Conference 5: All posts in December 2000

In reply to a couple of recent messages;

There certainly is plenty of propaganda surrounding the application of biotechnology to agriculture (in the developed and developing worlds). Undoubtedly some companies, and even academics, have over-hyped the prospects of the technologies, at least in the short term (it is human nature to love the shiny and new). But then much of the opposition has been in reaction to that, or sounded like political opposition to big business interests, rather than a reasoned debate upon the merits of the technology.

Granted, because of the patent issues, it is not always possible to readily separate the technological prospects from the business interests involved. Thus, access and patents is a relevant point to discuss here. I am sure there is plenty that the companies involved could add to the debate, but I think that not all but many of the problems - and opposition to biotechnology in general, especially in relation to developing regions needs, - stems from the patent issue.

From this, it seems clear to me that using patents to protect rights to crop plant varieties (and even animals in future) is at best divisive and unhelpful, whatever else can be said about biotechnology. Perhaps some people in the commercial arena are already looking at alternatives, but my advice to any seed or biotechnology company is that patents should not be applied to crop plants. It may be legal in some regions, but it does not mean that it's the way to go.

All cultures are built upon agriculture. For this reason, people have strong cultural and social attachments to it, which vary considerably from region to region, and trying to impose one view of it upon the rest of the world is already causing friction. If some other more flexible approach is not found - and soon - this will increase far more than it already has done.

Plant breeders rights, but without the patents, is one alternative, but are there any other suggestions or comments? Perhaps what lies at the heart of this, is the different regional views (and needs) of agriculture, on the one hand, with the increasing globalization of markets both for food, and for agricultural supplies, at the other. At each period in history, increased communication has brought problems and benefits, but the resolution of the conflicting interests has not always been easy or painless, and I'm sure it won't be so now.

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: Monday, December 04, 2000 9:50 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: of Propaganda and Patents

[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

-----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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 8:53 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Reducing hunger ?

Hunger is due to the fact that people do not have money to buy food. This is a social problem, dependent on how society is organised. Reducing inequality of income distribution or establishing some sort of minimum income for every human being would help, but these have little to do with technology (bio- or otherwise).

But then, what's wrong with trying to produce cheaper food? Surely enough, the smarter manage to reap most of the benefit, but price eventually goes down for the consumer. Over the years, more people are eating poultry meat in this country because of its lowering price, in turn partly due to better technologies. This is a good thing in spite of the fact that some technologies are not appropriate, for a number of reasons. So, in spite of the Roundup transgenic soya or the patenting of Mexican Indian yellow beans by a commercial company, other biotechnologies may be useful. Here they invented injecting water in the broilers at the supermarket (is that a biotechnology?) but still that does not deter from the cheaper production cost. In animal breeding (the field I work in), artificial insemination has been used for 50 years and now we have embryo transfer/manipulation, semen sexing and possibly cloning, which will allow much more rapid genetic change, enabling us to produce cheaper food. Still there is a lot of misleading propaganda and threats to biodiversity from genetic erosion, and most of the profit from new genotypes would initially go to companies.

I believe most of the discussions in this conference boil down to the old problem of technology requiring ethical applications, but I found most enlightening the examples and issues put forward.

Fernando E. Madalena
Departamento de Zootecnia
Escola de Veterinária
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
Postal address: Cx.P. 567, 30123-970 Belo Horizonte-MG, Brazil
Phone: 55-31-499-2180 Fax: 55-31-499-2168
e-mail: fermadal@dedalus.lcc.ufmg.br

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 9:01 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Inventory of Biotechnology for Eastern and Central Africa

In response to Michel Ferry's posting [4 December, regarding genetically modified sweet potatoes in Kenya...Moderator], I would like to draw the attention of the members of this conference to a recent report produced by the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project (ABSP), based at Michigan State University. The report contains an 'inventory' of transgenic crops applicable to the Eastern and Central Africa region. While not exhaustive, the inventory lists transgenic crops that are potentially available for field testing or commercial release within the next 2-5 years.

This document was primarily prepared for the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA) in order to provide that organization with some of the background information required to enable them to develop their strategy for biotechnology research in the Eastern and Central Africa region. Our hope is that an additional outcome of this report will be to demonstrate the potential benefits, in the short and longer term, of agricultural biotechnology to food security and agricultural development in Africa.

We have included many currently available commercial products in the inventory as some of these may have immediate applicability in the region. However, the report clearly shows that the tools of biotechnology are now being applied to traditional food security crops in public sector institutions in both the developed and developing world, and a considerable research effort is being targeted to constraints that severely limit production of food security crops. Perhaps none of these projects have the instant 'glamour' (or the research budget!) of golden rice, but many of them have the potential to make significant impacts on food security.

The report is now available for download in .pdf format from the ABSP website at http://www.iia.msu.edu/absp/inventory1.html If you have any problems with downloading the report please let us know and we can send it to you in another form.

ABSP invites your comments and feedback on the report.

Andrea Johanson Ph.D.
Assistant Director, ABSP
Institute of International Agriculture, CANR Office of International Programs
319 Agriculture Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing MI 48824 USA
Email: andreaj@pilot.msu.edu
Phone: (517) 353-2290 Fax: (517) 353-1888
http://www.iia.msu.edu/absp

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 9:06 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: of Propaganda and Patents

Further to Saliem Fakir's post [4 December] about mea culpa type utterances of Monsanto Chief Executive Officer Hendrik Verfaillie, he is quoted as saying "Our science is right but our behavior isn't." (The AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER, Issue # 98 November 30, 2000). But not even their science is right. How can that science usefully contribute to future agriculture and food security whilst its presuppositions, based on DNA-thinking, guide its actions? An organismic approach which takes in the widest possible context is the only sustainable way in the long run.

David Heaf
Wales, UK
101622.2773@compuserve.com

Background material on the presuppositions behind the science that has spawned gene technology are accessible at http://www.anth.org/ifgene/articles.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 9:28 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: GM sweet potatoes in Kenya

I would like to answer the question posed by Michel Ferry [4 December], below:

"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?"

There are some very serious concerns about the virus resistant sweet potatoes. These include:

1. There is a dispute between Dr. Wambugu and others as to whether the ranges of sweet potato cultivation and wild relatives of sweet potato overlap in Africa, or not. If they do, as her critics suggest, then there is a high risk of passing virus resistance via pollen to weed species, who might be liberated from natural population suppression by viruses and become more serious problems. Some very major cosmopolitan weeds are relatives of sweet potato, so the concern is real.

2. Viral resistance is often conferred by inserting coat protein genes into the host plant. I do not know if this is the mechanism used by Dr. Wambugu, but there is concern that in plants containing coat protein genes, there is a possibility that such genes will be taken up by unrelated viruses infecting the plant. In such situations, the foreign gene changes the coat structure of the viruses and may confer properties such as changed method of transmission between plants. The second potential risk is that recombination between RNA virus and a viral RNA inside the transgenic crop could produce a new pathogen leading to more severe disease problems. Some researchers have shown that recombination occurs in transgenic plants and that under certain conditions it produces a new viral strain with altered host range. The risk here is of producing new and more damaging viral strains.

3. High incidence of aphid-borne viruses is usually a symptom of ecological disruption caused by excessive pesticide use and/or depauperate biodiversity and lack of ground cover. It has been demonstrated that agroecological approaches based on reducing pesticide use, and introducing biodiversity and ground cover into the cropping system, can be very effective. In the case of seed potatoes, they should be grown at high elevations where aphid incidence is low or non-existent. Unfortunately this accumulated knowledge is usually cast aside when we focus exclusively on biotech solutions.

It is my personal opinion that it is irresponsible to release transgenic virus resistant varieties without adequately resolving concerns about ecological and health risks, and without giving serious consideration to the alternatives.

Peter Rosset
Chiapas, Mexico
rosset@foodfirst.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 10:24 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Private sector help to institutes in developing countries

The problem of the market acceptance of GMOs explains perhaps the new interest of private biotechnology groups to "help" institutes and scientists in developing GM products in developing countries, and particularly in Africa. A part of the GM products that the USA has not succeeded in selling to Europe is now exported to Africa and other poor countries in the framework of food programme assistance. This new channel reduces the bad effect created by the problem of marketing GM products and consequently the decrease of demand for GM seeds by the American farmers. But it is essential for the private biotechnology groups to avoid the development of anti-GMOs campaigns in developing countries also.

Consequently, creating, by "helping" them, African lobbies of scientists and institutions in favour of GM products is probably an essential part of their strategy. It is difficult to establish counter power to these powerful groups in developed countries. How much more difficult it is in developing countries ! We know that the biotechnology groups are investing millions of dollars of propaganda and lobbying to oppose the campaign against GM products. We can imagine easily what kind of practices that means particularly in developing countries.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 3:03 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Economic/trade implications of increasing yield

There has been much discussion about the premise that genetic engineering technology will do what the Green Revolution did i.e. increase yield - and therefore the quantity of food will increase.

If my memory serves me correctly, Amartya Sen did some analysis of the issue of increasing volume and the economic and trade implications of this. It has two sorts of contradictory economic impacts. On the one hand, you reduce the cost of food, and therefore are able to increase access by the poor because you make food more affordable [As discussed by Fernando Madalena, 5 December...Moderator]. On the other hand, the price is so low, because supply far exceeds demand. Since food is a perishable good, it needs to be sold quickly, thus forcing prices down, which inevitably in developing countries creates a disincentive for farmers.

This is so, because the cost of crop production in developing countries (in the absence of subsidies, or, as in the US where the government pays farmers not to farm when too much production is anticipated) is higher. The cost also increases, the more marginal the land is that needs to be ploughed and tilled. The lack of a cushion as we have in Europe or the US, simply forces developing country farmers to absorb higher costs than the prices they can fetch for their commodities in international markets. They inevitably end up producing for their limited domestic markets or just subsistence use. Developing country governments find that it is cheaper to import grain and other staple foods from the EU than their own farmers. This has the vicious cycle of lowering agricultural incentives, and discouraging farming, and the development of farming enterprises. Ironically, this is not only an issue in developing countries. When the US government introduced the US Farm Bill in 1996, to encourage US farmers to become more export driven, the biggest impact it has had is to kill off family farming in the US and encourage the flourishing of large scale corporate farming.

Some have even argued that food aid programmes, like the much publicised Bob Geldorf campaign in Africa, have had the similar effect as food dumping would have: completely destroying local food markets, although in the short term it may have positive effects by reducing famine. However, in the long-term, its impacts on agricultural stability and sustainability has been detrimental. Food production is dependent on active markets. And, agriculture, to this day remains a major creator of employment in developing countries. This was demonstrated for instance in Thailand. After the Asian crises of 1997, people reverted back to farming in rural areas to maintain livelihoods.

Saliem Fakir
Head IUCN-South Africa
sfakir@icon.co.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 3:47 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Livestock biotechnologies and poverty alleviation

From David Steane - until retiring a year ago, I worked in livestock production and mainly in animal genetic resources work for FAO for ten years - the last six in Asia.

Since the majority of under-nourished and poor are in Asia, it is interesting to note that at a recent meeting, ministers of Asian countries identified livestock production as the most common factor in trying to alleviate poverty. This conference has studiously ignored livestock (until today) and has been monopolised by a few people (not their fault !!) discussing GMOs and the 'dubious aims' of companies. Certainly, no one could claim that on the present list of participants, a consensus, as recently suggested, would have any claim to validity in the context of biotechnology. I would hope that all those who have, like me, been 'readers only' in this conference, will now communicate their views - it is crucial that all views are heard !

While I have considerable empathy with much of what has been written, we need to address the question raised more directly. Research funds can sometimes be diverted but, as indicated so far, most research is 'private' and is unlikely simply to be diverted to the problems which concern most of us i.e. alleviation of poverty and adequate food for all. The attack on such companies is hardly likely to help those people. There are likely to be areas where biotechnology could provide assistance (if not solutions) and I believe that we must be more positive in trying to get these aspects addressed by research.

One such area in livestock is, in my opinion, that of reproductive technology. While embryo transfer, in vitro maturation (IVM) and in vitro fertilisation (IVF) of ova were once 'all the rage', it has now been realised that they do not present massive opportunities to improve the animals of the developed world, although they can play a significant, complementary role. However, research to improve the techniques seems to have been dropped when, for the developing world, there could be major advantages.

This is not to ignore the problems, or indeed to say that this aspect is the most important (simple adoption of better feeding and disease control would be primary factors) but it does hold out large benefits in terms of sustainable production - for example in milk production. There is ample evidence, throughout, that the first cross, F1, (dairy cross indigenous) is much better than any other, BUT cannot easily be maintained (Brazil has an example of how it can be done, given the right circumstances- I note that the person involved (Fernando Madalena) contributed to the conference earlier today !). Interbreeding F1's does not provide the same result and commits a scheme (country ?) to a testing and selection programme which, in most countries, cannot be justified economically - even if it can be achieved. The constant production of the same cross using IVF, IVM and embryo transfer (given acceptable success rates - for which further research is required) could provide local farmers with the most effective animal and they could use other parities for whatever product is most desirable for them.

The changing of genotpes is not new - the speed and checks on such genetic change may be altering but, with responsibility and proper consultation (e.g. with farmers !) it should not be beyond the wit of man to meet such challenges. It is incumbent on us all to try to assist in any way possible within the bounds of sustainability to ensure that food shortage and poverty are eliminated - the challenge is not whether biotechnology can contribute but whether we are smart enough to harness it to do so.

David Steane, Thailand
desteane@chmai2.loxinfo.co.th

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 4:09 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Economic/trade implications of increasing yield

With so much talk of increased production and lower food prices in this conference, and elsewhere, Saliem Fakir is right [5 December] to suggest that we try to remember the lessons of the green revolution. To that end, I direct participants to a recent article we published, called "Lessons from the Green Revolution: Do we need new technology to end hunger?" It is available on the web at: http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/4-greenrev.html If you do not have web access I can email you a copy.

Briefly, we show that increased yields on the farms of larger, wealthier farmers, brought prices down for both consumers *and* for farmers, creating the effect that might be called the 'Paradox of Plenty:' more, cheaper food, together with more hunger, as falling crop prices and rising input costs drove many smaller, poorer farmers into destitution. We argue that the 'new' green revolution, based on biotech, is likely to repeat the errors of the first green revolution.

On the questions raised by Mr. Fakir concerning the effects of food imports, I have the following to say. Typically Third World economies have been inundated with cheap food coming from the major grain exporting countries. For a variety of reasons (subsidies, both hidden and open, industrialized production, etc.) this food is more often than not put on the international market at prices below the local cost of production. That drives down the prices that local farmers receive for what they produce, with two related effects, both of which are negative.

First, a sudden drop in farm prices can drive already poor, indebted farmers off the land, over the short term. Second, a more subtle effect kicks in. As crop prices stay low over the medium term, profits per unit area (per acre or hectare) stay low as well. That means the minimum number of hectares needed to support a family rises, contributing to the abandonment of farm land by smaller, poorer farmers - land which then winds up in the hands of the larger, better off farmers who can compete in a low price environment by virtue of having very many hectares. They overcome the low profit per hectare trap precisely by owning vast areas which add up to good profits in total, even if they represent very little on a per hectare basis. The end result of both mechanisms is the further concentration of farm land in the ever fewer hands of the largest farmers.

This analysis is taken from:
http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/policybs/pb4.html

Peter Rosset
Chiapas, Mexico
rosset@foodfirst.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 9:06 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Many biotechnology methods

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

-----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

-----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!.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 1:19 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Many biotechnology methods

Regarding the message of Petra Frey [6 December]: Who at the end will benefit from in-vitro bananas? Will it really be the smallest and poorest farmers as the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) declares ? Or bigger farmers, or even societies, that have access to information, dispose of technical background and land, and who will have the resources to buy the tissue culture bananas? And then how, and at which price, will the small farmers be able to continue to sell their little production. The ISAAA document on tissue culture banana development in Kenya seems to me very illustrative of the deep contradiction between speech and reality. Which example of a farmer does the ISAAA use to present the benefits of this technique? A former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture!

But as Trevor Fenning [6 December] postulates quietly, the disappearance of small scale agriculture is a part of the painless process of development!
Which development?
"the large majority of the 830 million chronically undernourished are in the poor peasant farming community" these farmers "are exposed to increasingly fierce competition from better equipped and more productive farmers as well as the strong decline in real agriculture prices. This condemns resource poor farmers with low productivity to extreme poverty, making them vulnerable to hunger and prompting thier migration to towns and cities that are themselves underequipped and underindustrialized." Mazoyer, FAO, 2000.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 2:02 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Many biotechnology methods

I think I should correct Michel Ferry's comment [7 December]

But as Trevor Fenning [6 December] postulates quietly, the disappearance of small scale agriculture is a part of the painless process of development!

Rather the reverse, the process is most painful, as I think I made clear. It is a philosophical discussion point as to whether the gain is worth the pain, even if those countries who have achieved it would not want to return to such systems, but the pain is beyond doubt. Personally, I wonder whether the millions of small scale subsistence farmers want to remain thus (let alone the millions more in such regions who are not farmers at all), or maybe they have other ambitions, like the rest of us, even if achieving it is problematic.

Trevor Fenning, Germany
Fenning@ice.mpg.de

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 3:58 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Public funding of agricultural R&D

I have followed this conference with great interest and some thoughts have emerged as follows:

The tool, biotechnology in the wider sense, can indeed be applied to increase productivity and quality of crop and livestock products. However, it is clear that private capital is leading the way; the main goal here is making profits. The poorest of the poor can be reached more quickly through public funding of agricultural research and development (R&D), generally. Despite the volumes of talk about "hunger and poverty alleviation", less and less resources are available to R&D, hence also to biotechnology in developing countries. Even the United Nation agencies, which have been important conduits of public resources, are faced with dwindling funding. In vogue, is the development of private enterprises and we know that the main objective is profit. The fruits of biotechnology can only reach the hungry and the poorest through the continuation of public funded projects in a judicious mix with private capital.

Finally, the holistic approach to food production must be taken and not just looking at one or few aspects. Biotechnological methods must dovetail into conventional methods which are accessible to the poorest, such as genetically built-in drought-, disease- and pest resistances; fair yielding landraces with low inputs and so on.

Herman Adams,
Plant Breeder,
Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute,
CARDI-Barbados,
Ministry of Agriculture Compound, Graeme Hall,
Christ Church,
BARBADOS.
e-mail: hadams@caribsurf.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 8:38 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Many biotechnology methods

In response to Trevor Fenning's following statement [7 December]:

Trevor Fenning, Germany
Fenning@ice.mpg.de

I would like to say that it is a false option to think that the majority of the poor currently living in rural areas can move to the city and find good work with good pay. This is part of the modernization theory myth which says that today's third world countries are following the same development trajectory that Europe and the USA followed earlier, they are just a bit behind and need to catch up. This myth ignores the key difference between these countries today and Europe and the USA in the 19th century -- the existence of powerful global players in the North who set the rules of the global economy for their own benefit, rules which make it impossible for future countries to follow the same development path.

As low farm prices have devastated rural area in the third world (and elsewhere), and millions have moved to the cities, they have *not* found good jobs, and they wallow in deepening urban poverty or migrate on. In this context, finding ways to create economically sustainable and fulfilling livelihoods in rural areas -- based on vibrant small farm economies -- makes more sense than a business-as-usual approach which says "let them move to the cities, no matter how painful that might be."

