AN ARTICLE FROM BRUNEI TIMES ; Episode Three

'Golden Rice' on target for release in 2011

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

GENETICALLY modified (GMO) Golden Rice may be available to farmers as early as 2011, possibly helping to save millions of children threatened with blindness or premature death due to Vitamin A deficiency.

Robert Zeigler, director general of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), said that it expected to release the GMO rice, enriched with Vitamin A, by 2011. It was conducting its first field trials in the Philippines this year.

It would be 10 years since the invention in 2001 of Golden Rice, which scientists have said may prove that the controversial biotechnology can help feed the poor and needy if applied with care and caution.

There is as yet no GMO rice grown commercially. Widely produced transgenic products, such as GMO soy, corn or cotton, are mostly pest- or herbicide-resistant. They are beneficial to farmers, but not necessarily to consumers.

Golden Rice, which includes three new genes, including two from daffodil, is yellowish and contains beta-carotene, a substance that human bodies convert to Vitamin A.I

ts research has been seen as a model for cooperation between public and private sectors in pursuit of human welfare. Its inventors are claiming no property rights for the rice. Neither are the companies that own the technology involved.

Zeigler was talking early this week after IRRI received a grant of US$20 million for three years — equivalent to 17 per cent of its budget — from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

High grain prices, climate change

The executive said the funding came at a vital time when soaring food prices and climate change threatened the gains made through the Green Revolution over the past several decades.

The concern that we have... is that these gains in productivity, food security, cheap rice, cheap food are in jeopardy, Zeigler said. We have to address this.

IRRI says the fund will help it reach 18 million households, especially in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, with better rice varieties and raise yields by about 50 per cent in the next 10 years.

IRRI calculated the world needed to increase the annual rice output by nearly 70 percent to 880 million tonnes by 2025 from 520 million tonnes currently to meet projected global demand.

We are focusing on more difficult rice growing areas that do not have irrigation, Zeigler said. Drought tolerance and flood tolerance is the key for very impoverished areas.

This year, IRRI plans to hand out to more farmers in Bangladesh and India a flood resistant non-GMO rice, for which scientists made a breakthrough in 2006.

We have now moved that gene into commercial varieties, the varieties that can be are grown by farmers, he said. We tested them in Bangladesh this year. It went extremely well.

Together with China, IRRI is also working on dry land rice, known as aerobic rice, that can grow on dry soil like wheat.

Water for agriculture is becoming more and more scarce as water is diverted for urban use and industrial use, he said.

We are working very hard to develop rice that can be grown almost like a wheat crop or corn plant. However, that again is a very difficult and challenging scientific problem.

AN ARTICLE FROM BRUNEI TIMES ; Episode Two

GM 'saboteur' under fire
Caroline DaviesLONDON
Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Brian John condemned Harrington's stunt as political sabotage. "If he has, as he claims, planted it and it has entered the food chain, and he has no monitoring in place, then clearly he's broken the regulations and he should be prosecuted," he said. "We think this is grossly irIN A political stunt that has infuriated the National Assembly for Wales, Jonathan Harrington, 53, an agronomist who advises farmers on how to grow crops, claims to have imported two varieties of GM maize from Spain, planted them on his land and given seeds away to two other farmers who also planted the banned crops. Wales has been GM-free since 2000 and markets its milk, meat and vegetables accordingly.

As the Welsh assembly considers its legal options, GM-free campaigners condemned Harrington as "grossly irresponsible". Plant scientist Brian John of GM Free Cymru said, "To plant it, then deliberately push it into the food chain is absolutely insane." Friends of the Earth Cymru said, "The concern is that it has entered the food chain without any control, traceability or labelling. Even if it is a small quantity, it means Wales is not GM-free any more."

An unrepentant Harrington said he had resorted to the secret planting after the Welsh assembly, which voted unanimously for GM-free status in 2000, refused to have any meaningful discussions over its policy. "Out of frustration I went and bought some varieties of maize bred to be resistant to a pest called the European corn borer and which are grown widely in Spain, France, Germany and the Czech Republic." he said.

The varieties he chose were on the EU common variety list, and as such it is legal to grow them anywhere in Europe.

The Welsh assembly admitted that despite its policy, which has otherwise been strictly adhered to throughout the principality, it has no legal power to ban GM crops in Wales.

However, anti-GM campaigners believe Harrington can be prosecuted for not complying with stringent regulations that require monitoring, labelling and traceability of GM crops.

