| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Plant Physiology 147:487-493 (2008) © 2008 American Society of Plant Biologists Forbidden Fruit: Transgenic Papaya in Thailand1Department of Plant Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853
Dressed in white, hooded "personal protection suits," Greenpeace activists donned goggles, gloves, and respiratory masks—the kind of dress you expect to see in the clean zone of a nanotechnology laboratory, not in a field in bucolic northeast Thailand. Easily bridging a barbed wire fence with a stepladder, they began pulling transgenic papaya (Carica papaya) from the trees, throwing the fruit into biohazard waste bins. The protestors stood for photographs—the press had been alerted—before a large yellow banner printed both in Thai and English that read: "Stop GMO Field Trials." It was July 27, 2004—doomsday for agricultural biotechnology in Thailand. The protest at the Thai Department of Agriculture's (DOA) confined field trial set into motion a countrywide moratorium on all field testing of transgenic crops. Since the 1980s, the country had been a regional leader in developing a competitive biotechnology sector. What went wrong? This is not an exceptional case. Since 1998, virus-resistant papaya had been grown widely in Hawaii, but had failed to be commercialized in many other places. This is despite the fact that genetically engineered or genetically modified (GE or GM) virus-resistant papaya is close to an ideal "pro-poor" GE crop. The aim of this essay is to contrast the rapid and widespread adoption of transgenic papaya in Hawaii, where it saved an industry, with that of Thailand, where it has yet to be approved for commercialization—even though in some regions virus infection rates are as high as 100% and yields are dramatically reduced. Understanding the political and social factors that stymied this promising technology in Thailand may help in devising better strategies for introducing the next generation of biotechnology crops to other countries.
"What struck me in the beginning was that here was a way that was never before possible to combat a disease."—Carol Gonsalves, researcher.
The Papaya ringspot virus (PRSV) is transmitted by aphids and is the single-most threatening factor to papaya production worldwide (Gonsalves, 1998
PRSV was identified on the Hawaiian island of Oahu in the 1940s and became a significant threat to the industry in the 1950s. The industry was moved to the then virus-free island of Hawaii where it thrived in the climatically hospitable Puna region, producing 95% of Hawaiian papaya in the 1970's (D. Gonsalves et al., 2004
Key developments in the 1980s put virologist Dennis Gonsalves in a timely position to apply relatively new biotechnology tools to solve the PRSV problem. By that time, pathogen-derived resistance (PDR) had emerged as a promising strategy for controlling plant viruses, and viral coat proteins (CPs) had proven to be effective elicitors of PDR (Abel et al., 1986
"For me I know the virus almost shut me down. I am not going to go back and plant non-transgenic papaya anymore. It's too much of a gamble."—Willie Julien, Hawaiian grower.
The field trial of the trangenic line began in 1992 on the infested island of Oahu, and by the end of that year the researchers reported that all nontransgenic papaya trees were infected, whereas the transgenics resisted the virus (D. Gonsalves et al., 2004
Fortunately, that year also marked the start of a large-scale in situ field trial of Rainbow (D. Gonsalves et al., 2004
Once seeds were available to growers, adoption was remarkably rapid compared to other GE crops; within the first year, 98% of Puna growers had registered with the PAC to receive the seed, and 73% were growing it (C. Gonsalves et al., 2004
Adoption was rapid for several reasons: positive communication campaigns, farmer engagement during the research and development and field trials, distribution of approximately 1,134 kg of free seeds to registered growers, and the fact that the technology addressed an immediate problem affecting farmers' livelihoods (C. Gonsalves et al., 2004
"Here people cannot afford vanity."—Dr. M. Abdul Momin, principal scientific officer, On-Farm Research Division, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Pabna.
