Controversy of GM crops in China

Abstract

The amount of arable land per person in China is only about 40% of the global average. In the next two decades, the country will need to produce 30–50% more food to meet the demand of its growing population. It's a daunting task for an agricultural sector that has long been plagued by pest infestation, crop diseases, soil pollution and degradation, water shortage and labour efflux—which will be exacerbated by climate change. To secure food supply, China is increasingly looking to genetic modification (GM) technology. In 2008, it rolled out a 12-year, 25 billion yuan (US$3.7 billion) programme to promote the research and development of GM technology. Six years on, Chinese scientists lament about the slow progress and public misconceptions, whereas some social scientists and non-government organizations are concerned that GM proponents are missing the forest for the trees. In a forum chaired by National Science Review's executive associate editor Mu-ming Poo, five panellists from diverse backgrounds locked horns over a myriad of issues of GM technology. Bing Liu Social Scientist at Tsinghua University in Beijing Baorong Lu Ecologist at Fudan University in Shanghai, a member of National Committee on the Biosafety of Agricultural Genetically Modified Organisms (NCBAGMO) Lanying Zhang Coordinator of the non-government organization Farmer Seed Network in Beijing Yunlong Zhou Researcher at Ministry of Agriculture's Centre for Science and Technology Development in Beijing, a member of NCBAGMO Zhen Zhu Geneticist at Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology in Beijing Mu-ming Poo (Chair) Neurobiologist at Chinese Academy of Sciences' Institute of Neuroscience in Shanghai Poo: What's the stance of the Chinese government on GM technology? Zhu: Food security in China is extremely pressing at the moment. With a growing population, it's only going to get worse in the future. This is why the No.1 Document—central government's first policy document of the year—in the past consecutive years invariably focused on agriculture issues, with particular mention of seed industry and GM technology. The government really sees GM technology as central for feeding its people, and has invested heavily on its research and development. Lu: This is in line with the rapid development of GM technology around the world. The cultivation area of GM crops has reached 175.2 million hectares in 2013, constituting over 11% of global farmlands, up by 3% compared with the previous year. Zhu: There has been a lot of progress in GM research in China: hundreds of field trials of GM crops have been approved and conducted, and half a dozen have been approved for commercial production. In 2009, the government awarded safety certificates to two GM rice varieties, but it's unlikely that they will make their way to the market. The commercial cultivation of GM crops in China has been stagnated for years—since the great success of Bt cotton. Lu: Indeed. At 4.2 million hectares, China ranked sixth in 2013 in the cultivation area of GM crops, mostly Bt cotton—after the USA, Brazil, Argentina, India and Canada—dropping from the fourth place 10 years ago. Even in Pakistan and South Africa, which have much less land mass than China, the cultivation area of GM crops reached nearly 3 million hectares last year. China is in danger of being left behind by the rest of the world. Zhu: This will have serious implications for food security. China imports nearly 70 million tonnes of GM corn, soybean and rapeseed a year, about 12% of China's total production of all crops. If we do not get a significant boost from GM technology, our reliance on imports will continue to rise. This is a grave matter of food security. Poo: Why has the commercialization of GM crops been so slow in China despite the major government push? Zhou: The public concerns for ethical and biosafety issues are the main reason. We develop GM crops to serve consumers. Even if they are safe, it'd be no good if nobody buys them. The government is reluctant to grant further approval for commercial production unless there is a sea change in public mood. Poo: There've been fierce debates in China about GM crops, which are increasingly polarized. What are the underlying reasons? Lu: In the past five years, the public attitude has shifted from being more or less neutral to being negative. We did a survey recently and found that most people don't really know what GM technology is about, but oppose their commercialization. As scientists, we haven't done a good job in communicating the importance of GM crops to the public. Zhu: The public debates on GM crops are a sign of progress, illustrating China's improving democracy. Compared to a few decades ago, people demand a greater say in important public policies, especially about the environment they live in and the food they eat. But they should listen to the experts—scientists and economists—about the value of GM technology and how safe it is. Zhou: Scientific and technological breakthroughs