Peter Rosset
Chiapas, Mexico
rosset@foodfirst.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 11:43 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Many biotechnology methods

Referring to Peter Rosset's comments [7 December] about whether "it is a false option to think that the majority of the poor currently living in rural areas can move to the city and find good work with good pay", he may be right but it is perceptions that guide people's actions, which is why the migration is happening anyway. I just doubt whether it is possible to stop it, that is all.

Trevor Fenning, Germany
Fenning@ice.mpg.de

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 2:58 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Many biotechnology methods

Trevor Fenning [7 December] wrote:

It is a philosophical discussion point as to whether the gain is worth the pain, even if those countries who have achieved it would not want to return to such systems, but the pain is beyond doubt.

This indicates the precise problem with the whole debate on the use of biotech. It is based on a "philosophical discussion" about whether the pain is worth the gain. Who decides that? Which of the millions of small-scale and subsistence farmers have ever been asked? To those people, it's not a purely philosophical question but one about whether they and their dependents will eat today or not. There is very little evidence indeed that the pain has ever been worth the gain. Colonialism and 'modernisation' and 'development' in the non-industrialised countries (or whatever you want to call them) has basically destroyed social networks and methods of surviving without providing anything to replace them. Thus people are left in a kind of vacuum without being able any longer to rely on past systems but also without having access to the 'new' and 'modern' systems.

There's also a problem with talking about 'countries' wanting to return to, or not return to, ways of living. Countries are composed of different and conflicting groups of people (it surely goes without saying!). Generally, the views we get from 'countries' are the views of the ruling political-economic elites, whether in the US or South Africa or the Phillipines or anywhere else. How are different groups of people living in the present, and what interest do they have in maintaining or changing the way they live? To answer requires a focus on a particular group or groups, rather than on some supposed unified 'national interest'.

Personally, I wonder whether the millions of small scale subsistence farmers want to remain thus (let alone the millions more in such regions who are not farmers at all), or maybe they have other ambitions, like the rest of us, even if achieving it is problematic.

Perhaps the best thing to do is to ensure that those farmers have a voice to say what it is they want, how it is best achieved and the resources and space to actually make that happen. There is danger in just changing systems of living from outside because you think it might benefit people, without really understanding what it is that people want and working together to move in the direction they choose.

Essentially what I'm trying to say is that biotechnology will never be the answer as long as it is imposed from outside. The agenda has to be driven by the farmers themselves - and when I say farmers, I include the vast majority of farmers who are either subsistence producers or petty commodity producers.

Stephen Greenberg
Environmental & Development Agency (EDA) Trust
Johannesburg, South Africa
stephen@eda.org.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 8:54 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Livestock biotechnologies and poverty alleviation

One can not agree less with the contribution of David Steane [5 December] if you live in a developing country like Nigeria or any sub-Saharan African country. When people talk of hunger they focus only on plants and animals have nothing to do with it. When you talk of solutions to the problem of hunger in the developing world they talk only of their own perceived solutions. When they talk of helping the poor of the world they mean their own perception of the help needed by the poor. This had been the scenario of aid programmers by the developed countries to the developing countries. I saw this same pattern even in the on-going debate in this conference.

As stated by some contributors, food production in developing countries is primarily plagued by storage problems and biotechnology can help in this area but, we all know, this brings nothing or very little to the "companies" and livestock production, as stated by David Steane, will benefit tremendously with reproduction technology in the developing world but this is hardly what is needed in the developed world and the "companies" do not see a pot of gold in this. There are few genuine concern for the poor of the world !

Sanya Olutogun
Department of Animal Science
University of Ibadan
Nigeria
olutogun@steineng.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 9:13 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 2 Approaches to development

Further to my previous mails. By 'Philosophy' I mean that the way of looking at the world and its problems is at issue, rather than suggesting a disinterested debating process.

Many millions of people were driven from the rural areas in Britain as the industrial economy developed 150 years ago - often by deliberate policy. The suffering and hunger inflicted was severe, but ultimately the benefits were widely spread. Such benefits were not seen for at least one or two generations, however, so those immediately effected had little if any benefit from the process - as is the case today where similar processes are at work in today's developing regions, but on a vastly larger scale.

Would the people in today's developed regions want to go back to the previous situation? By and large not it seems, but this still leaves the question as to where the people of rural areas in today's developing regions want to end up, and how best to achieve it? Have they been asked? They clearly should be, but how to ask in any meaningful way? Market type solutions are one way, but do not always bring about the intended result. Besides, the billions of poor in this world have little influence over the 'market forces' affecting them. Democracy is clearly one solution, but that is hard to effect in an impoverished environment (and goes beyond this debate too), implies free markets of some sort again, and tends to succeed only where there is some pre-existing consensus anyway.

Increased prosperity is needed whatever, but how to achieve it? Biotechnology can potentially play a role here, but is complicated by the expense of implementation, and the consequent involvement of private capital. The technology itself is neutral, offering huge potential benefits as well as risks, but will tend to play into any already ongoing political or economic developments, hence all the doubts expressed here. What I would say is that the 19th century model of development must have its resource limits somewhere (if only for Darwinian reasons), but maybe - just maybe - biotechnology might be able to help push those back a bit.

I think it comes down to two approaches:

1) The "Go along with it" approach of accepting the bone crushing process of development as inevitable, in the hope that things will ultimately be better for everyone, while trying to access the necessary resources (including possibly biotechnology) to alleviate the suffering and speed the process to completion. Or

2) the "Try to stop it" approach of trying to give people the resources to prosper where they are now, which might not be impossible given today's changing technology - and could still include biotechnology, but on a much more selective basis.

One may hold out hopes for the second approach, but the risk is that it requires more continuous intervention than the first, and the processes already at work will tend to eat into the success of the second, undermining it and possibly destroying any achievements, and thus such efforts may ultimately be wasted and fail, like trying to stop the tide. I am not saying anything about the rights and wrongs in all this, just trying to illuminate the issues. And there are no guarantees with either approach incidentally. People should be asked, but as politics tends to concentrate upon short term issues, no one should count on getting clear answers before acting. Whatever the approach supported by the people here, agencies, or Governments, flexible local programs and inclusive approaches are needed in either case, and not political or economic dogmas.

Trevor Fenning, Germany
Fenning@ice.mpg.de

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 9:28 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Many biotechnology methods

Peter Singer, a controversial philosopher in his own right, in a recent New York Times Magazine essay (see www.reason.com) argued what I think is a very interesting proposition that "If allowing someone to die is not intrinsically different from killing someone, it would seem that we are all murderers". Singer's point is that the average American household needs only about $30 000 per year (so he calculates) in order to avoid the next person from being poor and destitute.

What is Singer's message? On the one hand we hope to feed the world with supposedly ingenious technology. On the other side of the world, there are people stuffing themselves up with food, and consumables that go beyond reasonable levels of comfort, and need. We live in an inherently very contradictory society. Even Singer, who owns a neat flat in Australia, would admit that although he touches on a profound practical ethical issue, he cannot resist from indulging in the more than $30 000 US he pockets through the sale of his books and lecture tours.

For me, food insecurity, is least about good technology, high yields, and whether we are able to finally find the right gene to cure nutritional deficiencies. It is fundamentally, a reflection and symbolism of the inequities that exist in our societies. Very recently too, someone, and I cannot remember the Professors name, argued in the Financial Times about the wonders of the Green Revolution in India and China. But, economists like Amartya Sen and others have shown that even at the height of the Green Revolution, we did not necessarily see the reduction of famine. In fact countries which were autocratic, had wars, no land reform programme and other factors were more than likely to have incidences of famine than countries which were democratic and had a good land reform process in place.

My view is simple: understanding food insecurity requires a very good understanding of inequality. In fact, many of the debates on agrarian reform are fundamentally, about the shift in economic power that is necessary in rural areas - which is tied with land/water rights, and the relationship of landless people to those who own land. The manner in which markets in urban centres interact, and procure commodities and goods from rural producers. A divide which in many cases is also a bit too simplistic, because we have peripheral agrarian activities, and, in many developing countries, urban agriculture is also flourishing, and in fact is becoming more succesful because of the proximity to markets, ideas, services, and inputs. Therefore food insecurity reflects a thread, or can be traced back to the root of structural inequalities, at the global, national, local and household levels.

Saliem Fakir
Head of IUCN-South Africa
sfakir@icon.co.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 2:31 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Public institutions and the fight against hunger

I think that we should perhaps come back to what, according to me, is a question on which some of us have perhaps some capacities of action, or at least some influence: Is the research on biotechnology realised by public institutions adapted to contribute to the fight against hunger? In which precise cases, and in which conditions?

I am surprised to see that no biotechnologist has replied to the message of Peter Rosset [5 December] concerning the danger of the sweet potatoes research programme aimed to incorporate Monsanto virus genes. Furthermore, in the report indicated by Andrea Johanson [5 December] on "an inventory of agricultural biotechnology for the eastern and central Africa region", there is no word on the question of the biosafety of these African GMOs programmes! When concrete examples of GMOs interest or inconvenience are presented, the debate stops!

To come back to the example of tissue culture bananas [Frey, 6/12 and Ferry 7/12...Moderator], I think that, in that case, it is not the biotechnology product in itself that is questionable but the policy designed around it. To help the poorest farmers (of course I do not share at all the view of Trevor Fenning: for me, the development of family farming systems should be the priority), a voluntary research/development policy should be designed to give the preference to this group of farmers.

In our own project, to introduce date palm tissue culture plants in Sahel, as a contribution to develop drought resistance farming systems by the nomadic families, we are working directly with, and for, the livestock breeders that have lost all or nearly all their animals. We have decided not to contribute to an other project that is aimed to develop large date palm plantations. It is a question of choice and of priority. Do we consider that fighting against hunger is definitely the priority of development? If yes, all the means should be re-oriented for that priority. Have our public national or international research institutions made clearly this choice? As a consequence, have they re-evaluated their research programmes for this objective?

