[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org.
For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and
Agriculture see Forum website.
Note, participants are
assumed to be speaking on their own behalf, unless they
state otherwise.]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 14 November 2002 09:46
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 1: Very little public funds should be devoted to biotechnology
[Thanks to Professor Altieri for the first message in this conference. Remember that messages should not exceed 600 words...Moderator]
My name is Miguel A Altieri, Professor of Agroecology at the University of California Berkeley, United States. Below are some of the reasons why I think very little public funds should be devoted to biotechnology, a science promoted by the corporate world, with funds that top many times the budget of all NARIS put together. Instead such limited funds should be used on appropriate technologies that are out of the realm of the private world, but that are pro-poor.
All biotechnological innovations available today bypass the majority of farmers in the developing world, who are poor farmers, as these farmers are not able to afford the expensive transgenic seeds, which in addition are protected by patents owned by biotech corporations. As experienced with the Green Revolution, extending modern technology to resource-poor farmers has been historically constrained by considerable environmental obstacles. There is no reason to expect that the Gene Revolution will not experience the same problems. An estimated 850 million people live on land threatened by desertification. Another 500 million reside on terrain that is too steep to cultivate. Because of those and other limitations, about two billion people have been untouched by modern agricultural science. Most of the rural poor live in the tropics, a region that is the most vulnerable to the effects of global warming. In such environments, a plethora of cheap and locally accessible technologies must be available to enhance rather than limit farmers options, food must be produced where the poor are, using participatory approaches. Biotechnology does not fit any of these criteria.
Biotech researchers pledge to counter problems associated with food production in such marginal areas by developing genetically modified (GM) crops with traits considered desirable by small farmers, such as enhanced competitiveness against weeds and drought tolerance. However, these new attributes would not necessarily be a panacea. Traits such as drought tolerance are polygenic, determined by the interaction of multiple genes. Consequently, the development of crops with such traits is a complex and expensive process that could take at least 10 years.
In addition, genetic engineering does not give you something for nothing. The second law of thermodynamics suggests that when you tinker with multiple genes to create a desired trait, you inevitably end up with sacrificing other traits, such as productivity. As a result, use of a drought-tolerant plant would boost crop yields by only 30 to 40 percent. Any additional yield increases would have to come from improved environmental practices (such as water harvesting or enhancing soil organic matter for improved moisture retention) rather than from the genetic manipulation of specific characteristics.
Even if biotechnology could contribute to increased crop harvests, poverty will not necessarily decline. Many poor farmers in developing countries do not have access to land, cash, credit, technical assistance, or markets. The so-called Green Revolution of the 1950s and 1960s bypassed such farmers because planting the new high yield crops and maintaining them through the use of pesticides and fertilizers was too costly for impoverished landowners. Data shows that, in both Asia and Latin America, wealthy farmers with larger and better-endowed lands gained the most from the Green Revolution, where farmers with fewer resources often gained little. The Gene Revolution might only end up repeating the mistakes of its predecessor. GM seeds are under corporate control and patent protection, consequently making them very expensive. Since many developing countries still lack the institutional infrastructure and low interest credit necessary to deliver these new seeds to poor farmers, biotechnology will only exacerbate marginalization. Moreover, many countries have not in place acceptable biosafety regulations to assess and monitor environmental impacts of GMOs.
Poor farmers do not fit into the marketing niche of private corporations, which focus on biotechnological innovations for the commercial-agricultural sectors of industrial and developing nations, where these corporations can expect a huge return on their research investment. The private sector often ignores important crops such as cassava, which is a staple for 500 million people worldwide. The few impoverished landowners who will have access to biotechnology will become dangerously dependent on the annual purchase of GM seeds. These farmers will have to abide by onerous intellectual property agreements not to plant seeds yielded from a harvest of bioengineered plants. Such stipulations are an affront to traditional farmers, who for centuries have saved and shared seeds as part of their cultural legacy.
Some scientists and policy makers suggest that large investments through public-private partnerships can help developing countries acquire the indigenous scientific and institutional capacity to shape biotechnology to suit the needs and circumstances of small farmers. But once again, corporate intellectual property rights to genes and gene-cloning technology might play spoiler. For instance, Brazil's national agricultural research organisation (EMBRAPA) must negotiate license agreements with nine different companies before a virus-resistant papaya developed with researchers at Cornell University can be released to poor farmers. Instead of paying royalties to multinationals, those funds could be devoted to scale-up already proven agroecological technologies that really benefit the poor.
The analysis of dozens of NGO-led agroecological projects show convincingly that agroecological systems are not limited to producing low outputs, as some critics have asserted. Increases in production of 50 to 100 percent are fairly common with most alternative production methods. In some of these systems, yields for crops that the poor rely on most - rice, beans, maize, cassava, potatoes, barley have been increased by several-fold, relying on labour and know-how more than on expensive purchased inputs, and capitalizing on processes of diversity and synergy. In a recent study of 208 agroecologically based projects and/or initiatives throughout the developing world, researchers at Essex documented clear increases in food production over some 29 million hectares, with nearly 9 million households benefiting from increased food diversity and security. Promoted sustainable agriculture practices led to 50-100% increases in per hectare food production (about 1.71 Mg per year per household) in rain-fed areas typical of small farmers living in marginal environments; that is an area of about 3.58 million hectares, cultivated by about 4.42 million farmers. Such yield enhancements are a true breakthrough for achieving food security among farmers isolated from mainstream agricultural institutions. This in my opinion is where limited public international and national reserach funds should be invested. There is a rush to catch the biotech train, nobody is asking who is driving the train and what about if the train is going to the wrong station.
Miguel A. Altieri, Ph.D.
Professor of Agroecology
Division of Insect Biology
201 Wellman Hall-3112
University of California
Berkeley CA 94720
United States
tel 510 6429802
fax 510 6427428
agroeco3 (at) nature.berkeley.edu
www.agroeco.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 14 November 2002 09:53
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 2: Disapponting benefits from GMO research
My name is Bob Howe, I am an independent organic inspector. I live in the Northeast USA.
I have been following GMO developments for about three years. In that time I have been disappointed by several claims of benefit from the research in the field. The issues are clear; we do not know how to control the escape of engineered organisms and attempts to confine test organisms have been unsuccessful. The makers of GE organisms claim that they do not present any health threat. We do not need extensive testing to prove otherwise, the information in dispute of that claim is coming in from all over the world. These GE experts claim, also, that these organisms are beneficial, will be required to "feed the world". Also a hollow claim, also proven false - research shows that Roundup Ready Soybeans are 20% less productive than conventional - golden rice is a failure for a number of reasons - crops that allegedly will grow in severe environments are far less than nutritious- etc. etc.
Another objectionable side to the whole issue is the patenting of nature's creations. How is it ethical that someone or some entity can lay claim to a plant that has existed for as long as there has been recorded history? At the very least, if the GE train is going to continue down the track, the companies that are in the field need to be held accountable, they need to pay for damage done and pay for whatever prevention of damage is required. Further, GE foods must be labeled so people can have an informed choice.
Bob Howe
United States
Earthorganic (at) aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 14 November 2002 17:09
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 3: National breeding programmes
My name is Elcio Perpetuo Guimarães, Senior Officer Cereal/Crop breeding at FAO, Rome, Italy.
Scientists need to be open minded to new technological developments and be prepared to take advantage of them whenever they became available and when they are the most suitable way to achieve the proposed breeding objectives. When I started as a rice breeder, at EMBRAPA, in 1976, the best alternative available to meet farmer's demand was the development of fixed lines through pedigree selection. Today, rice breeders are able to produce hybrids, improve populations through methods earlier used only for cross-pollinated crops and use a number of modern biotechnological tools. Even though this tremendous methodological progress was accomplished, only a few national rice breeding programmes around the world actually take advantage of it. What we see, when visiting developing countries, is that many traditional rice breeding programmes have been dismantled and resources are diverted to different research areas, such as biotechnology. Presently, very limited resources are still going to the traditional or conventional rice breeding. Now it is much more difficult to train a young scientist in conventional rice breeding methods than it was a couple of decades ago. [The Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA) is a subsidiary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Supply of Brazil...Moderator].
The central question now is how would these new technologies help the poor? Who will work these new traits into the old/new cassava or Phaseolus varieties? What are the balances and priorities given to biotechnology versus conventional breeding by developing countries? What is the role of international research centres and the donor community in guiding/assisting agricultural research systems into taking full advantage of new biotechnologies? What are the role and the focus of biotechnology in the agricultural agendas of these developing countries? [Phaseolus is a group of mostly climbing, twining plants, including many important vegetables such as the Scarlet Runner Bean, Lima Bean, Butterbean, Kidney Bean and String Bean...Moderator].
This electronic conference is proposing to discuss this issue. I would like to see comments on how biotechnology can help the poor farmers if putting the resources into biotechnology means neglecting the national breeding programmes? We cannot close their doors to technology, we must provide them with tools to take advantage of these technologies; one of the basic tools is to provide support to these national breeding programmes. The international community should be aware of it and should make funds available, if biotechnology wants to make an impact in poor farmer's agriculture.
Elcio Perpetuo Guimarães
Senior Officer Cereals/Breeding
FAO - AGPC
Office C-778
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome - Italy
Phone: (39-06) 5705.3926
Fax: (39-06) 5705.6347
elcio.guimaraes (at) fao.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 15 November 2002 09:32
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 4: Room for all technologies?