Not only does he claim to have planted the maize at his farm at Tregoyd, near Hay-on-Wye; he claims two other farmers, whom he refuses to name, planted the same maize.

"It was a poor summer, so they didn't do terribly well. But we did have enough for silage. So, it has been used in animal feed, for Welsh lamb and Welsh cattle," he admitted. "I've no qualms, no regrets at all. I am waiting for the backlash, and am very happy morally, ethically and legally, if need be, to defend my actions."

The assembly said in a statement, "The Welsh assembly government believes that the introduction of GM crops could undermine some of our achievements and future ambitions for Welsh agriculture. We are committed to close monitoring and control of any proposals for GM crops in Wales. However, we cannot legally ban GM crops in Wales because we have to work within a European legal framework."

Our policy is to take a precautionary and restrictive GM crop policy stance which is in line with our commitment to sustainable agriculture. We believe it has broad public support and reflects the Welsh assembly government's legal duty to act responsibly within the UK and EU legislation."

Brian John condemned Harrington's stunt as political sabotage. "If he has, as he claims, planted it and it has entered the food chain, and he has no monitoring in place, then clearly he's broken the regulations and he should be prosecuted," he said. "We think this is grossly irresponsible. Wales's GM-free status is very important."

AN ARTICLE FROM BRUNEI TIMES

Should GM crops feed the starving?

Ian Sample
LONDON
Wednesday, January 28, 2009

THE Science Museum in London is running an exhibition until the end of May called Future Foods. It attempts to give a balanced view of the pros and cons of genetically modified crops, which are back on the agenda in the light of fears over a major food crisis. It does a good job too.

As part of the exhibition, the museum organised a debate at the Dana Centre to give the public a chance to debate GM crops and the food crisis with some key scientists. I chaired the event and picked up on a few issues I thought might be worth sharing.

The panel of experts included Bob Watson, the chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), who in previous incarnations has been a Nasa scientist, an adviser to the White House and chief scientist at the World Bank. He was joined by Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University in London. Tim used to be director of the London Food Commission, director of Parents for Safe Food, and has also spent time as a hill farmer in Lancashire. Rodomiro Ortiz, director of resource mobilisation at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico, completed the panel.

I've been at GM debates before, sometimes on a panel and sometimes in the audience, and I've always been disheartened by the deeply polarised views I hear. There are those who overstate how useful GM crops could be, while others write off the entire technique, claiming it is inherently dangerous. It's hard not to feel the truth is somewhere in between.

Tim Lang spoke first and stressed that our way of producing food has to change from the post-1940s push for quantity. Yes, of course quantity is still important, he said, but water usage, environmental impact and nutritional content have to be considered now more than ever.

Tim doesn't see GM as a technical fix that will put food in the mouths of the hungry, especially while it is in the hands of multinationals. He called for public ownership of GM technology, with the transparency and distribution of benefits that comes with it.

Rodomiro spoke next, describing the work his organisation is doing to genetically modify wheat to grow under drought conditions. The crops are in trials at the moment and if they are a success, similar strains of rice, maize and barley could be next.

Bob Watson spoke last. He began by explaining that today the amount of food available per capita has never been higher, how costs are still low, and yet still around 900m people go to bed hungry every night.

The major problem, said Watson, is not one that GM crops will solve. He stressed the need for good roads to get crops to markets, and simple technologies that will help reduce post-harvest losses in Africa, which currently stand at between 30 and 40%. "GM is a totally oversold technique," he said.

The debate that followed covered some interesting ground, but it seemed easier to identify the problems than the solutions. How can we ensure GM foods are safe when some countries do not have sufficient procedures for testing and evaluating any health issues, let alone the impact of novel crops on the environment? How do you ensure that farmers in the developing world can plant higher-yielding GM crops without becoming dangerously reliant upon a company that has the power to hike prices or withdraw seeds without notice? The problems are recognised, but I'm not sure anyone at the meeting had concrete ideas about how to solve them.

Though GM crops are common aruond the world, they are still absent from the UK and resistance to them is strong in many parts of Europe. Sir David King, the government's former chief scientist, said last year that Africa's ills are largely down to Western do-gooders who oppose GM in favour of organic food. He argued that organic food is a luxury Africa cannot afford and that modern agricultural technology is needed urgently.

It's striking that the views of King and Watson are so opposed. If these two have such differing positions, is it any wonder that the public is confused?

Genetically Modified Food Does More Harm Than Good. Discuss.

