Vietnam, Agent Orange, and GMOs

[SvenSvensonov]

Vietnam, Agent Orange, and GMOs

An Agent Orange maker is being welcomed back to Vietnam to grow genetically modified organisms.

Vietnam continues to roll out the red carpet for foreign biotech giants, including the infamous Monsanto, to sell the controversial genetically modified (GM) corn varieties in the country. Critics say that by welcoming Monsanto, Vietnam has been too nice to the main manufacturer of Agent Orange, the toxic defoliant used during the Vietnam War that left a devastating legacy still claiming victims today.

According to Vietnamese media reports, in August that country’s agriculture ministry approved the imports of four corn varieties engineered for food and animal feed processing: MON 89034 and NK 603, products of DeKalb Vietnam (a subsidiary of U.S. multinational Monsanto), and GA 21 and MIR 162 from the Swiss firm Syngenta.

The Vietnamese environment ministry has to date issued bio-safety certificates for Monsanto’s MON 89034 and NK 603 corn varieties and Syngenta’s GA 21, meaning farmers can start commercially cultivating the crops. The ministry is considering issuing a similar certificate for the other variety, MR 162. Given the current political landscape, it seems that approval is just a matter of time.

In 2006, the Vietnamese government formulated an ambitious plan to develop GM crops as part of a “major program for the development and application of biotechnology in agriculture and rural development.” Under the blueprint, Vietnam is looking to cultivate its first GM crops by 2015 and have 30-50 percent of the country’s farmland covered with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by 2020.

Environmental activists have noted the irony that just as Americans and people elsewhere around the world are revolting against GMOs in greater numbers, Vietnam is throwing away its great advantage as a non-GMO producer. “Increasingly countries around the world are rejecting GMOs, with public opposition growing daily. Across Europe and much of Asia, Latin America and Africa, people and often their governments are rejecting GMO seeds as an old technology that has failed to deliver on its promises,” said Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at the U.S.-based Pesticide Action Network North America.

The has been an unprecedented surge in consumer rejection of GMOs in the U.S., with food companies scrambling to secure non-GMO supplies, according to the New York Times. Europe forced its entire food industry to jettison GMOs altogether. In one prominent case, European authorities shut down 99 percent of corn imports from the U.S. at a time when only 25 percent of the corn was genetically engineered. Last year, China rejected 887,000 tons of U.S. corn because it contained Syngenta’s GM maize MIR 162 – the very same variety that has just been licensed for use in Vietnam.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development report, considered the most exhaustive analysis of agriculture and sustainability in history, concludes that the high costs of seeds and chemicals, uncertain yields, and the potential to undermine local food security make biotechnology a poor choice for the developing world. GMOs in their current state have nothing to offer the cause of feeding the hungry, alleviating poverty, and creating sustainable agriculture, according to the report. Six multinationals – Monsanto, Syngenta, Du Pont, Bayer, Dow, and BASF – now control almost two-thirds of the global market for seeds, three quarters of agro-chemicals sales, and the entire GM seed market, according to a report by Friends of the Earth International, an international network of environmental organizations in 74 countries.

Warm Welcome

Monsanto was the main manufacturer of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, which ended in 1975. Vietnam claims the toxic defoliant is still killing victims today. Between 2.1 to 4.8 million Vietnamese were directly exposed to Agent Orange and other chemicals that have been linked to cancers, birth defects, and other chronic diseases during the war, according to the Vietnam Red Cross. Activists claim that introducing Monsanto’s modified corn and the toxic weed killer Roundup Monsanto plugs for use along with its crops could signal a repeat of the tragedy of Agent Orange.

“It’s ironic that Vietnam is still suffering from the Agent Orange herbicide produced by Monsanto, unleashed during the war. It turns out that Roundup herbicide, also produced by Monsanto, and used on most GMO crops, is also linked to birth defects,” said Jeffrey Smith, author of the bestselling Seeds of Deception and founder and executive director of the California, U.S.-based NGO Institute for Responsible Technology. “This evidence is found in Monsanto’s own research, as well as experience today in Argentina and other countries where populations are experiencing a skyrocketing of birth defects when exposed to this dangerous weed killer. Lab studies have demonstrated that exposing embryos to Roundup causes the same type of birth defects experience by the peasants living near the Roundup sprayed fields. Similarly, livestock consuming Roundup ready crops have high incidences the same type of birth defects,” Smith said.

Activists say the GMO corn varieties that have been recently approved in Vietnam are just the tip of the iceberg. As these GMO companies make regulatory headway into Vietnam, and establish precedent for government approval of their products, they will soon be pushing more dangerous GMO/herbicide products, they say. Rather than reducing the need for pesticides, genetically engineered (GE) crops have led to rising use of herbicides. Herbicide-resistant seeds require a massive increase in herbicide use that has been linked to significant environmental and public health concerns.

