Power to the peolple?

In all the discussions we tend to forget the essence of economics: the freedom for producers to produce, consumers to consume.

And here is just a small battle in this freedom. Alternet.org (13 August) provides us with a link on how a young girl seems to know her genetics and GM's well-enough to take on Monsanto and it's media friends over on Salon.net:

But on the ground, real things are happening. Take the case of the GM controversy in the Philippines. The Businessmonitor reports (Aug. 8) on GM developed / so-called Golden Rice. A research field has been uprooted by farmers:

'Claiming that the ongoing field trial of the genetically modified Golden Rice poses serious health risks to people and environment, militant farmers on Thursday stormed an experimental farm in Pili, Camarines Sur, and uprooted the palay'.

The trials being conducted by the IRRI and their Philippines local counterpart organisation are in no way going to be discontinued, so says IRRI's website statement (also of August 8). But they´ll need to restart their trials.

Two weeks later (24 August), international pick up of the story. The New York Times looks at all it's pro's and cons of GMO´s in general. 

Yes, Golden Rice seems to be a tool to favour the poor (blind). But is it the most efficient (you need to eat 15 portions a day!)? If this is allowed, will multinational GM seeds be to follow?

No one though seems to know whether the consumer wants this or not. And will producers be interested? And what are the long-term dimensions? And why are multinationals against labelling?

What the article does show is that IRRI's involvement and insistence seems at best pro-multinational. 
Btw, the article picks up 470 comments. That's going to be a long reaaad ... 
Interesting in these are the fact that some commentators insist that arguments pro/contra should be solely discussed in scientific quarters not by dumbing down the discourse by allowing all and sundry to voice their concern on internet fora! But science is only about what we know, not about what we will learn / nor does science allow for individual consumption: it's good or not.

GRAIN's statement on Golden Rice (29 August). Excerpt: 

'The risks posed by field trials of Golden Rice may not mean much to IRRI, but they are enormous for farmers and consumers in the Philippines and throughout Asia. There is no way to ensure that a GMO field trial does not contaminate neighbouring fields. The recent case of an unapproved GM wheat found growing in a farmer's field in the US or the detection of unapproved GM traits in rice from China show how field trials lead to contamination and serious consequences for farmers, consumer and markets. In this case, IRRI, Syngenta and the other Golden Rice promoters are putting the region's most important cultural, food and agricultural crop at risk with 800 square meter open field tests of a variety not approved for human consumption and in an area home to many traditional varieties cultivated by local farmers'.

A lot of explaining to do?

Does hybrid rice fare any better then? Just a short item from the Deltafarmpress  (Aug. 30). It reports on how Central American importers are getting fed up with the quality of US rice imports, mostly of hybrid origin. Ergo, hybrid rice while good for the wallets of US farmers they aren't what consumers want:

'“While rice producers in the United States make a higher profit by producing hybrid rice, this has had a negative impact on traditional markets for its high chalkiness and white belly, and this rice is rejected by the consumer for its cooking and uniformity issues. It is also the opinion of this federation [Central America Rice Federation] that producers who get this benefit will not be willing to change varieties with better features for the customer'.

Future prices
Voice of America (July 29) takes time out to see what the possible consequences of the inability of the Thai government to drive the costs of it's pledge scheme down:

'The Thailand government is pressing ahead with a rice price support scheme despite criticism over financial losses, concerns over rice quality and falling rice export sales.  The scheme is possibly helping rival exporters, especially Vietnam and Burma.

...

Cooper said international traders are now concerned over when Thai authorities plan to release their massive rice stocks onto the market. This, he said, will have a “significant downward pressure” on prices.
But Sam Mohanty, an economist at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), said the program appears to have the unintended effect of helping other exporters boost production.  “I’m arguing that if the Thai program continues for the next few years in fact it’s going to help Myanmar [Burma] to establish themselves as exporters," said Mohanty. "It will give them some of the market sales where Thai is going to lose out. So it’s definitely better for other competing exporters.”
India’s return to the global market pushed global rice prices lower while traditional rice importers such as Indonesia and the Philippines have also enjoyed good crops, further keeping prices low. The cheap prices have meant good news for consumers, but additional challenges for the Thai government, which must figure out a way to unload its growing stockpile of rice before it spoils'. 