Genetically modified food and agricultural biotechnology have generated a lot of interest and controversy in the United States worldwide. Some like the technology's benefits while others raise questions about environmental and food safety issues. Crop varieties developed by genetic engineering were first introduced for commercial production in 1996. Today, these crops are planted on more than 167 million acres worldwide. U.S. farmers are by far the largest producers of genetically modified (GM) crops (6)(8).Genetically Modified Crops are foods that have had a gene extracted from a living thing, which has been placed into a different food by a scientist. This technology can be used to produce new varieties of plants or animals more quickly than conventional breeding methods. Also to introduce traits not possible through traditional techniques.

There are many advantages to genetically modified food. GM foods can be made to be resistant to many diseases, weeds, pests and herbicides. They can even be made to be drought or flood tolerant. They can grow faster and have more nutrients than other crops while not going bad as quickly. They are also cheaper for farmers as you don't need to use chemical sprays. These traits could be the solution to third world hunger. The crops in poorer countries wouldn't be destroyed so easily after every drought or flood. They would be able to grow faster and there would be more of them as they are resistant to pests. The crops would also be healthier for people because iron and other minerals can be added to them, removing malnutrition problems.

Another advantage is that in the future, foods could be modified to make edible vaccines, like bananas that protect us against Hepatitius B. Edible vaccines would make large scale immunisations against diseases easier, painless and more accessible. Instead of waiting in line for a doctor you could eat a tomato.

Despite the many advantages to genetically modified foods there are also many disadvantages. First and foremost is that genetically modified foods are new and it is impossible to know all the future effects it could have on human health and the environment. The risks and benefits of new technologies are only fully known after they have been in use for many years. An example is nuclear power, forty years ago it was thought that t could solve all the worlds problems with unlimited, cheap and safe energy. Only now do we know the full benefits and risks of nuclear power.

Another disadvantage is the potential impact it could have to human health. The new genes that are put in food could be resistant to certain antibiotics; if we eat them the effectiveness of antibiotics could be reduced. New allergens could be accidentally created and known allergens could be transferred to other foods. For example, if a gene from peanuts was taken and put in a tomato, people allergic to peanuts could be allergic to that tomato. Most importantly, scientists can't actually prove whether genetically modified foods are 100% safe because normal toxicology tests do not work for food.

There are many environmental problems involving genetically modified foods. These are mainly about pollination of plants. If genetically modified plants pollinate non-genetically modified plants this could spread them into the wild, where they could compete with other plants. This would upset the balance of nature, as these plants could easily take over. Plants that are made resistant to chemical herbicides could pollinate with weeds. This would be disastrous because then new, stronger sprays would have to be developed to counter them. This would increase ground and water contamination, something genetically modified plants are supposed to prevent.

All in all, i shall conclude that Genetically Modified Food does more harm than good. :)

Eid Mubarak 2008 - Episode 2

okay, for this 2nd episode i'll just summarize it in bullet points. easy to read, yet save me time. Heeeee~ oh, anyways, it's all abouut the second day raya and onwards. the special episode on open houses will also be posted soon.

SECOND DAY OF RAYA.
the highlights ;

* suprisingly, my sissy, Raedz Ramlee arrived in Brunei safely around 1 Pm.

* Babak cooked some foods.

* More people were coming.

* Oh. still celebrating and enjoying raya at neneks'.

* Busy. Busy. Busy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIRD DAY OF RAYA.

* We, as in 7293 Family 'berayaa' to some of neneks' cousies and siblings.

* Fun.

*Ada kena gave angpaoo. HAHA.

* Tired.

* Hmmmm, lupa alreadyy. HEEHE. :$

* Oh, i wore baju kurong that is 0range-brown in colourr.

NazEz Ramlee & Raedz Ramlee.

Evi Ramlee, Areel Zulfadhli, Zulfadhli Hamdi

Nenek Eboy, Mommy & Nenek Egurl.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOURTH DAY OF RAYA.

The highlights;

* Us, went to Tutong and some other places to visit the family from my dad's side.

* A very fine day but tiring.

* Get to know my "saudara-jauh'' well. HAHA. :P

* Visited Kubur Momma (my nenek girl/ babah's momma) in tutong. Al-Fatihah.

*Most of the places we went are in Penanjong Tutong.

* My brother, Munir Ramlee Couldn't join us because he had to work.

Me. HAHA.

Okay, that's all fer now,

Assalamualaikum.

