4th july ,2016 daily global,regional & local rice e newsletter by riceplus magazine

Daily Global Rice E-Newsletter 2016
www.ricepluss.com www.riceplusmagazine.blogspot.com
For information : Mujahid Ali mujahid.riceplus@gmail.com 0321 369 2874
1
www.ricepluss.com
www.riceplusmagazine.blogspot.com
Vol 7,Issue VI
July 04 ,2016

2
Editorial Board
Chief Editor
 Hamlik
Managing Editor
 Abdul Sattar Shah
 Rahmat Ullah
 Rozeen Shaukat
English Editor
 Maryam Editor
 Legal Advisor
 Advocate Zaheer Minhas
Editorial Associates
 Admiral (R) Hamid Khalid
 Javed Islam Agha
 Ch.Hamid Malhi
 Dr.Akhtar Hussain
 Dr.Fayyaz Ahmad Siddiqui
 Dr.Abdul Rasheed (UAF)
 Islam Akhtar Khan
Editorial Advisory Board
 Dr.Malik Mohammad Hashim
Assistant Professor, Gomal
University DIK
 Dr.Hasina Gul
Assistant Director, Agriculture KPK
 Dr.Hidayat Ullah
Assistant Professor, University of
Swabi
 Dr.Abdul Basir
Assistant Professor, University of
Swabi
 Zahid Mehmood
PSO,NIFA Peshawar
 Falak Naz Shah
Head Food Science & Technology
ART, Peshawar
Today Rice News Headlines...
 Rice industry body president gets wary vote of confidence
 Stakeholders decry influx of smuggled rice into Nigeria
 DA‘s Piñol in initial talks to obtain Japan MAV rice
 Nobel Laureates Slam Greenpeace‘s Opposition to GMOs, Golden
Rice
 Supplyco to open 100 outlets to curb price rise
 Nobel Laureates to Greenpeace: Change Your Stance on GMOs
 GMO, Nobel Laureate, UC Berkeley
 Pro-GMO Campaign exploits Nobel Laureates to attack Greenpeace
and Fool the People
News Detail...
Rice industry body president gets wary vote of
confidence
Mon, 4 July 2016
Cheng Sokhorng
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.

3
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

4
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

5
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 be-cause of the
increased activity in the seaports as a result of smuggled rice coming to Nigeria.
Rice dealers who spoke with Nigerian Association of Ag-ricultural Journalists (NAAJ) in Lagos, said the
concession-aires 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 ultima-tum to these companies not
to sack.‖
Idowu added that the government even contemplated the idea of opening the land border initially for the
importa-tion 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 Repub-lic, 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 impor-tation 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 impor-tation.
―On this premise, unpatriotic businessmen hitherto in Nigeria as rice importers, have since diverted their
business-es 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/

6
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

7
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
By K.S. Parthasarathy on 03/07/2016 •
„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

8
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.‖

9
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

10
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.

11
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

12
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.

13
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
by jennysplitter | posted in: News | 2
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

14
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

15
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.
The first 110 Nobel Laureates who signed the #Nobels4GMOs letter, collage by KJHvM. (alt version)
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,

16
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

17
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

18
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

19
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

20
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

21
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

22
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

23
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

24
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.

25
‗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.

26
(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

27
GMO, Nobel Laureate, UC Berkeley
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.

28
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

29
Pro-GMO Campaign exploits Nobel Laureates to attack
Greenpeace and Fool the People
By Claire Robinson
Global Research, July 02, 2016
GMWatch 30 June 2016
A new pro-GMO propaganda campaign has been launched in which, in the words of a
Washington Post article, “more then 100 Nobel laureates have signed a letter urging
Greenpeace to end its opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The letter asks
Greenpeace to cease its efforts to block introduction of a genetically engineered strain of rice
that supporters say could reduce Vitamin-A deficiencies causing blindness and death in children
in the developing world.”
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:

30
―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.‖

31
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.‖

32
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.

33
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 leads
IRRI 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

34
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
by Madelaine B. Miraflor
July 1, 2016 (updated)
Share31 Tweet2 Share2 Email0 Share46
Failure to achieve rice sufficiency in two
years will force the Department of
Agriculture (DA) to fire its officials and
directors mandated to work on the target,
given that the agency is willing to use up
to P30 billion for this initiative.
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.

35
―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

4th july ,2016 daily global,regional & local rice e newsletter by riceplus magazine

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to 4th july ,2016 daily global,regional & local rice e newsletter by riceplus magazine

Similar to 4th july ,2016 daily global,regional & local rice e newsletter by riceplus magazine (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)