anilnetto.com

Some people are making big bucks from the higher prices of food, including rice.

But not the farmers.

The Star (8 May) carried this tiny report on page 32 - it should have been front page headlines, Chun Wai! - telling of how over 2,000 rice farmers in the country’s “rice bowl” state of Kedah are now threatening to turn to oil palm cultivation because of the low price they are getting for their padi.

And who can blame them? Many of them are just hovering around the poverty line. The farmers want the padi price to be raised from the current ceiling of 65 sen/kg to RM1/kg. They complain that they have to sell their padi cheap, cheap but when they buy rice, the price is between RM2.20-2.80/kg. Where got meaning? (There’s no ceiling price for rice.)

“Farmers have to absorb the escalating costs of fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides and seeds,” said Ramli Kasa, the Aman C-III Area Farmers Organisation chairman, in The Star report.

So it’s obviously not the farmers who are making big bucks. It has to be the parties in between the farmers and the consumers, right? And the speculators…

Meanwhile, Bernas, which was privatised in 1996, made a profit before tax of RM178 million for its 2006 financial year. Are you surprised? Bernas handles rice imports and local distribution.

Top 5 Shareholders (as of 19 April 2007)

Source: Bernas website

Budaya Generasi is controlled by Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhary.

And of course the share price of Bernas has been surging over the last year even as the rice farmers suffer. There is now talk that Bernas will be taken private. With rice prices surging, it’s a good time to ensure a monopoly of profits as well, eh?

See this Business Times report:

Bernas surges on talk it will be taken private

SHARES of the country’s only licensed rice supplier, Padiberas Nasional Bhd (Bernas), closed at their highest in more than two months yesterday on renewed speculation that it will be taken private.

The stock rose 2.4 per cent to close at RM2.13.

Budaya Generasi (M) Sdn Bhd, controlled by Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhary, holds 31 per cent of the company.

Other major shareholders like Wang Tak Co Ltd and Lembaga Tabung Haji have been raising their stake in Bernas over the last year or so.

Fund managers said the rumour of a buyout is not new.

“The share price has been rather firm these few weeks, bolstered by the continued purchase of the company’s stock by existing shareholders,” Philip Capital Management’s Ang Kok Heng said.

Actually, we have neglected our rice farmers for far too long. At one time, we were 90 per cent self sufficient.

Then along came Mahathir. He looked down on agriculture. Instead of ensuring that we could produce enough food to meet the needs of the population, he pursued heavy industrialisation - with all its attendant failures and shortcomings - like a man possessed. Under his administration, Universiti Pertanian Malaysian was changed to Universiti Putra Malaysia.

He was not alone. Many other Malaysians also felt we could always import cheaper rice - comparative advantage, they said, using an economic term; so why bother about food security and self-sufficiency? Today, such irresponsible neglect of agriculture has come back to haunt us with rising food prices.

The newspapers tell us that we are only 70 per cent self-sufficient in rice. But a Bernama report on 19 April had this give-away line:

Malaysia, which imports between 700,000 to 800,000 tonnes annually to complement its 1.1 million local production, buys about 50 to 60 percent from Thailand and the rest from Vietnam, India and Pakistan.

Let’s do the calculation:

Local production 1.1 million tonnes divided by total rice requirements (1.1 million tonnes + 750,000 tonnes) = 59 per cent self sufficiency.

No wonder we are vulnerable to rising prices and speculation in food prices.

Is there an alternative to the pesticide-intensive corporate model of agriculture?

How about organic farming? Now, before you say, “Come on, be realistic, it will never be enough to feed the whole country!”, check out the video clip below featuring the amazing organic farming revolution in Cuba, which had the BBC presenter enthused with obvious admiration.

In Malaysia and elsewhere, young people are turning away from farming in rural areas and migrating to towns.

But in Cuba, many young people and professionals are actually turning to farming - even in their towns and back gardens - and taking obvious pride in it. They see themselves as making a useful contribution to local communities. They use natural pesticides - and the vegetable farms are close to the markets; so they cut down on transport costs too.

Let’s give a major role to organic agriculture - which has a tremendous global market potential in the face of the GM food menace and the onslaught of pesticide-laced food products.

Remember, we can’t eat semiconductor chips.

So there’s nothing to stop us from emulating the Cuban farming revolution.

Have a look at this piece I wrote for IPS to discover the likely culprits behind rising food prices.

MALAYSIA: Food Futures Behind Rising Prices
Analysis by Anil Netto

PENANG, May 6 (IPS) - With stock markets and the property sector in the United States weakening, speculative investors are turning to fuels and the food sector as a “safe haven”, driving up prices in the process, say some food security activists.