My name is Larry R. Beach, I am a Ph.D. level scientist living in Des Moines, Iowa, United States. I recently resigned from the seed company, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Intl., Inc., after leading an effort there to enhance the nutritional content of grain. I have been a molecular biologist working with plants for 20 years. I am seeking ways to better apply biotechnology to the needs of developing countries.
I think it is important to put companies into the proper perspective, they exist to make money. The research they do is targeted to make money. The first commercially viable projects that have been accomplished using biotechnology have been the ones most accessible to the science; herbicide resistance and insect resistance. These were targeted to the biggest markets where the most money could be made. I believe these products are safe and have many positive aspects.
Farmers have embraced these products when they are made available to them not because they have been duped by the companies, but because they present a benefit to the farmer. Farmers are not stupid, they test new products side-by-side with tried and true products and select the ones that will give them the best return. They don't plant a soybean that has a trait developed via biotechnology that yields 20% less. They plant varieties with enhanced traits because they can get just as good or better yields while allowing them to save money and soil. They can use low tillage methods and chemicals that are safer and work better. Remember, they have learned that the water they drink is coming from a well that is right next to the field they farm; they don't want it to be contaminated!
I believe there is room for both traditional breeding and biotechnology. It is completely wrong to reduce the level of support for breeding and depend on biotechnology. They must go together. Because companies are focused on making money, their focus is not likely to be on the needs of people that are not able to pay. It is thus up to the public sector to support this need. It would be short sighted to not support biotechnology. The technology is available to begin to address some needs within this sector. The dogma that solutions to some traits requires too many genes to be approachable is just dogma in some cases. There are several examples of traits that genetics had indicated would require many genes to resolve, but using biotechnology, significant changes can be made with one gene. That's when biotechnology should be applied, but maybe not when there is a solution via breeding. I would certainly not claim all traits fit into this simple solution category.
The best case use of biotechnology is to have scientists in developing countries learn to use and apply the technology to local needs. This requires much more than just good scientists using the technology. It requires understanding and proper planning in areas of intellectual property and regulatory so that successful efforts are safe and don't involve the use of someone else's property. I believe most companies that own technology are not interested in trying to make money on that technology if it is used in ways that do not compete with the company. Since many targets for developing countries are not commercial targets for companies, it is likely they will donate technology. This needs to be negotiated early in the development of a project, not after the fact.
The best solution is to apply the most effective technology for the problem. Is there not room for breeding, agroecological approaches and biotechnology?
Larry R. Beach
3939 Maquoketa Drive
Des Moines, IA 50311-2636
United States
beachlarryray (at) netscape.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 15 November 2002 10:20
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 5: Biotech is an important tool to achieve sustainability in LDCs
This is from Jorge E. Mayer, Principal Scientist & IP Analyst, Center for the Application of Molecular Biology to International Agriculture (CAMBIA), Canberra, Australia.
Agricultural practices vs Biotechnology
Without doubt an enormous amount of improvement in agricultural production in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) could be obtained through the adoption and implementation of improved agricultural practices. I suggest that most technologies in this field are already available in theory, and that therefore, when talking about investment in research, we should separate implementation of existing technology from investment in new technologies, like biotechnology. Of course, whether we call it implementation or research, in many cases both activities will be competing for the same resources and both are of the highest priority to sustainable development.
The meager output of biotechnological innovation for agricultural smallholders in LDCs is often used to put this technology in a bad light. Private initiatives are well ahead in the commercialization of genetically modified crops (GMCs) in developed countries for the simple reason that they have invested accordingly. You reap what you sow, an old agricultural principle.
Choice of traits and techniques
The number of commercially available GMCs is very small, and there is no doubt that these crops as well as their incorporated traits were selected for commercial reasons. What we are looking for in this forum is for crops and traits that have less of an economic appeal for big companies in developed countries. We are looking in most cases for crops and traits which will be used by small farmers in traditional ways, i.e. crossing them with their own genetic stock, breeding them further, exchanging them freely, etc. In such a scenario the choice of introduced traits is of course critical. As the client base does not support a strong commercial commitment, funding must come from public sources.
Some important traits are multigenic. Novel molecular marker techniques look very promising in dealing with quantitative trait loci (QTLs) in such a way as to assist complex breeding programs with a significant reduction in breeding times. That will also allow the development of many more varieties to satisfy regional requirements for edapho-climatic adaptations of crops [edaphic means resulting from or influenced by the soil...Moderator]. This will be only possible in combination with strong breeding programs. Other developments look very promising in introducing phenotypic variability into crops, not found in germplasm collections, and which could be critical in creating new adaptations or traits like apomixis (to fix hybrid vigor).
Intellectual Property (IP)
Patents might be an issue in the case of crop production for export to countries where these patents are in force, but when the goal is to improve the livelihood of small farmers, these patents might not pose an impediment at all. We must also be alert to the expiry dates of patents, which tells us when the international markets will open to those crops without IP restrictions. We must plan ahead and not pretend that patents are closing doors for ever. Information about patents for which licenses at acceptable rates can be obtained should be disseminated widely. Lobbying should take place with owners of key patents (see for example the clearinghouse model).
Biosafety
GMCs are as containable as their non-modified counterparts, and as long as the introduced genes only contribute to field performance or nutritive content, problems associated with dispersion are also comparable.
Yields
When we're looking at crops adapted to marginal agricultural land (e.g. acid soils, cronic drought) we cannot expect yields above top crops on prime land, in many cases any yield at all will be plenty.
Capacity building
Increases in population and also in livestock make agriculture one of the focal points in biotechnology research. To pursue this, regional collaborations around focal points based on strong national agricultural research systems (NARS) and international agricultural research centres (IARCs) should be fostered. This will also automatically involve major donors and advanced research institutions.
Jorge E. Mayer, PhD
Principal Scientist & IP Analyst
CAMBIA
GPO Box 3200
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Phone +61 2 6246 4516
Fax +61 2 6246 4501
Email j.mayer (at) cambia.org
'Center for the Application of Molecular Biology to International
Agriculture'
An autonomous, not-for-profit organization affiliated to Charles Sturt
University
http://www.cambia.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 15 November 2002 10:29
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 6: Re: Very little public funds should be devoted to biotechnology
I am E.M. Muralidharan and I work at the Kerala Forest Research Institute,Kerala State, India. Much of my work involves micropropagation of forest species and use of molecular markers for genetic variation studies. I hope there will be some discussion on forest biotechnology too in the conference.
I would like to address first the issue of biotechnology research carried out by the National Agricultural Research System (NARS) vis-à-vis privately funded research in developing countries. While countries like China and India may have acquired the capability in terms of scientific expertise to carry out cutting-edge research in the agriculture biotechnology, hardly any benefits have been realized which are specific to poor-farmer requirements. As Prof. Altieri (message 1, November 14) has pointed out, biotechnology today the world over is directed by perceptions and needs of the corporate world. The private companies will obviously have a vested interest in developing technology and products that maximize their profit. This might suit the interests of many farmers in developed nations, but apparently does not benefit third world farmers and in fact often goes against their interests.
I don't agree with Professor Altieri when he says that no NARS funds should be allotted to biotech research at all. Public funding should continue in biotechnology in very specific areas where proven technologies have something to offer and alternatives in conventional technology is not available. It is true that, individually, the NARS in developing countries are no match to any of the large corporate firms, but collectively they would have many advantages one of which is that the energies can be devoted to specific poor-farmer oriented technologies (even where genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are involved). One way out of this problem therefore, is to have a consortium of research organizations representing the developing nations to pool the resources and to have a focused objective in some priority areas. It has not really happened before, in spite of several international agencies in the arena. This venture can involve private companies and research organizations from the developed nations too if it is worth their while.
And Prof. Altieri is right again about biotechnology not being a magical solution to all the problems of agriculture without incurring additional burden of inputs that the small farmer cannot bear. The assurances of the pro-GM lobby about the safety of GMOs are not very convincing even to many in the scientific community and opposition is not always out of ignorance. However, even the most steadfast opponents of GMOs might be convinced about the benefits of a nutritional improvement in a staple food crop using genetic transformation and with little negative impact on wild germplasm. Let that be the beginning for the `poor-farmer biotechnology'.
Dr. E.M. Muralidharan
Genetics Division
Kerala Forest Research Institute
Peechi 680 653 Thrissur,
Kerala State, India
Email: emmurali (at) kfri.org
Web: www.kfri.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 18 November 2002 16:25
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 7: Re: Very little public funds should be devoted to biotechnology
I am a civil servant working in India and currently doing research on issues of international trade, especially in agricultural trade. I am participating in this conference in my personal capacity as a researcher.
