Following is the text of He Kang's remarks as prepared for delivery and made available in Washington:

World Food Prize Foundation Symposium

Let Science-Based Approach Prevail

On issues of genetically modified foods and their role in alleviating hunger

He Kang, 1993 Laureate and former Minister of Agriculture, China

Agricultural archaeology in the past decade designates that primitive agriculture began 10,000-15,000 years ago in China. Evidence of grains of rice, husked and unhusked, of various kinds and at various excavation sites, suggests that at least 12,000 years ago, our forefathers domesticated and cultivated wild rice.

It is amazing that throughout the long, long ages, human efforts have incessantly been "interfering" with Mother Nature by breeding new varieties of food crops. Mankind has thus worked in parallel with nature, who, through natural selection has let only the fittest to survive. Thus, the long process of evolution has splendidly enriched bio-diversity. No one could claim there was zero-risk. And when science and technology were not well developed, people would have to rely on close observation, experience, common sense or even their imagination to reach logical conclusions.

On the other hand, not all inventions, scientific experiments and theories could be understood by all people at the time and sometimes, regretfully, scientists and science had to suffer. We do not forget that Giordano Bruno, in his effort to defend new scientific discoveries and new cosmology theories, he was persecuted and burned alive in 1600. And when Gregor J. Mendel first explained hybridization on scientific basis in 1866, he was just ignored. It was until 16 years later after his death that his findings were rediscovered in 1900.

Nonetheless, it still surprises me that when we have reached such heights of genetic modification, there are serious doubts about genetically modified (GM) foods or molecular bio-techniques. GM actually can hit the targets much more purposefully, precisely, and efficiently than conventional breeding. Whatever political, economic, social, religious, or ethical reasons people might maintain, let's believe that scientific data will have the final say. In China, we say, "practice is the only criterion for judging truth." As GM foods have been consumed by so many people in the past years, there seem to be no authentic arguments against them as yet that is backed by rigorous scientific data. Furthermore, fear born of ignorance can also play a disturbing role, so it is high time that the basics of bioscience and GM be popularized.

Another important point is that consumers do have the right to know that the new foods are safe as far as allergens, toxins or whatever undesirable qualities are concerned. But here, people must adopt a dialectical approach towards the whole universe including science. Good or bad, beautiful or ugly, positive or negative, progress or regression ... will always coexist. The techniques of applying atomic energy can be dangerous, but we don't have to ban it. Under certain conditions, men are able to control and make good use of it. For GM foods, as long as experiments testify that there are not any undesirable qualities or they are strictly kept under certain safety standards, why dump them all away? It is expected that whenever an innovation occurs, there will be voices of difference. I do, however, wish to stress that seed companies, food producers, research institutes and scientists must respect the concerns of the consumers and the welfare of society by observing the basic "SIT" rules -- safety, integrity and transparency.

In 1996, the Ministry of Agriculture in China set up a safety administration to implement regulations on GM foods. Before market launch, all transgenic organisms and products must undergo confined research in labs, field trials and environmental release. I was told the government would step up efforts to formulate laws and regulations and to set up a more efficient safety administration system. Up till now, there are only six GM plants commercialized (two Bt cottons, one virus-resistant tomato, one prolonged shelf-time tomato, one flower color-altered petunia and one virus-resistant sweet pepper) and over ten undergoing field trials. One Bt cotton is from Monsanto.

I was informed by a GM professor that the Bt cotton bred by Chinese scientists are planted in five provinces and one autonomous region. On the average, the expenses saved from agro-chemicals (80 percent cut), labor forces and the incomes from improved yields amount to $443 per hectare.

This is thought provoking. During my tenure of office (1978-90) as vice minister and later as minister, agriculture was able to procure a per capita 319 kilogram staple grains for the 962 million population in 1978, and a per capita 393 kilogram for the 1143 million population in 1990. But at the end of 1990, there was still 85 million people under-fed, that is, living under the poverty line. These were essentially rural folks in undeveloped mountainous or geologically karst-formation areas. Even today, we still have 34 million people struggling under the poverty line, although the end record of per capita staple grain for 1999 was raised to 406 kilograms (population 1259 million). What could the landscape be if GM foods were introduced a decade ago? ... Not only could people consume more staple and animal and aquatic foods, but also they could enjoy value added nice things for better health and enjoy better, cleaner environment. This year, China has had severe drought in large areas, and agricultural output will have to drop. What if GM drought-resistant crops had long been developed? Scarcity of water, shrinking arable land due to industrialization and urbanization, pests and virus diseases ... all these could be compensated for or corrected to a certain degree in the future by adopting GM techniques.

As many developing nations missed the first Green Revolution, let's hope the current one, if channeled right should benefit both developed and developing nations. We all know elimination of hunger is the prerequisite or basic guarantee for sustainable world peace, progress and stability. And this will depend on how the international community responds to the change and how "win-win" programs can really be worked out. For instance, for the 800 million under-fed and the 400 million P-world children suffering from vitamin A deficiency, could seeds like the Golden Rice be used free of charge or reasonably subsidized? By whom? And how should the patent or intellectual property rights of scientists and seed companies be properly protected? We know that the gap between rich and poor is widening as economic globalization and scientific and technologic inventions are gaining momentum. How can science and technology serve as many people as possible? Lastly, as the pace of GM techniques gains speed, the property rights of gene resources could be a problem. If rich and developed countries make use of the resources of poor countries, should the latter get compensation in return?

All these and many more questions deserve serious contemplation. For the welfare of all peoples, let us hope for the best!

end text

Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State.
Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov