I would like to remind you that there is not just genetic engineering in biotechnology. There are many other techniques, like marker assisted breeding, that helps speed up the process of classical breeding; diagnostics, that help identify diseases early in the field; or tissue culture, that can be used to produce clean planting material, leading to high increases in yields (see an example with banana tissue culture in Eastern Africa: http://www.isaaa.org/projects/Africa/bananax.htm). Some of these techniques might be cheaper to use than genetic engineering, better suited for poor countries and, as shown by the cited banana example, can even help improve the economic situation of a whole region.
The benefits of these techniques also in developing countries should not be ignored, because of some scare stories. Of course, there has to be a case by case evaluation of the potential risks of each project - outcrossing to weedy relatives, potential allergies and the development of resistance are some of the concerns that have to be taken very seriously, but these potential risks have to be compared to the real benefits of such a project. And in the US we have already seen such clear benefits, for example in the lower pesticide use of Bt cotton or, in Africa, in the higher yields of clean banana planting material.
Obviously, biotechnology will not solve all the problems in the developing world - it's just one more tool in modern agriculture and it should be used along with all the other methods to make the best use of the resources we have.
Petra M. Frey, Ph.D.
Dpartment of Plant and Microbial Biology
111 Koshland Hall
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
Phone: 510-642-1589
FAX: 510-642-7356
Web address: http://plantbio.berkeley.edu/~outreach
[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: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 9:15 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Biotechnology's uses
I have read the latest contributions with much interest, and would just like to take up a few points that cut across several of them.
1. It is a classic part of the process of development that people leave small scale agriculture and move to more technologically orientated activities (usually in cities) which are perceived to be better paid, while agriculture is simultaneously mechanized and scaled up. This is by no means a painless process (witness the 'bread or blood' riots in England in the mid 1800's for instance), but has the long term effect of reducing the cost of products and services to everyone, and so ultimately growing economies and prosperity overall.
Anything that alleviates this process is to be welcomed, but remember that not everyone who lives with 'food insecurity' is a small farmer, rather I would think that most are not, so even small reductions in the price of food to them (and its availability and quality) would be beneficial. Clearly, if modernization is handled badly it can be counter productive to food security. In Nigeria for instance, I think I am right in saying that food production is lower now than 20 years ago, and I don't think there's too much biotechnology in play there, but rather it is to do with our favourite topic; politics.
2. Biotechnology and other modern farming practices, are in large part not about 'increasing yields', as in many cases these are near their theoretical maxima anyway (short of re-engineering photosynthesis or some such, as I mentioned previously). Rather, the changes in modern (large scale) farming are about sustaining current yields, whilst reducing inputs such as fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides. Farmers and chemical/biotechnology companies may be interested in this because it reduces costs and saves money, but Governments and regulators value it because it reduces run-off's and other side effects on the environment.
This is something that is rapidly increasing in importance for the whole world, as populations increase, and along with it, pressures on water supplies, the need for other land uses, and a general desire for an increased standard of living in developing countries especially. There are problems enough with all this, without scaling up pesticide use etc. to keep track of population growth in many areas. Already I gather that pesticide mis-use is a major cause of premature death in rural areas of the Philippines, for example.
3. Increased resistance to pests is a major target of plant genetic engineering, which will probably cause some problems while alleviating others. The decision whether to proceed (anywhere) will depend upon the balance of the pro's and cons. To only look at the potential problems while ignoring the benefits is incorrect. Any form of agriculture has a huge impact upon the environment, and if the application of biotechnology (not only GM) reduces some of the side effects then that may be preferable.
4. One can expect fields of any cultivated form of a species to impact nearby wild members, exerting a swamping effect - both genetically and upon their ecology (increasing certain types of pests for instance). Unfortunately it is not possible to generalise about GM reliably, but environmental assessments of GM sugar-beet in Europe (for herbicide and virus resistance) in areas with wild beets growing often very nearby or even inter-mixed (tiny populations in comparison to the cultivated forms) found no adverse effects.
This may not always be the case and may even vary from region to region, and transgenics present a moving target too (i.e. the modifications are becoming ever more sophistcated), but it should not always be assumed that there will be problems in fora such as this, any more than it should be assumed that there won't be any. In short, each example will need to be assessed upon its own merits - as well as for its applicability.