Papaya is predominantly produced and consumed in the developing world. It is high in vitamin C and rich in pro-vitamin A carotenoids, both of which indirectly facilitate iron uptake. Thus, it helps alleviate two of the "big three" micronutrient deficiencies that plague undernourished people globally (iron, vitamin A, and iodine). A 100-g serving of ripe papaya (about one-quarter of a small Hawaiian papaya), provides 133% of the recommended daily intake of vitamin C for an adult and 33% of the recommended daily intake for vitamin A (Duxbury, 2003
Papaya is consumed in the developing world as a fresh fruit, as a raw green vegetable in salads, and as a cooked vegetable. Although produced on a commercial scale in many developing countries, papaya is also a popular crop in the backyard kitchen gardens of subsistence farmers because it is easily grown from seed, produces fruit within the first year after planting, and requires few inputs. Although a minor crop by global commodity standards, papaya holds considerable promise for diversifying the diet of the rural poor in tropical countries. Unfortunately, in most countries, papaya suffers from PRSV, limiting its productivity commercially, as well as in the backyard (Gonsalves et al., 2007
The developers of the first transgenic papaya envisaged the GE variety as a promising pro-poor product of biotechnology and were eager to collaborate with researchers from around the developing world. Suitable GE, virus-resistant varieties have now been developed for Brazil, Jamaica, Venezuela, Thailand, China, and The Philippines, among other countries. Yet, in no place outside Hawaii have growers or consumers reaped the benefits of these plants. In a recent article, Gonsalves and her colleagues (2007)
"Papaya is being devastated and we have a solution right here. It all comes down to political will. If you want to have impact, you have to be political. That is the essence of modern life."—Dennis Gonsalves. If papaya is such a promising transgenic crop, why is it not being grown across the tropics? Although the reasons vary to some degree from country to country, prominent themes emerge globally. There is a lack of farmer engagement in the debate, and to the extent that networking with farmers does occur, it is often dominated by anti-GE nongovernmental organization (NGO) networks and less by government or university extension agents. Many developing countries still lack biosafety laws and too often countries lack sufficient infrastructure and training to carry out the regulatory testing needed prior to commercialization. Fear of biopiracy by foreign entities is directly tied to concerns over intellectual property because most of the intellectual property has been developed and previously implemented in wealthier nations. Finally, many countries' markets are dependent on the political and consumer demands of importing countries. Some understanding of how these hurdles have obstructed the adoption of GE papaya in developing countries can be gained by examining the case in Thailand, which in many regards has become the hotbed for the controversy around GE PRSV-resistant papaya. There it has become the poster child, both literally and figuratively, for the debate over agricultural biotechnology in general.
"The controversy in Thailand [over papaya] between the government and a small group of activists is making things slow down in our country and is only getting worse."—Vilai Prasartsee, director, Khon Kaen Plant Material and Technical Service Center, Thai DOA.
Thailand is a major food exporter and a regional leader in intellectual manpower and technical resources. The country embraced genetic engineering early on and, relative to other developing countries, a lack of infrastructure has not been the primary obstacle to biotechnology crop adoption. The Plant Genetic and Engineering Unit, located on the Kampaengsaen campus of Kasetsart University, first applied advanced techniques in biotechnology in 1985 (Sriwatanapongse et al., 2007
Papaya is grown in all regions of Thailand at the commercial level, and by small-scale farmers who typically plant papaya trees in backyard gardens or peripheral to paddy fields. Thailand produces less than 2% of the world's papaya crop, and ranks as the world's 12th largest producer (Sriwatanapongse et al., 2007
As in most countries, the greatest limitation to papaya production in Thailand is PRSV, first observed there in 1975 (Sriwatanapongse et al., 2007
In 1997, further breeding efforts continued in greenhouses, and confined field trials were conducted from 1999 until 2004, when they were banned. Third-generation lines from both varieties were 97% to 100% resistant to the virus. In addition, the Thai group began assessing the safety of GE papaya. Between 2001 and 2004, six sets of experiments were conducted that showed no ecological effects of GE papaya on adjacent non-GE trees, microbial flora, beneficial insects, or the surrounding soil. No differences in nutritional quality were found, no allergenic proteins or toxic attributes were observed, and rats fed GE papaya did not show any abnormalities (Sakuanrungsirikul et al., 2005
The July, 2004 Greenpeace protest undermined the previous decade of research. There, Greenpeace charged that GE papaya had been distributed beyond the confines of the field trial under the negligence of the DOA, and presented evidence of the antibiotic resistance gene nptII and the 35S cauliflower mosaic virus promoter in papaya being grown illegally by farmers in 37 provinces (Wongruang, 2004
During the period from 2005 to 2006, the battle between Greenpeace and the DOA took place primarily in Thai courtrooms. Despite the ongoing hearings, the National Policy on Biotechnology Committee, chaired by then Prime Minster Thaksin Shinawatra, submitted a draft of the National Policy on Biotechnology in 2005, though the policy specific to the application of genetic engineering is still pending (Sriwatanapongse et al., 2007
On September 19, 2006, the Thaksin government was ousted overnight in a quick coup d'état, which severely delayed any progress toward passing legislation on biotechnology. However, the interim postcoup government put a biotechnology advocate, plant virologist Dr. Thira Sutabutra, in the post of Minister of Agriculture. The Ministry's attempts to move toward lifting the moratorium were thwarted by demonstrators throughout 2007. Thira was scheduled to submit a proposal to the Thai cabinet to lift the ban on August 28, 2007. However, before he reached the cabinet meeting, Greenpeace dumped roughly 10 metric tons of papaya in front of the Ministry of Agriculture building. The activity was effective in delaying the meeting item, but the chaos that ensued outside the ministry was a fascinating test of consumer acceptance of GE papaya. Despite protesters dressed as "GMO zombie" fruits and alien eyeballs, passers-by reportedly pilfered as much of the papaya as they could (Bangkok Post, 2007a
Farmers "Yes, I have grown GE papaya. I received it from my brother. People told him if he ate it, he would be infertile. However, I ate the fruits from this papaya and they are delicious."—an Isaan farmer.
