhong Agricultural University developed Bt rice, which contains proteins from Bacillius thuringiensis bacteria that allow it to resist the rice stem borer, a major pest in China. The Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences likewise developed phytase corn which helps livestock more easily absorb necessary phosphorus from feed. Experts believe that widespread adoption of the GM rice in China may lead to an 80% reduction in pesticide use, and an 8% increase in crop yield. More food, less pollution. With a promise like that, we could see GM rice spread from China to the rest of the world.

Of course, genetically modified food isn’t new, not even in China. They’ve had GM papaya, cotton, and tomatoes for several years. Likewise, the United States has been a major developer of genetically modified crops. Most of the country’s soybeans and cotton are grown from GM strains that started to gain popularity back in the 90s. Bayer has developed a rice, LL rice 62, which has gained approval for cultivation in the US, but has yet to see widespread use. Reactions to GM foods ares still mixed in Latin America. Europe continues to resist adoption of GM crops, and currently only grows one major strain – a type of modified corn. China’s foray into the world of GM rice and corn could be a turning point for the rest of the globe. As the world’s largest consumer of rice, China’s choice may force other countries to consider adopting similar GM food stuffs, especially if they have any interest in selling to the Asian powerhouse.

The short term benefits for China could be enormous. Most of the country’s rice is grown on small farms, and these local farmers are exposed to a variety of pesticides to maintain their crops. Bt rice will drastically reduce the amount of needed pesticides and may relieve the need to flood fields. (Flooding is partially used to reduce the prevalence of parasites.) Phytase corn will not only allow livestock to more easily receive needed nutrients from feed, it will eliminate some of the phosphorus waste present in pig and cow manure. Again, it’s hard to argue with increased food supplies and decreased environmental impact.

Yet there are many who do find the use of GM crops troublesome. Many Europeans question the safety of foodstuffs that have only been around for a few years. Most of the plants that we eat have been “tested” by thousands of years of cultivation and consumption. As these crops are designed to be more successful, they can quickly come to dominate and replace the natural versions in the wild. Once enough countries go GM, they say, the rest of the world will become GM through the natural dispersion of seeds.

Others point out that GM crops are the intellectual property of the developers, which have almost exclusively been large chemical corporations. Farmers are (generally) not allowed to plant their own left over seeds from GM crops, but instead must purchase seed from the developer. This is seen as an enforcement of the patent rights of the company, but there is concern over most of the world’s seed supply being under the control of a few business institutions.

Finally, I worry about any process that narrows the gene pool of an important biological resource. Most commercial crops have already been bred to a very limited number of strains, restricting that down to just a handful of similar genomes seems to be asking for trouble.

It’s hard to get a good idea if the Chinese are actively debating these issues as GM rice and corn are set to gain major ground in the next two to three years. Europe is likely to continue to fight GM adoption, Latin America is going to be a battle ground as each country takes its own measures to advocate or demonize GM foods, and the US…Well, strict veggie libel laws and loose labeling standards make the US a GM free for all. Few people in the states know which foods they eat are genetically modified.

Again though, despite all of its critics GM food does one thing very well: it feeds people. Increased yields are going to be necessary as the world population continues to grow. Many genetically modified plants reduce the need for pesticides, which is an ecological boon. Unfortunately some are specifically designed to resist herbicides, thus increasing the use of those chemicals. It’s probably too soon to really know if GM crops are a good idea at the moment.

[Update: I should state that many people are not convinced that GM crops do in fact raise crop yields or reduce the use of pesticides. Watch dog groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists have challenged the efficacy of GM corn and soy in the US since their introduction in the 90s (see their report, Failure to Yield). There are dozens of similar groups of farmers, scientists, and civilians who advocate organic farming, crop rotation, and non GM-based solutions as the most reliable means of increasing yield. It should be noted that there is a dearth of GM related research published in peer review journals often because of end-user agreements with the companies who hold the patents on the GM crops. To be fair, critical reviews of GM crops (including Failure to Yield) are themselves rarely published in peer reviewed journals either.]