As FAO's Director General Jacques Diouf has written, our time can be characterized "sadly as the age of inequity". Do we consider the fight against this inequity as the world's social priority? In the developing countries of course, but in the developed countries also? Do we consider also that this priority has to be faced without degrading still more the environment? If we agree on these two points, we should not of course consider the American liberal system as a model. It is seriously failing on these two points.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 4:04 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Public institutions and the fight against hunger

Michel Ferry writes [Dec 1]:

in the report indicated by Andrea Johanson [5 December] on "an inventory of agricultural biotechnology for the eastern and central Africa region", there is no word on the question of the biosafety of these African GMOs programmes! When concrete examples of GMOs interest or inconvenience are presented, the debate stops!

If I understand him correctly, Dr Ferry believes that we are advocating no debate on biosafety issues for GMOs in Africa! Rather we encourage such debate. One of the main objectives of our project is to build capacity in biosafety in the developing countries in which we work, and we are very proactive in this activity. Building capacity in biosafety is a broad task, but includes training individuals in the scientific and policy aspects of risk assessment. By its very definition, risk assessment advocates assessing the risk of each individual GMO on a case by case basis, which is the only way that an assessment has any validity. Of course it is possible (even likely) that a particular transgenic crop can be assessed as 'safe' in one environment, but judged to pose an unacceptable environmental risk in another, and I can give examples of this. It is in this context that we list in our report 'available and potential' technologies -- a thorough and rigorous risk assessment must be carried out for each product for each environment in which its use is proposed.

Hunger and poverty are obviously complex issues, and as such are unlikely to have simple solutions. Despite much of the spin we read in the media, I know of no responsible scientist naive or egotistical enough to claim that biotechnology alone will solve all these problems. However, do we not have an obligation to investigate all possible solutions, both technical and political? Anyone who has spent any time in developing countries will be only too aware that there are very serious technical problems in agriculture that demand a solution. As a plant pathologist, I could name a dozen or more plant diseases that regularly cause devastating crop losses for small farmers. Should we really not bother to address these technical issues and leave the problems of hunger solely to the economists and politicians? And if there really are so many different ways to supply enough Vitamin A in people's diets, why can we not investigate them all without attacking the approaches of others?

I assume that most people contributing to this conference are committed to finding ways to alleviate hunger and poverty, and therefore I would strongly concur with David Steane's wise comments [December 5] :

It is incumbent on us all to try to assist in any way possible within the bounds of sustainability to ensure that food shortage and poverty are eliminated - the challenge is not whether biotechnology can contribute but whether we are smart enough to harness it to do so.

Andrea Johanson
Assistant Director, Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project
Michigan State University
http://www.iia.msu.edu/absp
e-mail: andreaj@pilot.msu.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 9:35 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Public institutions and the fight against hunger

Dear Participants,

We are in now in the last week of this conference, where the last day for receiving messages is Sunday 17 December. We encourage those who haven't already done so, to give us their views on the theme on the conference or on any lessons/conclusions they have taken from the conference. As David Steane [5 December] said "I would hope that all those who have, like me, been 'readers only' in this conference, will now communicate their views - it is crucial that all views are heard !"....Moderator]

In reply to the message of Andrea Johanson [11 December]: Precisely, this is where the difficulty is and our obligation: we do "not have an obligation to investigate all possible solutions" [a quotation from Andrea's message...Moderator]. On the contrary, we have the obligation to use in the best way possible the little money (that each year is less) available to fight against hunger. We have to make choices. The interest of this conference is precisely to discuss whether biotechnologies have or not, or in which case, a place in this fight and consequently, in which cases research in this field is of priority, besides other types of research. I have never said that ABSP was advocating no debate on biosafety. I have just said that there is no information on biosafety concerns in the report of ABSP [referred to by Andrea on 5 December...Moderator]. Worse, if I am not mistaken, there is no one project concerning biosafety research in the large list of projects on biotechnology established by ABSP. That seems to me very symptomatic.

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org The last day for receiving messages is Sunday 17 December. 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: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 9:45 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Public institutions and the fight against hunger

There has been much ado about the appropriate type of development, and whether we should lock people in rural areas, or encourage them to move to urban areas. There is no intrinsically valid proposition, and what we forget often is that people ultimately do make rational decisions depending on the push/pull factors that operate in a particular context. What is necessary is to understand what drives these rational choices, and try to make interventions in a manner that is acceptable to people according to their desire and the speed with which they want such interventions or are willing to accept them.

The point I want to make though is that all technologies have a transformative ability which we cannot always predict. The internet is a good example of how it has transformed the world, but at the same time also excluded two-thirds of the world from possibly benefiting from the good aspects of globalization.

The problem with the way in which biotechnology is promoted is that it lacks a vision that is centred around the development context of different countries and cultures. And, when you introduce it as a solution, you abstract from one reality to another and hope that it will work. Even worse, the solutions are not even contextualised in the current drive to promote the technology, the abstractions are taken almost as gospel, as being universally valid. The solutions-orientated approach that underpins the current drive of the technology is set against a background where its impact or contribution is not contextualised in terms of what the development needs are. Therefore all technological interventions require contextualisation, otherwise they can increase the vulnerability and risk that poor people will have to bear.

The world is constantly changing. And, all of us have to find ways to adapt. The most vulnerable segments of our society, because of the lack of resources, find it tougher to adapt to change. Therefore the interventions, whatever form they may be, need to understand the process of adaptations that people are engaging in so as to ensure that the interventions we make are not disruptive technologies, but complementary, and facilitatory in nature.

Saliem Fakir
Head of IUCN-South Africa
sfakir@icon.co.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 1:06 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Biotechnology in food

I have followed most of the discussion on this topic and have to admit to being disappointed in what has been covered to date.

As a manager of a programme that provides support for research and development in livestock production and the value of this towards poverty alleviation and food security, I had hoped to learn of priority areas for biotechnology in this sector. I had hoped to learn where innovative biotechnology could be usefully employed, what its advantages would be, what the likely products would be and their value, but equally what the pitfalls and dangers might be.

I must confess that I start from the basic premise that biotechnology and gene technology is likely to have some value to improving sustainable livestock production in developing countries but with the obvious realisation that this will not solve all the problems and that there will be disadvantages and dangers. What I was hoping for, was discussions on these technologies in order to better evaluate roles they might have in assisting livestock production (in developing countries). Unfortunately the discussion seems to have remained at a much higher level and dealt only with the general concept of whether biotechnology can assist the poor, why the poor of the world exists and alternative ways in which the poor should be helped.

I find it difficult to address the issue of the role of biotechnology in food production in a realistic way without considering specifics and without evaluating the many varied areas of biotechnology and how they could or could not assist.

In the Joint FAO/IAEA Division based in Vienna, we have been trying to address this problem for some time. In an effort to evaluate the situation further on behalf of the Member States of IAEA and FAO in the livestock sector, we have organised an international symposium in 2003 entitled "Application of Gene-based Technologies for Improving Animal Production and Health in Developing Countries". [IAEA stands for the International Atomic Energy Agency...Moderator]. I had hoped that this conference would provide us with some focus and priority areas for this symposium. This has not occurred either in this area of biotechnology or indeed in others. Would this type of discussion not be valuable and if so how could this be achieved?

My impression at this stage is that we have deliberated the broader context but failed to provide facts, focus and direction across the wide range of biotechnological options that might assist food production.

Dr. Martyn Jeggo
Head,
Animal Production and Health Section
Joint FAO/IAEA Division
of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture
Wagramer Strasse 5
P.O. Box 100
A-1400 Vienna, Austria
M.H.Jeggo@iaea.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 3:34 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Agbiotech in Africa

The present agricultural biotechnology (agbiotech) "solutions" are of extremely limited relevance and use to developing countries, although some solutions may attain future relevance.

South Africa is agriculturally schizophrenic. Two separate systems co-exist; that of modern, industrial farming alongside that of traditional farming practice. The former is well resourced by private extension systems; the latter is largely ignored. We need to move from schizophrenia to symbiosis.

Speaking from an African perspective, our biggest problem is the state of the soil. Biotechnology presently offers limited solutions to this challenge. We instead need holistic land management, concentrating on soil biota, tilth, organic content, etc. before any meaningful improvements in agricultural production can be achieved. This, in conjunction with modern integrated farming practices (permaculture, integrated pest management, intercropping, diversification etc) offer superior options. Unfortunately these aspects of agronomy are not being sufficiently pursued due to a strong bias towards agbiotech and other "silver bullet" solutions.

In order to improve production and innovation we need to improve farming practices through NGO and state extension programmes. There is also an urgent need for the implementation of agricultural reform programmes throughout many indebted nations.

Contrary to industry claims that genetic engineering (GE) is simple to administer as the "solution lies in the seed", there is concern about the lack of understanding of the more technical aspects like refugia and separation distances, even amongst sophisticated farmers. Other dangers are; accidental GE pollution by inadvertent planting of GE animal feed or aid seeds; rejection of export crops from regions due to poor government policy or monitoring and the lack of oversight by civil society unversed in means or sophistication to counter complex agronomic and safety testing or monitoring issues.

The inability to monitor agricultural innovation through lack of resources is leading to a state of effective anarchy in the field throughout South Africa. Given that this country has one of Africa's more efficient bureaucratic systems, the ability of less resourced nations to even monitor the effects of GE crops, remains a considerable concern.

The cost of GE seed has proven a barrier to its introduction in South Africa, even amongst the developed industrial farming sector, where rapid uptake should be presupposed given the active promotion by industry sources. What hope is there that poorer, new entry farmers would be able to afford the technology or understand licensing contracts?

If small farming pursues the logical road of low input, mixed farming practices with an export component, there is a further risk that GE pollen drift and other factors may affect the sale of African agricultural produce to Europe, which is presently our biggest agricultural market.

This debate cannot be separated into scientific and political aspects. The two are inseparable. Science cannot operate in a vacuum of civic non-accountability; further, the development of agbiotech must be openly discussed in fora that are more democratically accessible than the net. Science may appear neutral but its societal context is dynamic, unpredictable and unavoidable, facts highlighted by this debate.

