Greenpeace Is More Dishonest And Dangerous Than The Mafia

I grew up in a Philadelphia neighborhood heavily influenced by the Mafia. My best friend sold football pools for the mob family of “The Gentle Don,” Angelo Bruno, and my walk to high school took me past his house, where there were often federal agents parked outside, noting who came and went. (The Don went to his final reward not so gently, after a shotgun blast to the head outside that house in 1980.)

The humanizing effects of “The Godfather” and “The Sopranos” sagas notwithstanding, I have no illusions about the mob. They were cruel, perverted and anti-social. As an adult, I have encountered an organization that is even more misanthropic: Greenpeace. Finally, it’s being called out in the courts–appropriately, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law.

Greenpeace is the defendant in a RICO civil case brought by a Canadian lumber company, Resolute Forest Products. In its filing, Resolute documents that Greenpeace “has published staged photos and video falsely purporting to show Resolute logging in prohibited areas and others purporting to show forest areas impacted by Resolute harvesting when the areas depicted were actually impacted by fire or other natural causes.”

That’s par for the course for Greenpeace, which Hank Campbell of the American Council on Science and Health described as being “made up of Internet hackers and eco-terrorists using fear-mongering to get uneducated people to do their dirty work for them.”

From its early days of dodging harpoons and Japanese whalers in outboard motor boats, Greenpeace has parlayed media savvy, flagrant dishonesty and an ­aptitude for political theater into a $360 million-plus per year empire with offices in more than 40 countries.

But what few members of the public know is that Greenpeace isn’t just about saving whales and opposing logging and oil and gas exploration. For more than a decade, its PR machine has spearheaded an effort to deny millions of children in the poorest nations the essential nutrients they need to stave off blindness and death.

Greenpeace’s targets are new plant varieties collectively called Golden Rice. Rice is a food staple for hundreds of millions, especially in Asia. Although it is an excellent source of calories, it lacks certain micronutrients necessary for a complete diet. In the 1980s and 1990s, German scientists Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer developed the “Golden Rice” varieties that are biofortified, or enriched, by genes that produce beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A.

Vitamin A deficiency is epidemic among poor people whose diet is composed largely of rice, a carbohydrate-rich but vitamin-poor source of calories which contains no beta-carotene or vitamin A. In developing countries, 200 million-300 million children of preschool age are at risk of vitamin A deficiency, which increases their susceptibility to illnesses including measles and diarrheal diseases. Every year, about half a million children become blind as a result of vitamin A deficiency and 70% of those die within a year.

Golden Rice could thus make contributions to human health on a par with Jonas Salk’s polio ­vaccine. Instead, anti-technology groups such as Greenpeace have given already risk-averse regulators the political cover to delay approvals.

In a letter unveiled at a press conference on June 30, more than 100 Nobel Laureates from diverse disciplines voiced their support for genetic engineering in agriculture and called on NGOs, the United Nations and governments around the world to join them. The Laureates–in fields including Medicine, Economics, Physics, Chemistry, Literature and Peace–all signed an open letter asking Greenpeace and others who have been blocking progress and access to beneficial plant biotechnology products, like Golden Rice, to abandon their campaigns against genetic engineering in agriculture.

Genetically modified food has been a bête noire of left-wing, anti-technology activists for years, perhaps because it combines the “evils” of being somehow “unnatural” and often coming from corporate research labs. Greenpeace hasn’t been swayed by the scientific consensus about the safety of genetically engineered crops—a consensus that is the result of hundreds of risk-assessment experiments and vast real-world experience. In the United States alone, more than 90% of all corn, soybeans and sugar beets grown is genetically engineered, and in 20 years of consumption around the world not a single health or environmental problem has been documented.

Greenpeace has variously alleged that the levels of beta-carotene in Golden Rice are too low to be effective or so high that they would be toxic. But feeding trials have shown the rice to be highly effective in preventing vitamin A deficiency, and toxicity is virtually impossible. (There’s an internal feedback loop in humans that stops beta-carotene from being converted to vitamin A if levels become too high.)

So with no science to support its antagonism, the organization has been forced to adopt a new strategy: try to scare off the developing nations that are considering adoption of the lifesaving products. Greenpeace has gone so far as to concoct tales of genetically-engineered crops causing homosexuality, impotence and baldness, and of increasing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

 In 2012, Greenpeace issued a press release stating that 24 Chinese children had been “used as guinea pigs in [a] genetically engineered ‘Golden Rice’ trial.” The reference was to the results of a 2008 study conducted by researchers at Tufts University and in China and funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National Institutes of Health.