I have seen the message of Prof Altieri (message 1, November 14) which states that very little public funds should be devoted to biotechnology. His reasoning appears to be fallacious and supported by mythical arguments. He states that as biotechnology is developed by large corporations and it does not fit in participatory approach, public funds should not be devoted to this technology and rather they may be used for development of alternative methods. This sort of logic would do nothing but support the cause of multi-national corporations (MNCs) who are the current possessors of knowledge. There is no logic in stating that biotechnology and gene technology would not fit into participatory approach. Perhaps, the current mode of delivery of the technology appears to be out of reach of the poor. However, it is more so for these reasons that public funding should be focused on biotechnology. Professor Altieri may also appreciate the fact that when simple technology is readily available, no resource-poor farmer would try complicated alternative technologies. This is the root cause of propagation of the Green Revolution and this would be more so in case of gene revolution. This is supported by various surveys conducted by us in India. In essence, fallacy in methods of delivery shall not be used to blame a technology. Biotechnology may not be a panacea for the problems of resource-free farmers. However, it is today the most forceful medication readily available to the farmers. Just because traits like drought resistance involve multiple genes, one cannot ignore the technology. In fact, efforts should be doubled to develop strains suitable for tropical conditions and strains that would provide better yields. It is not necessary that productivity would have to be sacrificed for other benefits. The present technology with MNCs may not focus on yield because developed countries may not be worried about yield. There is no scientific support to state that yield loss is definite. Again, these issues prove that developing countries must devote more funds for public biotech research that is suitable to local needs. It is true that povery in poor countries may not decline with the onset of biotechnology. But this is not the fault of technology and one has to blame the support, delivery, marketing and distribution systems. Yet, one need not constrain onself in adopting to better technology because he is constrained on other fronts. The Green Revolution did not bypass anyone, at least in India, though there could be asymmetry in distribution of benefits. The fact is that everyone gains, whether big or small, in some way or other. Today, if India is a food surplus country, it is only because of the Green Revolution. At least in India, production levels have stagnated and, though there is lot of propaganda for alternative methods, there are practically no takers because the methods are several times unviable for poor farmers. Small and poor farmers are not bad economists and if there is economic sense then definitely they would try alternative methods. Everything has to be viewed from the angle of opportunity cost. Successful public research can only counter monopolistic tendencies of private corporations. Lastly, propagation of biotechnology does not mean neglect of alternative methods like organic farming. Governments, like those in India, are trying to propagate methods like Integrated Pest Management since long. Now, let us give at least one try to biotechnology. Y.V.S.T. Sai, IRS-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 19 November 2002 10:15
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 8: Biotechnology research in the public sector
This is Miguel Altieri again. I have read with interest the comments so far and although many of you feel that biotechnology research should be encouraged in the public sector the following points have not been addressed or need further discussion:
a) How will poorly funded public research institutions be able to conduct independent, pro-poor biotech research in the midst of existing intellectual property rights (IPR) regimes controlled by multi-national corporations (MNCs) and also given that private sector funding of many public research centers and universities is increasingly biasing the research agenda?
b) How will public organizations deal with the royalties issue given that all complementary (markers, vectors etc.) technologies are patented? How can technology be made available to the poor? As in the case of golden rice, companies say that they will make it available for humanitarian reasons, but can the poor be dependent on the good will of corporations?
c) There are two major international public research bodies (the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and especially the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR)) that define research agendas for the developing world but they have very little participation from NGOs and farmers, are dominated by people from national agricultural research systems (NARS) institutions that are pressured to adopt a pro-biotech position and that are subjected to influences from the private sector, with influential members in their boards or key committees
d) The last point has to do with the issue of genetic contamination of landraces in areas dominated by biodiverse traditional agriculture. According to Chapela and Quist's highly controversial report in Nature (their results were also corroborated by 3 independent studies of the Mexican Ministry of Environment) there is a high probability that the introduction of transgenic crops will further accelerate the loss of genetic diversity and of indigenous knowledge and culture, through mechanisms similar, but more dangerous, to those of the Green revolution. The problem with introductions of transgenic crops into diversity regions is that the spread of characteristics of genetically altered grain to local varieties favored by small farmers could dilute the natural sustainability of these races. Although many proponents of biotechnology believe that unwanted gene flow from genetically modified (GM) maize may not compromise maize biodiversity (and therefore the associated systems of agricultural knowledge and practice, along with the ecological and evolutionary processes involved) and may pose no worse a threat than cross-pollination from conventional (non GM) seed. In fact, some industry researchers believe that DNA from engineered maize is unlikely to have an evolutionary advantage, but if transgenes do persist they may actually prove advantageous to Mexican farmers and crop diversity. But here a key question arises: Can genetically engineered plants actually increase crop production and, at the same time, repel pests, resist herbicides, and confer adaptation to stressful factors commonly faced by small farmers? Thermodynamic considerations suggest they cannot; traits important to indigenous farmers (resistance to drought, food or fodder quality, maturity, competitive ability, performance on intercrops, storage quality, taste or cooking properties, compatibility with household labor conditions, etc) could be traded for transgenic qualities which may not be important to farmers. Under this scenario, risk will increase and farmers will lose their ability to adapt to changing biophysical environments and produce relatively stable yields with a minimum of external inputs while supporting their communities' food security.
So, given the above considerations why do we insist in a technology that is expensive, controlled by corporations and complex patents that bias and limit what public institutions can do, and that can cause major ecological problems? Especially when there are hundreds of other less risky, less costly agroecological technologies that are pro-poor, do not cause environmental degradation and that are culturally sensitive and socially activating?
Miguel A. Altieri, Ph.D.
Professor of Agroecology
Division of Insect Biology
201 Wellman Hall-3112
University of California
Berkeley CA 94720
tel 510 6429802
fax 510 6427428
agroeco3 (at) nature.berkeley.edu
www.agroeco.org
[The paper refered to above by D. Quist and I. Chapela (2001) was published in Nature, 414, 541-543. The topic of gene flow from GM populations was dealt with in the previous Forum conference held this Summer, see the archives, and should not be much discussed here, as the major focus of this conference is the role and focus of biotechnology in the agricultural research agendas of developing countries...Moderator]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 19 November 2002 10:24
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 9: Fund public good biotechnology
This is from Martin Downes. I work with biocontrol organisms and gene flows in at the National University of Ireland, Maynooth.
Miguel Altieri (message 1, November 14) has just made a very strong case for devoting "very little public funds....to biotechnology", arguing essentially that it does not benefit the starving millions much. I want to accept the bones of his arguments without dispute, but they lead me to slightly different conclusions, or maybe a different emphasis.
If longer term sustainability in developing regions involves being able to make use of the wealth-creating capacity of trade, then we might think that feeding the starving, though a priority, is not the only priority of development aid. Biotechnology is generally judged to be at the beginning of extraordinary wealth (and health) creation in the rich world: should we be concerned that the poor regions may fall even farther behind in this area? Should they be assisted to access this wealth creation in their own regions? I cannot see why anyone should answer "No".
Many feel that feeding the hungry without attention to infrastructure is a serious ethical issue, because lack of attention to infrastructure may sometimes result in larger populations starving later on. So, we must think in terms of long-term and continuing improvement in the lot of poorer regions: feeding the hungry is not enough, and raising people to subsistence level only is not enough. We need to think of infrastructure that may allow growing populations to escape from the pursuing threat of famine. Biotechnology, and business based on biotechnology, should reasonably be part of this.
It is not helpful to say that biotechnology is (or is not) a powerful tool for crop development. Biotechnology is at a very early stage in its own development. Pessimistically, though rightly, Miguel Altieri points out that organisms tend to gain a desired trait at expense to others. However, not all traits seem to be equally costly, and we may be prepared to sacrifice some existing characters if the corresponding gains are great. For instance, food quality may be more vital than food quantity in some development conditions, such as access to international trade.
Industrial applications of biotechnology are far in advance of field applications: we cannot "engineer" a sufficient number of genes in organisms to give us adequate control of multigenic characters: we cannot even insert and coordinate several major genes (e.g. vertical resistance genes) in plants in a way that would make them interesting for sustainable control of the development of resistant pests. So I emphasise that these are very early days and we can guess with some confidence that surprising advances will become possible. Is it important that developing countries should be in on these coming developments, whatever they turn out to be? Surely so, for long-term improvement.
Less well off regions are sometimes special repositories of biodiversity. Is it important that poorer countries should have the expertise to protect and develop their indigenous genetic resources, as equals of richer countries? Obviously, I feel so. They need expertise in biotechnology.
The involvement of corporate business must be managed very carefully indeed: the idea that profit-oriented corporations might control food supply is appalling and would surely cripple emerging democratic control of the destinies of developing countries. But how do we stop the process? By legislation - whose legislation? And who would enforce that legislation? Perhaps indigenous technical expertise and indigenous business would give better protection than attempts to legislate: I certainly feel so.
In summary then, I argue for much better support for biotechnology research (and teaching), carried out on a broadly public-good model, in developing countries and in partnership with them. This in no way denies the need for better more conventional technologies in food production. It supports indigenous control of food security, and education.
Professor Martin J. Downes,
Director, Inst.for Bioengineering & Agroecology,
Head of Population Ecology Laboratory,
National University of Ireland, Maynooth,
Maynooth,
Co. Kildare,
Ireland.
Tel + 353.1.7083837 (Direct)
+ 353.1.7083843 (Secretary)
Fax + 353.1.7083845
e-mail: martin.downes (at) may.ie
Website: http://www.may.ie/academic/
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 19 November 2002 10:29
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 10: Transgenic crop technology
I am Dr. Suleyman Karahan, Head of Dept at General Directorate of Agricultural Research, Ministry of Agriculture of Turkey.
I believe that, first of all, transgenic crop technology itself makes it possible for the developing countries to develop their infrastructure quickly and makes scientists aware of this technolgy. On the other hand, there has been heavy pressure, coming from commercial companies mainly from USA, Canada and others, on governments, related sectors and farmers to open doors for transgenics, but they have to take care about their citizens and environmental issues.
Dr. S. Karahan
General Directorate of Agricultural Research,
Ministry of Agriculture of Turkey
Turkey
suleyman_karahan (at) ANKARA.TAGEM.GOV.TR
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 19 November 2002 10:36
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 11: GE vs. non-GE biotech research
I am Roberto Verzola from the Philippines. I just recently got a job as coordinator of the sustainable agriculture program of a national farmers' federation in the Philippines called PAKISAMA. The federation's concept of a sustainable farm is one that implements integrated diversified organic farming systems. I am joining this list in my personal capacity [Just a reminder that this last statement is not really necessary. Participants are always assumed to be speaking on their own personal behalf and not on behalf of their employers, unless they state otherwise...Moderator].