According to Ishii-Eiteman of the Pesticide Action Network North America: “The dirty little secret of the pesticide industry is that genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant seeds are the growth engines of that industry’s sales and marketing strategy. These seeds are part of a technology package explicitly designed to facilitate increased, indiscriminate herbicide use and pump up chemical sales.” According to the activists, farmers do not want to be locked into a seed market controlled by Monsanto and Syngenta (Monsanto already controls more than a quarter of the global seed market, and the top four pesticide/biotech companies control over half of the world’s commercial seeds). They point out that corn farmers in the U.S. are virtually unable to find non-GMO seed now, because Monsanto has secured a monopoly control over the U.S. seed market.

But despite the fierce opposition it has faced elsewhere in the world, Monsanto has received a hearty welcome in Vietnam. Last January, it was honored as a “sustainable agriculture company” at a national function. Last month, Monsanto announced a VND1.5 billion ($70,500) scholarship aimed at funding the study of biotechnology at the Vietnam University of Agriculture. “This scholarship aims to nurture and encourage the engagement of young talents in the development of agricultural biotechnology and products thereof to support farmers,” Monsanto said in its blog. It quoted Tran Duc Vien, the school rector, as saying: “Biotechnology is a promising branch of science in the 21st century, offering great possibilities in improving human lives in various ways. In agriculture, biotechnology has been proved to improve lives of over 18 million farmers around the world. The Government of Vietnam is determined in bringing and developing this technology in Vietnam, and has focused on developing physical and human capacity in the biotechnology sector. We are glad to see the participation of the private sector in this process and highly appreciate Monsanto for their commitment in developing talents in agricultural biotechnology.”

That position is very much in line with the attitude of the Vietnamese officials who appear to believe that the introduction of GM crops is a logical conclusion of efforts to improve yields and feed a growing population of around 90 million people at a reasonable price. Monsanto and its proponents have promoted GMOs as a highly promising solution to Vietnam’s food security concerns.

Its opponents disagree. Given that Vietnam has indicated its willingness to sign the U..S-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), activists are concerned that the U.S. is trying to use the treaty to impose restrictive intellectual property rules that could prove highly damaging to developing countries. They say the TPP, if signed, would pave the way for seed companies like Monsanto to iron out its GMO patent wrinkles in Vietnam.

Genna Reed, a researcher at the Washington D.C.-based Food & Water Watch, said: “Under the rules of the TPP, pharmaceutical firms and seed companies would have unrestrained power, allowing them to lengthen their monopolies on patents to keep generics out and drug prices high for longer periods of time, and to keep the prices of patented seeds high. The TPP would also make it more difficult to make a case against unjustified patents and harder for generic versions of drugs to become available in the Pacific region. This trade deal and the enforcement of intellectual property rightswill make essential drugs and seeds more expensive and harder to come by.” Smith, the author of Seeds of Deception, summed it up: “This is a dangerous march away from national sovereignty for Vietnam and its farmers. The TPP has been designed primarily by US business interests for US business interests.”

From Vietnam, Agent Orange, and GMOs | The Diplomat

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Vietnam, Agent Orange, and GMOs

Thanks for posting this. It's an important issue to discuss, and I hope Vietnam is able to achieve success in its agriculture industry. Unfortunately, journalists cannot be trusted to explain the issue truthfully, and instead subordinate the discussion to their anti-GMO superstitions. Please allow me to explain.

Environmental activists have noted the irony that just as Americans and people elsewhere around the world are revolting against GMOs in greater numbers, Vietnam is throwing away its great advantage as a non-GMO producer. “Increasingly countries around the world are rejecting GMOs, with public opposition growing daily. Across Europe and much of Asia, Latin America and Africa, people and often their governments are rejecting GMO seeds as an old technology that has failed to deliver on its promises,” said Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at the U.S.-based Pesticide Action Network North America.

I have to admit, that's a novel argument, one I have not heard before. I think this is the only time we will hear the Global Left complain that a solution isn't cutting-edge enough. But let's move on to the real issue.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development report, considered the most exhaustive analysis of agriculture and sustainability in history, concludes that the high costs of seeds and chemicals, uncertain yields, and the potential to undermine local food security make biotechnology a poor choice for the developing world. GMOs in their current state have nothing to offer the cause of feeding the hungry, alleviating poverty, and creating sustainable agriculture, according to the report. Six multinationals – Monsanto, Syngenta, Du Pont, Bayer, Dow, and BASF – now control almost two-thirds of the global market for seeds, three quarters of agro-chemicals sales, and the entire GM seed market, according to a report by Friends of the Earth International, an international network of environmental organizations in 74 countries.