The safety of Golden Rice was never in question. That had previously been established. The 2008 study demonstrated that the new varieties of Golden Rice did indeed deliver sufficient vitamin A and were superior to spinach for that purpose. As to the ethics of the study, the journal article states clearly: “Both parents and pupils [subjects] consented to participate in the study.”

The Greenpeace press release nonetheless produced a furor in China. Chinese news agencies inaccurately reported that the researchers had conducted dangerous, unauthorized experiments on poor children, and within days Chinese police had interrogated the researchers and coerced statements disavowing the research.

The manufactured “scandal” turned into a debacle. The journal that had published the article retracted it–on “ethical,“ not scientific grounds–and the principal investigator, a professor at Tufts University, was sanctioned.  In the end, Greenpeace succeeded in significantly delaying, if not actually eliminating, further development of Golden Rice in China.

Greenpeace has since taken its scare-mongering about Golden Rice on the road to other nations, especially the Philippines.

It is unclear why Greenpeace—which has also raised money and its profile by bragging about sabotaging efforts to test insect-resistant crops that need less chemical pesticide—persists in some of its mendacious, anti-social campaigns. What is clear is that none is likely to be more harmful to the world’s children than its assault on Golden Rice.

The real threat to life and limb is not genetic engineering. It’s the organized-crime organization called Greenpeace.

New circular binds five agencies for renewed GMO testing push

DAVAO CITY—Five government agencies will pool their expertise together to address the technical pitfalls that led to the recall of all field testing of genetically modified eggplant in the country, which stalled its commercial production.

A joint department circular this year bundled the expertise of the departments of Health (DOH), Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and Interior and Local Government (DILG) to provide additional support to the effort of the departments of Agriculture and Science and Technology to push through with the tests.

The latter two agencies have mounted field tests on GMO (genetically modified organism) eggplant and rice, and as early as 2012, their tests on Bacillus thuringiensis eggplant, as the genetically modified variety is called, were met with stiff legal opposition from environmentalists, who filed a case with the Supreme Court to stop the field tests. By 2014 the Court ordered a freeze on all tests.

The circular this year was an attempt to address the legal and technical loopholes that guided the implementation of the field tests. After a series of consultations with the five agencies, along with farmers, academicians and crop and science experts, the circular binding the five agencies was formalized in March, and officially recognized as an interagency arrangement to handle permits and licensing to proceed anew with the development of the GMO testing in the country.

The circular mandated the interagency arrangement to set up the rules and regulations for research and development, handling and use, transboundary movement, release into the environment, and management of genetically modified plant and plant products, derived from use of the modern technology.

Dr. Vivencio Mamaril, director of the Department of Agriculture Biotechnology Program Office, said the DOH would address issues on human health on the testing and commercial production of genetically modified food organisms, while the DENR would ensure the well-being of the physical environment around the testing sites.

The DILG would ensure local government support to the program and protection to biotechnology activities being undertaken, including field testing.

He was unsure, though, if the circular would rule on allowing proponents of the field tests to proceed with commercial production, even though only a few areas have generated initial results of the field tests.

“But this circular has mandated these agencies to ensure proper compliance of the requirements in conducting the field tests or commercial production.”

“They would take charge of the permitting and licenses related to the scientific testing in the farms,” Mamaril said.

Mamaril spoke during the seminar on “Enhancing Agricultural Production Through BioTechnology” at the Apo View Hotel on Tuesday, where he answered a query from participants about the centralized one-stop shop permitting process to be handled by the DA.

“All the required permitting from the five agencies would be coursed through the DA,” he said.

Mamaril clarified, though, that the circular would not likely satisfy the opposition put up by environmentalists, “but the five agencies would be expected to be involved now in explaining to the public the issues raised on various issues about GMO.”

He said the interagency arrangement would not be temporary nor would it be dissolved after all field tests were already sufficiently established to warrant commercial production. “It’s just a circular bringing in these agencies that could provide their expertise and mandates to the development of the biotechnology and production of GMOs.”

–Written by Manuel Cayon, BusinessMirror.  See article link here.