The DOA was not the only victim of Greenpeace's 2004 activity. Farmers who purchased non-GE seed from the station were those whose livelihoods were most immediately affected (Wongruang, 2004
Mrs. Somkuan Sriwongchotisakul is a 55-year-old widow with a 4.8-ha orchard on her mixed farm outside a small village in the heart of Isaan. Sriwongchotisakul took out an 80,000 Thai baht loan (currently valued at $2,555 in U.S. dollars) for labor and materials needed for papaya cultivation (S. Sriwongchotisakul, personal communication). In 2003, Sriwongchotisakul, leading a cooperative of 50 village members, purchased 5,000 supposedly non-GE papaya seedlings from the station and was registered as a seed recipient (Samabuddhi, 2004b Following this finding, the village chief announced to Sriwongchotisakul's neighbors that her papaya was illegal and harmful to human health "There were posters that said that this papaya was Dracula and if anyone eats it they will die," Sriwongchotisakul recalled. Local officials ordered the destruction of her trees. Sriwongchotisakul has since abandoned her plan to earn a living growing papaya and selling som tam locally; however, her unpaid bank loan looms large. The animosity between her and many of the villagers remains and she has largely removed herself from village social life (S. Sriwongchotisakul, personal communication).
Despite the impact that GE papaya had on farmers like Sriwongchotisakul, who were targeted during the 2004 event, most small-scale farmers in her position have little to no knowledge of GE crops. Responses from a study undertaken by the Foreign Agricultural Service of the USDA (USDA, 2005
"Technology that isn't Thai isn't good for Thailand."—Natwipha Ewasakul, GE campaigner, Greenpeace Southeast Asia. The activities of the multinational arms of Greenpeace International (GPI) have weighed heavily on the controversy around GE papaya in Thailand. It is arguable that without the influence, both financial and ideological, of the European-based group, the cabinet's ban on GE crops may never have come to pass. Thus, in considering the case of GE papaya in Thailand, it is important to understand the role that this particular organization has played in rendering the papaya a forbidden fruit. The regional Greenpeace offices worldwide operate like franchises of the larger GPI organization in the Netherlands. Regional offices subscribe to a locally relevant subset of campaigns put forth by GPI, and to varying degrees are financially dependent on GPI. According to Jiragorn Gajaseni, who served as executive director of Greenpeace Southeast Asia (GPSEA) from 2000 to 2004, Bangkok-based GPSEA receives roughly 90% of its annual operating costs from GPI. According to Gajaseni, Bangkok was chosen as the home of the southeast Asia office because it offered financial and political support (J. Gajaseni, personal communication). Approximately 200,000 people in urban Bangkok donate an average of 100 baht ($3.20 in U.S. dollars) per month (J. Gajaseni, personal communication). Also, at that time Thailand was open politically and had a relatively free press. "But in countries like Vietnam," Gajaseni explained, "you could not do the Greenpeace kinds of campaigns, Greenpeace style." The strategic development of GPSEA's campaigns in Thailand has followed a growth-by-success pattern. Early on, Gajaseni canceled a campaign on forest protection and focused on the anti-GE campaign because their campaigners were successful in attracting media attention, boosting the image of the Greenpeace brand (J. Gajaseni, personal communication). Gajaseni calls the campaign against GE papaya one of the "highlights of Greenpeace Southeast Asia." Gajaseni readily admits that Greenpeace's style of campaign can be "too radical for Thai people." But according to him, campaigning in a more culturally sensitive way was not effective. They focus on networking and an "aggressive" strategy (J. Gajaseni, personal communication). "We have to hit the right spot," Gajaseni explained. Determining how and where to hit is decided during annual assessments of each campaign. "In the [2004] Khon Kaen example, it was very clear... It was the biggest [field trial]," Gajaseni said. He continued, "If you hit the Tha Pra research station and hit GMO papaya where [papaya] is the basic food for Isaan people, you can be more effective." Gajaseni explained, "After our campaign in Isaan there were a lot of local organizations that raised hell about the GE papaya as well as to the government." He concluded, "We