Agbiotech has fallen victim to the same myopia as allopathic (western) medicine in that it is directed at the symptoms and not the underlying causes. Until agbiotech faces the real problems facing third world agriculture and stops levering northern solutions into (perceived) southern problems there is little chance of narrowing differences in this debate or in reality. Most market-driven possibilities are antithetical to southern needs. If agbiotech is to play a role, it is a very limited role that must be contextualised on a case by case basis.

Glenn Ashton
Director
Ekogaia Foundation
Cape Town
South Africa
27-21-789-1751
ekogaia@iafrica.com
ekogaia@bigfoot.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 9:08 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: An overview

First, I want to thank the organizers and those who have contributed thus far, the exchange of information here is valuable and needs to continue in a larger context. I have learned a lot since the discussion began and I have sought other sources of information to help me better understand what is happening.

I am troubled with the claims that genetically engineered food will alleviate hunger. What I think we have are purported proprietary solutions to increase yield that have a tenuous connection to the problem of hunger. While hunger may be the result of a failure in productive capacity in some places, I have learned that the overwhelming evidence suggests that hunger is an economic development problem. The need for yield enhancing GMO's is not evidenced by the current state of food production and the problems of distribution. Even if yield enhancing varieties are obtained, they would probably have little impact on those who are dispossessed of the means to grow their food or the money to buy. At least with the current batch of GE products, we know yield enhancement is not a goal. In fact, tests have shown that in many instances yields decreased with these products. Control over the seed through intellectual property and control over the inputs being supplied by an ever smaller number of agrochemical/biotech companies are more the goals being pursued with these products. It is also very likely that pest resistance pressures will arise limiting any gains to the stable yields provided by these products in a short amount of time.

There are many factors involved in the lack of access to an adequate supply of food that don't involve production issues. Where western style development is being introduced or expanded over more traditionally aligned agricultural practices, lack of access to food is happening because of development not for lack of it. The introduction of a cash economy, the enclosure of land for commodity production (mainly for export to pay off foreign debt which drives a large number of inhabitants to the margins decreasing or eliminating their ability to provide subsistence), the concentration of ownership brought about through the introduction of industrial practices, and the artificial scarcity created by profit maximization, all contribute to food insecurity.

The problem of debt can add to further insecurity if an increase in food production were to occur rapidly. Third world, or better, mal-developed debtor countries seeking foreign exchange for their exports would be faced with low returns should the food supply on the world market (as opposed to the supply of food for local consumption) increase because of the unnecessary introduction of high yield varieties. Such a condition lowers their ability to afford the necessary food imports they need to offset their reliance on export mono-cultures, resulting in food shortages in a world awash with abundance.

There are of course other factors, not the least of which can be population pressures. But given the current distribution of arable land it is hard to determine what role population is, in fact, playing since concentration of ownership in food production is a result when shifting to industrial agriculture. There are of course other reasons that also do not involve problems with agricultural yield, such as armed conflict.

What is best for food security is obviously an issue that can only be handled in the first instance locally. I believe that industrial agriculture, with its attending social and political problems, is not providing the sustainable conditions necessary for food security. While there may be some beneficial uses for high tech solutions like genetic engineering, they are best reserved for limited application and as a last resort. It is already established that, when needed to increase yields, less intensive and practice oriented solutions, respecting ecological realities, are more viable, rather than product-oriented, expensive, high-tech solutions such as genetic engineering.

The failures of industrial agriculture which include: the toxification of the soil with pesticides, the degradation of the soil from overuse, pollution of the air and water, a unaccountable bureaucratic machine needed to maintain oversight and inspection because the food is so manipulated by multiple processes, the waste generated by attractive packaging, the energy demand, and starvation, lead me to observe that local low impact, preferably organic, agriculture is sustainable, and big global energy intensive wasteful agriculture is not. How can genetic engineering serve sustainable agriculture? It can't as long as the technology is being developed and distributed under the control of agricultural conglomerates to serve the existing model of industrial agriculture. Any product of genetic engineering will be in response to an inadequacy of the current system, to either gloss over a problem or to change its location. Whatever the potential is for responsible use of genetic engineering in food, we will never know under the current conditions.

Jeffrey Kirk
Berkeley, California,
USA
jwkirk@pacbell.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 1:43 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: The use of biotechnology in livestock

My name is Ned Donkin and I am a Professor in the Faculty of Veterinary Science at the University of Pretoria, Onderstepoort, South Africa.

I get the impression that this conference has been side-tracked from its main purpose, which should be to answer the following question:"Can agricultural biotechnology help to reduce hunger and increase food security in developing countries?" This side-tracking seems to have resulted mainly from a domination by a few people who have sent in multiple messages to assert and re-assert their own particular stance (or perhaps their own underlying "political agenda"?). A rough count shows that the four main protagonists have submitted between 11 and 15 messages each. Would it be a fair question to ask the Moderator to restrict the inputs, as would be the case in a live public debate?

1. The main question (as given above) that we are to consider is very simple: the answer is either "yes" or "no". The answer should be "yes", because there are some positive uses of this new technology.

2. The difficulty we face is how to make best use of any new technology. I think these are the things we should be spending most of our time on. We need positive suggestions to answer the specific questions relating to the use of biotechnology: What? How? By whom? Where? To what benefit? With what precautions? How do we measure the results? Who will pay? etc.

3. The contentious aspects seem to relate to the moral issues. These are indeed very important , as we must all remember that we are ultimately answerable to God for what we do and how we use our new discoveries.

4. One main concern I share with Dr Martyn Jeggo (12th December) is that livestock have not been discussed to any significant extent. Please do not exclude livestock, as they form a very significant part of food production, complementing crop production, and adding to the quality of life. They provide a diversity of products such as milk, meat, eggs, leather, fibres, draught power, manure; they diversify production and reduce risk; they provide raw materials for other enterprises where value can be added; they contribute to social, cultural and religious activities, which give people identity and fulfillment. And biotechnology might be used in various ways to augment these values. Any potentially negative aspects must be carefully researched, and monitored, and it is here that many developing countries are at a disadvantage. Here is a moral issue for which we all should be accountable.

5. Some positive ways in which transgenesis has been used were reported by Y. Echelard, C.A. Ziomek & H.M. Meade in the Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Goats (Tours, France:15-21 May 2000): "Expression of recombinant proteins in the milk of transgenic goats." pp 25-29. They discussed the production of medically important proteins at greatly reduced prices, using milk production from goats. This has the potential to benefit health for people in all countries. [This paper can be requested at http://www.transgenics.com/publications.html ....Moderator]

6. Such techniques might be used also to produce healthier animals, and increase productivity in all countries (both for commercial farmers and subsistence farmers). For example, our research has identified heartwater-resistant indigenous goats. Heartwater is a tick-borne disease that kills thousands of livestock. The question is: what is the most efficient way of getting these beneficial (correctly identified) genes into populations of animals that are susceptible to the disease? We could use the existing technology of crossbreeding and selection (among different types of goats), but will new technology give us a quicker and less expensive method? Can anyone say it is wrong to use technology that might reduce animal suffering and mortality, and at the same time improve productivity?

7. Are there other people participating in this conference who can contribute positive suggestions for the use of biotechnology in relation to livestock production? Disease resistance and parasite resistance are obvious topics.

Professor E.F. Donkin
Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Pretoria
Private Bag X04, Onderstepoort 0110, South Africa.
e-mail: ndonkin@op.up.ac.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 3:25 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: The use of biotechnology in livestock

My name is Jannik Boesen. I am a social scientist in charge of our section doing research on agricultural development and the environment at the Centre for Development Research, Copenhagen.

Clearly the argument by Ned Donkin [13 December] that the initial question should be answered by a yes or no, and that the answer is yes as there are some potentially positive uses for biotechnology, is far too simplistic.

With all the uncertainties and and doubts surrounding some of the biotechnologies, you have to weigh the benefits against all the costs, which is highly problematic when the size of both, as well as their chance or risk of occurring, are all so uncertain. But even that is not enough. Alternatives have to be considered as well (the opportunity costs as economists would call them).

So it is highly relevant, as many participants in this discussion have done, to look at whether the world's poor can acquire enough food through other means: institutional, distributional or technological, and whether investment in research in such means may be likely to yield as good and less risky results than massive investments, especially in GMOs.

Jannik Boesen,
Research Director
Centre for Development Research
Gl.Kongevej 5,
DK 1610 Copenhagen V
Denmark
jbo@cdr.dk
+45 33854695

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 4:07 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: 2 Approaches to development

Thanks to Trevor Fenning [11 December] for his response, which does highlight some of the key questions when considering the value of biotechnology in agriculture. From a different perspective, however, there are many points of contention in what he has said. First and foremost is this idea of linear progress and modernisation i.e. that the 'underdeveloped' countries need to follow a certain path of development that has been blazed by the 'advanced' countries. There is a link between the capacity of the English to emerge wealthier from the land enclosures, the poor laws and the violent dispossession of the population by a small minority, and their colonisation and resource extraction of and from Africa, India and other places. To follow the path of the US and Europe, requires African and Asian countries to colonise and dispossess others on a vast scale. But that is neither desirable and nor would it ever happen in any case, given the balance of power in the world today. So what's left? How is this 'progress' to be achieved?

(As an aside, at what point will these countries be identified in positive terms in their own right, rather than as 'not'-something all the time? 'Underdeveloped', 'developing', 'Third World', even 'South' are all terms that situate these countries in relation to an Other - the hegemonic, the dominant, the powerful. Our position in the world is defined by what we are not - kind of like the days of apartheid in South Africa, when Africans were called 'non-whites'...)