This is why journalists belonging to the Global Left cannot be trusted, and the facts must be checked. I encourage everyone to read the Biotechnology chapter in the linked report--the report that the journalist claims "concludes that the high costs of seeds and chemicals, uncertain yields, and the potential to undermine local food security make biotechnology a poor choice for the developing world." Let's summarize the points raised in the actual report, and allow the reader to decide:

Pro-GMO

• Increases yields and productivity
• Allow for more intensive farming on smaller plots of land, thus sparing environmental damage from large-scale farming
• Produces robust crops that are less expensive for the consumers
• GM food may limit the transmission of plant and animal diseases to humans
• GM food will be more nutritional per unit than organic food, thus further reducing the resources that agriculture must consume

Anti-GMO

• It has not yet been definitively proven that GMO is harmful to health, so we should ban GMO techniques just in case
• It has not yet been definitively proven that GMO is harmful to the environment, so we should ban GMO techniques just in case
• GM techniques disproportionately benefit certain farmers, while depriving other farmers of income
• GM techniques harm small and subsistence farming, and favor agribusiness-level farming
• Studies are unclear about whether GMO food requires different levels of herbicides and pesticides, so we should ban GMO techniques just in case
• GM techniques doesn't solve the distribution bottleneck that limits access to food, so GM techniques should be banned, specifically: "The first perspective [e.g., see Global Chapter 5] argues that modern biotechnology is overregulated and this limits the pace and full extent of its benefits. According to the argument, regulation of biotechnology may slow down the distribution of products to the poor" (I am not making this up)
• "the use of modern plant varieties has raised grain yields in most parts of the world, but sometimes at the expense of reducing biodiversity or access to traditional foods" (I am not making this up)
• How about this gem? "traditional pastoral societies are driven by complex interactions and feedbacks that involve a mix of values that includes biological, social, cultural, religious, ritual and conflict issues. The notion that sustainability varies between modern and traditional societies needs to be” generally recognized [Global Chapter 6]. It may not be enough to use biotechnology to increase the number or types of cattle, for instance, if this reduces local genetic diversity or ownership, the ability to secure the best adapted animals, or they further degrade ecosystem services"
• Let's not forget the Western social crusade: "As privatization fuels a transfer of knowledge away from the commons, there is a contraction both in crop diversity and numbers of local breeding specialists. In many parts of the world women play this role, and thus a risk exists that privatization may lead to women losing economic resources and social standing as their plant breeding knowledge is appropriated."

I could go on, but I'm sure everyone can see the point. The pro-GMO arguments are based on science and sound economics, and the anti-GMO arguments are based on superstition and paternalistic social engineering targets. It is politics, not the welfare of the people, that drives the Global Left. The Global Left is so consumed with its anti-business agenda, that it has forgotten about the simple, greater mission of providing cheap food to the population. This is substantiated in the final paragraph of the article:

Genna Reed, a researcher at the Washington D.C.-based Food & Water Watch, said: “Under the rules of the TPP, pharmaceutical firms and seed companies would have unrestrained power, allowing them to lengthen their monopolies on patents to keep generics out and drug prices high for longer periods of time, and to keep the prices of patented seeds high. The TPP would also make it more difficult to make a case against unjustified patents and harder for generic versions of drugs to become available in the Pacific region. This trade deal and the enforcement of intellectual property rightswill make essential drugs and seeds more expensive and harder to come by.” Smith, the author of Seeds of Deception, summed it up: “This is a dangerous march away from national sovereignty for Vietnam and its farmers. The TPP has been designed primarily by US business interests for US business interests.”

I admire the Global Left's idealism, but the sad reality is that while the Global Left likes the idea of people, it intensely dislikes the dirty reality of actual people. That's why the Global Left will always elevate the needs of the environment over the needs of the people, when the reality is that the environment can only truly be saved once the people are able to achieve a sustainable standard of living that slows the rapacious and wasteful use of resources. Until that standard of living is achieved (through science-driven productivity improvements), the environment will be subjected to slash-and-burn agricultural techniques that leave both the environment and the population devastated.

 

[Keel]

" Vietnam has been too nice to the main manufacturer of Agent Orange, the toxic defoliant used during the Vietnam War that left a devastating legacy still claiming victims today

Also Hollywood is the world's largest producer of films on Vietnam war. These films have portraited in abundance the massacres of Vietnamese, and they are praising the ruthless invaders for "American heorism"

Vietnam War in film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Category:Vietnam War films - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[cnleio]

饥不择食 ！

One hungry is not choosy about his food (poison).