When pledging there are leaders and followers? Vietnam's government meddling in it's domestic market could play into the hands of upcoming exporting nations (Oryzae.com, 20 Aug.):

'However, foreign buyers cancelled several contracts to buy rice from Vietnam due to the price increase. VFA says that rice importers, mostly in China, have cancelled contracts amounting to a total of 938,000 tons this year, with contracts to import 180,000 tons of rice cancelled in July alone.

 Local traders say that Vietnam may not meet the export target of around 7.5 million tons in 2013 due to increasing competitiveness of Myanmar, Cambodia and Pakistan rice'.

Pledge

A good place to start is with what are we actually talking about?  

The BBC has a good short video (Aug. 29, 2013) of how the Thai rice pledging scheme works and it's many pitfalls. Note, the Finance Minister himself says it's not a very efficient way of wealth redistribution.

More background. Bangkok Post (Aug. 5) has an interesting exposé on Thailand's rice subsidies programmes through the decades. 

Noteworthy is that 53% of Thai farmers hardly produce above subsistence levels meaning that they are not taking part in the gains of the current rice-pledging scheme. So much for re-distributing wealth.

Meanwhile in the day-to-day of rice-pledge scheming and politics we were confronted with the usual. 

The Nation (8 August) notes that the Thai government is committed to maintaining current price of rice-pledging.

If the Thai government thought buying up most of Thailand's rice was difficult, selling it is proving to be even more difficult (Nation, 21 August):

'Pranee Siriphand, director-general of the Foreign Trade Department, said that bidding for 201,000 tonnes of rice opened on Monday but only 30,000 tonnes of 5-per-cent white rice was sold to two exporters, Asia Golden Rice and Chaiyaporn'.

The Thai government is finding out what the real price of extravagant price subsidies: rolling back is politically impossible. After announcing rice prices to drop, it quickly reversed the policy after some announcements of public protest. Instead prices for rubber and maize are to be dropped. The results have been street protests, especially in the south by very focal rubber tappers. As the southern farmers already vote for the opposition their protests are falling on deaf ears. The Bangkok Post (19 August) reports on an upcoming maize farmers protest in the province of Phetchabun, possibly they will have more succes.

And in real terms, how much does a rice pledging scheme cost? The Nation quotes (Aug. 14) Thailand's Finance Ministry:

'The commerce minister yesterday insisted that the cumulative cost to the country of the government's rice-pledging scheme over its first two years had not exceeded Bt650 billion [US$ 20 billion!], and said the government would be able to bring the figure down to Bt500 billion this year through stepped-up selling of rice stocks'.

But we have already seen that selling is not so easy. It's apparently unclear how much rice is in stock. Oddly, the Thai police have been called upon to take stock of Thailand's rice pile (Bangkok Post, 13 August). The report however is secret ....

And how much will Thailand export? The government says 8.5 million tonnes, exporters think differently: 6.5 million tonnes (Nation, August 1).

 

What are the alternatives to rice pledging? Bangkok Post (August 13) thinks it knows one or two, but all-in-all it's just lip service. Unfortunately the downfall has been the high price, the high level of rent-seeking, poor administration and haste in implementing without consulting involved business sector. The answers provided are to cut out the large farms, to focus on sustainability. But if graft is a major detriment to rice-pledging, expect this to increase with the alternatives.

Bits news

Half way through the year and Cambodia has already surpassed last years exported amounts. So reports the Phnom Penh Post (5 August). Also picked up by the Bangkok Post. 

Exports are now being shifted by rail to Sihanoukville (PPP, 9 August):

'Rice exporters, however, are not yet ready to jump on board with the new mode of transport. They believe that rail cargo has its benefits, but for now there are logistical procedures that need work to make it cost-effective.

Kim Savuth, managing director of rice exporting company Khmer Food, explained that trucks were still required to haul rice to meet the train at Phnom Penh’s dry port, and then again to meet the train at Sihanoukville to ferry rice through customs before leaving Cambodia'.

Phnom Penh Post reports (27 August) on a loan windfall for the rice sector: US$ 70 million! Care of the ADB.

The Vietnamese province of Nghe An launches herbal rice (Saigon Times, 15 August):

'This rice variety has many micronutrients, vitamin A, B, lipid, calcium, iron, cellulose and especially omega (6, 9) which can help prevent cancer. It is rich in vegetable fat that does not contain cholesterol and is suitable for those on a diet or with heart diseases'. 

An interesting example as it combines conventional breeding techniques with smart marketing and sales through a chain of restaurants. Who would prefer normal rice if you can have herbal rice?