04.12.2000

[Dear participants,
There are now less than 2 weeks left in this conference - the last date for receiving your messages is 17 December - on the theme of 'Can agricultural biotechnology help to reduce hunger and increase food security in developing countries ?', so we encourage all those who have not yet done so, to share their views and experiences on this theme. SO far, there has been large emphasis on genetic modification, and especially on genetically modified crops, so we also encourage discussion on other biotechnologies. Finally, just to remind you of some topics that might be discussed and that so far have been neglected, in the Background Document we wrote "Discussion in this conference should also address whether particular biotechnologies have especially high (or low) potential to reduce hunger and increase food security in developing countries, or whether the application of biotechnology within specific agricultural and food-related sectors (crop, forestry, animal or fisheries) or within specific regions of the developing world can have greater (or lower) impact on hunger and food security in developing countries."....Moderator]

From Saliem Fakir, South Africa.

All the activist around the world dealing with GM foods are just about gloating. The Guardian and the Observer, has just published an article, 1 December, (see http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4098923,00.html ) and mentions that its Chief Executive Officer Hendrik Verfaillie admitted that Monsanto has been arrogant, blind and insenstive to consumers. He immediately declared that the company would be at its best of behaviour, and will seek to find ways to co-operate with public agencies in finding ways to solve the world's food problems. They are also willing to share their research with the world. What are the reasons for this sudden shift? Verfaillie had the following to say:" The shift that started 40 years ago is approaching maturity. It is a movement from a 'trust me' society to a 'show me' society' We don't trust government - and thus government rulemaking and regulation is suspect. We don't trust companies - or the new technologies they introduce into the marketplace. We were still in the 'trust me' mode when the expectation was 'show me'.

Perhaps Verfaillie should have taken it further, as the mood is not even a 'show me' mode, but is , is it 'useful to me', will it be 'safe for me'. One can only hypothesise as to what the true meaning of all of this is. One must begin to ask whether Monsanto's shift in food agro-biotech is really philantropic, or simply its shareholders asking Monsanto to ditch the technology as fast as possible. If one looks at the recent merger with Pharmacia and Upjohn, and a while ago the Economist had an article indicating that Monsanto has now isolated agro-biotechnology from the rest of its core operations. This all gives perhaps an indication that it is nervous about food biotech, and instead (a move it started 3-4 years already) is converging its technologies with that of the pharmaceutical industries. In other words, its interest now is in health, and the whole burgeoning industry of using transgenic plants and animals for "pharming" is where it will start to focus in the future. Thus converging its agro-biotech knowledge with that of the pharmaceutical industry. It will slowly remove food agro-biotech from its portfolio of core business, I am pretty convinced. This raises interesting questions, as it may have an influence on the strategies that other multinationals may want to pursue with regard to the food industry.

Saliem Fakir
head of the World Conservation Union County Office in South Africa.
sfakir@icon.co.za

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 4:05 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: of Propaganda and Patents

The comments attributed to the Monsanto company by Saliem Fakir's last mailing [4 December] are to be welcomed, as the standard business model they adopted was causing problems when applied to agriculture world-wide (as I alluded to before). The change of heart has no doubt been influenced by the attitude of the stock market to the controversy surrounding the company, and the need for share-holder value.

Around the time of the merger with Pharmacia, Monsanto's stock price was less than would have been expected from its pharmaceutical activities alone, thus valuing its agribusiness's at less than nothing. I am not sure what the direct relevance of this to the current debate is, except to say that no company can continue in the face of public hostility and distrust indefinitely, and that over-hyping the benefits of the technology (including to the developing world) has had a part to play in this.

Trevor Fenning, Germany
Fenning@ice.mpg.de

[Its direct relevance to the current debate seems limited, so greater focus on the theme of the conference in the remaining 2 weeks of the conference would be preferred...Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 4:08 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: An attempt at consensus among participants

I am going to try to make a list of what seem to me to be consensus points so far. I would like participants to respond saying if they agree, disagree, or wish to add or modify any of these points.

1. The potential of genetic engineering of transgenic crops to contribute to the resolution of food security problems in the developing world has been overstated by industry and some academics. [Beyond this, some feel there still is significant potential, while others believe the potential is little or none].

2. There is a general concern that most of the developments in this field are taking place in the private sector, and most doubt the ability or the sincerity of the private sector with regard to the poor.

3. There is concern about undue influence by private sector funding on public sector research.

4. There is concern that the public sector is weak and underfunded.

5. There is concern that research, especially more participatory research, into alternative production practices like those which are agroecologically based, does not fall by the wayside due to overemphasis on genetic engineering research.

6. There is a general belief that policy and structural factors which govern incomes and incentives to poor farmers and access to food for poor consumers are of greater weight in food security issues than are crop genotypes. [Beyond this, some feel that crop genotypes are still very important, while others find them of lesser importance in the overall picture].

7. There is a belief that issues of ecological and human health risks are not just important to Northern consumers, but to the South as well, and must be addressed by research and policy. [Beyond this, some believe these risks will eventually be resolved, allowing for safe use, while others believe that the risks will eventually derail most transgenic technologies].

8. There is a strong concern that patent and other intellectual property rights (IPR) restrictions make it very difficult for the public sector to carry out public interest and pro-poor research in this area.

Peter Rosset
Chiapas, Mexico
rosset@foodfirst.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 7:15 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: An attempt at consensus among participants

I think that the consensus that we could get from the exchanges that we have had here so far would not be based on an intensive and real debate. Of the numerous biotechnologists, public laboratories and private companies involved in GMO projects said to improve food security, very few have intervened here. The few biotechnologists concerned with these projects that have participated in this conference were either not very convinced themselves or not very well armed to defend them.

Could we conclude from this situation that genetic engineering (GE) cannot contribute to improve food security? Or that it cannot in the present circumstances: i.e. lack of independant public research adapted to the poorest needs and means. Or even, that GE has a negative impact in the fight against hunger: by reducing biodiversity, by increasing inequalities, by increasing poor agrosystems' fragility (development of resistance, transfer of resistant genes to wild species or other pests, external dependance,..), by diverting public resources from research projects that are more adapted to the needs of the poorest ?

I have just read an interview of Florence Wambugu, an African phytogenetic scientist, in charge of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) African bureau (paper published in the New Scientist, translated and published in la Recherche of December 2000). She has transferred Monsanto virus resistance genes to sweet potatoes and now will start field tests in Kenya with this GM plants. She is convinced that the yield of sweet potatoes will increase a lot. She affirms that Monsanto has no more than public relation interest in that operation. Could someone react to what seems an interesting example of a GE project adapted to improve food security?

Michel FERRY
Directeur scientifique
Station de Recherche sur le Palmier Dattier
et les Systèmes de Production en Zones Arides
Apartado 996
03201 ELCHE
Espagne
tél: 34.965421551
fax: 34.965423706
e-mail: m.ferry@wanadoo.es

Return to Logs of Conference 5 or go to the main Forum pages. Note: you must join the Forum to participate in these discussions.