Biotechnology is such a wide field, and the term is often used to misrepresent the much narrower field of genetic engineering (GE). Some people who call for increased public funds for biotechnology research often really mean funds for GE research. This is like calling for more energy research, when one actually means research on nuclear power plants.
I think today that biotech research is too skewed in favor of GE, while non-GE areas of biotechnology get very little attention and funds.
What is the point is spending millions of dollars on GE research when practically all honest surveys show consumer aversion for GE food and preference for organic foods? GE rejection has reached a point that countries threatened with famine are still extremely reluctant to accept GE food, even if it is given to them for free.
I would call for more research on organic biotechnologies and related areas, because organic, chemical-free agriculture is what consumers want, it is healthier for farmers and their families, and friendlier to the environment. This is the kind of research that farmers I work with need and want.
If these technologies received a fair share of the research budget and attention, they might easily exceed the promises -- so far unkept -- of GE research. For instance, there's a technology for rice management called SRI (system of rice intensification, first developed in Madagascar in the 1980s), where farm practice is way ahead of research, and yet has been showing up to 100% yield increases in farmers' (not research) fields. SRI can be applied organically, which makes it even more attractive. Furthermore, no patents are involved, so SRI is freely accessible to poor farmers, unlike the patented technologies which are commonly the result of GE research. If organic-oriented technologies similar to SRI got more research funds, who knows what kind of yields we would be enjoying today?
Roberto Verzola
Philippines
rverzola (at) gn.apc.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 19 November 2002 11:31
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 12: Re GE vs. non-GE biotech research
I am Dakarai Mashava from Zimbabwe. I work for Consumers International Regional Office for Africa as an information officer and am based in Harare, Zimbabwe.
I agree with Roberto Verzola (message 11, November 19) on his view that there is no in spending millions of scarce research dollars on GE research when survey after survey shows increasing consumer aversion for GE food. More reaearch funds should be channelled towards improving organic agriculture. Organic agriculture is healthier for both the people and the environment and therefore should be allocated more research funds because it promotes sustainable food production. More attention is being heaped on GE research because multinationals know that they will earn lots of profits by corporatising agriculture.
Dakarai Mashava
Zimbabwe
dmashava (at) ci-roaf.co.zw
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 19 November 2002 14:44
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 13: Multinational companies and research
I am Bob Howe, Independent Organic Inspector, residing in the Northeastern USA.
Let us not be unaware of the control exercised by the financially powerful companies who are in control of the great majority of the world's food supply. We are blind and deaf if we consider for one moment that these giants will do anything more than a token for the benefit of a poor population. These giants elect the governments that we expect to generate the legislation for controlling them, they fill the media with the advertising that makes them look like great benefactors that are in business for the good of all people. Do the scientists involved in this research think that they would be in a position to carry out the research if most of the money for the research came from public sources, and not from the giants? Let us be clear on this. The giants only fund the research because there is a competition going on for being on the cutting edge and making more money - the people be damned. I have heard the arguments presented so far, in favor of genetic engineering (GE) in foods, and they all are a mask for the corporate intelligence. The only place that there should be any funding of GE in foods is in controlling the monster that has been let loose. My vote is to stop the train and spend the money on trying to contain the damage.
Bob Howe
28 Brodhead Road
West Shokan, NY 12494
United States
Earthorganic (at) aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 19 November 2002 14:54
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 14: Farmers need more technology options
I am Saturnina Halos and I provide advice to the Philippine Department of Agriculture on biotechnology for agricultural development. I was trained as a plant breeder and geneticist and have been doing research in biotechnology for years. I prefer to have many technology options. My husband and I have invented (using public funds) and are developing the market for a microbial preparation (seed inoculant) that improves plant growth and yield and reduces fertilizer requirements. On the one hand, I conduct research using DNA analysis.
The Philippine government has adopted a policy to promote the safe and responsible use of biotechnology as one of the means to achieve food security. As a developing country, the Philippines has a large proportion (~40%) of its population dependent on agriculture. Individual farms are small, the average size is about 1.5 hectares (has) (~ 3 acres). Such farms usually support a family of 6-12 persons. These farms have variable soil fertility, some contain problem minerals. These receive variable rainfall. These may have easy or difficult access to markets. Furthermore, farmers' schooling ranges from 2 - 20 years, with many of the poor having at most 4 years of primary education. In short, conditions are so variable, it is folly to provide a single solution to problems of low productivity which, in general, characterizes Philippine agriculture. Hence, we believe that biotechnology is only one of the technological means to increase incomes.
Depending upon market conditions, income increases can be achieved simply by targetting a niche market such as the organic produce market, where products are priced about twice as much as the non-organic ones. This market is limited to the higher income bracket (~5% of the Philippine population) and accessible to farmers mainly around urban centers. Because of lower efficiency, organic farming incurs higher production cost and lower yields due to insect pests and diseases which today are not reliably controlled by organic means. Tropical conditions breed so many insect pests and diseases.
Another means to increase incomes is to increase yields per unit area. A dramatic example is the use of hybrid corn compared with traditional varieties introduced by the Spaniards centuries ago. Hybrid corn yields range from 3-9 tons/ha whereas traditional corn varieties yield 0.3-2 tons/ha.
On the other hand, income increases can be achieved by preventing losses mainly from pests and diseases. These losses range from 35-100%. In corn, reports on yield losses due to the insect Asiatic corn borer range from 5-95%. Currently, farmers control this insect with a chemical pesticide applied by hand into individual plants. This chemical can cause nausea and vomiting among the applicators, death to farm animals, and can kill any insect species that encounters it. Moreover, for the chemical to be effective, it must be applied at a particular time within a short period during corn growth. Farmers are therefore looking for a better solution to the borer problem. Multi-location trials conducted with the GM Bt corn has conclusively shown that the borer cannot thrive on Bt corn and yield gains averaged 40% [Bt corn is genetically modified to include a toxin-producing gene from a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, which poisons insects feeding on the plant...Moderator]. Hence, many corn farmers are looking forward to planting the Bt corn. These group of farmers would not mind paying for the seeds because they believe that their increase in yields will compensate for the additional seed cost.
Many people believe that farmers in the developing countries would not like to buy seeds preferring to produce their own seeds. What we have seen here is that many farmers would like to try new seeds. If provided credit, they will buy good seeds and, once they enjoy the benefits of assured higher yields, they would rather buy good seeds and would reject seeds of dubious quality even if provided free.
The increasing hectarage of GM crops (from 1.6 million in 1996 to ~50 million this year) implies that an increasing number of farmers see more benefits from planting these crops. Reports from South Africa and China show that small farmers benefit more from the technology than corporate farmers. I do not see why we should deprive farmers, especially those from developing countries, the benefits of the technology. And if it is true that consumers are rejecting GM foods, where do all these new GM produce go? No farmer is dumb enough to produce a non-marketable product.
Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D.
Senior Project Development Adviser
Bureau of Agricultural Research
Department of Agriculture
The Philippines
Tel No. 63(2) 920-0239
halos (at) mozcom.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 19 November 2002 15:59
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 15: Re: Biotechnology research in the public sector
This is Sai YVST again. It is good to see that Prof Miguel Altieri (message 8, November 19) has focused on serious issues related to biotechnology. I share his concerns on several points and try to provide my point of view on the same.
a) There may be some force in the argument that multi-national corporations (MNCs) are trying to control the intellectual property rights (IPR) regime in developing countries. However, no MNC can force the governments against the will of their people. In this context, there is a need to educate the public of developing countries that they should have IPR regimes suitable to their needs. The TRIPS agreement (i.e. WTO's agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) defines minimum standards of compliance that are above the levels commensurate the benefits conferred on developing countries. As TRIPS is to be reviewed again, developing countries can rectify the anomalies or they can hold the ground at the present level. The final report of the Commission on IPRs (constituted by UK Government), published in September 2002, could be a guiding document in framing or changing IPR laws in developing countries. [The report, entitled "Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy" is freely available at http://www.iprcommission.org/graphic/documents/final_report.htm ...Moderator]. For instance, Patent law of India as it stands today more or less falls into the spirit expressed by the Commission on IPRs except for the fact that there is a need to define what is a microogranism etc. In essence, what one can conclude is that there is no need for the developing countries to comply with the dictats of MNCs and that the present TRIPS agreement provides for enough flexibilities. One more point is that even today, funding of university research in developing countries is mainly through public funds and one need not have an illusion that MNCs would fund research in countries like India, even in private sector. Each developing country is bound to fund its own research.
b) Professor Altieri is very correct in asking why the poor should be dependent on the goodwill of MNCs. In fact, some of the experts feel that to consume required quantities of Vitamin A, one has to consume extraordinary quantities of Golden Rice. This proves that public organizations in developing countries should have their own agenda (unfortunately, at present, most of them ape western needs). I would not see much problem on account of royalty issues because non exclusive licenses at low cost could be given to several firms so that healthy competition would grow and at the same time governments generate revenues for further research. This has happened earlier also in countries like India without any problem.