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I wanted to follow up on my previous post to further reinforce the absurdity of the anti-GMO camp--it is driven by social values and geopolitics, not science or economics. Here's an article about the debate over GMO in China and the dilemma it creates, and it becomes clear that while GMO would be hugely beneficial to China, Chinese opposition to GMO is underpinned by superstition on the one hand, and a mercantilist desire to dominate the GMO industry on the other. (Emphasis in the article is mine).
---
The Sum of all China's Fears: Genetically Modified Food | The National Interest Blog

The Sum of all China's Fears: Genetically Modified Food

Julian Snelder
November 25, 2014

Among the worries that keep Chinese leaders awake at night surely is food security. Li Keqiang's first priority upon taking the premiership in 2013 was agricultural modernization. Civil rebellions and wars throughout China's historywere fueled by the Malthusian need to keep people fed. As the nation now urbanizes, the demands of keeping Chinese healthily nourished grow more acute. A spat over genetically modified (GM) food encapsulates the dilemma.

Self-sufficiency has long been totemic and officially China meets an impressive 95% of directly edible grain demand, almost 600 million tones annually. But with Chinese demand for meat already averaging 50kg per capita and approaching European levels for urban residents, China will need to import grains (mainly soybeans and corn) for animal feed, 120 million tonnes by 2020.

Yet with subsidies boosting rural incomes at US$75 billion or 11% of total output, domestic price support has perversely created high consumer prices and, surprisingly, a temporary “grain glut.”

In seeking self-sufficiency, China has hit an ecological ceiling. Crop yields still lag, and only with unprecedented fertilizer application rates. Now the productivity crunch is being sharpened by shortages in three key areas: land, water, and labor.

Chinese often say that “22% of the world is fed with 7% of its arable land.” Urban sprawl has in a dozen years gobbled 8.3 million arable hectares (twice Japan's total arable land) and threatens China's “red line” of 120 million hectares. Official statistics deny this threshold has been breached but cities have been ordered to stop paving over surrounding countryside. 40% of China's arable land has already suffered some degree of degradation. Water is becoming a constraint to food supply even as bureaucrats, incredibly, prioritize thirsty coal production. It might also seem odd that China faces a farm labor constraint, but migrants prefer life in the city. Chinese farming is a rotten business.

The reason is simple: farmers can't own and can't sell their land, so their plots are tiny. The average dairy farm has seven cows. China doesn't do agriculture, as someone has wittily observed, it does “gardening.” Fragmented farms and supply chains result in pork production costs twice America's. There are huge ideological and social barriers to outright rural land privatisation, but Beijing is gingerly experimenting with industrial farms. Factory farming is contentious, however, and some worry about China following the American model. In China itself, food safety scandals have alarmed the public.

Enter the GM controversy. “Frankenfood” is furiously debated in many countries, but the squabble in China is unusually heated in a society where the state typically commands the agenda. In fact, in their pro-GM campaign, government scientists are visibly frustrated by the opposition, led by hawkish major general Peng Guangqian who detects “a monumental, supremely devious plot to annihilate the Chinese people.” Xenophobic conspiracy themes are perpetuated by nationalistic officials. Chu Xuping, a senior figure in the agency overseeing China's state-owned enterprises, rejects foreign investment in grain, pharmaceutical and water treatment SOEs. The dog-whistle message to the public is unmistakable: no Western fingers contaminating China's supply chain. (Incidentally a Chinese company owns Northumbrian Water in the UK).

China's GM rejection is rippling across world trade, visible recently in an ugly dispute over unapproved US GM corn. Beijing's stance may be geopolitically motivated; to allow a shift to friendlier Latin American sources. But there is also genuine concern about the sanctity of Chinese crop strains as GM seeds overrun the planet.

A close examination of president Xi Jinping's supportive pronouncements on the topic reveals what this is really about: “We must boldly innovate the heights of GMO techniques, and we cannot let foreign companies dominate the GMO market.” An industry analyst is more blunt: “The main reason for China's slow adoption of biotech grain crops isn't so much that the government is swayed by public opinion. It's that China doesn't have leading, marketable biotechnologies and is afraid of having the market controlled by foreign companies once commercialization is granted.”

Here is the nexus where land and water scarcity and concerns over food safety, social stability, industrial competitiveness and foreign dependence all meet. GM food is the sum of all China's fears.

 

[TaiShang]

No modification of China's GM food regime - China.org.cn

As consumer concern rises in China, an agriculture official insisted on Wednesday that strict standards still apply to genetically modified (GM) foods.

GM products must go through substantial testing before they reach consumers, said Chen Xiwen, deputy director of the central agricultural work leading team, the top authority on agriculture

"China ensures that GM products carry no side-effects before they are approved for the market, otherwise, they may not be promoted as a commercial products," Chen said.

Currently, China has a wide acreage under GM crops, but papaya is the only GM food grown in the country and officially allowed to reach household menus. The most common GM crop is cotton, according to Chen.

Consumers have every right to know whether a product is GM or non-GM through clear labeling, he said. "With appropriate information, it is up to the consumers to decide whether to buy or not," he said.