Trevor Fenning suggests that 'market type solutions' may be able to draw out the desires of impoverished rural people across Africa, Asia and Latin America (although accepting that results are not always as intended). What is the intention of market mechanisms? It is to identify points of profit making and profit taking, not to meet the real desires of human beings. Markets are constructed within certain social relations, relations of power that are completely one-sided and favourable to the dominant nations in this era of globalisation, and to political and economic elites where nations are no longer the chief point of reference. Likewise with the supposedly 'neutral' technology. How can you separate the kinds of technology that are developed, and the ways they are used, from the structure of the society and the driving force behind development (profit making and accumulation for its own sake)?

Is the answer - to poverty, food insecurity, destruction of the place-specific and context-specific social networks and technologies people have developed over centuries - either to a) let the process of modernisation complete its (neverending) course (of destruction of the many, for the creation of a few), or b) "try to give people the resources they need to prosper"? Resource redistribution on a massive scale is needed, sure. Question is, does this happen as a result of some enlightened possessors of wealth and knowledge giving in a charitable way, to the poor, passive masses of Africa and Asia? Or does it come from a recognition that those masses consist of human beings who have a capacity to act - and when they act to reclaim the resources that are rightfully theirs, the best the enlightened owners of wealth can do is support those acts, without imposing yet another morality and 'code of good behaviour' on them.

I agree. No dogmatism. That requires a tolerance of things we may not understand from our own vantage point. As much as an African may not understand the European's acceptance of the structures of society (that the Europeans contributed to building, but that were imposed by force on Africans), so a European may not understand the need for Africans to reclaim resources that were violently removed not so long ago, but that are essential pre-requisites for survival and any kind of future.

Stephen Greenberg
Environmental & Development Agency (EDA) Trust
Johannesburg, South Africa
stephen@eda.org.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 4:54 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: unknowns/uncertainties

My name is Wytze de Lange from Amsterdam and I have a history in classical biotechnology.

I share the opinion of those in this conference that there are too many unknowns, uncertainties, risks and problems with modern biotechnology and that the development costs are most likely far too high compared to other solutions. To give an example of an alternative approach I invite you to read the brilliant work from the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) in Kenya.

[The story concerns biological pest control strategies in Kenya to protect maize from stemborers and Striga; it is indicated that it is planned to apply the strategies also to other African countries...Moderator]

Wytze de Lange
Amsterdam, Netherlands
geno@zap.a2000.nl

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 5:32 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: The use of biotechnology in livestock

I was pleased to read the contribution from Prof. Donkin [13 December]. He has addressed the specifics of biotechnology in food production from his field of specialization and has attempted to focus the discussion to some critical issues. I work alongside Martyn Jeggo and as mentioned by him [12 December ], the Joint FAO/IAEA Division based in Vienna, will organize an international symposium in 2003 entitled "Application of Gene-based Technologies for Improving Animal Production and Health in Developing Countries". The symposium aims to create an interactive environment in which to discuss the role and future potential of gene-based technologies for improving animal production and health, to identify constraints in the use of this technology in developing countries and how to use this technology in a simple practical way especially for developing countries, to identify specific research needs and prioritize them, to explore the possibility of international co-ordination in the area of biotechnology in animal agriculture, and to examine ethical, technological, policy and environmental issues and the role of nuclear techniques in the further development and application of genetic manipulation in respect of livestock.

We have identified the following areas which need discussion during the international symposium, particularly in relation to their role and significance in enhancing food security in developing countries. We look forward to receiving critical comments from the participants through this conference or at a later stage through e-mail exchanges.

- The expression of a gene product that can be used as a vaccine or as a reagent in a diagnostic assay.

- Molecular epidemiology, which is a fast growing discipline that enables characterization of pathogen isolates (virus, bacteria, parasites) by nucleotide sequencing for the tracing of their origin, and to improve disease control.

- The production of therapeutic substances through the insertion of specific genes into a variety of living tissues ranging from single cells to complete animals or plants.

- An area that is more complex and involves initially identifying (normally) several genes that control a particularly advantageous genetic productivity trait, and then to identify individuals or specific breeds that have this gene cluster and breed from these for subsequent production. A long-term goal is this area would be to actually insert such advantageous genes into a particular breed or species to perpetuate that trait through genetic modification.

- The genome provides a blueprint and reflects the potential of an organism, but the genome itself does not tell us what actually takes place. Therefore, it becomes imperative to study the expression of the genes and post-translational modification of proteins coded by genes through transcriptome and proteomics.

- Production of transgenic animals with defined traits and the utilization of cloning procedures as a tool for identical multiplication of valuable animals.

-The use of microsatellites in genetic distancing of breeds will help conserve livestock breeds through the conservation of genomic DNA, amongst a number of other approaches.

- Plant biotechnologies to improve the nutritional quality of plant feedstuffs and by-products offer enormous opportunities, potential and benefits for the livestock industry. Improving feed quality through genetic manipulation holds great promise, e.g. change of leaf/stem ratio; introduction of 'stay green' traits; increase in digestibility of nutrients, especially fibre of tropical forages; decrease in fibre content and increase in cell solubles; increase in soluble carbohydrate in roughages; increase of protein in tropical forages and decrease in degradability of protein in the rumen for temperate forages; increase in sulphur amino acids in leguminous forage; regulation of protein and carbohydrate contents and their degradation to achieve maximum microbial protein synthesis in the rumen.

- In the longer term, there appears to be good prospects of manipulating the rumen microflora capable of utilizing feeds in ruminant species to degrade fibre and lignin, increase efficiency of nitrogen utilization, and to break down antinutritional and toxic factors. The establishment of genetically modified microorganisms or a 'foreign microbe' in the rumen can be monitored using competitive PCR method and 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes. These also provide better insights into the rumen ecology, and the information can be used to develop appropriate feeding strategies and also to decrease the emission of methane.

- Genetically engineered silage inoculants, pre- and pro-biotics, feed additives, immunomodulators etc. are also likely to have considerable impact on enhancing nutrient availability and productivity and health status of farm animals.

Genetic engineering has the potential to solve problems relating to animal productivity and animal health but at present the focus is on those that face livestock producers in the developed world. To address the problems facing livestock farmers in developing countries will require characterization and application in these regions if the full benefit of this technology is to be realized globally. The discussion on future perspectives of biotechnology in animal agriculture would be incomplete without considering issues such as ethical, development policy, ecological risks, environmental impact, intellectual property rights etc. related to gene-based technologies. These aspects will be addressed in the symposium.

Harinder P.S. Makkar
MSc, PhD (Nott.), Habil. (Hohenheim)
Animal Production and Health Section
International Atomic Energy Agency
P.O. Box 100, Wagramerstr. 5
A-1400 Vienna
AUSTRIA
Phone: +43-1-2600.26057
Fax: +43-1-26007
E-mail: H.Makkar@iaea.org
Internet: http://www.iaea.org/programmes/nafa/d3/index.html
http://www.fao.org/

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 9:14 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Limitations to Food Security and Biotechnology

I have been reading with great interest much of the dialogue that has been continuing and note that in the vast majority the theme of "food security" is central. I have seen reference to statements such as "will biotechnology solve the world hunger problem" and second, is it "sustainable" or " the pressing concern is not to find a hi-tech way to drive the economy forward, but it is to feed the populace so that they are no longer hungry." (Soraj Hongladarom, 13 November)

What has been missing from the debate is a more scientific assessment of the underlying problem and that is the population carrying capacity of the environment and concept of land use sustainability. See for example:

Iskandar L 1999. The "human carrying capacity". Is it a viable concept when assessing the land use sustainability? . Interciencia 24: (1) 26-. (in Spanish)

Wackernagel M, Yount JD1998. The ecological footprint: An indicator of progress toward regional sustainability Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 51: (1-2) 511-529

Holmberg J, Lundqvist U, Robert KH, Wackernagel M 1999. The ecological footprint from a systems perspective of sustainability International J. Sustainable Development and World Ecology 6: (1) 17-33

These papers present the scientific basis to determine the potential impact of biotechnology. However, it is clear that NO technology will result in an ultimate solution to food security because the problem is limited by the carrying capacity of the environment. Biotechnology will simply increase that carrying capacity, or, in the above terminology, result in a smaller ecological footprint for the same population size. In time, with unchecked population growth, the population will again exceed this limit, even if everyone in the world takes an altruistic stance and consumes an equal share of the limited resources. As humans, we are not above biological and physical limitations of our environments. Soon, even the developed worlds will face the same issue.

Of course, the above ignores the very real suffering and pain among human populations, and will, I am sure, be attacked vigorously as an insensitive concept to apply to a complex and difficult situation that cannot be reduced to such simple analysis. However, this is similar to issues faced by macro versus micro economics. Both are very real forces in the market place but, in the long run, macroeconomics dictates the playing field. I have only seen the equivalent of microeconomics being discussed. Lets hear from population biologists and ecologists.

Bill Muir
Professor of Genetics
Purdue University, USA
bmuir@purdue.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 9:27 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Biotechnology in food

Referring to the message of Martyn Jeggo [12 December]: A good number of the points emphasised in his message were fairly well dealt with in Conference 3 of the Forum [all message are still available on http://www.fao.org/biotech/logs/c3logs.htm ...Moderator] - see my message of 3 July as well as those of numerous participants, including David Steane (30 June). I think however ( and here I agree with Martyn Jeggo) that our debate in recent days gives a strange impression of being a little bit too "philosophical"regarding pro or contro biotechnology, despite the praiseworthy efforts of the moderator to make the debate more concrete.

Dr Adama TRAORE
Docteur Vétérinaire, Spécialiste de reproduction animale;
Président du Comité National de la Recherche Agronomique
CNRA Bamako Mali BP: E1911 Tel/Fax: 223 22 71 65
e-mail: atraore@spider.toolnet.org

[Original message was as follows...Moderator: Je me réfère à l'intervention du Dr Martyn Jeggo (12 décembre) pour dire que bon nombre des points soulignés dans son message ont été assez bien abordés lors de la conférence "Biotech-room3"; ref. à ma contribution du 3 juillet ainsi qu'à celles de nombreux intervenants dont celle de David Steane (30 juin)!. Je pense cependant (et je le rejoins!) que nos débats de ces derniers jours donnent une étrange impression de débat un peu trop "philosophique" de pro ou contre Biotech et ceci, en depit des éfforts louables du modérateur dans sa tentative de cristaliser davantage le débat.]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 1:45 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Limitations to Food Security and Biotechnology

This is from Tim Roberts. I am a consultant patent attorney based in UK, formerly working for a seed company.