c) Professor Altieri is very right in stating that CGIAR (the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) and GFAR (the Global Forum on Agricultural Research) have very little participation from NGOs and farmers. I do not want to talk about their agenda but I can state with confidence that the contribution from these organizations to countries like India is not much and real contribution is from organizations like ICAR (Indian Council of Agricultural research) or BARC (Bhabha Atomic Research Center) or other National research bodies who have enough funds of their own and are not guided by CGIAR or GFAR research. As far as India is concerned, these two bodies have virtually no role to play now and we need not bother about them.
d) I am happy that Professor Altieri points out the paper of Chapela and Quist. Careful examination would reveal that even remote fields in Mexico were contaminated. Surely this is not due to spread of contamination from fields where GM crops are grown. This contamination is solely due to the fact that GM seeds/grain were carried by traders/farmers to Mexico for food purposes and as the farmers found that these seeds are attractive, probably some intended or unintended mixing with local seed occured and this led to genetic contamination. In fact, this kind of contamination is possible because of lack of education and awareness amongst farmers and also negligent attitude of regulatory agencies. Please do not blame genetic engineering for human fallacies. Had there been a proper regulatory regime to identify and protect local landraces this would not happen. Moroever, the contamination occurred despite a ban in Mexico on growing GM crops. This clearly shows that prohibition is no solution for contamination unless effective implementation measures are in place. On the other hand, a healthy awareness campaign combined with freedom to choose would help a lot. A national gene bank could be established to preserve landraces and surely poor farmers cannot be entrusted with such a technical task.
e) Surely, most of us in countries like India would not favour an expensive and MNC controlled technology. We have enough means under our IPR laws to develop and protect our technology. Probably, whatever Prof Altieri is talking about is applicable to citizens of developed North and I agree with him on the count that it is the duty of the citizens of the North to see that monopolistic tendencies of MNCs are curbed.
f) If there is a single less risky, more economical and more productive technology compared to GM technology, no farmer, at least in India, would grow GM crops and, let me reiterate again, that farmers are capable of choosing the right kind of technology based on economic assessment. The whole issue is that whatever is claimed to be alternative technology as of today is highly impractical, demands high technical skills and irrational on economic considerations. If it were not so, there was no need to have a discussion on GM crops. This statement is not made out of fancy ideas or illusions but after years of practical interaction with small farmers in India. I request Prof Altieri and other interested persons to kindly visit the website of www.sisshyd.net and see my contributions on Agriculture and WTO related issues to gain more knowledge of the day-to-day problems of Indian farmers which are reflected from our surveys.
Y.V.S.T. Sai, IRS
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
D-8, I.T Quarters, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills
Hyderabad
India
Phone: +91-(40)- 3303223, +91-(40)-6828689
Mobile: 98494-04068
saiyvst (at) hotmail.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 19 November 2002 16:56
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 16: Re: Biotechnology research in the public sector
My name is Wytze de Lange and I work for XminY Solidarityfunds in Amsterdam, Netherlands. My work is to follow developments in gene technology.
So far, I have not seen much developments that are really worthwhile to invest large sums of public money. I agree with Dr. Altieri (message 8, November 19) that there are much more ways that are less risky, cost less and are probably more efficient than transgenic plants ever will be. For example, in an article by Lim Li Ching, entitled "Sustainable Agriculture Pushing Back the Desert", the author says that "New research reveals that in many of the poorest African countries along the Sahara's edge, in Nigeria, Niger, Senegal, Burkina Faso and Kenya, integrated farming, mixed cropping and traditional soil and water conservation methods are increasing per capita food production several fold, keeping well ahead of population growth. (see http://www.i-sis.org.uk/desertification.php ).
Wytze de Lange
XminY Solidarityfunds
De Wittenstraat 43-45
1052 AL Amsterdam
Netherlands
tel: +31206279661
wdl (at) xminy.nl
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 20 November 2002 09:30
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 17: What should be the role of biotechnology in a country like Venezuela
My name is Dr. Diógenes Infante, investigator from the Institute of Advanced Studies (Instituto de Estudios Avanzados, IDEA) in Caracas, Venezuela. My experience and research focus is in plant molecular biology, micropropagation, molecular markers and transgenics.
The first point I want to address is the issue of biotechnology and poverty. In any discussion about biotechnology in the least developed countries (LDCs), poverty is nearly all the time in the debate, but poverty is not a technological problem, it is a social challenge. The main issue in poverty is the lack of knowledge, including the attitude of adopting new technologies. Consequently, biotechnology must be considered as the way to solve technical problems for agriculture, with the aim of developing new opportunities in economy. The benefit for the poor will be on the economic side and in the long term, because education is a long term issue, closely linked to a better economic performance.
Second, in the Background Document to the conference, we found a discussion about the expenditures in research, comparing the resources allocated in different parts of the world. [Document available here...Moderator]. This picture is incomplete, because it does not show an important point: in which fields the resources are allocated. If research agendas in Europe or USA address global problems, people in different parts of the world share the results. Example: If a vaccine for AIDS is available, people in Africa or in Brazil will eventually benefit. So, it is necessary to clarify in which field expenditures are going to.
What should be the role of biotechnology in a country like Venezuela, and others LDC countries?
Considering a crop like coffee, this is the first agricultural product for trade, but its impact in the global economy is not accompanied by the same impact in research. This point is very simple to measure. In any scientific database the number of papers published in coffee is quite small compared with other crops (corn, tomato, rice). The same applied for cocoa. It is very important for the economy, but not for the research agendas.
There is another example. In South America more than 20 million people live above 3000 meters of altitude, usually with the pattern of alimentation brought by the Europeans during the colonization. Productivity at this altitude is not the same as at lower levels. This issue is very important, but is not always in the agendas anywhere.
Therefore, there are specific problems to be addressed:
- Tropical crops, coffee, cocoa, sesame, agaves, bananas [Agaves are
succulent plants, related to the lily, belonging to the genus
Agave...Moderator]
- Crops designed to improve the environment or to cope with the limitations
of the tropical soils (abiotic stress).
- Tropical fruits: controlling the ripening of many fruits will make them
available for export to the global markets.
For many reasons, the improvement of crops like coffee or cocoa is difficult (if not impossible) using the classical breeding approach: narrow genetic bases (coffee), long agronomic cycles (coffee, cocoa, agaves), lack of sexuality (some agaves, bananas). In these cases, the modern technologies are an invaluable tool to improve the above mentioned crops, especially the possibility to introduce and express a particular gene to add new characteristics in a controlled way. Transgenic plants, probably the safer technology created by man.
Unfortunately, there is a big concern about transgenics, especially in Europe, and transgenic products will not be accepted by the consumers. Consequently, the discussion about (and actions again) are not affecting the farmers or the companies in the developed world, they are affecting the possibility of a country like Venezuela to introduce new products in the global market. This very important issue should be in the first lines of actions in FAO and other agriculture related institutions.
Dr. Diógenes Infante H.
Centro de Biotecnología
Instituto de Estudios Avanzados-IDEA
Apdo. 17606 Parque Central
Caracas 10151-A, Venezuela
Carretera Nacional Hoyo de la Puerta
Sartenejas, Caracas 1080, Venezuela
58-(0416)-408-5765 celular
58-(0212)-906-4111 Ext. 6586
58-(0212)-962-1608 (Fax)
dinfante (at) idea.org.ve
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 20 November 2002 10:59
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 18: Biotechnology, liberalism and the poor
In this debate about biotechnology and the poor, I believe that we should think of the meaning of these terrific and unimaginable images of the children of Argentina suffering from severe hunger that have been forecasted recently. Of course, biotechnology is not responsible for this disaster. But, we must not forget that Argentina has adopted the GM soya at a very large scale as it has adopted liberal measures, pushed for this by the International Monetary Fund and by private capitalistic interests. The development of the transgenic technology is in Argentine, like in the USA, one visible sign of the renounciation by the politicians of insuring their role in the fight to assure the basic needs of the people. [Just to emphasise an important point, the central theme of this conference is not biotechnology and the poor but "What should be the role and focus of biotechnology in the agricultural research agendas of developing countries?". Note that Conference 5 of this Forum, which ran from 1 November to 17 December 2000, dealt directly with the theme of biotechnology and hunger/food security. It was entitled "Can agricultural biotechnology help to reduce hunger and increase food security in developing countries ?". See the background document, summary document and archived messages here...Moderator].
The transgenic technology will not contribute to this fight. On the contrary, the adoption of the transgenic technology will benefit more the wealthier farmers than the smallest and poorest. In this competition, the poor are the losers and the prices are decreasing at such a level than the poorest cannot survive.
I think that it is an illusion or a manipulation to claim that transgenic technology as any technology could be useful to the poor. This could be true only in countries where the market and liberalism would be strongly controlled by the politicians, in countries where the importance of the fight against hunger and for environmental protection would be really perceived as a priority. But there is a fundamental contradiction between liberalism, that is in fact a system done to make the rich richer, and giving the priority to improve the situation of the poor. It is interesting to see how much the USA government defends the transgenics and the free market and at the same time is one of the countries where more than 50% of the crops are cultivated for the export market and where subsidies to the farmers (the biggest, as always, benefit more) is the highest. With their fight to disseminate the GM plant at any price and at dumped prices, they are killing the smallest...as well as the development of the industrial farming systems is killing the poorest farmers in the developing countries.
To improve the situation of the poor, the governments must have more resources. They must increase the taxes and the regulation system. But first, the richest do not have much sense of solidarity and, secondly, they are not clever enough to understand that, in the long term, the defence of their profit, their conquest of more liberalism will lead to a social disaster. Argentina is a good example of this situation.
In such a context, I am afraid that promoting more research in biotechnology, except in some exceptional cases, will be at best useless to the poor and more probably prejudicial for them. We must not forget that 75% of the poorest are small farmers.