are often controversial at the beginning. China's economic development has reached a stage in which basic livelihood is not a problem for most people. The public are really concerned if it's safe to eat GM foods—not only for themselves but also for future generations—and whether GM crops could damage the environment. When the public hasn't received proper information, they are more likely to be influenced by scaremongering claims that GM crops are unsafe than those that support them. Zhang: The public are also concerned whether GM technology will make farmers and national food production heavily rely on a small number of biotech companies, and what impact they will have on local cultivars, traditional farming practices and indigenous knowledge. Another issue is that people want to retain their right to choose what they eat, especially when staple food is concerned. This is a basic autonomy that must be respected. They simply cannot and would not accept to have GM foods, especially GM rice, imposed upon them. This is why compulsory labelling is absolutely essential. China is losing ground in the international race of transgenic technology. —Zhen Zhu Liu: The debates about GM crops are not just about science or economics. Rather, it concerns a myriad of issues, including the role of science in society, ethics, culture, tradition and even religion. A main problem is that China still uses the outdated science-communication approach in which scientists tell the public about their findings, which the public passively understand and accept. This is highly problematic and rarely effective. A better approach is to have a dialogue between experts and multiple stakeholders and involve diverse perspectives and opinions. Poo: This discussion is very interesting. We really need to have more interactive dialogues involving multiple stakeholders, not just the public being told by the scientists. There is a lack of intelligent debates in the Chinese media—most are one-sided, either supporting or opposing GM—which is partly to blame for fuelling the polarization. Liu: The fierce GM debates also result from a serious mistrust on the experts. Scientists have been saying that GM crops are safe, but this hasn't persuaded the public. Some people wonder if those scientists are part of an interest group conspiring to benefit financially from the commercialization of GM crops. This suspicion has been exacerbated by the fact that there is a lack of transparency in terms of who the committee members are, how the assessment is done, how the decisions of commercialization are reached and whether different opinions are considered. Zhu: I agree we need to adopt a more interactive approach when engaging with the public. The right to choose is also very important, and we are not saying that we will force people to eat certain things just because they are safe. But we can't ignore the harsh reality: the demand for food supply is overwhelming; a lot of people still live below the poverty line in many parts of the world. As we overemphasize the importance of the right to choose, aren't we depriving people's right to basic livelihood? Isn't that something we should take into consideration in our ethical debates? Zhou: It's unlikely that we will be able to persuade everybody. So who should make the decision? I think government and international organizations must take a lead on this. Otherwise we'd be going nowhere if we have to consider the opinions of every individual. It's as much about the respect for individual's rights as the collective interest. Lu: There is a lot of misinformation floating around, which contributes to some public anxieties about GM crops. For instance, most people don't realize that compulsory labelling is required for all products derived from GM crops according to the Chinese biosafety regulations. GM rice would be labelled, too, so consumers would always have the choice. Zhu: The GM debates touch upon many issues. But the most fundamental question we must consider before anything else is: are GM crops safe? The answer must be based on solid scientific evidence. Poo: So what have we learned about the potential impact of GM crops on human health? Zhu: The world has been consuming foods derived from GM crops for nearly 20 years and there have been no safety issues. Zhou: China imports 70 million tonnes of GM corn, soybean and rapeseed a year. GM foods have long got into our food chain. Liu: I don't think it's appropriate to make a sweeping statement about the biosafety of GM crops in general. It really depends on which GM crops you are talking about. If Bt rice turns out to be harmful, its large-scale cultivation and commercialization would have unthinkable consequences. — Bing Liu Zhu: That's true. GM is a technology. It's neutral. Whether it's safe or not depends on what kind of genes you introduce to crops. If you have a GM toxin, of course it won't be safe. Lu: Indeed. We cannot say all GM crops are safe before biosafety assessment. Biosafety must be assessed on a case-by-case basis—which is