What would jasmine rice taste like if it were genetically modified? A street protest against genetically modified rice highlights farmers fears that there is an ominous threat to the world's most important staple


Khemporn Songma looked ill-at-ease when asked what he thought about genetically modified rice. But as questions shifted to indigenous species, the 39-year-old Isan farmer suddenly perked up. With just a glimpse at various rice stalks and grains, and Khemporn can spot the subtle differences between Khao Dok Mali (jasmine rice), Khao Phama, Khao Por Kaew, Khao Nang Nual right away. All his life has been spent tending the crop; the first variety for the market, the rest for his family's own consumption.

Now the father of two is worried his days in the fields may be numbered. Last week, Khemporn travelled almost a 100 kilometres to the town of Roi Et to join other 500 farmers engaged in a peaceful demonstration. The target? To thwart plans to genetically modify the age-old staple food-rice.

"I've heard those genetically modified organisms (GMO) crops have had their innards-what the scientists call 'genes'-tampered with," says Khemporn, his Isan dialect clearly tinged with anxiety. "I don't know how they're doing it technically. But I'm afraid the appearance of such a bizarre crop may end up wiping out many of our local plants.

"Khemporn's concern is not totally groundless. Since Thailand embraced the Green Revolution in the 60's, thousands of rice varieties have noticeably disappeared. Indeed, the actual number of rice varieties currently grown now hovers around a mere 15. (See "Rising concerns")And yet, farmers from remote areas like Khemporn have until recently been mostly spared the swipe of modernisation. Unlike those in the Central Plains, Thailand's rice belt, it took Isan villagers much longer to subscribe to the doctrine of intensive chemical use, farm machinery, and high-yielding varieties.

But the second "revolution", heralded by state-of-the-art genetic engineering, promises to deliver a far more universal impact to one and all, as it is directed right at the very fundamental of life-a crop's gene.

Moreover, rice, a staple for more than half of the world's population, has been designated the prime target on which to test the prowess of this high-flying scientific development.

So far, China is the only Asian country that has transgenic rice grown in field tests.

But the Philippines could follow soon with a joint collaboration between the International Rice Research Institute (Irri) and the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice), to churn out a variety with bacterial blight resistant genes, dubbed BB rice.

Thailand's Department of Agriculture, supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, also conducted similar experiments with BB rice, of which 123 genetically modified samples were imported in 1997. However, an officer, who declined to be named, claimed the programme has since been shelved indefinitely following stormy opposition from farmers and environmentalist groups. The genetically modified (GM) samples, the officer added, have already been destroyed.

But elsewhere, the list of "experiments" with the crop seem to be growing steadily, especially those spearheaded by multinational agri-businesses. In May this year, Zeneca Agrochemicals together with a European-based consortium called Greenovation, announced a plan to release the 'golden rice' within the next three years-a GMO variety touted to have an extra gene to boost Vitamin A content.

Meanwhile, Monsanto, an American agri-conglomerate, has been an avid supporter of the International Rice Genome Sequencing Project, run by a consortium of 10 countries including Thailand's National Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (Biotec). In return, the American conglomerate would enjoy the first chance to negotiate for a non-exclusive, royalty-bearing licence to any patent which may arise out of the project.

According to one researcher, the rice genome programme, if successful, would generate an "equivalent of an encyclopaedia that contains the instructions for creating a life form", and set into motion more genetic engineering to produce "rice plants that have higher yields, have increased food quality and that are better protected against drought and insects."Indeed, for advocates of genetic engineering, the new generation of super-crops are a must to ensure an adequate long-term food supply. The Irri, for instance, constantly makes public announcements that the world's population will reach eight-and-a-half billion by the year 2025, and rice production must be boosted by up to 60 percent above the level of production in 1995.

Opponents think otherwise. Daycha Siriphat, director of the Technology for Rural and Ecological Enrichment (Tree), argues that Thailand is unlikely to suffer from food shortages. Besides, the problems of starvation and malnourishment stem more from wealth disparity and unequal distribution than from insufficient supply.