Professor Muir makes a vital point. Indeed, "with unchecked population growth", no systems are sustainable. However, is such growth inevitable? Birthrates in developed countries have fallen to below replacement levels. This seems to be associated with prosperity. If such prosperity (or some of it) can be generated in developing countries, one may reasonably hope birthrates will fall there too. Prosperity comes from economic growth, which is linked to globalisation and technical advances. The latter (even if some of your correspondents doubt it) can also help to relieve misery. Trying to make the poor richer is certainly a more acceptable option than exhorting them to have fewer children. Of course, it has one serious drawback - it is likely to make the rich richer as well.

Tim ("Pollyanna") Roberts, UK
twr@compuserve.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 2:21 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: General Points

[A reminder: Messages received up to and including Sunday 17th December will be posted in this conference....Moderator]

The latest conference was most interesting I would say, but affected slightly by some unhelpful political rhetoric, and some mis-reading of some mails (due to language difficulties perhaps?), or people picking up on a point half way through a string without checking what had been discussed previously. No way to avoid that I suppose.

My approach to these issues is that poverty is not nobel or an ideal to be sanctified, and that severe poverty is indeed a terrible thing which all the wealthy of the world are morally obliged to help resolve. And the scale of such problems in the developing world today (itself a demeaning term) are huge. There is indeed an apartheid of resources (and opportunities) in the world today, with countless millions (billions?) almost permanantly excluded from the world's wealth generating system, execpt perhaps as near slaves to the system which has so far not helped them.

These are the foundations upon which any rational debate should be founded, but I do not believe in prescriptive solutions (biotechnological or otherwise). Local remedies, especially where people have the choice about what to use will probably be the best, but may still not prevent the flood of populations to the cities. In this circumstance, it will be very easy for any policy (especially over-rigid, externally imposed ones, whether due to WTO type constraints as some might claim, or even potentially those initiated by NGO's) to inadvertantly make the problems much worse, in the short or longer term. No easy answers then.

On a wider note, there must be a physical limit to human population expansion, and the expansion in the consumption in resources. It may be arguable that those at the bottom of the heap are already suffering from this limitation, or it may be the case that with technology - and time - the benefits of technological advancement (i.e. a break out from poverty - which suggests a break out from small scale subsistence farming to me) can be much more widely spread than they are now. In the longer term, increases in the productivity of food in developing regions are surely no bad thing (whether measured in terms of gross yield, reduced losses to pests and disease, reduced storage losses, or avoiding the problems of excess pesticide use etc. that farming in developed regions is struggling with), but again they almost certainly will cause short term 'instabilities' as the effects are worked through.

Biotechnology has much to offer the developed - and developing world (100% assuming all safety issues are worked out), but it should by no means be regarded as the only means, or even the major means, not withstanding the financial, social and political problems surrounding and interwoven with all this. Doom and gloom laden scenarios of a rolling world capitalism rolling ever forward upon ruthless 18-19th century European and US models are by no means inevitable (nor even necessarily desirable, as I hope I made clear), but it is the simplest most dominating economic model around, and has tended to prevail over all efforts to change or stop it so far. All I would say is that anyone attempting to do so, or suggesting doing so, should seriously consider what the chances of a successful alternative outcome are and, if slim, what the risks are for efforts in those directions being counter-productive.

So, no dogmas, but pragmatism must rule - like it or not. And there isn't time to lose. I do not hold to the 'biotechnology will cure everything' view of some who over-hype the industry (who were pretty much absent I note), but I did worry that some of the mails with the most dogmatic and strident tones appeared to come from some in the aid agency sector. This may have been unintended, but I do wonder whether it is because of such people's closeness to the problems, or (worse) because such organisations have become part of the problem.

I offer no answers to that or any of the other issues.

Regards once again,

Trevor Fenning, Germany
Fenning@ice.mpg.de

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 2:43 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Risk assessment // Biotechnology and sustainability

First of all, I apologise for leaving this message to the last days of the conference. Since my previous message (21 November) I have not been able to follow the debate very closely, until today. I hope that this message will be helpful to the discussion, and that there will still be time for people to respond to it, if they wish.

Several participants have mentioned the importance of having 'a thorough and rigorous risk assessment ... for each product for each environment in which its use is proposed' (Andrea Johanson, 11 December); that 'each example will need to be assessed upon its own merits - as well as for its applicability' (Trevor Fenning, 6 December). For transgenic crops, I agree that detailed, context-specific risk assessment is vital.

However, I think there is good reason to doubt whether such detailed testing or risk assessment is likely to be carried out in poor countries. Risk assessment, field trials and so on, are time-consuming and expensive. It is highly questionable whether public authorities in many poor countries have the expertise or resources to carry out this work effectively [the same point was made, even more explicitly, by Glenn Ashton on 12 December ...Moderator]. They may have to rely on the private corporations themselves to supply data or to carry out trials.

Unfortunately, the corporations have a vested interest in keeping risk assessment procedures to a minimum, which explains why they are so keen to argue that transgenic crops are not intrinsically different, or inherently more risky, than crops derived from traditional breeding. Corporations are also adamant that regulations on testing and labelling transgenic crops should be rigorously 'science-based,' focusing exclusively on characteristics of the crop as a product, like toxicity and allergenicity, and not on the process by which it has been produced. Crucially, they would prefer to see a system of 'mutual recognition' in risk assessment, so that testing and approval in one country could be used to get approval for importing the crop for use in another country with quite different local conditions. In a globalised world, corporations use their influence with governments to get these interests included in regulations and agreements like the Biosafety Protocol.

On a different note:
It is interesting that, in this conference as much as anywhere else, the current 'big global energy-intensive wasteful agriculture' (Jeffrey Kirk, 13 December ) is used as the benchmark against which we should measure the potential benefits of agricultural biotechnology. Why is this? The intensive 'industrial' model of modern farming creates vast monocultural wastelands which are vulnerable to pests and disease; it relies on expensive industrial inputs of often toxic chemicals, which can be dangerous to both farmers and consumers; and it causes serious environmental degradation. Importantly, it stimulates what Jack Kloppenburg (1988) calls 'the technological treadmill', in which farmers become locked into an accelerating cycle of technological 'solutions,' each one more short-lived and with more marginal benefits than the last. (For a good example of this phenomenon, see Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN)'s highly critical view of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)'s efforts to develop rice plants resistant to bacterial blight - especially the first 2 sections: http://www.grain.org/publications/reports/bbrice.htm ). Instead of measuring the potential of agricultural biotechnology against the current industrial model, shouldn't we consider whether biotechnology has any role in bringing us closer to an alternative model of farming which would be more sustainable, more accessible to the resource-poor, and better at providing sustainable livelihoods in rural areas?

Dominic Glover LL.B. MA
Research Assistant
Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK
Email: D.Glover@ids.ac.uk

Kloppenburg, J.R., jnr. (1988). First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology, 1492-2000, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 3:23 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Limitations to Food Security and Biotechnology

In reponse to Tim Roberts' message [15 December]:

According to the UN's projections (used throughout the UN and its agencies), the rate of population growth has already slowed down. Their model suggests world population will peak at around 9 billion people (from something over 6 billion today) in around 2050, before declining slowly. Population growth is predicted to be concentrated in the countries of Southern and Eastern Asia, with China and India contributing an astonishing one-third of annual global population growth between 1995 and 2000.

Source: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 1998. World Population Prospects: the 1998 Revision. New York: UN. Summary available from http://www.un.org/popin/

Dominic Glover
Research Assistant
Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK
Email: D.Glover@ids.ac.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 3:25 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Technical issues

It has been correctly noted that the conference has not dwelt much on technical issues. They have been raised many times, but the theme has tended to revert to more philosophical and grand economic issues. This has been partly due to the theme of the conference, as many technical issues relate to biotechnology in general, rather than specifically to those of the developing world, and also because the different approaches to the problems of food security in developing regions clearly needed an airing.

It is still possible to have such a discussion, if anyone is interested, but presumably at this late date it would require another conference. However, I would warn in advance that such discussions (without the legitimate political discussions) tend to become extremely dry and excessively tedious to those not directly involved in the subject, and with the current controversy still raging around the subject, it is still likely to end up in circles of disagreement. Due to the speed of developments/revelations it will also probably be out of date before the conference is ended.

The place for such discussions is in the scientific literature, even with the strict limitations that are imposed there.

Trevor Fenning, Germany
Fenning@ice.mpg.de

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 4:15 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: isn't the answer yes ?

My name is George Mackay. I am employed at the Scottish Crop Research Institute, a public sector funded institution and I am a plant breeder.

I have read the contributions to this conference with more than a passing interest as we are intending to hold an Open Forum on "The Future of Biotechnology in Crop Improvement" at the XVIth Congress of the European Association of Plant Breeders (Eucarpia) in Edinburgh in September 2001 (for further info. see http://www.eucarpia.org ) . I am concerned as Ned Donkin is (13 Dec.) that our forum might too become side-tracked. There are many historical, political and socio-economic reasons why a proportion of humankind goes hungry whilst some of us consume more than our fair share. Whilst it behoves all of us to address this issue and ameliorate the situation, it seems unreasonable to argue that biotechnology per se will provide all the answers. Nevertheless it would be extremely foolish to ignore the tremendous potential that the new technologies offer as part of a solution.

