With rice planting due to start any day, Greenpeace said the
studyreveals further evidence of the failure to control GE rice
trials inChina.
Greenpeace China GE Campaigner Sze Pang Cheung said; "The
Science paperstates that farmers cultivated the GE rice without the
assistance oftechnicians, and that quite a number of the randomly
selectedparticipants grew both GE and conventional varieties on
their smallfamily farms."
"In other countries GE field trials are tightly regulated,
monitoredand separated from conventional rice crops," Sze
continued. "TheChinese system of regulating GE field trials is
failing. It looks likeGE rice has grown out of control under the
very noses of the scientiststhat were trusted to control it."
If urgent action is not taken, up to 13,500 tonnes of untested
andunapproved GE rice may enter the food chain this year. This is
likelyto increase international concern over contamination of
Chinese riceexports.
"Chinese GE researchers who have released GE rice without
adequatebiosafety precautions are failing to protect farmers and
the Chinesepublic. They need to remember that GE rice is illegal
because it hasn'tbeen shown to be safe for health or environment
and because it may havemajor negative economic impacts," Sze
said.
"We should not be risking long term health and environmental
impacts,as well as international consumer rejection of Chinese rice
when wedon't need GE in the first place," he added.
Jitters were sent through the international food industry
following theGreenpeace revelations that the unapproved GE rice may
also havecontaminated exports. "The Japanese Health ministry has
begun testingof Chinese rice imports, the European Commission has
requested testinginformation while governments in the UK, Slovakia
and Korea are allconducting some level of investigations into the
contamination," Szesaid.
The Chinese government has been evaluating the proposed release
of GErice in the country but has not yet approved any varieties due
tounresolved environmental, health and economic issues.
The Science article claims that GE rice is needed to improve
riceproduction and reduce environmental impacts - claims that are
stronglydisputed by Greenpeace. "The research paper is an economic
analysisthat fails to take into account the environmental or health
risks of GErice. Instead of investing in the high risk strategy of
geneticengineering, China should be investing in real, long-term
solutions tosustainability in agriculture." (2) (3)
"GE is an anti-farmer technology that locks farmers into
monoculturefarming, high seed costs and risks of consumer
rejection. TheGovernment needs to act immediately to stop further
contamination, touphold the law and to investigate the scientists
who have releasedunapproved GE rice," Sze concluded.
Other contacts: Sze Pang Cheung, GE Campaigner, Greenpeace China +852 965 39067 (Hong Kong)Janet Cotter, Greenpeace International Science Unit +44 781 217 4783 (UK)Maya Catsanis, Media Officer, Greenpeace International, mobile +61 407 742 025 (Sydney)
Notes: (1) Huang, J., Hu, R., Rozelle, S. & Pray, C. 2005. Insect-resistant GM Rice in farmers’ fields: assessing productivity and health effects in China. Science, 688-690. 29th April 2005.(2) A United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) program into Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in China resulted in a reduction of pesticide use of over 45% - without any of the environmental, health or market risks of genetic engineering. See Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Green Farming in Rural Poverty Alleviation in China http://www.unescap.org/rural/doc/ipm2002/ch04.pdf(3) A study into the adoption of GE Bt cotton in China concluded that farmers still over-used pesticides on pest-resistant crops. It found that farmers in small-scale production systems require training in identification of pests, natural predators, basic ecology and integrated pest management in order to ensure sustainable production. Yang, P, Iles, M., Yan,S., Jolliffe, F.2004. Farmers’ knowledge, perceptions and practices in transgenic Bt cotton in small producer systems in Northern China. Crop Protection, 24 (2005) 229-239.