Eventually though, I can’t see how the world will avoid adopting them. Being able to customize life to suit human needs is simply too powerful of a tool to ignore. Yes there will be setbacks, perhaps even tragically large ones, but in the end we will need to grow more food on less resources. And that probably means GM. Not just in plants, but in animals as well. We’re likely to see more GM livestock in the next decade, unless meat starts to be grown outside the farm entirely. In any case, your plate is going to be filled with food that mother nature couldn’t make on her own. Actually, for many of us, this has already happened. Science tastes good, doesn’t it?

[photo credit: Nature, 2005]

Discussion — 7 Responses

  • Sam January 26, 2010 on 4:17 pm

    There's no evidence to support the claim that GM crops feed people well. They generally haven't increased yields – see the report Failure to Yield: http://bit.ly/ztqA Big pesticide reductions were claimed for Bt cotton in China but then Cornell research showed that because of secondary pest problems spraying went back up again. Similar problems are emerging with GM cotton in the Delta with cotton acreage actually shrining in the face of secondary pests and resistant weeds. The article also doesn't seem to mention that because of GM contamination US rice farmers suffereed a billion dollar loss – something that's still being fought out in the courts. And China watchers say they are unlikely to commercialise GM rice until it's won public acceptance – from all surveys that could be quite a wait!

  • adsaenz January 26, 2010 on 5:54 pm

    Hmm…You are right, Sam, that I didn't examine the 0th order question, which is: “Do GM crops even do what they are designed to do.”
    I'm adding a short paragraph into the text to address the issue.

  • kevin January 26, 2010 on 6:09 pm

    I suspect that most of the reaction against gm foods is caused by a visceral “ick” factor rather than actual evidence the foods are harmful. There have been major meta-analyses that indicate GM foods are in fact, safe. The reaction against GM foods is mostly a post hoc rationalization of the “ick” factor some people feel.

  • Sam January 26, 2010 on 10:50 pm

    Think there's a lot more substance to the concern than just the “ick” factor, see part two of this document on concerns arising from scientific research: http://bit.ly/aWmAlF And there are staggering holes in the regulation: http://bit.ly/du2NdC

  • EnvironmentalScientist July 27, 2010 on 11:40 pm

    Just a couple of rhetorical questions…

    If the concept of “substantial equivalence” is true (that GMO’s are no effectively no different than non-GMO’s), then on what grounds do the bio-tech patent them? After all, a patent describes something that is uniquely different than what already exists…

    If Bt corn is a food, then why is the corn itself registered as a pesticide, and vice versa? So which is it…Is it a food or is it a pesticide?

    I don’t want food that is ‘generally recognized as safe,’ I want food that is PROVEN safe, and GMO’s have a long, long, long way to go on that count. Personally, I don’t think they ever will be.

  • EnvironmentalScientist July 27, 2010 on 7:40 pm

    Just a couple of rhetorical questions…

    If the concept of “substantial equivalence” is true (that GMO’s are no effectively no different than non-GMO’s), then on what grounds do the bio-tech patent them? After all, a patent describes something that is uniquely different than what already exists…

    If Bt corn is a food, then why is the corn itself registered as a pesticide, and vice versa? So which is it…Is it a food or is it a pesticide?

    I don’t want food that is ‘generally recognized as safe,’ I want food that is PROVEN safe, and GMO’s have a long, long, long way to go on that count. Personally, I don’t think they ever will be.

  • Gueststar March 21, 2011 on 5:48 am

    “There’s no evidence to support the claim that GM crops feed people well.” Thats incorrect and doesn´t even make sense.

    “They generally haven’t increased yields – see the report Failure to Yield: …” Any scientific researches which are proving that your points are true? Or even proving that these are caused only by the genetic crops?

    “If the concept of “substantial equivalence” is true (that GMO’s are no effectively no different than non-GMO’s), then on what grounds do the bio-tech patent them?” Okay thats total crap. Not even the opposite is true.

    “If Bt corn is a food, then why is the corn itself registered as a pesticide, and vice versa?” BT is a pesticide that is used for years in so called biological and conventional farming. BT crops are crops, producing BT on their own. Get your facts right, moron.

    “I don’t want food that is ‘generally recognized as safe,’ I want food that is PROVEN safe, and GMO’s have a long, long, long way to go on that count. Personally, I don’t think they ever will be.” Genetic crops are tested than over 30 years, and there is not a single proof that their less safe than others. Matter of fact, the conventional crops are more dangerous but we got used to it. Like their obsession to decay.