one of the fundamental principles in biosafety evaluation in China and around the world. GM technology is not that much different from traditional breeding, but is more targeted, efficient and can cross species reproductive barriers. There are mainly two types of GM crops that have been commercialized in the world: one is genetically modified to produce a protein made by the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that can kill a type of pests belonging to the lepidopteran order and the other is modified to produce an enzyme called EPSP synthase that can protect plants from herbicides. Extensive research and nearly 20 years of commercial cultivation have really shown that neither Bt nor EPSP crop has any adverse impact on health and environment. Zhang: I don't think the picture is as black and white as you portrayed. In 2012, a study led by French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini and published in Food and Chemical Toxicology showed that EPSP maize caused tumours and other serious diseases in rats after two years of feeding experiments. In a controversial move, the journal retracted the paper a year later on the grounds that ‘no definitive conclusions can be reached’. It was republished this June by Environmental Sciences Europe, another peer-review journal. I don't think there is a consensus within the scientific community. Zhu: The Seralini study, along with other similar research, has been widely refuted by mainstream scientists. Until now, there is simply no solid evidence that GM foods could pose any threat to human or animal health. Liu: I agree with Zhang: the health impacts of GM crops are still an open question. Most of the existing GM crops are either used as animal feeds or consumed after having been processed. None of them has been directly consumed to the extent as rice is in China. So even if no health issue has emerged so far, this does not mean that Bt rice would be safe. No country in the world—not even the USA—has commercialized a GM staple crop. Zhang: The pest-resistant protein Bt is a toxin. The Bt pesticides are also derived from the same chemical. I think the public anxiety over Bt rice is understandable. Liu: I certainly don't think that those three-month rat experiments are sufficient to reassure the public that eating toxin-containing rice three times a day for their entire life would be safe. If Bt rice turns out to be harmful, its large-scale cultivation would have unthinkable consequences. Zhu: I think you are holding an impossible standard for biosafety studies. If three months of animal experiments are not enough, how long a duration would assure you? Two years, 50 years or 500 years? If one demands such stringent proof, there would be no hope for any technology. Zhou: The issues of staple crops have attracted a lot of public attention. But I don't think, as a staple crop, GM rice is a special case from the point of view of biosafety. China takes biosafety issues very seriously, which was why it took 15 years to approve the two Bt rice varieties. It has also dedicated 40% of the funding of the major GM programme, billions of yuans, to biosafety research. Liu: We should be extremely cautious about GM rice. Is the issue of food supply so pressing that we must subject one billion people to the biggest human experiment in history? There are several historical examples, in which new inventions, such as pesticides, seemed wonderful at the time but has turned out to be harmful. They are cautionary tales for GM technology. Lu: No technology is absolutely safe, and so we should balance the risks and benefits of GM crops. As pointed out by the Chinese proverb: when we face two benefits, choose the greater one; when we face two evils, choose the lesser one. Poo: What could GM crops do to environment and biodiversity? Lu: One worry is whether Bt toxin, which aims at killing target pests, could also affect neutral or beneficial insects—the so-called non-target effects. There has been a lot of research around the world, and most studies show little impact. Another concern regards gene flow—that is, whether the transgene could get into unmodified, wild or weedy relatives through cross-pollination. We have done a lot of research on Bt rice in the past 15 years. Because rice produces seeds strictly through self-pollination, the efficiency of gene flow to rice crops is extremely It would be even if you have a between GM and rice. The efficiency of gene flow to wild rice is but we haven't found any significant adverse with the Bt Zhu: There are some issues with GM cotton. For instance, the first Bt is to but the of non-target pests, such as of the after a few years and the main Scientists have the of GM with two are to Liu: that the widely used gene into weedy rice, could make the plants and more in the of the This is a of the GM crops could have on the environment. It's because any gene flow to weedy rice is the transgene to and subject to But of studies are rarely in debates about the biosafety of GM crops. Poo: GM crops have any on