China has maintained rigid standards on GM food as no consensus has yet been reached on whether it is harmful to humans. GM foods were introduced to the commercial market nearly two decades ago.

China's GM technology must not lag behind other nations, said Che, emphasizing that, as a major agricultural nation, the country must work harder to keep up.

Globally speaking, GM is generally used to strengthen resistance to pests to reduce use of pesticides.

Deputy Minister of Agriculture Chen Xiaohua said last week that the nation will be "active" in research to develop new GM strains with own intellectual property rights.

***

My take.

National research on GM food is fine, so long as there remains strict supervision and state control. I have more faith in the state on this issue than corporations.

China has registered some successes in developing high-yield rice and corn. National research and investment should continue while the domestic market is being kept closed to invading foreign grain multinationals led by Monsanto and Cargill.

The objective is to achieve 100% self-sufficiency.

 

[kawaraj]

I doN't think GMO food is even FOOD, if anyone want to bring the topic in discussion.

 

[war is peace]

What are china gmo companies?

 

[Viet]

Thanks for posting this. It's an important issue to discuss, and I hope Vietnam is able to achieve success in its agriculture industry. Unfortunately, journalists cannot be trusted to explain the issue truthfully, and instead subordinate the discussion to their anti-GMO superstitions. Please allow me to explain.



I have to admit, that's a novel argument, one I have not heard before. I think this is the only time we will hear the Global Left complain that a solution isn't cutting-edge enough. But let's move on to the real issue.



This is why journalists belonging to the Global Left cannot be trusted, and the facts must be checked. I encourage everyone to read the Biotechnology chapter in the linked report--the report that the journalist claims "concludes that the high costs of seeds and chemicals, uncertain yields, and the potential to undermine local food security make biotechnology a poor choice for the developing world." Let's summarize the points raised in the actual report, and allow the reader to decide:

Pro-GMO

• Increases yields and productivity
• Allow for more intensive farming on smaller plots of land, thus sparing environmental damage from large-scale farming
• Produces robust crops that are less expensive for the consumers
• GM food may limit the transmission of plant and animal diseases to humans
• GM food will be more nutritional per unit than organic food, thus further reducing the resources that agriculture must consume

Anti-GMO

• It has not yet been definitively proven that GMO is harmful to health, so we should ban GMO techniques just in case
• It has not yet been definitively proven that GMO is harmful to the environment, so we should ban GMO techniques just in case
• GM techniques disproportionately benefit certain farmers, while depriving other farmers of income
• GM techniques harm small and subsistence farming, and favor agribusiness-level farming
• Studies are unclear about whether GMO food requires different levels of herbicides and pesticides, so we should ban GMO techniques just in case
• GM techniques doesn't solve the distribution bottleneck that limits access to food, so GM techniques should be banned, specifically: "The first perspective [e.g., see Global Chapter 5] argues that modern biotechnology is overregulated and this limits the pace and full extent of its benefits. According to the argument, regulation of biotechnology may slow down the distribution of products to the poor" (I am not making this up)
• "the use of modern plant varieties has raised grain yields in most parts of the world, but sometimes at the expense of reducing biodiversity or access to traditional foods" (I am not making this up)
• How about this gem? "traditional pastoral societies are driven by complex interactions and feedbacks that involve a mix of values that includes biological, social, cultural, religious, ritual and conflict issues. The notion that sustainability varies between modern and traditional societies needs to be” generally recognized [Global Chapter 6]. It may not be enough to use biotechnology to increase the number or types of cattle, for instance, if this reduces local genetic diversity or ownership, the ability to secure the best adapted animals, or they further degrade ecosystem services"
• Let's not forget the Western social crusade: "As privatization fuels a transfer of knowledge away from the commons, there is a contraction both in crop diversity and numbers of local breeding specialists. In many parts of the world women play this role, and thus a risk exists that privatization may lead to women losing economic resources and social standing as their plant breeding knowledge is appropriated."

I could go on, but I'm sure everyone can see the point. The pro-GMO arguments are based on science and sound economics, and the anti-GMO arguments are based on superstition and paternalistic social engineering targets. It is politics, not the welfare of the people, that drives the Global Left. The Global Left is so consumed with its anti-business agenda, that it has forgotten about the simple, greater mission of providing cheap food to the population. This is substantiated in the final paragraph of the article:



I admire the Global Left's idealism, but the sad reality is that while the Global Left likes the idea of people, it intensely dislikes the dirty reality of actual people. That's why the Global Left will always elevate the needs of the environment over the needs of the people, when the reality is that the environment can only truly be saved once the people are able to achieve a sustainable standard of living that slows the rapacious and wasteful use of resources. Until that standard of living is achieved (through science-driven productivity improvements), the environment will be subjected to slash-and-burn agricultural techniques that leave both the environment and the population devastated.

great summary. however, I´m actually very sceptical of such GMO.
as many countries ban import of animals being fed by GMO foods, we won´t have export markets for our produces.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

great summary. however, I´m actually very sceptical of such GMO.
as many countries ban import of animals being fed by GMO foods, we won´t have export markets for our produces.