As money is rare, and more and more rare, in the research for the developing world, I do not believe that biotechnology constitutes at all a priority for the poor. The priority is much more issues where the participatory approach can be applied, where socio-economy and global approaches are developed, where at the end the poor get more power. Furthermore, I consider that the fight for the poor is very much linked to the fight to maintain the planet's environment. Not at all because I consider that the poor are degrading the environment (this is a myth well exploited by the propagandists of the GM plants), but because the richer, the wealthier, the obese have to decrease their consumption and their profit to avoid an environmental disaster, to improve the situation of the poor and to avoid a social disaster, which is where too much inequity is driving.
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 (at) wanadoo.es
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 20 November 2002 11:09
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 19: Complementary focus and synergy
I am Juan Izquierdo, Senior Plant Production Officer, FAO - United Nations, Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, Santiago, Chile.
Regarding, "what should be the role and focus of biotechnology in the agricultural research agendas of developing countries?" I strongly support to avoid polarization.
Research policy makers have to have "all" the alternatives on hand to establish priority areas and to commit in the short and long run available resources to biotechnology research and development (R and D), in order to pursue the final goal of sustainable agricultural development. This implies a strict interdisciplinary complementation considering conventional breeding, advanced genetic plant improvement and integrated crop management. This complementation has to be developed bridging advantages and opportunities among public and private sector.
Within the above context, demand-driven research and innovation projects, both for subsistence and export agriculture, has to be focused to a win-to-win optic supported by a harmonized regulatory framework. Biotechnology has to be considered in the wide view as a tool as organic gardening is.
Breeding for traits that are important for small farmers in marginal conditions for neglected crops like tolerance to drought; salinity; soil pH; pest resistance; food or fodder quality; post harvest keeping quality; as well as the traits mentioned by Miguel Altieri (such as competitive ability; performance on intercrops; storage quality; taste or cooking properties; and compatibility with household labour conditions)(message 8, November 19) requires a complementary approach.
Identification, transfer and expression of specific genes into old or advanced breed cultivars with peculiar adaptation is just the beginning, to be followed by an appropriate transfer of technology for water, organic matter and soil "environmental" management. Traditional biotechnology such as in vitro micropropagation; early plant disease diagnosis; bio-fertilizers; and bio-pesticides followed by molecular markers, genetic transformation and functional genomics, are needed in an integrated vision.
Let's feel apart from dogmatic views and cautivate us to promote multiple stake holders focusing in neglected crops.
Being a dry-bean plant physiologist and breeder myself and devoted for the last 17 years to promoting networking to favour the development of an appropriate biotechnology, I dream of a "rustic" black dry bean able to produce "just but sustained" 40% more under drought-hilly conditions and to stand the myriad of affecting virus, fungi and insects. This is consistent with the idea of focusing the resources into biotechnology requires as also reinforcing the national breeding programmes with molecular biology tools, to accelerate the selection process at early stages or inclusively, via genetic transformation, to introduce new suited traits to national proved cultivars to be released after a careful biosafety and regulatory process.
Juan Izquierdo, Ph.D.
Senior Plant Production Officer
Technical Secretary of REDBIO/FAO Network
FAO Regional Office for Latin America and The Caribbean
P.O.Box 10095,Santiago, CHILE
Juan.izquierdo (at) fao.org
www.redbio.cl
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 20 November 2002 11:19
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 20: Re: Farmers need more technology options
Saturnina Halos (message 14, November 19) claims that genetically-engineered Bt corn field trials in the Philippines averaged 40% yield gains compared to its non-GE counterpart. It is probably on the basis of these extravagant claims that some local corn farmers she cites are deceived into wanting to try these new seeds.
I was a member of the government body, the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP), as community representative when it approved the first field trials in the Philippines in 1999. In their public announcement of the results, Monsanto and the collaborating government scientists claimed that their field trials averaged yield differences of 35-40% in favor of GE Bt corn vs. similar non-GE corn lines. These claims are highly questionable. These yield differences were in all probability attained because Monsanto and government scientists *artificially* infested the test plants heavily with corn borer larvae. Obviously, such artificial infestation would result in heavy damage among the non-GE test plants, but not in the GE plants. However, such artifical infestation does not automatically reflect actual field levels of corn borer infestation. Therefore, the results cannot be a valid basis for making yield gain claims, especially when farmers start relying on these claims as basis for their decision to plant Bt corn. This example shows how research results can be misrepresented to make false claims to the public. [No further messages will be posted in the conference about these trials...Moderator].
Saturnina Halos denies that consumers are rejecting genetically engineered (GE) foods, and asks where the rejected GE foods are going to. Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the GE debate would know they are being consumed in the U.S. or exported to the Philippines and other countries where consumers are in no position to reject them because they are not labelled as such. Or worse, they are being sent as food aid to famine-threatened countries, though even some of these countries reject them or accept them with much reluctance, even when the GE food is given for free.
U.S. farmers continue to plant GE crops, despite the depressed prices and consumer rejection, because the U.S. government heavily subsidizes its farmers for market losses such as these. These subsidies mask what should be clear market signals to U.S. farmers to stop planting GE crops.
Most countries in the Third World -- including the Philippines -- have no such subsidy programs for farmers and the WTO makes it difficult for them to start one even if these countries had the funds to do so. Thus Third World farmers who go heavily into GE crops would feel the full brunt of depressed GE crop prices and market rejection.
Roberto Verzola
Philippines
rverzola (at) gn.apc.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 20 November 2002 11:27
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 21: The importance of biotechnology in rice research
I am Sabu, a postdoctoral researcher at the National University of Malaysia permanently associated with the Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute, Thiruvananthapuram, India.
One of the major crops which helped farmers a lot to persist their life is rice. But now in many developing countries, rice cultivation faces many serious threats. Rigorous selection processes for specific yield traits, which started centuries back, has continuously eroded the genetic diversity of cultivated rice. This is closely evident by the fact that rice productivity in a standard farm in Asia is badly affected by abiotic stress factors by 15% and biotic factors by nearly half of that. On the other hand, in Asia where rice is a staple food for most of the population, the productivity has to rise by 60% by the end of the decade. For economic cultivation, both the productivity and genetic diversity of the rice has to be increased. The diversity is essential for maintaining plant vigor which contributes to the resistance to the various stress factors. It can be achieved by identification and incorporation of 'vigor' genes from wild rice germplasm which is available in countries like India and Malaysia
Here comes the importance of biotechnology in rice research.
It has been scientifically proven that quantitative traits for yield or disease resistance are under polygenic control. But now, powerful screening techniques are available which help to focus the gene of interest. The Advanced Backcross Quantitative Trait Loci Analysis (AB-QTL) is one such strategy which can simultaneously map QTLs of interest while carrying out some favourable selection. [AB-QTL is a breeding strategy that combines line development and QTL (i.e. individual genes influencing quantitative traits) detection, proposed by Tanksley SD and Nelson JC. in Theoretical and Applied Genetics 92 (1996) 2, 191-203...Moderator]. This is a very useful functional genomic strategy for fishing out useful genes from wild germplasm and, if techniques can be further improved, will be able to clone the genes behind the QTLs.
The developing countries should give priority for applying the biotech tools for their local requirement. They must stop importing technologies from multi-national corporations or do not allow them to market their ready-to-use packages like 'killer seeds'. International agencies like FAO can stand as a mediator to acquire knowledge and training to researchers from the developing nations. So that they will also enjoy the fruits of biotechnology for the benefit of the poor farmers.
KK Sabu PhD
Post Doctoral Fellow
Plant Genetics and Biotechnology
School of Environmental and Natural Resource Sciences
Faculty of Science and Technology
National University of Malaysia
43600 Bangi, Selangor
Tel: 603-89215870, Fax: 603-89253357
kksabu (at) yahoo.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 20 November 2002 11:36
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 22: Re: What should be the role of biotechnology in a country like Venezuela
My name is Nagib Nassar, Professor with the University of Brasilia, geneticist and plant breeder, dealing principally with the maipulation of cassava genetic resources for improvement of the crop with emphasis on apomixis and interspecific hybridization (see my site: www.geneconserve.pro.br).
What I wish to comment is that Dr Infante (message 17, November 20) forgot staple and pulse crops, particularly cassava when speaking on tropical crops needing biotechnology. Cassava is one of the most important foods in.....Venzuela!! and all the South America, Central America, Asia and Africa tropics.
Nagib Nassar
University of Brasilia
Brazil
nagnassa (at) rudah.com.br
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 20 November 2002 11:57
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 23: Asian needs
I am Swapan Datta, Plant Biotechnologist at the International Rice Research Institute, Manila, Philippines.
I would like to emphasize the following:
1. One should not confuse the European attitude (policy makers) and views of European scientists. I have been working with European scientists since 1985 and I know most of the scientists working in molecular biology have a positive attitude for the Biotech, particularly transgenic products. The biggest dilemma is now moving around the world whether the transgenic products would be accepted by the Europeans. This may not be any more a scientific issue, rather trade or policy issue.
2. Asian needs are different as we are more dependent on agricultural products, practice and commerce for the livelihood. China is set for their use of Bt-crops, India is moving slowly towards its utilization and other Asian countries (many of them) are carefully watching and looking forward for its use. Often they were told about European's negative attitude (some policy makers) or American's way, high-tech business (multinational companies), but the reality remains at a different level. Asian countries must look at their needs and the way of delivery of the products, efficient way. Technology is neutral, one should look scientific way to evaluate the technology and its products.