are catalysts." Although fighting the zero-tolerance policies of Greenpeace may seem a daunting endeavor for scientists, not all anti-GE advocacy groups are as hardheaded. BioThai is a homegrown Bangkok-based watchdog group founded in 1995 to preserve Thailand's rich biodiversity. Although in principle the group is opposed to genetic engineering, their outlook is not as narrow as Greenpeace's zero-tolerance policy. BioThai Director Wintoon Lianchamroon explains, "In reality, we are still working within this country and we have friends in the academy who have invested many years of research on GE crops so we have to work with them so they can do their work...so we ask them to keep it in the laboratory or greenhouse... This is different from Greenpeace." The group separates itself from Greenpeace on cultural grounds as well. "Greenpeace is an international NGO... There may be some cases when they don't know the cultural situation or the political or economic situation in this country or the culture of the local people. We have to think a lot about these factors before we launch our own lobby work," Lianchamroon said. Although BioThai often collaborates with Greenpeace as well as other NGOs in Thailand, its modus operandi is distinct. "There are some cases, which we cannot do. The case of when they destroyed the papaya, this we cannot do, mostly due to our [Thai] culture," Lianchamroon explained (W. Lianchamroon, personal communication).
"GM Food Not Safe, Warns US Campaigner."—December 3, 2007 headline, Bangkok Post. The Thai press is currently categorized by Freedom House as "partly free" and thus coverage of controversial issues such as genetic engineering is not due to lack of press freedom. GPSEA's increasing momentum is reflected in the media's coverage of GE papaya and the government's wavering position on biotechnology crops.
The Thai media coverage of GE papaya was low from 2001 to 2002, but subsequently underwent a "hoopla effect" in 2004 (Xiang, 2007
In a comparative analysis of media coverage of GE crops in China (GE rice [Oryza sativa]), Thailand (GE papaya), and the U.S. (GE rice and papaya), Xiang (2007)
"The secrecy surrounding US patents on Thai GE papaya—including the new patents now in process—adds to the unknown risks that this genetic experiment poses to Thai farmers, consumers and the environment."—Greenpeace SEAsia Web site.
Issues relating to intellectual property have further fueled the debate. In the Thai media, the Cornell Research Foundation (CRF), which handles intellectual property issues at Cornell University, has come under scrutiny, spurred largely by accusations from activist groups that Cornell is stealing Thai property: the CP gene sequence from the Thai PRSV isolate (Greenpeace Southeast Asia, 2004 Because the molecular work was conducted in laboratories at Cornell, that university assumed the sequence as its own intellectual property. CP sequences from isolates brought by researchers from other countries, such as Jamaica, Venezuela, and Brazil, were also covered by the patent that CRF filed (R. Cahoon, personal communication).
Dennis Gonsalves and Richard Cahoon, director of CRF, foresaw the problem that the PAC and other collaborating countries would not necessarily have the resources or political leverage to obtain technology licenses on their own (Cahoon, 2003
All stakeholders involved, be they from industry, academia, or anti-GE activist groups, agree that in Thailand the battle over GE papaya is the one to win. They all see bioengineered papaya as a "gateway crop"—a forerunner for other GE crops. Greenpeace views all GE crops as a threat to the safety of the world's food supply. On the other hand, members of the foreign seed sector, though not directly involved in developing the DOA's transgenic papaya, are promoting the promise of the farmer-friendly papaya, hoping it may open the doors for their own products. Former GPSEA Director Jiragorn Gajaseni explains his position, "Papaya is nothing. But the reason why the biotech [sector] is pushing for the papaya is because they want papaya as a front leader to open the gates for another big crop in this part of the world. This is rice". Gajaseni admits (J. Gajaseni, personal communication) that the researchers in Tha Pra are "simply a small part of that." He adds, "That Tha Pra got targeted is just bad luck [for them]." So if even a pro-poor, best-case scenario crop cannot make it through the barricades of anti-GE activists, where is the hope for the next generation of biotechnology crops?