The United States is more sophisticated and less bound by backward superstition, so with TPP, at the very least, we will be available as a market for your exports.

 

[Donatello]

This is a typical for vs against issue. Like anything 'magical' it will have its pros and cons.
I think we need more regulation and testing to prove that pros are more than cons just like in the Drugs/Pharma industry

 

[Aepsilons]

Vietnam, Agent Orange, and GMOs

An Agent Orange maker is being welcomed back to Vietnam to grow genetically modified organisms.

Vietnam continues to roll out the red carpet for foreign biotech giants, including the infamous Monsanto, to sell the controversial genetically modified (GM) corn varieties in the country. Critics say that by welcoming Monsanto, Vietnam has been too nice to the main manufacturer of Agent Orange, the toxic defoliant used during the Vietnam War that left a devastating legacy still claiming victims today.

According to Vietnamese media reports, in August that country’s agriculture ministry approved the imports of four corn varieties engineered for food and animal feed processing: MON 89034 and NK 603, products of DeKalb Vietnam (a subsidiary of U.S. multinational Monsanto), and GA 21 and MIR 162 from the Swiss firm Syngenta.

The Vietnamese environment ministry has to date issued bio-safety certificates for Monsanto’s MON 89034 and NK 603 corn varieties and Syngenta’s GA 21, meaning farmers can start commercially cultivating the crops. The ministry is considering issuing a similar certificate for the other variety, MR 162. Given the current political landscape, it seems that approval is just a matter of time.

In 2006, the Vietnamese government formulated an ambitious plan to develop GM crops as part of a “major program for the development and application of biotechnology in agriculture and rural development.” Under the blueprint, Vietnam is looking to cultivate its first GM crops by 2015 and have 30-50 percent of the country’s farmland covered with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by 2020.

Environmental activists have noted the irony that just as Americans and people elsewhere around the world are revolting against GMOs in greater numbers, Vietnam is throwing away its great advantage as a non-GMO producer. “Increasingly countries around the world are rejecting GMOs, with public opposition growing daily. Across Europe and much of Asia, Latin America and Africa, people and often their governments are rejecting GMO seeds as an old technology that has failed to deliver on its promises,” said Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at the U.S.-based Pesticide Action Network North America.

The has been an unprecedented surge in consumer rejection of GMOs in the U.S., with food companies scrambling to secure non-GMO supplies, according to the New York Times. Europe forced its entire food industry to jettison GMOs altogether. In one prominent case, European authorities shut down 99 percent of corn imports from the U.S. at a time when only 25 percent of the corn was genetically engineered. Last year, China rejected 887,000 tons of U.S. corn because it contained Syngenta’s GM maize MIR 162 – the very same variety that has just been licensed for use in Vietnam.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development report, considered the most exhaustive analysis of agriculture and sustainability in history, concludes that the high costs of seeds and chemicals, uncertain yields, and the potential to undermine local food security make biotechnology a poor choice for the developing world. GMOs in their current state have nothing to offer the cause of feeding the hungry, alleviating poverty, and creating sustainable agriculture, according to the report. Six multinationals – Monsanto, Syngenta, Du Pont, Bayer, Dow, and BASF – now control almost two-thirds of the global market for seeds, three quarters of agro-chemicals sales, and the entire GM seed market, according to a report by Friends of the Earth International, an international network of environmental organizations in 74 countries.

Warm Welcome

Monsanto was the main manufacturer of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, which ended in 1975. Vietnam claims the toxic defoliant is still killing victims today. Between 2.1 to 4.8 million Vietnamese were directly exposed to Agent Orange and other chemicals that have been linked to cancers, birth defects, and other chronic diseases during the war, according to the Vietnam Red Cross. Activists claim that introducing Monsanto’s modified corn and the toxic weed killer Roundup Monsanto plugs for use along with its crops could signal a repeat of the tragedy of Agent Orange.

“It’s ironic that Vietnam is still suffering from the Agent Orange herbicide produced by Monsanto, unleashed during the war. It turns out that Roundup herbicide, also produced by Monsanto, and used on most GMO crops, is also linked to birth defects,” said Jeffrey Smith, author of the bestselling Seeds of Deception and founder and executive director of the California, U.S.-based NGO Institute for Responsible Technology. “This evidence is found in Monsanto’s own research, as well as experience today in Argentina and other countries where populations are experiencing a skyrocketing of birth defects when exposed to this dangerous weed killer. Lab studies have demonstrated that exposing embryos to Roundup causes the same type of birth defects experience by the peasants living near the Roundup sprayed fields. Similarly, livestock consuming Roundup ready crops have high incidences the same type of birth defects,” Smith said.