This is the logical sequence from the transformation of food from a basic human need to an economic ”commodity”, they point out. This has made it a lot easier for investors and trading houses to regard agricultural food as a legitimate target for speculation, hoarding and market manipulation, especially though the futures market. Full article.

I am just back from Singapore, where I took part in a forum on the Malaysian general election with some old friends.

The forum on Tuesday was organised by the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in the island republic. I was delighted to meet my friend, Farish Noor, one of the organisers, and other friends on the same panel, namely Hermen Shastri of the Council of Churches Malaysia (CCM) and Zaharom Nain of USM. Also on the same panel was Yang Razali, Senior Fellow at the School and Editor of the RSIS commentaries.

Farish, a prolific analyst and commentator, has just taken up a new position as Senior Fellow at RSIS and he seemed happy that his new job would allow him to travel and spend time on his research interests. He spoke on the Hindraf factor, Hermen touched on the Christian minorities’ concerns, Yang Razali on the possible election outcome scenarios, Zaharom on the mainstream media’s coverage heavily tilted in the ruling coalition’s favour. I zoomed in on the electoral battle in Penang, one of the “frontline” states.

On the way to Singapore, I had pored over the Singapore Straits Times and the Today paper and noticed that they had given wide coverage - page after page - to the Malaysian general election. Most of the Singapore media including those under Singapore MediaCorp and Channel News Asia have a string of correspondents covering the campaigning in Malaysia ahead of the polls. The coverage of Nomination Day proceedings was impressive, with the campaigns of both the BN and the opposition given lots of space. The key points of the BN’s and opposition parties’ manifestos were also listed.

I wondered to myself if Singapore’s opposition parties would receive fair media coverage in their own election campaigns. For one thing, I know that pictures of the massive crowds at opposition rallies in the last Singapore general election were largely not shown in the island republic’s press, as revealed in Singaporean activist Dana Lam’s excellent book “Days of Being Wild” (mainly reporting impressions of the opposition side of the Singapore election campaign that received little mainstream coverage).

Even though we had seen the prominent coverage of the Malaysian general election in the Singapore papers, the visiting Malaysian panel speakers including me were somewhat taken aback to see the Singapore media, including television stations, turning out in full force at the RSIS forum. All of us were deluged with journalists asking us for our contact details and requesting newspaper and television interviews, which we were happy to oblige. We each received a pile of call cards from the various journalists, who said they would be in touch with us.

As a Singaporean relative of mine told me, Malaysian politics is far more interesting, intriguing and entertaining than Singaporean politics, which by comparison is frankly, well, kinda dull and predictable…

One of the hot topics in Singapore now is inflation, which has reached the highest level for I-can’t-remember-how-many-years. Looks like Singapore and Malaysia still have a lot in common.

Before my arrival in Singapore, I had glanced through a full-page BN ad in theSun (25 February) titled “Proven: Stretching the Ringgit”. It showed a comparison table of the prices of flour, sugar, cooking oil and petrol in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines and Singapore (see table on left). Of course, the Malaysian prices were the lowest. But aren’t these all controlled items? Well, yes, because the ad also stated that RM43.5 billion was spent on subsidies “on essential items so that all Malaysians enjoy lower prices and have more money in their pockets”.

This appears to be an attempt to counter public concerns in Malaysia over the rising prices of essential food items such as staples, meat, fish, vegetable and fruit while preparing the ground for a future oil price hike. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t eat much sugar and flour(!) and I try to avoid food which has been cooked with a lot of oil. What about the prices of bread, fruit, fish and vegetables?

Over in Singapore, similar regional comparisons have been made to allay public concerns over price hikes. The Today newspaper (26 February) carried a report mentioning that the Singapore Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) had done a comparison of food prices in Singapore with those in neighbouring countries. The paper noted that the MTI “has lately released more inflation-related data, such as a table on how food prices here (in Singapore) have not risen as much as in Malaysia, America or Hong Kong”.

Eh, food prices in Singapore have not risen as much as in Malaysia? Whom to believe? The BN or the Singapore MTI? But then again, the BN advert only showed the prices of controlled items such as sugar, cooking oil and flour…

What I would like to see in the mainstream media is some attempt to analyse why food prices are rising. Could it be due to:

• the destruction of vegetable farms to make way for development (so that most vegetables supplied in Penang for instance now have to come all the way from Cameron Highlands)?
• the shift to corporate agriculture and its emphasis on the cultivation of cash crops for export instead of essential food items to promote food security and self-sufficiency?
• higher oil prices leading to a rise in fuel, transport, fertiliser and pesticide costs, the increased use of which is the result of the shift away from traditional farming practices?
• the conversion of land for biofuel cultivation, which has reduced the availability of land for farming?

Instead of looking at these factors to explain the rising price of food, the media here act as if the problem is inevitable, when it could be partly due to the government’s own policies.