3. Intellectual property rights, regulatory issues, biosafety and food safety issues are created by us with time. Concerns of risk, gene flow, environmental damage/impact etc. also are created by us. National governments in Asia and other developing countries must set up their standard institutes where all those issues can be discussed and resolved and get their own understanding and adopt the technology suitable for them. The regulations set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may be suitable in USA but need to be evaluated in Asia and other countries with their own understanding and infrastructure. They can take help from the European Community or the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) or ask grants from the national governments to study those issues. For example, DBT (Department of Biotechnology), India is spending a substantial amount of money on those studies related to transgenic crops. China is spending even much more money on biotechnology. This is important to develop and evaluate the new products before rejecting them without knowing. A few good examples of field evaluation and commercialization of transgenic products in India and China may turn the discussions in different directions which may focus business of equality with private sectors and provide the benefit to the people who need them most.
4. Glad to see that FAO is now ready to address many pending issues to resolve and to help developing a neutral and positive attitude towards decision making.
Swapan Datta
(personal opinion)
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI),
Philippines
S.DATTA (at) CGIAR.ORG
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 20 November 2002 13:11
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 24: Other areas of biotechnology
My name is Bert Collard. I am a Research Assistant working in Melbourne, Australia.
I believe that research in biotechnology is biased towards genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Other areas of biotechnology include molecular markers, mutation breeding and tissue culture, which have enormous potential for crop improvement and increasing food security. Research in these areas may be more relevant to developing countries than transgenic crops because they may be: (1) cheaper to use; (2) require less sophisticated equipment; and (3) have more immediate practical applications. For example, molecular markers may be used in breeding programs to select for specific traits (simple of quantitative) dramatically reducing the time required for the development of new cultivars (called marker-assisted selection). Perhaps the 'non-GMO' areas of biotechnology could be reconsidered for research agendas?
However, all of the above areas of biotechnology may provide only medium to long term benefits to agriculture at best. Given that today, more than an estimated 800 million people do not have food security, research providing short term benefits are essential to agriculture. As other conference contributors have emphasised, this research may not necessarily involve biotechnology (such as conventional plant breeding, intercropping, agroforestry etc.). I strongly agree with Guimaras and Beach (messages 3 and 4, Nov 14th and 15th respectively) that biotechnology must complement conventional breeding but not substitute it.
In summary, appropriate research areas in biotechnology (i.e. other than GMOs) should be considered on research agendas but only in conjunction with non-biotechnological areas of agricultural research.
Bert Collard
Dept of Biotechnology and Environmental Biology
RMIT University, Bundoora
VIC 3083 Australia
Tel: +61 3 9925 7140
bcycollard (at) hotmail.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 20 November 2002 15:37
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 25: Necessity of the participation of the poor to define the right research priority
I am Michel Ferry from INRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique) France in charge of a research station on date palm and oasis farming systems.
I want to thank FAO for this new opportunity to debate once more on biotechnology. I consider that it is a very important question for the developing world, as for the so called developed countries, because it constitutes an emblematic issue of the debate on the consequences to leave the market deciding which society and planet we need.
I want also to react to Diógenes Infante (message 17, November 20). He has said: "The main issue in poverty is the lack of knowledge, including the attitude of adopting new technologies. Consequently, biotechnology must be considered as the way to solve technical problems for agriculture, with the aim of developing new opportunities in economy. The benefit for the poor will be on the economic side and in the long term, because education is a long term issue, closely linked to a better economic performance". The perception of poverty expressed by Diógenes is very contemptuous and wrong but unfortunately very common. Poor farmers have often a knowledge and an experience of plants, animals and ecology that is very elaborated and precious. Of course more knowledge would be useful for them...as for many scientists locked in their narrow speciality. Poverty is generally the consequence of lack of power over land, water resources, market and credit access, political decision (lack of democracy) monopolized by the richer. That is why I consider that a research issue in which the poor can not participate will not be useful to the poor most of the time.
I also wish to thank the moderator for recalling within message 18 the theme of the conference: "What should be the role and focus of biotechnology in the agricultural research agendas of developing countries?". But precisely, I consider for my part that if the agricultural agendas of developing countries are not focused on the poor they are not adapted to the priority needs of most of the developing countries (I do believe that, in the developed countries also, the priorities should also be the poor, the marginalized people, the jobless...all these people forgotten by the growth who, more and more often, in our unjust opulent societies, place their hope in extremist position and groups). That is why it seems to me evident that the pertinent debate is in fact biotechnology and the poor.
Michel Ferry
Scientific Director
Research Station on date palm
and arid land farming systems.
Apartado 996
03201 Elche
Spain
Tel: 34.965421551
Fax: 34.965423706
E-mail: m.ferry (at) wanadoo.es
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 20 November 2002 16:10
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 26: Re: Other areas of biotechnology
This is from Swapan Datta from IRRI, Philippines.
I was reading Bert Collard's view (message 24, November 20), interesting but a few points are missing:
1. Marker assisted breeding is good if markers are available and can be applied. For example, sheath blight disease (a disaster disease in rice) or stem borer in rice (causing tremendous yield loss in farmers' fields) do not have any markers that plant breeders can use. Biotechnology for the first time has opened up the possibility to help poor people in the developing countries to combat vitamin A deficiency by engineering rice with genes for beta-carotene biosynthesis.
2. I agree that biotechnology should always work with conventional breeding so that important genes (traits) which are lacking in the best available cultivars may be incorporated by genetic engineering for further improvement of crops and what exactly is happening.
3. Cost and time required for marker-assisted selection and other techniques can be comparable with transgenic research and often transgenic research will lead to the product development. In general, all such techniques are required for modern and efficient breeding. Each has its own merits and disadvantages. At IRRI, we work on all techniques and apply them in our conventional breeding including anther culture and I feel that's the way we should take the advantage of modern tools.
Swapan Datta
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI),
Philippines
S.DATTA (at) CGIAR.ORG
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 21 November 2002 08:39
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 27: Re: Necessity of the participation of the poor to define
the right research priority
I am Diógenes Infante, from the Institute for Advances Studies in Caracas, Venezuela.
About the commentaries from Michel Ferry (message 25, November 20), my vision about poverty unfortunately is not so common, but in any case it is not mine it is from the United Nation University (UNU 2000, Strategic Plans), which can be found at the UNU web site (www.unu.edu ) and from the World Bank "World Development Report 1998/99: Knowledge for Development", available at (http://publications.worldbank.org/ecommerce/catalog/product?item_id=217020). [The first reference is to the UNU Strategic Plan 2000 "Advancing Knowledge for Human Security and Develpoment" publication, at http://www.unu.edu/stplan2000.pdf ...Moderator].
Dr. Diógenes Infante H.
Centro de Biotecnología
Instituto de Estudios Avanzados-IDEA
Apdo. 17606 Parque Central
Caracas 10151-A, Venezuela
Carretera Nacional Hoyo de la Puerta
Sartenejas, Caracas 1080, Venezuela
58-(0416)-408-5765 celular
58-(0212)-906-4111 Ext. 6586
58-(0212)-962-1608 (Fax)
dinfante (at) idea.org.ve
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 21 November 2002 08:40
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 28: GE crops and IPRs
This is Chela Vazquez from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
I would like to support the views expressed in this conference on the risks of advancing genetically engineered (GE) crops, particularly in less industrialized nations. In addition to health and environmental concerns regarding GE crops, intellectual property rights (IPRs) is an important issue.
GE organisms (and crops) are closely associated with IPRs. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS, one of the agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO)) requires intellectual property (IP) protection on microorganisms, plants, and microbiological processes. TRIPS let countries choose a sui generis system of protection for plant varieties. However, industrialized nations are advancing patent-like protection and/or plant breeder's rights for plant varieties. Also, TRIPS requires Members of the WTO to adjust their IP legal systems to those of industrialized nations (i.e. the USA); this facilitates patent filing procedures (in several countries) by corporations. Furthermore, ongoing negotiations on regional trade agreements, such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) in the American continent, contain more stringent proposals on IPRs than TRIPS. Additionally, hundreds of bilateral agreements (negotiated in secret) between industrialized nations and non-industrialized nations have emerged in the past few years with provision on IPRs that go further than TRIPS. Bilateral agreements oblige countries to allow patents on living organisms or to join the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). Also, it should be remembered that TRIPS was developed under the influence (and supervision) of giant multinationals, including biotech companies. It was the patenting of a living organism in the early 1980s that initiated the rush to GE research by corporations. The introduction of GMOs as well as enforcement of IPR regimes globally can be seen as market expansion by corporations. Also, most patent holders are not in the developing world.
The aggressive drive on GE crops and products around the world is not surprising. The push on GMOs runs parallel to the push on IPR regimes. The difference is that GMO production and marketing is done more in the public eye whereas IPR agreements are signed secretly between governments. In the past months, the tremendous pressure on southern African countries to accept GM corn as food aid from the United States illustrated that food aid also is being used to introduce GMOs.
How will developing countries benefit from GMOs? Probably, after GMOs are introduced worldwide, developing countries will be buying GM food, because poor farmers most likely will not be able to compete with corporations (especially on GM crops). Dumping practices probably will continue, and small farmers may not be able to sell their products even within national borders because of cheaper incoming products. Once GMOs are accepted everywhere and IPR regimes fully enforced, international food traders and biotech companies will be happy to complete their move into these new markets.