Activists say the GMO corn varieties that have been recently approved in Vietnam are just the tip of the iceberg. As these GMO companies make regulatory headway into Vietnam, and establish precedent for government approval of their products, they will soon be pushing more dangerous GMO/herbicide products, they say. Rather than reducing the need for pesticides, genetically engineered (GE) crops have led to rising use of herbicides. Herbicide-resistant seeds require a massive increase in herbicide use that has been linked to significant environmental and public health concerns.

According to Ishii-Eiteman of the Pesticide Action Network North America: “The dirty little secret of the pesticide industry is that genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant seeds are the growth engines of that industry’s sales and marketing strategy. These seeds are part of a technology package explicitly designed to facilitate increased, indiscriminate herbicide use and pump up chemical sales.” According to the activists, farmers do not want to be locked into a seed market controlled by Monsanto and Syngenta (Monsanto already controls more than a quarter of the global seed market, and the top four pesticide/biotech companies control over half of the world’s commercial seeds). They point out that corn farmers in the U.S. are virtually unable to find non-GMO seed now, because Monsanto has secured a monopoly control over the U.S. seed market.

But despite the fierce opposition it has faced elsewhere in the world, Monsanto has received a hearty welcome in Vietnam. Last January, it was honored as a “sustainable agriculture company” at a national function. Last month, Monsanto announced a VND1.5 billion ($70,500) scholarship aimed at funding the study of biotechnology at the Vietnam University of Agriculture. “This scholarship aims to nurture and encourage the engagement of young talents in the development of agricultural biotechnology and products thereof to support farmers,” Monsanto said in its blog. It quoted Tran Duc Vien, the school rector, as saying: “Biotechnology is a promising branch of science in the 21st century, offering great possibilities in improving human lives in various ways. In agriculture, biotechnology has been proved to improve lives of over 18 million farmers around the world. The Government of Vietnam is determined in bringing and developing this technology in Vietnam, and has focused on developing physical and human capacity in the biotechnology sector. We are glad to see the participation of the private sector in this process and highly appreciate Monsanto for their commitment in developing talents in agricultural biotechnology.”

That position is very much in line with the attitude of the Vietnamese officials who appear to believe that the introduction of GM crops is a logical conclusion of efforts to improve yields and feed a growing population of around 90 million people at a reasonable price. Monsanto and its proponents have promoted GMOs as a highly promising solution to Vietnam’s food security concerns.

Its opponents disagree. Given that Vietnam has indicated its willingness to sign the U..S-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), activists are concerned that the U.S. is trying to use the treaty to impose restrictive intellectual property rules that could prove highly damaging to developing countries. They say the TPP, if signed, would pave the way for seed companies like Monsanto to iron out its GMO patent wrinkles in Vietnam.

Genna Reed, a researcher at the Washington D.C.-based Food & Water Watch, said: “Under the rules of the TPP, pharmaceutical firms and seed companies would have unrestrained power, allowing them to lengthen their monopolies on patents to keep generics out and drug prices high for longer periods of time, and to keep the prices of patented seeds high. The TPP would also make it more difficult to make a case against unjustified patents and harder for generic versions of drugs to become available in the Pacific region. This trade deal and the enforcement of intellectual property rightswill make essential drugs and seeds more expensive and harder to come by.” Smith, the author of Seeds of Deception, summed it up: “This is a dangerous march away from national sovereignty for Vietnam and its farmers. The TPP has been designed primarily by US business interests for US business interests.”

From Vietnam, Agent Orange, and GMOs | The Diplomat

Interesting development.

 

[Viet]

" Vietnam has been too nice to the main manufacturer of Agent Orange, the toxic defoliant used during the Vietnam War that left a devastating legacy still claiming victims today

Also Hollywood is the world's largest producer of films on Vietnam war. These films have portraited in abundance the massacres of Vietnamese, and they are praising the ruthless invaders for "American heorism"

Vietnam War in film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Category:Vietnam War films - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

actually, the company that delivered the dioxin is Boehringer, a german company.

 

[Viet]

The United States is more sophisticated and less bound by backward superstition, so with TPP, at the very least, we will be available as a market for your exports.

LOL...I hope so.
are there any restrictions in the States regarding GMO?