It is important for the opposition parties to study the factors leading to rising food prices and to suggest alternative farming, financial and economic policies that they would implement to keep food prices affordable if they come to power. (I know that is a big if - but still…) These policies could include promoting organic farming while curbing the use of harmful - and expensive - pesticides and encouraging the opening up of more vegetable farms and fruit orchards near urban centres (to cut down on transport costs). We can’t survive on microchips alone, you know…

Just spotted this Wired news report on an experiment with genetically modified mosquitoes - and the company “envisions releasing the insects in Malaysia on a large scale in three years”. Gulp!

Engineered Mosquitoes Could Wipe Out Dengue Fever

By Alexis Madrigal 01.23.08 | 1:05 PM

Oxitec’s technology modifies the genes of the Aedes aegypti mosquito, which causes both dengue and yellow fever and is largely found in the tropics.
Image: Centers for Disease Control

Scientists at a British biotech company said they have evidence that their genetically modified mosquitoes, which are programmed for sudden, early death, can control the spread of dengue fever.

Dengue is carried by mosquitoes and is the scourge of urban areas in the developing world, much as malaria is in rural regions. The company, Oxitec, said it can decimate mosquito populations by breeding genetically modified male mosquitoes, then releasing them to mate with wild females. Their offspring contain lethal genes that kill them young, before they can reproduce. Company officials told Wired News that their latest test results show that the genetically modified bugs can breed just as well as wild ones.

“We will be able to control dengue through controlling the mosquitoes that transmit it, especially in large urban areas,” said the company’s chief scientist Luke Alphey. “Thereby protecting many, many millions of people from this disease.”

Mosquitoes pass dengue fever to up to 100 million people each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Up to 5 million die. If the scientists can replicate their results in real field conditions, their technology could kill half of the next generation of dengue mosquitoes, which scientists say would significantly reduce the spread of the disease. If all goes well the company envisions releasing the insects in Malaysia on a large scale in three years.

Oxitec’s latest research, which company scientists will present in February at the IX International Symposium on Vectors and Vector-borne Diseases in Puri, India, included an independent evaluation by Malaysia’s Institute for Medical Research, part of the country’s Ministry of Health, said S.S. Vasan, Oxitec’s head of public health, in an e-mail. The results showed that up to 50 percent of wild female mosquitoes mated with Oxitec’s genetically modified male mosquitoes.

And this is some reaction of concern in the same report:

But as with genetically modified crop companies like Monsanto, Oxitec could face a backlash from a wary public. Greenpeace, among others, oppose genetic engineering of organisms that could be released into the wild.

“Releasing millions of genetically modified terminator mosquitoes into wild ecosystems amounts to a reckless and uncontrolled experiment with a risky technology,” said Jim Thomas, of the ETC Group, a technology watchdog. “Oxitec’s (project) abandons all pretense of containment or possible recall. I wonder what sort of liability they are willing to assume if something goes wrong?”

Thomas also questioned Oxitec’s core technology — a regulatory switch that uses tetracycline.

“The assumption is that the insects will not encounter tetracycline in the wild and yet tetracycline, naturally derived from a soil bacteria, is widely used in agriculture,” Thomas said.

“Genetically engineered insects for pest control are a literal disaster waiting to happen,” said Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association, in an e-mail.

I just want to add, if the Malaysian authorities are really serious about controlling dengue fever, what about more traditional - and cost effective - measures of wiping out dengue fever such as removing their possible breeding grounds? Are we saying that the usual preventive methods of ensuring there is no stagnant water lying around and fogging affected areas are not effective? Why don’t we first do something about all those clogged drains full of stagnant water - so common in Malaysia - which are the perfect breeding grounds for mosquitoes? (I had a bad dream the other night of someone pulling out discarded furniture - I think it was an old chair! - that was clogging up a drain.)

And why has this project not been brought to the attention of the Malaysian public if it’s true, as the report says, that the Malaysian Institute for Medical Research is involved?

Here is a report from the Oxitec website showing that such a proposal is indeed being considered:

News

2 October, 2007 Oxitec and IMR conduct an Intensive Workshop on Aedes Mosquitoes

Oxitec and the WHO Collaborating Centre for Vectors based at the Institute for Medical Research (IMR) have successfully concluded an “Intensive Workshop on Wild Type and Genetically Modified Aedes Mosquitoes”. This 7-day intensive workshop was conducted from 26th September to 2nd October 2007 in IMR’s campus in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. IMR is the research arm of the Ministry of the Health Malaysia.

Should we allow a company to use Malaysia as a laboratory for such experiments? Who knows what unseen impact this will have on our ecological balance. I would be extremely cautious - and worried - about this initiative.