Why Are the Chinese Scared of American Corn?

[mitty14u2]

Source: Bloomberg

Why Are the Chinese Scared of American Corn?

Who’s afraid of a little genetically engineered American corn?

Chinese quarantine officers apparently. They’ve recently blocked at least six batches (more than 180,000 tons) of American corn from entering China, citing the presence of genetically-modified strain of the grain that the Chinese government hasn’t (yet) approved for import. The impact has been notable: In recent days U.S. corn futures fell, in part out of fear of further Chinese enforcement action.

So far there's been little coverage of the blocked shipments in the Chinese news media. (The general-interest news junkie with a penchant for corn news is a rare breed, no pun intended.) Yet interest in whether genetically-modified organisms should be a part of the food supply has long generated passionate public debate in China, often exceeding the arguments that have taken place in the U.S. and -- unusually -- setting powerful Chinese government officials and entities against each other. So, for example, the Ministry of Agriculture is a GMO proponent, while quarantine officials, at least this fall, are opponents.

There is a serious divergence between the politics and the reality on the matter. Despite the occasional official anti-GMO rhetoric, in actuality China imports large volumes of genetically-modified soybeans, much from the U.S. (where most of the soybeans are genetically modified) -- and has been doing so for years. Meanwhile, China has developed and commercialized domestic varieties of genetically-modified tomatoes, papayas and sweet peppers (as well as cotton and petunias). In the case of food, China requires labeling of GMOs, though the labels have their limits, such as at restaurants. As a result, many Chinese consumers underestimate the volume of GMOs in their food, and thus, the debate often lags behind actual situation in China’s kitchens and pantries.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-18/why-are-the-chinese-scared-of-american-corn-.html



Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-18/why-are-the-chinese-scared-of-american-corn-.html

---

The World is Pissed what high corn prices have done, Politicians have been playing into big oils game and states with large farms to cooperate farming, they have been on the subsidy payroll. Farm states like Wisconsin has the largest string of Bought Politicians, Ryan, and Walker, the Head of the RNC, that weird guy Rinsehispenis. Ethanol is a great scheme, takes a gallon of gas to make a gallon of ethanol with billions of Tax Dollars funding the mess, farmers are voting for Republicans, Big oil is buying all they can find with Koch Bros entrenched, feeding the game. We are all screwed even the Farmers when the Lion eats the Whip!

[Populist_Prole]

1. It cuts into their trade surplus with the US? n/t

[pothos]

2. i hate GMOs

but china can hardly take the high road when it comes to food supply safety.

[Quantess]

19. My thoughts exactly. (no text)

[kristopher]

3. Since you bring up energy...

This is the second time in a week I've seen a story of an unusual move by China to block an import that affected negatively a rather small region of the US. The first had something to do with shellfish.

China Imposes First-Ever West Coast Shellfish Ban
By ASHLEY AHEARN AND KATIE CAMPBELL AND ANTHONY SCHICK
Originally published on Thu December 12, 2013 5:58 pm

China has suspended imports of shellfish from the west coast of the United States -- an unprecedented move that cuts off a $270 million Northwest industry from its biggest export market.

China said it decided to impose the ban after recent shipments of geoduck clams from Northwest waters were found by its own government inspectors to have high levels of arsenic and a toxin that causes paralytic shellfish poisoning.

The restriction took effect last week and China's government says it will continue indefinitely. It applies to clams, oysters and all other two-shelled bivalves harvested from the waters of Washington, Oregon, Alaska and Northern California. U.S. officials think the contaminated clams were harvested in Washington or Alaska. Right now they’re waiting to hear back from Chinese officials for more details that will help them identify the exact source.

State and federal agencies oversee inspection and certification to prevent the shipment of tainted shellfish. Jerry Borchert of the Washington Department of Health said he's never encountered such a ban based on the Chinese government's assertion that these U.S. safeguards failed to screen out contaminated seafood.

“They’ve never done anything like that, where they would not allow shellfish from this entire area based on potentially two areas or maybe just one area...
http://kuow.org/post/china-imposes-first-ever-west-coast-shellfish-ban

When I read your take relating ethanol to the issue, I was reminded that the Chinese were very unhappy about the big push to impose duties on Chinese made solar panels. This then seemed like it might be worth throwing into the mix:

For its part, SEIA says it has gotten a positive response to its proposal from U.S. lawmakers, including Gov. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., and U.S. Sens. Patty Murray D-Wash.; Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.; Max Baucus D-Mont.; and John Tester D-Mont.

http://www.solarindustrymag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.13256

Purely a coincidence, I'm sure. But an interesting coincidence nonetheless.

[DemocraticWing]

4. Different governmental officials have different opinions on the issue...

Sounds like China isn't so different from us after all.