"Moreover, we need to reassess whether those claims about over-population are facts or myths. In Thailand, for example, more and more studies have found a steady decline in demographic growth, contrary to traditional beliefs. Many schools have been closed down as new enrollments are too low.

"An analogy could be made here-if one holds the view that there is sea up in Chiang Mai, no matter how fast you try to get there, the result will always be a big disappointment-there is no sea.

"Unfortunately, the Green Revolution has been running on such myths, which limit one's perceptions greatly. Agriculture has been regarded only from the trade point of view, at the expense of cultural and spiritual values-what we could call the "Monoculture of the Mind."'More worrisome than the dispute over perceived benefits of genetically engineered rice, is the potential impact on both the environment and consumers' health. As research in transgenic rice is still in its infancy, studies on other GMO species have been cited for comparison.

Could the introduction of GM rice trigger an irrevocable chain of ecological disasters? Might it ravage the indigenous species, as farmer Khemporn fears? And what if transgenic rice affects human body in similar ways as smoking, when casualties only surface after many years have passed?Dr Somwong Trakulroong, of Biotec, believes science can address all the concerns raised, be they environmental or health-related.

On the other hand, Dr Thanwa Jitsanguan, Head of Kasetsart University's Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, prefers to take a very cautious approach.

"There has not been any conclusive scientific evidence either way. However, as reasonable doubts do exist, we need to to take precautions. At any rate, we must ask ourselves whether we can afford such possible negative effects, like the mutation of existing species, epidemics, and the rising incidence of allergies and so on. "After all, whatever happens to rice will be reflected in the futures of all other crops in Thailand. Appropriate technology is thus the key to our survival."On the other hand, critics of biotechnology note several tactics designed to thwart the public's growing hostility to GE rice.

Devlin Kuyek, of Genetic Resources Action International (Grain), points out the Irri deliberately chose to conduct its first test study on BB rice, even though bacterial blight ranks pretty low on farmers' list of problems. One reason could be that the new gene spliced into the test plant comes from another variety of rice, and not from another lifeform. In fact, a representative from PhilRice admitted to Devlin that BB rice is "less controversial" and thus "will not rattle a lot of people". Another Irri officer reckoned the BB rice would be "a good starting point for transgenic rice".

Likewise, the announcement by Zeneca Agrochemicals that they will distribute the "golden rice" free of charge to developing countries, is viewed as an attempt to boost the public image of GM rice. Moreover, Zeneca's scheme has given rise to speculations as to how the conglomerate will handle the tangle of patent fees-for the development of the variety itself has seen at least 72 patents signed up in the process. But will the bills be shoved onto the farmers after becoming used to the new plant?The legal aspect highlights how genetic engineering has been the domain of corporate monopoly. Grain has found that over half the 160 patents granted in the field of rice biotechnology worldwide, are in the hands of 13 multinationals in developed countries. In another report, Devlin cited a curious incident in which even a Singaporean agency, the so-called Institute of Molecular Agrobiology, (IMA) could secure a patent on a blast-resistance gene, originally stored in the Irri's gene bank. The IMA has since inked a deal with another agro-chemical multinational company to collaborate on genetic engineering in rice.

On the other hand, Thailand seems to be ill prepared for any upcoming legal wrangles. The case of Plao Noi (Croton Sublyratus), a local medicinal herb patented by a Japanese pharmaceutical giant, continues to be a tell-tale warning of the Thai authority's ineptitude in protecting its own natural resources.

Witoon Lianchamroon, coordinator for the Thai Network on Community Rights and Biodiversity (Biothai), also laments the lethargic approach of the government in protecting the integrity of Thai rice. Over two years have passed since an American company, RiceTec of Texas, was found to be dubiously marketing a brand of rice called "Jasmati", apparently in a bid to confuse consumers with Thai jasmine rice. So far the state continues to drag its feet in resolving the issue.