In recent years, pressing questions have been raised with regard to the use of new forms of biotechnology in the areas of agriculture, animal farming, medicine and environmental protection.

The new possibilities offered by current biological and biogenetic techniques are a source of hope and enthusiasm on one hand and of alarm and hostility on the other.

Scientific studies, researches and experiments about life have been long on-going in the world- especially in the countries of the “First World” or certain nations in the world that are considered wealthy and therefore can afford and do engage in advanced biotechnological ventures.

This is understandable and praiseworthy at the same time whereas life as such is the most precious reality in the world.

It has to be immediately added, however, that in addition to man, there are other living creatures that should be cared for in the plant kingdom as well as in the animal kingdom — through biotechnology. And needless to say, the environment plays a key role not only in protecting but also in enhancing life as such.

So is it that biotechnology becomes an ally in promoting life — human life, especially — without destroying the environment.

To make plants grow better and more, to have animals breed more and keep their health, to develop medicines to cure human sickness — these are considered as some key agenda of biotechnology.

So is it that to find out and do away with what contradicts the said basic agenda is necessarily included in the needed and proper biotechnological studies. And preserving the integrity of the environment is definitely included therein.

So it is that biological studies and biogenic techniques are imperative in the promotion of life on one hand and on the neutralization of whatever disfavors its safety on the other hand.

It then becomes a big ambiguity if said studies and techniques cause harm to the environment, the wholeness of which is definitely pro-life. Otherwise, such scientific ventures would be pro-death instead.

When properly undertaken, carefully applied and prudently propagated, the safe and beneficial findings of biotechnology gives humanity the fond hope of better health which is followed by longer life.

And this blessing is not only for the humanity of today but also for the men, women and children of tomorrow.

Known, proven and propagated as such, biological findings and biogenetic conclusions bring hope and security to man now and in the times yet to come.

Otherwise, when applied biotechnology could in effect harm the environment which is equal to hurting man, instead of bringing hope, it then becomes a cause for alarm.

This perception is not merely imagination but a reality in today’s world.

And this in effect spells “Danger” to the world, to humanity as a whole.

In this case, it is certainly not enough for those responsible for such a disastrous consequence to but say “Sorry!”

The guardians of pro-environment law should then do their job.

(Reprinted with permission of Archbishop Emeritus Oscar V. Cruz. From

–Written by Archbishop Oscar V.Cruz, The Daily Tribune.  See article link here.

Thailand makes biotech in country priority to help provide food and medicine for citizens

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

Chairman Dhanin Chearavanont said biotechnology will become a significant industry for mankind in the near future because people will live longer and need good food to support their better health.

The government is going in the right direction by including biotechnology in the 10 target industries to promote in clusters, he said.

The cabinet endorsed a plan in November to attract investment in the clusters after a Finance Ministry study found private investment had receded for a decade. The industries are next-generation cars; smart electronics; affluent, medical and wellness tourism; agriculture and biotechnology; food; robotics for industry; logistics and aviation; biofuels and biochemicals; digital; and medical services.

According to the Chairman, biotechnology would be used to develop and increase productivity of vegetables, fruits, chicken, pigs, fish and shrimp as well as health food that can help people to have longer lives.

–Written by Chatrudee Theparat, Bangkok Post via Genetic Literacy Project.  See article link here.

Use biotech to beef up climate fight

Poor nations shouldn’t miss out on advances such as lab-cultured meat and low-methane GM rice, says Jayson Merkley.

Industrialised nations contain 20 per cent of the global population, yet historically are responsible for roughly 75 per cent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This amounts to a moral debt to developing nations — a debt richer countries can start to pay off by embracing biotech solutions and eating fewer animal products.

The evidence of disproportionate harm from climate change affecting people in the developing world ought to weigh quite heavily on the collective consciences of nations who bear the primary responsibility — including individuals.

Conscience comes into play for many Western consumers when it comes to activities such as recycling waste or installing solar panels. But conversations surrounding climate often focus on energy production. Many fail to recognise that agriculture, too, is a major driver of climate change.

A third of all GHG emissions come directly from agriculture: carbon dioxide sinks disappear when forests are cleared for crops and pasture; nitrous oxide levels increase with fertiliser use; and rice cultivation and cattle rearing release methane.

This means that clean energy goals just don’t address the whole problem. Global GHG emissions from livestock (7.1 billion tonnes each year) can exceed all those from transport (seven billion tonnes in 2010). [1,2]

And this will become increasingly relevant as meat consumption continues to rise in the developing world. Food and Agriculture Organization data shows it jumped from ten kilograms per person a year in the 1960s to 26 kilograms in 2000, and could hit 37 kilograms by 2030.

Producing animal products, particularly beef, is also enormously energy inefficient: it takes anywhere from five to 20 kilograms of feed to produce a single kilogram of beef. [3]

So increased meat consumption directly undermines food security while also deepening the global GHG footprint. A 30 per cent spike in the world’s population expected by 2050 will need to be met with a shockingly disproportionate 87 per cent increase in staple grain yields and a 60-110 per cent increase in overall agricultural yields, which are driven by growing consumption of meat and biofuels.

It would be hypocritical to ask the developing world to slow its consumption when uninhibited consumption in the Western world largely caused the problem. But in addition to the moral imperative to change individual consumption patterns, there is a need for policies that embrace and encourage access to genetic engineering.

GM carbon cuts
Despite public fear of genetic engineering causing environmental harm, it is already cutting GHG emissions. Widespread use of crops engineered for herbicide tolerance has drastically reduced the need for tillage — and less tilling means less GHG churned from the soil into the atmosphere. In 2013 alone, genetically engineered crops reduced global carbon emissions by an amount equivalent to removing 12.4 million cars from the road. [4]

However, public misapprehension and the policies it engenders prevent other genetically engineered GHG solutions from taking off. Rice is one example. This is a staple crop for billions of people in the developing world. But its cultivation contributes a staggering amount of methane, which is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Population growth creates a dilemma: either dramatically increase rice yields and accelerate GHG emissions — or sacrifice food security.

The answer could lie in a genetically engineered, low-methane variety that just finished three years of field trials. It still needs to successfully navigate the regulatory processes and fear-laden consumer markets where ‘golden rice’ — a variety developed to tackle vitamin A deficiency — continues to stall.

The goal of reducing GHG emissions has helped inspire a new biotech sector that aims for a ‘post-animal bio-economy’. US start-up Memphis Meats has developed a way to produce meat in the lab. This method requires 90 per cent fewer greenhouse emissions to produce a pound of beef compared with raising cattle — difficult to ignore.

Another pioneering group is a collective of crowdfunded ‘biohackers’ at Counter Culture Labs. They are involved in the Real Vegan Cheese project, which aims to remove cows from cheese production by genetically modifying common baker’s yeast so it produces dairy proteins.

Both projects are still years away from a marketable product — it remains unclear how quickly they can be marketed at a price that competes with conventional animal foods. But they are steps in the right direction that could be even more effective in mitigating climate change if also made available in the developing world.

Biosafety laws needed
Growing consumer demand for beef and dairy make animal agriculture enterprises in the developing world a tempting target for Western investors. Multinational food company Danone, for example, has already invested heavily in several African dairy operations. A cost-competitive, environmentally friendly alternative might shift the investor balance.

Real Vegan Cheese is being developed as an open-source technology with free access to ‘recipes’. Sustainable, locally owned cheese production, perhaps in a collective community-owned facility such as Counter Culture Labs, could become a real possibility for virtually everyone, the developing world included.

But to get there, these new technologies need support now. Evidence for their benefits is available. Implementing them will require clear regulations, as provided by the Cartagena protocol on biosafety, from the point that they are conceived until they reach market. [5]

Uganda — which failed to ratify a biosafety law this month — and other developing countries risk falling behind, unable to benefit from crops engineered to resist disease.

They may also set themselves up for future reliance on Western corporate-controlled technologies. The sooner biosafety policies are created, the sooner local scientists can develop local solutions for local food security concerns.

Genetic engineering won’t solve every problem. It is only one tool, but the climate challenge is daunting enough to justify using every tool. Along with sensible energy policies, embracing biotechnology and reducing consumption of animal products can help avoid a worst-case climate change scenario.

–Written by Jayson Merkley,  See article link here.