environment or Zhu: GM technology can pollution caused by of pesticides and GM crops have the of Scientists are GM crops that can take up and much more so less would be There could also be GM that are to and crop diseases and can in Lu: At the we have two we either rely on pesticides, at and more with serious impacts on health and or we pest-resistant crops. We must risks and benefits in this kind of Liu: I that we have a lot of with such as those caused by pesticides and But are we really a of either GM crops or those there other we should a little and how we have got into such a before what we should Zhang: A lot of agricultural issues are in decades of farming such as of pesticides and land which have out and the of to and A on GM crops is a for and the Liu: I we need to take a approach agricultural The of GM technology to is just the than the The of which can just as much as is a case in farmers are on pesticides, the same as I the transgenic GM to and will other In the USA, the benefits of GM crops have also because have mostly to farming Zhang: GM technology is not a for food production. on GM could also further for improving traditional and farming Zhou: No one is saying that GM technology is a for all agriculture It's a that we cannot not to take GM is not the only for such as pest infestation, but it's the main up to Poo: What are the impact of GM crops on traditional agriculture and One I have in is GM it was in the USA, farmers growing traditional have China must consider of issues if it is to GM crops on a Zhang: farmers I of GM technology. When I told them that if they GM crops they have to seeds every year, they really worry about their autonomy and Lu: We should take into consideration interest. But as we get into a the traditional farming approach of and is way to large-scale This is a global not an issue to GM technology. Zhou: I also the seeds if they rice or and have to get supply from seed with technology. farming has always been in and but I don't think is a Lu: I think Bt really how GM technology could impact it was in the production nearly because of pest The was and of farmers year. The of Bt has really the has a lot of labour and A study led by of Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Centre for Chinese Agricultural showed that by yuan per No technology is absolutely safe and so we should balance the risks and benefits of GM crops. Lu Zhang: The benefits of Bt are They most significant in the first a few years after Bt was but to as pests and farmers on This is by the fact that Bt is more to diseases and their seeds are several times more than traditional Liu: is a major only the seeds but also of and are all by it's about who and the food supply of billion population. Zhu: the of GM products would be able to get sufficient from the and would always on government the of between China and would if we do not develop Poo: and of GM crop research trials is to their development and public has it been The in which at the Academy of Sciences field trials of GM crops has serious Zhou: China has a of and on GM technology such as basic research, field commercial food and compulsory They are all in line with international and The government takes biosafety evaluation very The National Biosafety between five government of experts on public environment food safety and Liu: The issue at is not only about having a good but also It's similar to China has a very good on but many and are have that the of GM crops is not Zhang: Indeed. GM seeds have been found at local in several because of GM rice has also been for years. to by China's of and the for Food and found times of GM rice in food products from China. panellists the importance of GM technology in but this could be for China's food The debates should all stakeholders and take diverse opinions and perspectives into Zhang Liu: In the are genetically to produce a of to the efficiency of of to after of the rice approval or from the This is just another of and Zhang: of GM crops is also for and the of But I just don't that China is able to face up to such on a Poo: We are out of their Zhu: GM crops are safe and China is losing ground in the international race of transgenic technology. We should to science and and be engaging in and the great The food shortage that we must Lu: There is no We should balance risks and benefits, the greater benefit and the lesser The potential risks of GM crops can be to Zhou: The of GM technology is on The Chinese government will take and consider public when important it's about the most out of this technology and at the same time risks as much as we Liu: We should be extremely cautious and potential risks when over the commercialization of GM crops, especially GM rice. The national biosafety committee should be much more about its members and The public has a right to Zhang: The GM debates are not just about science and technology. A lot of social issues are also such as ethics, culture, tradition and The debates should all stakeholders and take diverse opinions and perspectives into