[DeSwiss]

5. Because that shit is POISON.

- Although given the way they so easily knock-off their own people on a whim, I'm sure that's low on their list of reasons.

[ag_dude]

8. What's the science to support that opinion?

[DeSwiss]

10. Yeah right, science. Here:

MONSANTO GMO's NEVER MET MINIMUM SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROTOCOL STANDARDS

"Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMO's, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data."

Other Problems With Monsanto's Conclusions

When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.

Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests "lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases," wrote Seralini, et al, in their Doull rebuttal. [See "How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects Can Be Neglected for GMO's, Pesticides or Chemicals." IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]

Further, Monsanto's analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, "In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-GM equivalent."

The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.

[center]

[/center]

- People who always ask for science before they'll believe anything always never fail to remind me that it was science that got us here to begin with.

[ag_dude]

11. Judging by your last statement you're a luddite?

Would that be a fair description?

Do you understand the difference between actual science and an op-ed from TruthOut? The study that the TruthOut op-ed bases its opinion on has been rejected by numerous government food safety agencies.

[DeSwiss]

13. No, I'm not any kind of label.

I'll leave that to you and the scientists since you do it so well.

Also, it helps if you actually read with understanding.

But you probably already knew that.

So I won't waste anymore of your time.

- Have a nice life.

[ag_dude]

14. I'll take that to mean your opinion ISN'T based on science.

You have a good one too.

[Vincardog]

16. The burden is on the producer to prove it is safe. No one has to prove it is not safe.

[ag_dude]

17. I assume you think the science that says they are safe is flawed?

What are you basing that on?

Why do you think you disagree with the AAAS, ADA, EU, and AMA (just the top of my head) regarding that?

[Vincardog]

20. I am not calling anyone a liar. Please link to one independent long term study.

[ag_dude]

21. Okay, before I do, please define long term.

The only reason I ask is I assume you're going to use the same cliched tactic the other ag science luddites does and say that any study isn't long term enough.

I don't want to waste both of our time if that's your opinion.

[Vincardog]

22. Long term = at least 3 generations of your test subject species

[ag_dude]

23. Humans or crops?

[Vincardog]

24. Your test subject species is probably going to be mice, monkeys, or pigs.

[dipsydoodle]

6. Any idea what they use it for ?

In the EU for example imported GMO corn from the US can only be used for animal feedstocks.

[JohnyCanuck]

7. Dr Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumer’s Union, attacks scientific censorship

GMO Study Retracted - Censorship or Caution?

Roughly 80% of the corn grown in the US is genetically modified.

A French study in 2012 led by Gilles-Eric Séralini found animals fed Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn had increased mortality and more tumors than a control group. Amid heavy industry criticism, the journal that published the research has retracted the study from its archives. Host Steve Curwood talks to Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumer’s Union, who views the retraction as a form of censorship.

snip

HANSEN: The main criticism was that the number of rats that they tested per group, ten rats, was too small for a cancer study, that you should at least be using 50 rats and they said that the strain of rat that was used, Sprague-Dawley rats, are prone to tumors. So those were the two main criticisms, and neither of them are really valid.

CURWOOD: Why do you say neither of those criticisms are valid?

HANSEN: Well, basically what Dr. Séralini did was he did the same feeding study that Monsanto did and published in the same journal eight years prior, and in that study, they used the same number of rats, and the same strain of rats, and came to a conclusion there was no problem. So all of a sudden, eight years later, when somebody does that same experiment, only runs it for two years rather than just 90 days, and their data suggests there are problems, that all of a sudden the number of rats is too small? Well, if it’s too small to show that there’s a problem, wouldn’t it be too small to show there’s no problem? They already said there should be a larger study, and it turns out the European Commission is spending 3 million Euros to actually do that Séralini study again, run it for two years, use 50 or more rats and look at the carcinogenicity. So they’re actually going to do the full-blown cancer study, which suggests that Séralini’s work was important, because you wouldn’t follow it up with a 3 million Euro study if it was a completely worthless study.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15211-dr-michael-hansen-attacks-scientific-censorship

[DeSwiss]

12. Actually, he refused to retract it.

[font size=3]Seralini Refuses to Retract GM Maize Tumor Study[/font]
Posted on Nov 28 2013 - 6:01pm by Sustainable Pulse

The journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) wants to withdraw the article by Professor Seralini on rats fed GM maize NK603, which was published in September 2012. The researcher counters: why not retract the article by Monsanto in 2004 on the same subject?

The Associate Editor of the FCT is now Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto scientist and an affiliate of the GMO industry-funded group, the International Life Sciences Institute.