Jayson Merkley is a science advocate and global leadership fellow of the Cornell Alliance for Science in the United States. He is a cofounder at Vegan GMO, an NGO promoting access to biotechnology to increase quality of life for human and non-human animals. He can be contacted at

[1] Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities (FAO, 2013)
[2] Transport In: Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change — Working Group III contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014)
[3] Nutrient requirements of beef cattle (The National Academies Press, 2000)
[4] Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996-2013 (PG Economics, May 2015)
[5] Cartegana protocol on biosafety (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2000)

Crop biotechnology has immensely benefited farmers globally, says report

PG Economic, UK has released the global socio-economic and environmental impact of genetically modified (GM) crops from 1996-2014

View Source

According to the paper authored by Mr Graham Brooks and Mr Peter Barfoot, the global economic benefits of GM crops reach $150 billion. It mentions that the insect resistant (IR) technology used in cotton and corn has consistently delivered yield gains from reduced pest damage. The average yield gains over the 1996-2014 period across all users of this technology has been +13.1% for insect resistant corn and +17.3% for insect resistant cotton relative to conventional production systems.

The herbicide tolerant (HT) technology used has also contributed to increased production; improving weed control and providing higher yields in some countries and helping farmers in Argentina grow ‘second crop’ soybeans after wheat in the same growing season, says the research paper released in May 2016.

Few important highlights of the report are:

  • Crop biotechnology helps farmers earn more secure incomes due mainly to improved control of pests and weeds. The net farm level economic benefit in 2014 was $17.7 billion, equal to an average increase in income of $101/hectare. For the 19 years (1996-2014), the global farm income gain has been $150.3 billion.
  • The total farm income benefit of $150.3 billion was divided almost equally between farmers in developing (51%) and developed countries (49%).
  • By facilitating the adoption of no tillage production systems this effectively shortens the time between planting and harvest of a crop. The highest yield gains continue to be for farmers in developing countries, many of which are resource-poor and farm small plots of land.
  • Crop biotechnology continues to be a good investment for millions of farmers. The cost farmers paid for accessing crop biotechnology in 2014 ($6.9 billion34 payable to the seed supply chain) was equal to 28% of the total gains (a total of $24.6 billion). Globally, farmers received an average of $3.59 for each dollar invested in GM crop seeds.
  • Farmers in developing countries received $4.42 for each dollar invested in GM crop seeds in 2014 (the cost is equal to 23% of total technology gains), while farmers in developed countries received $3.14 for each dollar invested in GM crop seed (the cost is equal to 32% of the total technology gains).
  • The higher level of technology gains realised by farmers in developing countries relative to farmers in developed countries reflects weaker provision of intellectual property rights coupled with higher average levels of benefits in developing countries.
  • Between 1996 and 2014, crop biotechnology was responsible for additional global production of 158.4 million tonnes of soybeans and 321.8 million tonnes of corn. The technology has also contributed an extra 24.7 million tonnes of cotton lint and 9.2 million tonnes of canola.
  • GM crops are allowing farmers to grow more without using additional land. If crop biotechnology had not been available to the (18 million) farmers using the technology in 2014, maintaining global production levels at the 2014 levels would have required additional plantings of 7.5 million ha of soybeans, 8.9 million ha of corn, 3.7 million ha of cotton and 0.6 million ha of canola. This total area requirement is equivalent to 12% of the arable land in the US, or 33% of the arable land in Brazil or 14% of the cropping area in China.
  • Crop biotechnology has contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. This results from less fuel use and additional soil carbon storage from reduced tillage with GM crops. In 2014, this was equivalent to removing 22.4 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing 10 million cars from the road for one year.

Biotechnology against ‘cocolisap’ being studied

THE use of fungi as an effective biological control agent against cocolisap or coconut scale insect (CSI), is being researched by the University of the Philippines Los Baños Crop Protection Cluster and the Department of Agriculture Biotechnology Program. Cocolisap (Aspidiotus spp.) has recently been presenting a daunting challenge to the Philippine coconut industry. CSI outbreaks were reported in various areas in the Philippines, including nine municipalities in Batangas province.

This problem has caused economic losses estimated at around P200 million. The parasitic insect causes the leaves to dry up and turn brown before the tree withers and dies.

“The insect is difficult to control since their females secrete a hard waxy protective covering over their body where eggs are laid,” said Dr. Barbara Caoili, who leads the research project at the Crop Protection Cluster, UPLB.