Early this year, Thai economic ministers decided not to sue RiceTec for trademark infringement under the US Lanham Act on the grounds that the costs would be too high. Instead, they will resort to the Federal Commission Act, which is cheaper and entails a simpler procedure. "It's so ridiculous to say the price tag of between 10 and 20 million baht, for legal fees, is too high considering the significance of the jasmine rice," said the exasperated Witoon. "And you know what the government ended up doing? They spent 40,000 baht to get another trade name of Hom Mali rice for the fragrant jasmine rice. Will anybody be able to recognise the new name?"The Biothai coordinator does not think the present biosafety protocol is sufficiently rigorous, either. The regulations prohibit any commercialised cultivation of genetically modified crops, but leave a big loophole with regard to monitoring of imported processed foods. After all, even the first goal has not yet been met, as reports show that despite the official ban, GM cotton seeds continue to be leaked out into the open fields. (see "Learning new lessons")The new Plant Variety Protection Act has yet to be enforced, pending the establishment of a unit to come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture. After much lobbying, the innovative law recognises not only the right of high-tech plant breeders, but also that of local communities granted entitlement to share profits that may arise from any commercial venture with the plant.

It remains to be seen, though, how the introduction of genetically engineered rice would affect the existing stock of indigenous species. From the tremendous amount of investment poured into GE research, and the way the technology has been designed to prohibit self-stocking, it seems doubtful that small-scale farmers will be able to achieve self-reliance with this high-tech crop.

And if rice seeds ever enter the realm of monopoly, it would equal breaking not only Khemporn's, but the entire nation's rice bowl.

* This article is based in part on a seminar held on August 15 titled 'The Future of Thai Rice: For Autonomy or for whom?', and other subsequent seminars held during the Asian Long March for Biodiversity which ran from September 6 to 17. The Biothai is collecting signatures to push for a freeze on all GM experiments outside control labs, patenting on life forms, and labelling of any products containing GM materials. For more information, contact Biothai on 952-7953 or 952-7371. Also, see reports on Grain's Web site at www.grain.org.



Rising concerns
For social activist Daycha Siriphat, the future of Thailand's indigenous rice strains lies with small-scale farmers and not with the government.

In fact, the director of the Technology for Rural and Ecological Enrichment (Tree) argues that state-endorsed promotion of market-oriented monoculture contributes to a drastic decline in rice varieties. High-yielding varieties together with intensive use of chemicals and farm machinery have effectively turned farmers away from indigenous varieties.

"The state plays a crucial role in the decline of the local varieties," said Daycha.

"For instance, last month, a senior officer at the government-run Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives, urged farmers in the South not to grow indigenous rice. He argued these crops have low market demand.

"Ironically, a lot of farmers have gone bankrupt after they followed the government's advice to switch to high-yield varieties, which turned out to be susceptible to insects and diseases," Daycha noted.

Prayong Khomkaew, an officer at the Ministry of Agriculture, agrees with Daycha's assessment. He said the problems of insects and pests that plague farmers nowadays could be solved rather easily if they stop intensive mono-cropping. - nfortunately, in many instances, attempts by villagers to adopt more ecologically friendly forms of agriculture have been curbed by a governmental lack of understanding. Jorni Odoshao said Karen folks in Chiang Mai have been cultivating up to 60 different varieties for generations, thanks to the practice of rotational cropping-an traditional form of agriculture which allows the land to resume its fertility by nature's own course. Their counterparts in Phetchaburi, however, have been barred from continuing the method. Forced to toil on the same plot of land for many consecutive years, the Karens suffer from degradation of the soil's nutrient value.

"By the end of the fourth year, a large number of indigenous varieties had disappeared," noted Jorni. "What kind of development is this if it takes away biodiversity and disallows pride in traditional cultures?"

On 11 Dec 2003

  
  Print version