5. The practical difficulties of doing all this probably means that in the short term at least, biotechnology will have only a very limited impact upon improving food security in developing countries (I thought Peter Rosset's attempt [4 December] at a consensus on this was quite good) even without any other difficulties, but in my opinion the environmental risks have probably been exagerated, while the problems (or costs) of ensuring that biotechological food products (especially GM ones) are healthy to eat have probably been underestimated.
Trevor Fenning, Germany
Fenning@ice.mpg.de
[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: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 9:19 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: An attempt at consensus among participants
As they say, I've taking the train while its moving and I haven't been able to contribute to this debate as I would have liked. Referring to a contribution I wrote that was posted in Conference 3 (6 July), on the importance of biotechnologies in the animal sector for developing countries, I wish to take advantage of the opportunity offered by the attempt at providing a consensus by Peter Rosset (4 December) to react to some of the questions that are raised there.
I agree with Michel Ferry [4 December] when he makes the distinction between the potential role of the genetic engineering (GE) tool to improve food security and the real circumstances which may enormously limit its impact on the poor. I think that the problems of patents and intellectual property worry us enormously at the moment, as they will determine, to a large degree, the access by the poor to the products from GE. I think equally that it is necessary to account for the problems of biosafety and to allow ourselves a sufficient reflection to be sure of the harmlessness of the products.
I am happy to note that this debate, even if it at times took on the form of trench warfare, was able to be resolved in May 2000 in Dresden at the Global Forum on Agricultural Research. GE may not be a panacea for the development of countries like ours, which will be satisfied still for a long time with the use of conventional methods of genetic improvement, but we should also refrain from simply labelling it as a thing for developed countries.
The real stake lies in our capacity to account for the problems of the poor in the development of the products - that is to consider, apart from the problems of biosafety, hardiness, the conservation of qualities that are often under-estimated (organo-leptic and culinary) and, especially, access.
Dr Adama TRAORE
Docteur Vétérinaire
Spécialiste de reproduction animale
Président du Comité National de la Recherche Agricole
B.P.: E1911 Bamako (MALI)
Tel/Fax : (223) 22 71 65
e-mail: atraore@spider.toolnet.org
[The above is a "rough and dirty" translation of the original French message, which is included here...Moderator]
Comme on le dit, j'ai pris le train en marche et n'ai pas pu contribuer à ce débat comme je l'aurai voulu; me référant à une précédente contribution que j'avais faite au sujet l'importance des biotechnologies pour les pays en voie de développement (Biotech-Mod3, 6 juillet), je saisi l'opportunité offerte par votre tentative de synthèse pour réagir à certaines des questions que vous avez soulevées. Je partage le point de vue de Michel Ferry (4 décembre) quant il fait la différence entre le rôle potentiel de l'outil "Génie génétique" pour l'amélioration de la sécurité alimentaire et les circonstances actuelles qui peuvent en limiter énormément la portée pour les pauvres. Je pense en effet que les problèmes de brevet et de propriété intellectuelle nous préoccupent énormément en ce moment, puisqu'ils détermineront pour une large part l'accès des pauvres aux produits issus du génie génétique. Je pense également qu'il est nécessaire de prendre en compte les problèmes de biosécurité et de s'autoriser un recul suffisant pour apprécier l'innocuité des produits. Je suis heureux de constater que ce débat, même s'il a revêtu par moment un caractère de "guerre de tranchée", a pu être amorcé en mai 2000 à Dresde en Allemagne lors du Forum Mondial de la Recherche Agricole. Le génie génétique ne sera pas un panaché pour le développement dans les pays comme le nôtre, qui se contenterons encore longtemps de l'exploitation de techniques conventionnelles d'amélioration génétique, mais il faudra aussi se garder de l'étiqueter comme un "machin" des pays développés. L' enjeu véritable repose dans notre capacité à faire prendre en compte les préoccupations des pauvres dans le développement des produits : c'est-à-dire considerer outre les problèmes de biosécurité, la rusticité , la conservation de qualités souvent sous-estimées (organoleptiques et culinaires), et surtout l'accessibilité!.
[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 ]