Colusa, California
February 20, 2007
Source:
Rice Producers of
California
A newly released
study* finds that California’s rice industry faces the loss
of export markets worth over $200 million dollars in the event
that genetically modified (GM) rice is produced commercially.
The report makes the following
conclusion: “It would appear that the rice trade in Japan,
Korea, Taiwan and to a lesser extent Turkey has little interest
in importing GM rice at this time…Due to the risks involved, we
recommend that the U.S. industry not seek commercialization of
GM rice in the near term [next 3 to 5 years].”
The study commissioned by the
Rice Producers of
California (RPC) was conducted by the international affairs
and market research firm Bryant Christie Inc. and has been
formally endorsed by the US Rice Producers Association (USRPA).
Bryant Christie evaluated the potential for market acceptance of
GM rice in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Turkey. These markets, which
account for approximately 40% of California’s annual rice crop,
have a value of over $200 million dollars.
The report also states that even
if GM rice were cheaper, and even if the rice industry conducted
an extensive educational campaign, “there should be a full
understanding that the pursuit of [GM Rice] commercialization
could jeopardize existing U.S. rice exports to Japan.” It goes
on to state “Considering that Japan accounts for roughly half of
all California rice export sales, or the equivalent of between
20% and 25% of California’s annual rice production, loss of the
Japanese market could significantly impact the California rice
industry.”
The report comes on the heels of
the August 2006 disclosure that Bayer CropScience’s experimental
Liberty Link GM rice had contaminated the Southern U.S. long
grain rice supply. The incident led to plummeting rice prices
(an estimated $150 million within a matter of days), the closure
of several European and Asian markets, and costly testing and
cleanup attempts.
According to Dwight Roberts, USRPA
President and CEO, “California has an opportunity to be
proactive and adopt strong measures to protect itself from the
market disruptions and rejection experienced in the South. This
incident is your wake-up call.”
RPC is calling for a moratorium on
all open-air GM rice production, laws giving farmers
compensation if they suffer economic damages due to GM
contamination, and extensive seed testing to assure GM-free seed
supplies. “The potential long-term benefits of GM rice have yet
to be proven to California growers, and the risks to our markets
are simply too great,” stated Chris Capaul, a California rice
farmer from Sutter County.
MARKET ACCEPTANCE OF U.S.
HERBICIDE-TOLERANT RICE IN JAPAN, KOREA, TAIWAN, AND TURKEY
Prepared by Bryant Christie Inc. for the
Rice Producers of
California
February 1, 2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Rice Producers of California
(RPC) retained Bryant Christie Inc. (BCI) to evaluate the
potential for market
acceptance of the genetically modified (GM) rice in Japan,
Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey. These markets account for about 40%
of California’s annual rice crop and are therefore economically
important to the California industry. Findings in this study
come from desk research and interviews with the rice trade in
each country. This report summarizes these findings.
Japan’s rice import policies and
its government’s reaction to recent reports of certain GM rice
in U.S. supplies, coupled with cultural sensitivities to rice,
as well as low acceptance of GM foods by the Japanese public and
the Japanese rice trade, reduce the likelihood of the market
accepting U.S. GM rice. In fact, strong evidence demonstrates
that without consumer education and changes in government
policies, efforts to commercialize GM rice in the U.S. could
result in the loss of the Japanese market to U.S. rice.
Considering that Japan accounts for roughly half of all
California rice export sales, or the equivalent of between 20%
and 25% of California’s annual rice production, loss of the
Japanese market could significantly impact the California rice
industry.
Korea is also economically
important to the California rice industry as approximately 86%
of Korea’s rice imports from the U.S. is produced in California.
As in Japan, rice is a politically sensitive topic in Korea.
Although market access for U.S. rice under Korea’s minimum
market access (MMA) agreement is improving and GM soybeans and
corn are currently imported for feed and processing, the
majority of Korean rice trade members interviewed for this
report opposed the purchase of GM rice. This sentiment is also
shared by Korean consumers, though some evidence indicates that
consumer education campaigns may be capable of changing this
opinion in the future.
Unlike Japan and to a lesser
extent Korea, Taiwan offers more commercial opportunities for
U.S. rice imports. This is particularly the case for California
rice which accounts for nearly all U.S. rice exports to Taiwan.
However, like Japan and Korea, challenges for GM food products
are present in Taiwan. While Taiwan imports GM soybeans for
human use and animal feed, the Taiwanese rice trade members
interviewed for this report were reluctant to accept imports of
GM rice. Taiwanese consumers are generally less aware of GM
foods than their Japanese and Korean counterparts and it is
possible that their perception of GM foods could improve through
consumer education efforts.
Turkey’s restrictive import
policies and ambiguous regulatory framework for GM foods create
significant market access barriers for GM rice in the near-term.
Further, while the results of the in-country surveys conducted
for this report indicated that it may be possible to locate a
Turkish buyer for GM rice, the results also indicate that
consumers might reject GM rice given the information to which
they are currently exposed. However, even with these obstacles,
Turkey shows the most promise for U.S. GM rice relative to the
three other markets covered in this report.
In conclusion, it would appear
that the rice trade in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and to a lesser
extent Turkey has little interest in importing GM rice at this
time, even in situations involving cost advantages and full
regulatory approval of GM rice. Due to the risks involved, this
report recommends that the U.S. industry not seek
commercialization of GM rice in the near term and any longer
term effort be accompanied by targeted and extensive
education/communications campaigns in each market. Even then,
there should be a full understanding that the pursuit of such
commercialization could jeopardize existing U.S. rice exports to
Japan.
Full report:
http://calriceproducers.org/RPC_GM_Rice_Report_2.pdf
Rice Producers of California,
founded in 1997, represents and advocates for the interests of
California rice producers, and promotes the economic viability
of rice farming in California. RPC is the only organization that
speaks solely for the interests of California’s rice producers. |