Many of the developments that have taken place under the broad umbrella of "biotechnology" are already augmenting "conventional" plant breeding. The production of crops more resistant to, or tolerant of, abiotic and biotic stresses, of superior quality or for use as renewable industrial feedstock in an environmentally sustainable way has to be a desirable goal. If biotechnology can help achieve this, as I believe it can, then the answer to the main question has to be yes [The main question being: Can agricultural biotechnology help to reduce hunger and increase food security in developing countries ?...Moderator]. Perhaps we need to address some of the more specific questions raised by Ned Donkin and solve the technical problems ?

George Mackay
President of EUCARPIA
c/o Scottish Crop Research Institute
Invergowrie, Dundee DD2 5DA
Scotland UK
tele +44 (0) 1382 568 515 FAX +44 (0) 1382 568 587
e-mail: gmacka@scri.sari.ac.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 5:05 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Food Security, the answer is yes and maybe

George Mackay's answer [15 December] to the question "can agricultural biotechnology help to reduce hunger and increase food security in developing countries ?" is that it "must be yes". However, this really depends on projections for the impact of biotechnology on population growth. If the answer is that biotechnology will only allow the population to grow larger before it again becomes too large to be sustainable, then we are back to the same state, but with a larger population. So in the long run the answer could be no.

Tim Roberts [15 December] questions if unchecked population growth is inevitable due to the effect of wealth on birth control. In support to that conclusion, Dominic Glover [15 December] notes that according to the UN's projections the rate of population growth has already slowed down, suggesting only another 50% increase in population numbers before stabilizing. However, is the population growth rate declining because we are approaching the critical carrying capacity? Population models predict that a decline and leveling off will occur in that manner as the limit is approached. If that is true, then biotechnology could simply lift those limits and result in a new expansion.

I therefore feel that there is a short and long term answer and it really depends on the impact of biotechnology on population growth. If the answer is as Tim Roberts suggests (i.e. raising income levels will reduce birth rates) then maybe the more important question is what impact will biotechnology have on average wealth? Now we have to bring the agricultural economists into the debate.

Bill Muir
Professor of Genetics
Department of Animal Sciences
Purdue University, USA
bmuir@purdue.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 3:55 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Risk assessment // Biotechnology and sustainability

Response to Dominic Glover's contribution [15 December]:

Developments in the genetic improvement of crops are based on the most productive varieties which have been developed over preceeding decades. There is no point trying to "improve" (by GM technology) a variety which is not adapted to conventional agricultural systems.

Sustainable production systems are not "alternative models" as proposed. All agronomists today know that their system of production must be sustainable. This idea of sustainability has always been a part of agronomy (crop rotations, hygiene etc.). Today the sensitivity of systems can be quantified accurately and critical elements recognised (residues, nutrition levels) in practical terms. The goal is always to make the system more sustainable in all situations. Biotechnology methods can help to improve sustainability and the goal of technologists is to improve the efficiencies of crucial components of the system using the most adapted germplasm.

Dr. Gerry Douglas
Teagasc, Kinsealy Research Centre
Malahide Rd. Dublin 17
Ireland
Phone: 353 1 8460644 Fax:353 1 8460524
gdouglas@kinsealy.teagasc.ie

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 1:15 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Access, IPRs and the IU

[The last 2 messages in the conference are being posted now...Moderator]

I have only just joined this conference and have read through the submissions today. Although it is late, I feel compelled to raise one further point.

There have been a few references to the importance of intellectual property protection to innovation in biotechnology, in particular the development of transgenic crops. This form of protection has been extended to cover biotechnological inventions, despite objections from many countries. They see the extension of IPRs to cover all plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), especially plant varieties as required by the WTO/TRIPs, as the final assault on the global commons.

This indirect impact of biotechnology could have potential negative impact on food security and the diversity of the PGRFA developed and nurtured by farmers over millennia.

In contrast to transgenic crop developments fuelled by the demands of the biotech industry, of critical importance to global food security is the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA and the equitable sharing of benefits from the use of these resources for seeds and food. Conserving and allowing the continued free flow of these resources is a life insurance for humanity, and a backstop to the possible breakdown of transgenic varieties in the future.

There is a countervailing international agreement to WTO/TRIPs - the international undertaking on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (IU) that will address these issues. It is being currently renegotiated by the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) to bring it in harmony with the CBD.

This IU has the potential to exempt an entire category of the earth's "commons" - the plant life forms used to provide food security - from privatisation and corporate control. It could restrict "biopiracy" and continue to allow the free exchange, sale and communal ownership of PGRFA. The IU could also ensure that the more than half a million samples of crop, forage and agroforestry species in the International Agricultural Research Centre (IARC) gene banks, and currently held in trust by the FAO, will be safeguarded in the public domain.

It is essential that these negotiations are concluded soon to safeguard these resources, vital to the livelihoods of billions of people and the food security of the world.

Governments are watching these negotiations very carefully: if there cannot be agreement in good faith on this relatively straightforward instrument - that will ensure the free flow of genetic resources for food production and will provide compensatory benefits to farmers in developing countries - then how much less likely are satisfactory agreements on more contentious issues of biotechnology regulation, biosafety and wider agricultural trade. It is an important test case.

More information on this is available at http://www.ukabc.org

Patrick Mulvany

PS Apologies for logging on to this conference so late.

Food Security Policy Adviser
Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG), Schumacher Centre
Bourton, RUGBY
CV23 9QZ, UK
Patrick_Mulvany@compuserve.com

[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 18, 2000 1:18 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Some closing thoughts

Having taught environmental studies for almost three decades, and followed the present series of biotech conferences almost from their inception, I have found many of the technical discussions helpful. Here are a few thoughts on some of the more general issues.

Of the many areas in which biotechnology/transgenic research *might* prove to benefit the human race, the area of food production is, in my opinion, the least likely to succeed, for the following reasons:

1. The entire field of study is not well understood, either in its basic mechanisms or in its implications for farmers, consumers, and society at large. Many of the positive predictions expressed by corporate marketers ("It will reduce the need for chemicals, and increase yields") have not come true, while many of the fears expressed ("It could mutate, and pollute other, non-GM crops or harm beneficial insects") have proved to be justified. It is simply irresponsible to rush to open-field testing and marketing of GM-modified foods in supermarkets, when both the underlying science and the real-world implications are so poorly understood.

2. National governments have failed to effectively regulate the biotech industry, and to safeguard public health. In major biotech countries, government regulatory agencies, which rely on private-sector for-profit firms to supply them with accurate data on which to make their judgments, have discovered that some companies have deliberately falsified the data they provided to these same government agencies! In other cases, proprietary information has been withheld from government agencies for "competitive reasons." In an effort to make concessions to one major seed company, the US environmental protection agency (EPA) issued a limited license for a GM product, designed to keep it out of the human food chain, only to discover that the company failed to enforce those restrictions upon its customers (farmers), that grain elevators had not properly segregated the GM grain, and that, as a result, farmers in other countries had their fields contaminated, and major world markets were closed to them. Only a few months ago the government of Brazil took the extraordinary step not only of banning a wide range of consumer foods, but also of considering criminal prosecution of several food-industry multinationals for marketing GM products in violation of its consumer laws.

3. Mandatory and meaningful labelling requirements have been vigourously contested by multinational food processors and distributors. As a result, consumers who simply want to exercise their right to make informed choices in the marketplace, whether for health reasons or for religious or other reasons, are denied the opportunity to do so.

4. Protests in first-world nations in Europe, North American, and Asia show that public confidence in the food industry is waning, public distrust of government is increasing, and markets are disappearing, with farmers who have been encouraged to make sizeable investments to grow GM products being caught in the middle, with no place to sell their product. It is especially disturbing that, faced with such widespread scepticism, the response of business (and often government) officials is generally to offer empty reassurances that dissident voices are merely the rantings of a lunatic fringe, in a calculated effort to discredit respected researchers and public-interest groups.

5. Many people within the biotech industry are caught up by the excitement of a new technology. This is understandable, as the field is still in its infancy; for some this enthusiasm is rooted in a vision of patent monopolies, licensing fees, and control of global markets. It is complicated by the fact that national governments -- especially in the US and Canada -- hope to share, directly or indirectly, in the anticipated profits of the biotech industry; thus their objectivity and impartiality is open to question.

Finally, biotechnology is often presented as a panacea for world food shortages. This is simply false, and needs to be put to rest. Even if world food production were to double using GM techniques, the problem would recur in twenty, or perhaps fifty years, based on world population growth. There is a high degree of consensus that global starvation is due to problems in food distribution, not actual production, and patented seed products requiring licensing fees are not likely to be of much use to small farmers in the developing world.

These observations apply, mutatis mutandem, to all areas of GM agriculture, whether plant or animal, forestry or fish.

Does biotech have a future? Almost certainly -- but most likely, I think, in the area of biopharmaceuticals, where the production and dissemination of GM organisms can be carefully monitored and the potential for widespread disaster is sharply reduced.

James E. Napier, Ph.D.
Coordinator, International Studies
Champlain Regional College
Lennoxville, Quebec Canada J1M 2A1
jnapier@ican.net

[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 18, 2000 1:36 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: End of Biotech Conference 5

Dear Colleagues,

The last message, from James Napier, has been posted, so Conference 5 is now officially closed. It has been an active and successful conference on a very important theme and we hope you also have found it of benefit and interest.

To give you some statistics on the conference: 258 people registered and a total of 118 messages were posted. Participants in Europe, Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) contributed 42, 21 and 19% respectively of the messages posted, while North America, Asia and Oceania contributed 14, 3 and 1%. 43% of messages came from participants in developing countries, while 57% were from developed countries. (Note that these results are only an approximate indicator of the relative contributions of the developing versus developed world and of the different world regions to the conference - people from developing countries may be currently living in developed countries (and vice versa)). Messages were posted from individuals in 22 different countries. 45 different people sent messages, which represents 17% of all those who registered for the conference.

To all those who participated, a very sincere thanks for devoting your time and effort to writing the messages and for sharing your views and experiences with us.

With all best wishes for the Christmas season and a happy new year.

Moderator, Conference 5

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