"I still feel this void since we still haven't fully transferred the technology to developing countries and I fear time is running out on me. That's my main unsolved challenge."—Dennis Gonsalves. I would argue that hope for the next generation of biotechnology crops can be found in lessons from the previous one. What transpired in Thailand provides take-home messages that could provide scientists with insights on how to transfer the benefits of their research from the laboratory to the farmers and consumers who need it most. Cultural awareness is essential. Assessing farmer needs provides insight into whether the technology in question is solving a problem that farmers confront, and whether they are likely to adopt the technology. By employing the same grassroots networking strategies that opponents to genetic engineering have used so effectively, relationships with local growers can be established, aiding cross-cultural understanding. This was a major difference between the Hawaii and Thai situations. Engaging growers, as was done in Hawaii, develops channels for effective education campaigns. Farmers are some of the most eager adopters of new technology if they see it as a means of rising beyond their current standard of living—but they need to hear about it. Technology generated domestically is much more readily embraced by developing countries than those perceived as foreign, as demonstrated by the case in the Philippines (R. Hautea, personal communication). Collaborating with regional researchers and promoting technology development in-country also fosters the future capacity of the country in question.
Economic factors weigh heavily. It is estimated that if GE papaya were adopted in Thailand and production returned to historical peak levels, yields would increase by 471% and the annual economic benefit for Thailand would be roughly $880 million in U.S. dollars (Sriwatanapongse et al., 2007 Political policies are just as crucial. The absence of biosafety laws can make it easier for anti-GE groups to claim that crops will be introduced injudiciously. If the country lacks the infrastructure and technical know-how to conduct regulatory testing, it is important to ask who will steward the technology through those necessary steps. Finally, it is time to meet the press. Although scientists are not generally trained in media communication, who is better qualified to discuss the risks and benefits of GE crops? If scientists do not undertake this task, where will the public get its information? If the next generation of biotechnology crops is to make an impact on those who arguably have the most to gain and have yet to reap the benefits of the first generation—those of the developing world—then it is time for plant biotechnologists to move beyond the bench, kick around in some barren soils, man a water buffalo for a day, meet the people whose lives will be impacted, and display the same amount of passion for having their technology used in the field as they have for developing it in the laboratory. It is time to get organized, get political, get heard, and get out of the lab. Otherwise, the fruits of this fascinating research may remain forbidden.
Many people have contributed to the author's understanding of GE papaya in Thailand, especially Dennis Gonsalves, Vilai Prasartsee, George Fuller, Jiragorn Gajaseni, and Somkuan Sriwongchotisakul. Special thanks to Robert Turgeon for his mentoring, for the ongoing discussions that contributed to this manuscript as well as others, and for being an insightful reader and editor. Thanks to Jocelyn Rose and Tony Shelton for carefully reading this manuscript and contributing many helpful suggestions. The author is grateful for the Plant Biology Department's support of this interdisciplinary endeavor. Received February 1, 2008; accepted February 26, 2008; published June 6, 2008.