 

[Sanchez]

I wanted to follow up on my previous post to further reinforce the absurdity of the anti-GMO camp--it is driven by social values and geopolitics, not science or economics. Here's an article about the debate over GMO in China and the dilemma it creates, and it becomes clear that while GMO would be hugely beneficial to China, Chinese opposition to GMO is underpinned by superstition on the one hand, and a mercantilist desire to dominate the GMO industry on the other. (Emphasis in the article is mine).
---
The Sum of all China's Fears: Genetically Modified Food | The National Interest Blog

The Sum of all China's Fears: Genetically Modified Food

Julian Snelder
November 25, 2014

Among the worries that keep Chinese leaders awake at night surely is food security. Li Keqiang's first priority upon taking the premiership in 2013 was agricultural modernization. Civil rebellions and wars throughout China's historywere fueled by the Malthusian need to keep people fed. As the nation now urbanizes, the demands of keeping Chinese healthily nourished grow more acute. A spat over genetically modified (GM) food encapsulates the dilemma.

Self-sufficiency has long been totemic and officially China meets an impressive 95% of directly edible grain demand, almost 600 million tones annually. But with Chinese demand for meat already averaging 50kg per capita and approaching European levels for urban residents, China will need to import grains (mainly soybeans and corn) for animal feed, 120 million tonnes by 2020.

Yet with subsidies boosting rural incomes at US$75 billion or 11% of total output, domestic price support has perversely created high consumer prices and, surprisingly, a temporary “grain glut.”

In seeking self-sufficiency, China has hit an ecological ceiling. Crop yields still lag, and only with unprecedented fertilizer application rates. Now the productivity crunch is being sharpened by shortages in three key areas: land, water, and labor.

Chinese often say that “22% of the world is fed with 7% of its arable land.” Urban sprawl has in a dozen years gobbled 8.3 million arable hectares (twice Japan's total arable land) and threatens China's “red line” of 120 million hectares. Official statistics deny this threshold has been breached but cities have been ordered to stop paving over surrounding countryside. 40% of China's arable land has already suffered some degree of degradation. Water is becoming a constraint to food supply even as bureaucrats, incredibly, prioritize thirsty coal production. It might also seem odd that China faces a farm labor constraint, but migrants prefer life in the city. Chinese farming is a rotten business.

The reason is simple: farmers can't own and can't sell their land, so their plots are tiny. The average dairy farm has seven cows. China doesn't do agriculture, as someone has wittily observed, it does “gardening.” Fragmented farms and supply chains result in pork production costs twice America's. There are huge ideological and social barriers to outright rural land privatisation, but Beijing is gingerly experimenting with industrial farms. Factory farming is contentious, however, and some worry about China following the American model. In China itself, food safety scandals have alarmed the public.

Enter the GM controversy. “Frankenfood” is furiously debated in many countries, but the squabble in China is unusually heated in a society where the state typically commands the agenda. In fact, in their pro-GM campaign, government scientists are visibly frustrated by the opposition, led by hawkish major general Peng Guangqian who detects “a monumental, supremely devious plot to annihilate the Chinese people.” Xenophobic conspiracy themes are perpetuated by nationalistic officials. Chu Xuping, a senior figure in the agency overseeing China's state-owned enterprises, rejects foreign investment in grain, pharmaceutical and water treatment SOEs. The dog-whistle message to the public is unmistakable: no Western fingers contaminating China's supply chain. (Incidentally a Chinese company owns Northumbrian Water in the UK).

China's GM rejection is rippling across world trade, visible recently in an ugly dispute over unapproved US GM corn. Beijing's stance may be geopolitically motivated; to allow a shift to friendlier Latin American sources. But there is also genuine concern about the sanctity of Chinese crop strains as GM seeds overrun the planet.

A close examination of president Xi Jinping's supportive pronouncements on the topic reveals what this is really about: “We must boldly innovate the heights of GMO techniques, and we cannot let foreign companies dominate the GMO market.” An industry analyst is more blunt: “The main reason for China's slow adoption of biotech grain crops isn't so much that the government is swayed by public opinion. It's that China doesn't have leading, marketable biotechnologies and is afraid of having the market controlled by foreign companies once commercialization is granted.”

Here is the nexus where land and water scarcity and concerns over food safety, social stability, industrial competitiveness and foreign dependence all meet. GM food is the sum of all China's fears.

It's weird to use the word superstition to describe the anti-GMO opinion in China or elsewhere. European countries have totally forbidden sales of GM food for a long time until recently. The new European laws imposed strict regulations on GM food sale. The China's debate on GMO products mainly focused on lack of registrations, regulations and monitoring of GM food.

Strange enough! China is the world's largest food producer that yields over 600M tons of grains per year. Still we are known to be the world's largest importer of food. About 85% of our 70M ton food import is soy beans, and the rests are corns and agriculture products for starch production. We consume three times more grain type food per capita than those of Indians. In theory we don't have to import food but waste of food is a huge problem in China.

We are self sufficient on food issues. Our main crop import including soy beans and corns is only needed for food processing industry. Abuse of GMO seeds could cause ecological disasters.