ARM WRESTLING. He has mustered his scientific and political supporters … A symbol. Surrounded notably by Paul Deheuvels, statistician of the Academy of Sciences and Corinne Lepage, Member of the European Parliament on November 28, at a press conference in Brussels, Professor Gilles Eric Séralini of the University Caen will defend his sensational article on GMOs, released last year, which is now threatened with retraction.

Seralini asked to retract his article on a GMO maize. He refuses Rachel Mulot Le Nouvel Observateur (Science and the Future), 28 Nov 2013 GM Watch translation from French original at bit.ly/1jNbePu

MORE

[KurtNYC]

9. the corn in question was not from American GMO companies

It was from Swiss (EU) based Syngenta.

[JohnyCanuck]

15. Developer of first commercialised GM food says debate isn’t over

Press Release 06/13 From the European Network of Scientists for Scientific and Social Responsibility, ENSSER:

Number of scientists who say GMOs not proven safe climbs to 230

Developer of first commercialised GM food says debate isn’t over

Press release, 30 October 2013

http://www.ensser.org/media/

Contact: Dr Angelika Hilbeck: ahilbeck (at) ensser.org / Tel.: [phone]


The number of scientists, physicians and legal experts who have signed the group statement, “No scientific consensus on GMO safety”[1] has climbed to 230 in just over a week – and it’s still growing.

The number of initial signatories stood at almost 100 on the day the statement was released, 21 October. It has more than doubled since.

A recent signatory is Dr Belinda Martineau, former member of the Michelmore Lab at the UC Davis Genome Center, University of California, who helped commercialise the world’s first GM whole food, the Flavr Savr tomato. Dr Martineau said:

“I wholeheartedly support this thorough, thoughtful and professional statement describing the lack of scientific consensus on the safety of genetically engineered (GM/GE) crops and other GM/GE organisms (also referred to as GMOs). Society's debate over how best to utilize the powerful technology of genetic engineering is clearly not over. For its supporters to assume it is, is little more than wishful thinking.”

Another signatory, Dr Judy Carman, director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Adelaide, and adjunct associate professor, health and the environment, Flinders University, South Australia, said:

“Of the hundreds of different GM crops that have been approved for human and animal consumption somewhere in the world, few have been thoroughly safety tested. So it is not possible to have a consensus that they are all safe to eat – at least, not a consensus based on hard scientific evidence derived from experimental data.”

A third signatory, Prof Elena Alvarez-Buyllla, coordinator of the Laboratory of Molecular Genetics of Plant Development and Evolution, Institute of Ecology, UNAM, Mexico, said:

“Given the scientific evidence at hand, sweeping claims that GM crops are substantially equivalent to, and as safe as, non-GM crops are not justifiable.

We must be especially cautious in the case of proposed release of a GM crop in the centre of genetic origin for that crop. An example is the planting of GM maize in Mexico. Mexico is the centre of genetic origin for maize. GM genes can irreversibly contaminate the numerous native varieties which form the genetic reservoir for all future breeding of maize varieties. In addition, maize is a staple food crop for the Mexican people. So GMO releases can threaten the genetic diversity on which food security depends, both within Mexico and globally.

Such decisions with broad implications for society should not be made by a narrow group of self-selected experts, many of whom have commercial interests in GM technology, but must also involve the millions of people who will be most affected. As things stand, in Mexico we have an ongoing uncontrolled experiment with no independent scientific or popular mandate, in which GM genes are allowed to crossbreed with native maize varieties. The inevitable result will be genetic alterations with unpredictable effects.”

A fourth signatory, Dr Joachim H. Spangenberg, faculty member at the UFZ Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany, said:

“Researchers in ecology and relevant environmental sciences have predicted negative environmental impacts from GM crops for around 25 years. Over the years, many of these impacts have been empirically documented. One example is the development of pest resistance to GM Bt insecticidal crops and weed resistance to the required herbicides for GM herbicide-tolerant crops. These resistance problems are now an increasing problem for farmers – to the benefit of the GM seed and agrochemical corporations – and are forcing farmers back to older, even more toxic chemical pesticides.

Twenty years ago, the international academic associations of ecologists and molecular biologists met at the International Council for Science. The two groups agreed that their fields of expertise were complementary and that they needed to cooperate in order to assess the ecological impacts of GM crops in a systematic way. However, many molecular biologists involved in GM crop development today persistently ignore their own blind spots and the science emerging from the complementary environmental segments of the science community, turning the application of GM technology into a social risk.”

ENDS

Note to editors: Contrary to some media reports, most signatories to the statement are not members of ENSSER. ENSSER’s role has been to coordinate and publish the statement and to administer the collection of signatures

References

[1]http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

Link:http://www.ensser.org/media/0613/

[Xolodno]

18. I'm going the opposite direction and say...

...that it isn't genetically modified ENOUGH! Its still to damn healthy for them.

Remember this is the nation that says smog is good for you.