1 This work was supported by the Horticulture Department (Dreer Award), the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies, and the Office of the Vice Provost for Life Sciences, all at Cornell University.  The author responsible for distribution of materials integral to the findings presented in this article in accordance with the policy described in the Instructions for Authors (www.plantphysiol.org) is: Sarah Nell Davidson (snd2{at}cornell.edu). www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/doi/10.1104/pp.108.116913
Abel PP, Nelson RS, De B, Hoffmann N, Rogers SG, Fraley RT, Beachy RN (1986) Delay of disease development in transgenic plants that express the tobacco mosaic virus coat protein gene. Science 232: 738–743 Bangkok Post (2007a) GM protest goes awry as passers-by grab fruit, run. Bangkok Post, Bangkok, Thailand (August 29, 2007) Bangkok Post (2007b) Cabinet refuses to lift ban on open-field crop trials. Bangkok Post, Bangkok, Thailand (December 26, 2007) Cahoon R (2003) A case study in university technology: PRSV-resistant papaya licensing. In Virus Resistant Transgenic Papaya in Hawaii: A Case Study for Technology Transfer to Lesser Developed Countries: Proceedings of an OECD/USAID/ARS Conference, October 22–24, 2003, Hilo, Hawaii. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/U.S. Agency for International Development/Agricultural Research Service, Washington, DC, pp 139–142 Duxbury JM (2003) Food systems approaches to nutrition and health: the role of transgenic papaya. In Virus Resistant Transgenic Papaya in Hawaii: A Case Study for Technology Transfer to Lesser Developed Countries: Proceedings of an OECD/USAID/ARS Conference, October 22–24, 2003, Hilo, Hawaii. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/U.S. Agency for International Development/Agricultural Research Service, Washington, DC, pp 133–138 Gonsalves C, Lee DR, Gonsalves D (2004) Transgenic virus-resistant papaya: the Hawaiian ‘Rainbow’ was rapidly adopted by farmers and is of major importance in Hawaii today. APSnet Features. http://www.apsnet.org/online/feature Gonsalves C, Lee DR, Gonsalves D (2007) The adoption of genetically modified papaya in Hawaii and its implications for developing countries. J Dev Stud 43: 177–191[CrossRef][Web of Science] Gonsalves D (1998) Control of papaya ringspot virus in papaya: a case study. Annu Rev Phytopathol 36: 415–437[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] Gonsalves D (2004) Transgenic papaya in Hawaii and beyond. AgBioForum 7: 36–40 Gonsalves D, Gonsalves C, Ferreira S, Pitz M, Manshardt R, Slightom J (2004) Transgenic virus resistant papaya: from hope to reality for controlling papaya ringspot virus in Hawaii. APSnet Features. http://www.apsnet.org/online/feature Greenpeace Southeast Asia (2004) Unfinished Business: New US Patents on GE Papaya in Thailand. Greenpeace Southeast Asia, Bangkok, Thailand Sakuanrungsirikul S, Sarindu N, Prasartsee V, Chaikiatiyos S, Siriyan R, Sriwatanakul M, Lekananon P, Kitprasert C, Boonsong P, Kosiyachinda P, et al (2005) Update on the development of virus-resistant papaya: virus-resistant transgenic papaya for people in rural communities of Thailand. Food Nutr Bull 26: 422–426[Medline] Samabuddhi K (2004a) Somsak says GM papaya has spread. Bangkok Post, Bangkok, Thailand (September 15, 2004) Samabuddhi K (2004b) The great GM debate—villagers are looking twice at their som tam after a farmer was found growing GM papaya. They want the trees destroyed. Bangkok Post, Bangkok, Thailand (September 20, 2004) Sanford JC, Klein TM, Wolf ED, Allen N (1987) Delivery of substances into cells and tissues using a particle bombardment process. J Pharm Sci Technol 5: 27–37[Medline] Sriwatanapongse S, Iamsupasit N, Attathom S, Napasintuwong O, Traxler G (2007) The Study of Agricultural Benefits in Thailand. Biotechnology Alliance Association, Bangkok, Thailand Thitiprasert W (2003) Status of policy and regulation of transgenic plants in Thailand. In Virus Resistant Transgenic Papaya in Hawaii: A Case Study for Technology Transfer to Lesser Developed Countries: Proceedings of an OECD/USAID/ARS Conference, October 22–24, 2003, Hilo, Hawaii. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/U.S. Agency for International Development/Agricultural Research Service, Washington, DC, pp 161–170 USDA (2005) A Study of the Economic Benefits of Biotechnology in Thailand. Foreign Agriculture Service, Bangkok, Thailand Wongruang P (2004) Agriculture ministry confirms contamination. Bangkok Post, Bangkok, Thailand (September 21, 2004) Xiang Z (2007) Newspaper coverage of genetic modification events in China, Thailand and the United States: a cross-cultural analysis. MS thesis. Iowa State University, Ames, IA
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ASPB Publications | PLANT PHYSIOLOGY® | THE PLANT CELL | |
|---|---|---|---|
TOP
AN UNRULY VIRUS
SUCCESS IN HAWAII