Eid Mubarak 2008 - Episode 1

As promised, i'd love to share with y'all about my so-happening-eid mubarak. :D


Oh. Lemme start with first day of the Hari Raya;
The first day of Raya went super-duper great! Yknw, as usual, my family as in the RR's went to nenek's house in Serusoppe. We celebrated our raya for the whole day there. Babah cooked many types of food like soto, hati buyah, ayam, and more. (i'm malas to list out all altho i remember them all) It was kinda an open house lah kali tapi inda official. haha. apakan~ As usual, every year, i'm the one who always ask by nenek egirl to give all the goodies bags and 'angpao' to all the kids. I, basically, give only to the small ones. HAHA. Anyone who looks 'big' to me, sesiapun sajja. HAHA. Jahat~ Anyhoo, i also met all my cousies, nephews and niece. It was happening but sadly, my second sister, Ra'edzatul Ezwin, well, better-known as si Adek, wasn't there with us. She was in Singapore. She couldnt join us in Brunei cos she had to go to work. But wait, suprisee. HAHA. I'll cerita one by one, okay? Hee. Oh, not forgetting, as the youngest daughter in the family, and the second youngest grand-daughter in the family, i still got the angpao yknw. HAHA. Jgn jealous. All in all, i got about $100+ lah jua. HAHA. What else? well, it's a-day-a-must-to-remember.

okayy, i'll end this first episode with some pictures taken during the first day of raya, 2008.












Okay laah, enough fer now. yes, there are more pictures, but i'm lazy to upload. heee.

xoxo.

i knoww what youu did! THANK YOU! HA-HA.;)

this year, my raya turned out to be BORING cos' my money and pendrive were stolen!
hmm. i just want my pendrive back. please?
i don't care about the money, i just want the pendrive back!!
enough said,
miss than.

P/S; Sorry sir. i will post about my so-called-happening-raya, SOON. :P

My Life~

Exposure to Media Violence Makes People More Aggressive And Violent

Whether or not exposure to media violence causes increased levels of aggression and violence in young people is the perennial question of media effects research. Some experts, like University of Michigan professor L. Rowell Huesmann, argue that fifty years of evidence show "that exposure to media violence causes children to behave more aggressively and affects them as adults years later." Others, like Jonathan Freedman of the University of Toronto, maintain that "the scientific evidence simply does not show that watching violence either produces violence in people, or desensitizes them to it."

Advertisement does more harm than good to society

Advertising has grown to be an industry worth many billions of dollars across the world. Almost all public space has some advertisements in sight and all forms of media, from newspapers to the internet, are also filled with adverts. Whilst this helps companies sell their produces, and helps consumers to learn what is on offer, many believe that this huge amount of advertising can be harmful. It may make people want too much, or things that they cannot have, or it might make them feel inadequate when they don't have something. Research shows that children can be particularly open to these kinds of risk.

Advertisers don't have the good of society in mind when they do their work - they only care about making profit. This means that they regularly advertise unhealthy or harmful things. Fast food adverts are a large part of the reason so many children are obese. The adverts just try to make children eat as much food as possible without any concern for the health costs.

Many adverts do more than just advertising products. Some try to make people feel inferior if they don't have the product, or if they have something which the product would change. Perceptions of beauty and fashion in particular have been terribly distorted. Many young people have low-self esteem, and lead unhealthy lifestyles because they feel they should be thinner and more attractive like the models they see in adverts. This leads to serious problems like eating-disorders and self-harm.

Our society is build around the idea that companies produce things that people want, and this is what makes us prosperous. If consumers suddenly stopped wanting to buy so many products then what happens to the people whose job it is to make them? The economy will suffer terribly. Of course some people take materialism too far, but most people buy just what they need and then a little extra when they treat themselves. This is a much better situation than one in which people can only afford to buy the things they need - that would be a step backwards.

Adverts which promote seriously unhealthy things are becoming very rare. Cigarette advertising is all but extinct, and alcohol adverts are being more restricted. With adverts such as fast food we see as well that companies are changing their message to promote healthier options. This is because it is bad for businesses to be viewed as harming children. Public pressure and successful regulation will always bring any advertising problems back under control.

The First Ad;

Product : Snacks.

Brand Name : La Cocinera.

Appeal :

Claims :

Person : None.

Placement : About the centre of the ad.

Point of View :

Posture :

Persuasive Language :

Target Audience : Target audience are for young people

The Second Ad;

Product : Perfume.

Brand Name : Hugo Boss.

Appeal : Sex Appeal.

Claims : Unfinished Claims.

Person : Jonathan Rhys Meyers.

Placement : At the bottom of the ad.

Point of View :

Posture :

Persuasive Language :

Target Audience : the young rich man around the world