By Dr Ahmad Ibrahim

Rice is staple food for many in Asia. Despite the growing popularity of burgers and hotdogs, it would still be unthinkable for Malaysians to go without at least one rice meal a day. In fact, for states like Kelantan and Trengganu, rice is mostly taken on average three times a day. It is therefore no surprise that rice is a controlled food item in the country. Rice production enjoys a lot of government support. It is no difference in countries like Japan,Taiwan and Korea. There subsidies are even higher.

Without the subsidy, it would be difficult for Malaysia to produce at least 70% of the country’s demand. Current production stands at about 1.6 million tonnes. Production can be higher if yields can be improved. Better managed farms achieve up to 10 tonnes per hectare. A majority however can only produce at the most 5 tonnes per hectare. This is where new farming technologies can help. If such yield gaps can be closed through the adoption of better technologies, there is no reason why Malaysia cannot even export rice in the future.

Rice is not the only food item experiencing such hefty price increase. In fact, literally all the commodities traded on the world market witnessed steep price escalation. Wheat is up. Soya is up. Corn is up. Just to name a few. It has been a long time since the world is hit all at once by such high prices of essentials. Why this is happening is a subject of much debate. The blaming game has started though. Some commodity gurus blame it on the explosion in demand from China and India. The data on per capita food consumption in both countries still suggest they are way below the USA and the EU. Does this mean, we can expect bigger demand as these two countries grow economically?

Some also blame the price increase of food items to the large scale expansion in biofuel production using food as feed. They claim such practice has upset the supply-demand equation in the food market. Even palm oil has been dragged into the controversy, despite the fact that at the moment very little palm oil has actually been used for biofuel. At the current high price of palm oil it is just not economic to convert into biofuel. Furthermore, unlike biofuel production from corn and soya in the USA, biofuel from palm oil has yet to enjoy any government subsidy. In the US, the production of bioethanol from corn and soya is heavily subsidised.

The big question on everyone’s mind is, will the price come down anytime soon? As long as supply cannot keep up with demand, experts agree that the world price of food will stay high. Many predict it is difficult to rein in demand in the near term. Big population economies of India and China have yet to witness any significant slow down. Their per capita food consumption has yet to match that in the USA and the EU. May be there is an opportunity to do something on the supply side. This simply means the world has to grow more food. There are two options here. Either expand the land area for food production or increase the yield and productivity on the same land area.

Expanding the land area for food production is a major challenge. First of all, in many countries, much of the suitable land has already been taken up. In fact in recent years, as a result of neglect and poor land management, much of the former arable land has been rendered unsuitable for any form of cultivation. Furthermore, nowadays there is strong opposition from many when it involves clearing up virgin forests for development, especially from groups championing the sanctity of the environment. They argue that deforestation may make more land available to address the issue of food shortage, but it may exacerbate other world concerns such as climate change, loss in biodiversity and global warming. It is not easy to strike the balance.

This is where we need to look at new approaches which can increase crop yield while at the same time reduce input costs. Is the controversial Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) technology the option we are looking for? Though scientists in recent years have successfully demonstrated the power of genetic engineering as a potent tool to increase crop yield, not everyone is jubilant about promoting its use in agriculture. Some question the safety of foods produced using GMO technology. They even went as far as equating them to "Frankenstein" food. In the EU, GMO foods are still a big taboo. There are strict regulations in place to control the trade in GMO products. It is the opposite in the USA and much of the Americas where many have benefited from better crop productivity using GMO technology.

But what exactly is GMO technology? How is it applied to crops? In simple terms, it concerns altering the genetic material in the crop through a technique called genetic engineering. With this technology, DNA molecules from different sources are combined into one molecule to create a new set of DNA genes. This DNA is then transferred into the crop making the crop acquire a modified or novel trait. Over the years, genetic engineering techniques have found success in improving crop yield, enhancing crop resistance to diseases and pests, increasing a crop’s nutritional value and making possible the growing of crops in difficult soils and harsh environmental conditions. Some of the GMO crops which have been commercialised include a soyabean variety that is resistant to pesticide, a cotton variety which resists pests and a more nutritious tomato.

Through GMO technology, farmers have not only achieved significant yield increase but have also reduced the use of chemical pesticides, and weedicides. The technology is now exploited in new varieties of soya, corn, cotton and tomato, just to name a few. Products from such GMO crops have been consumed for decades now in the Americas. There has been no reported case of people becoming "Frankenstein" or "Herman Munster". The concern over potential damage to the natural crop varieties through unnatural gene transfer has also been proven unfounded. Is this another case of man resisting change? Is this another example of technology phobia? Looking at the benefits demonstrated thus far, there is no reason why the technology should not be explored for the other food crops.

Admittedly GMO technology, like any other technology, is not without its share risks. On the other hand, risks which are managed well can even be neutralised. Good risk management can only evolve through practice. As demonstrated in the USA, all earlier environmental and food safety concerns have all been defused through effective risk management measures. The truth is that all technologies carry with them some element of risk. All have their so called “Yin and Yang”. It is up to us to manage the risks effectively so that their benefits far outweigh their negativities. If the world is to seriously increase the supply of food and avert further escalation of world food prices, it would be a serious mistake to ignore the power and potential of GMO technology!