“This ‘armor shield’ is an excellent defense mechanism against chemical insecticides, natural predators and adverse weather conditions,” she added. The research project is supported by the Biotech Program of the Department of Agriculture. It explores the use of entomopathogenic fungi (EPF) as an alternative to chemical control and potentially more effective approach to controlling cocolisap in Batangas.

EPF are important because they are able to break the armor shield with both mechanical means and their enzymes. In utilizing biotechnology tools, Caoili’s team has been able to isolate 193 samples of fungi obtained from CSI cadavers, any one of which could be the solution to the cocolisap problem.

The next step of the research team is to determine which of these samples are most virulent to the cocolisap but with no or negligible adverse effects to coconuts, humans and other organisms.

Ultimately, selected EPF formulations will be field-tested in several sites in Batangas to determine efficacy and safety.

If proven effective, these EPF formulations can be part of a standard protocol for controlling cocolisap outbreaks.

If successful, the study stands to benefit coconut farmers, researchers and policy-makers. All industries that depend on the coconut industry’s productivity will also be beneficiaries of the study’s favorable results.

–Published in BusinessMirror.  See article link here.

Malaysian Biotech Corp is now Bioeconomy Development Corp

Malaysian Biotechnology Corp (BiotechCorp) has been rebranded to Malaysian Bioeconomy Development Corp (Bioeconomy Corp). Along with the name change, the corporation transformed their corporate identity with a new logo and expanded its roles as well as functions, reflecting the organisation’s position as the leading economic development agency to spearhead the bio-based industry in Malaysia.

The aim of the rebranding initiative is to enable the reformed agency to fully take on its responsibilities of uplifting and upholding the strategies and programmes of Malaysia’s bioeconomy agenda. Since the launch of Bioeconomy Transformation Programme in 2012 by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, the formerly known BiotechCorp has aggressively focused on promoting a knowledge-based bioeconomy through the establishment of a sustainable ecosystem of R&D and commercialisation in the areas of agriculture, healthcare and industrial bio-based industries.

The Minister of Science, Technology, and Innovation (MOSTI), Datuk Seri Panglima Madius Tangau launched the corporate rebranding at BioMalaysia in Kuala Lumpur, saying, “from Phase 1 (2006 – 2010) to Phase 2 (2010 – 2015) of the National Biotechnology Policy (NBP), we have achieved over RM25 billion of approved investments, created more than 31,000 direct jobs and generated more than RM18 billion of revenues. In accelerating our efforts to achieve targets outlined in ‘Global Business’, the final phase of the NBP, and to attain a developed nation status by 2020, we need to continuously evolve and adapt to the increasingly high level and pace of the global economic landscape.”

Adding on, the minister said, “The rebranding of BiotechCorp is seen as a strategic movement to clarify and strengthen the company’s role in developing a competitive and diverse end-to-end value chain of the Bioeconomy Ecosystem. This drives a strong socio-economic impact to the country by enhancing the wealth, health and social well-being of the nation through sustainable bio-based approaches.”

Chairman of Bioeconomy Corporation, Tan Sri Zakri Abdul Hamid said, “in pursuit of globalisation, this transitional phase for Malaysian Bioeconomy Development Corporation is indeed an opportune, in the name of progress. While we strengthen the strategies that uphold Bioeconomy Malaysia, we must realign our vision to enable us to become the global pioneering bioeconomy agency.” He added that the corporate transformation provides clarification to the organisation’s roles and responsibilities in supporting the nation’s sustainable bioeconomy development as well as to avoid any overlapping responsibilities with other agencies.

Chief Executive Officer of Bioeconomy Corporation, Dato’ Dr Mohd Nazlee Kamal said, “As we move into this new era of bioeconomy, this change of corporate identity is timely, especially in relation to our expansion of scopes to cover the entire bio-based industry as to be able to effectively implement the bioeconomy agenda for Malaysia. The Bioeconomy Corporation will also act as the main commercialisation agency for Malaysia’s bio-based industry, by focusing on boosting more commercialisation and investments in bio-based innovations that will assist in bringing higher added value to the community and the region.”

Dato’ Nazlee added that citizens will clearly witness the benefits and impact of bioeconomy to the country through the renewed roles of Bioeconomy Corporation, which include improving income of Malaysia’s urban and rural communities, developing bio-entrepreneurs, creating bio-based clusters throughout the nation, and facilitating a funding ecosystem for the bio-based industry.

–Published in Bioeconomista.  See article link here.