Other alternatives for farmers in developing countries need to be explored. There are abundant sustainable agricultural practices in the world today that need to be maintained, promoted, and further developed. The fields of agroecology, population ecology, community ecology offer sound scientific research that can aid in advancing sustainable agricultural technologies. Also, national and international policies that support poor farmers should be part of the discussion.
In industrialized nations, consumers pay premium prices for food that has less technological inputs (i.e., less chemicals, non-GMOs) because it is associated with a healthy environment and therefore presumed to be safer. In less industrialized countries those conditions already exist and need a further boost.
Chela Vazquez
IATP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
United States
Tel: (612) 870-3441
cvazquez (at) iatp.org
[For those especially interested in the theme of IPRs and agricultural biotechnology, note that Conference 6 of this Forum, which ran from 20 March to 14 May 2001, was dedicated to "The impact of intellectual property rights (IPR) on food and agriculture in developing countries". The background document, summary document and archived messages are all available Here...Moderator].
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 21 November 2002 09:42
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 29: Re: GE crops and IPRs
My name is Martin Mieschendahl. I am trained in genetics, biochemistry and molecular biology and work at the German Federal Environment Agency.
I would like to comment on the message by Chela Vasquez (message 28, November 21).
To my knowledge, nobody is obliged to buy genetically engineered (GE) seeds from multinationals. Every farmer can use his own seeds if he prefers to do so. If GE plants do better than the non-GE counterpart, farmers have the choice and have to make their decision. GE seeds from multinationals are an offer and no duty. To circumvent intellectual property rights (IPR) problems, public agricultural research should be extended so that there will be no basis for patents.
I see no reason why GE plants should not be part of sustainable farming practices also in the developing world. We should stop making genetic engineering responsible for the problems of the world and let biotechnology play the role it has: to be an additional tool for improving farming practices all over the world.
Martin Mieschendahl
Berlin, Germany
martin.mieschendahl (at) uba.de
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 21 November 2002 11:46
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 30: Publically funded genomics research
This is from Sirkka Immonen. I am working at FAO in the Secretariat of the CGIAR's interim Science Council.
The topic of this e-mail conference: what should be the role and focus of biotechnology in the agricultural research agendas of developing countries, is extremely important and timely. Regarding genetic improvement, there is a lot of strategic research to be done to reveal the function of genes that control important crop traits that have been mentioned in several messages, for instance tolerance of different abiotic stresses. This knowledge is particularly important for crops that are important for developing regions, many of them under-researched, and for traits that are most needed in constrained production conditions and for income generation. Knowledge of gene functions would then allow development of marker systems, and other biotechnology applications that would in turn make breeding more effective.
In my view, there is a call for publically funded genomics research, which single institutions cannot and should not pursue alone. The public sector, including developing country NARS (national agricultural research systems), international agricultural research centres and universities, has several advantages in engaging in such research: knowledge and understanding of production conditions and location-specific needs, knowledge of stress conditions, including abiotic and biotic factors, ample phenotypes and data on their performance in those conditions, access to genetic stocks and germplasm collections with necessary allelic variability, and adequate to high level of biotechnology expertise. Efficient use of the large crop genetic reserves in genebanks for breeding purposes requires much more knowledge of the genetic make-up than is possible to obtain through conventional characterisation techniques. Investment in biotechnology research can make a big difference. The outputs are shared knowledge and enabling technologies in the public domain. There is critical knowledge of the genomic structure of model crops for many crop groups, which is applicable to other crops due to genomic similarity. Much of this knowledge is in the public domain (like the rice genome sequence).
These assets (genetic resources, reasonable facilities and expertise and local knowledge) and conditions (accumulated genomics information and information technology solutions) make public investment worthwhile right now. In a few years time, the private sector may have acquired a lot more of the so-called platform information which is needed for developing important breeding tools. Intellectual property questions shouldn't be shyed away from and there are many more solutions than single country legislation or corporations rule. Besides, patents are far better for information sharing and negotiation than trade secrets.
Agricultural biotechnology may compete with many other research needs in agriculture and in other areas of research for benefit of the developing countries. The decisions of proportionate allocation are political and are needed at different levels, including international donors. The overall pot of money may increase if donors see particular promise in some areas of research for producing public goods. Biotechnology can be applied to many areas in agriculture, particularly to breeding (crops and animals). Plant breeding has been an effective way for improving livelihoods (lower food prices, income generation) and is likely to continue being so, but of course it is only one component of the overall agricultural development scheme, which again is only one component of the scheme towards poverty alleviation.
Sirkka Immonen
Senior Officer (Agricultural Research)
FAO, TAC Secretariat, C-626
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome, Italy
tel: (39) 06 570 54861
fax (39) 06 570 53298
E-mail: Sirkka.Immonen (at) fao.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 21 November 2002 13:25
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 31: Developing countries stand to gain from agricultural biotechnology
My name is Marcel Nwalozie, the Scientific Co-ordinator of the West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development, with headquaters in Dakar, Senegal. I trained as a crop physiologist.
I believe agricultural biotechnology has been playing important roles in agriculture in the developing countries. This includes its role in tissue culture, and more recently in molecular marking. And genetic engineering? Tissue culture has been very useful in the rapid production of 'clean' planting materials in several plantations in developing countries. Marker assisted plant breeding is rapidly becoming a tool in developing countries to shorten the long period of time encountered in variety selection. Here now is the gene revolution with genetic engineering (GE), and I do not see why the developing countries should not be involved.
My questions are as follows: How may GE research integrate the perspectives of poor farmers in remote rural communities? Will national governments of developing countries, especially in Africa, provide funding for this expensive technology? What regulatory mechanisms may be created to manage the private interprise involvement in GE in developing countries especially in respect of intellectual property rights? If GE is playing a significant role in food production in industrialised countries, why should we in developing countries ignore such innovation? Or should Africa and the rest of the developing world just stand by and wait for GE technologies from industrialised countries to be delivered in form of paid services, or dumped in Africa as food aid?
Africa is tired of aid! We need to move on like others. We cannot beat them; we must join them! I think we should be discussing the strategy of biotechnological intervention in sustainable food production in developing countries, rather than a focus on why this technology should be exclusive from developing countries.
Marcel Nwalozie, Ph.D.
Scientific Co-ordinator, CORAF/WECARD,
7, Avenue Bourguiba,
BP 8237 Dakar-Yoff, Senegal.
email: marcel.nwalozie (at) coraf.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 21 November 2002 15:50
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 32: Re: Publically funded genomics research
Sirkka Immonen (message 30, November 21) has said: "Plant breeding has been an effective way for improving livelihoods (lower food prices, income generation) and is likely to continue being so, but of course it is only one component of the overall agricultural development scheme, which again is only one component of the scheme towards poverty alleviation".
I would like to make the following observation. It is well documented that modern plant breeding has not participated very much towards poverty alleviation of the poorest. Most of the varieties of the green revolution have been mainly useful to the people who had access to water resources and who were able to buy the package of inputs (fertilizers, pesticides) necessary to obtain yield from these varieties.
Michel Ferry
Scientific Director
Research Station on date palm
and arid land farming systems.
Apartado 996
03201 Elche
Spain
Tel: 34.965421551
Fax: 34.965423706
E-mail: m.ferry (at) wanadoo.es
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 21 November 2002 16:42
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 33: Theories of direct nutrition and of superior races
My name is Jagdish Nazareth. I am a doctoral candidate in Agriculture at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. I am a post-graduate in business management from the same institution and have 28 years of work experience of which 21 have been spent doing action-research on the problems of people below poverty line in rural areas of Gujarat and, of them, 16 years doing action-research on the problems of sustainable organic agriculture.
Most biotechnology work is done within the paradigm set by two dominant theories in agriculture: the theory of direct nutrition (TDN) and the theory of superior races (TSR). The TDN is the theory by which NPK fertilizers are applied to plants for their nutrition. It assumes that if the plant cannot receive enough Nitrogen, Phosphorus or Potassium from the soil, then we human beings ought to supply those nutrients directly to the plant in a chemical form such as urea, di-ammonium phosphate, potassium sulphate, potassium chloride etc. The TSR is the theory by which most plant breeding is done. It assumes that if a plant variety cannot produce enough in a given environment, it should be replaced by an allochthonous, genetically superior race or cultivar which can do better. Much plant breeding is done within the framework of the TDN in that varieties are bred to be responsive to chemical fertilizers, particularly nitrogenous chemical fertilizers. Many plant breeders and biotechnologists implicitly assume the TDN to be true while evaluating plant varieties.
If the TDN were false, much of the genetic work based on the TSR would also need to be re-evaluated, including a large amount of the genetic engineering research and development that has gone into very many of the GMOs that are being released. Also much of the genetic engineering work in biotechnology is based on a presumption of lack of horizontal gene flow. If this presumption were to be false, it would again require a substantial re-evaluation.
Since 1989, we have done some work on a theory of indirect nutrition (TIN) which can clearly falsify the TDN. We claim that according to the TIN it is possible to influence biological nitrogen fixation to the extent that chemical nitrogenous fertilizers are strategically unnecessary for food security.
The effects of TIN are such as to call into question many assumptions underlying the application of the TSR in plant breeding with a view to agricultural utility. Moreover, by the use of TIN we are able to demonstrate a very large effect of rhizobacterial nutrition on expression of the plant genome, which can be an order of magnitude greater than the impact of much genetic engineering tinkering under the implicit assumption of TDN.
These are matters for the agricultural research agenda of developing countries. If a developing country not well endowed with fossil fuel energy resources, can follow a sustainable organic agriculture model for agricultural development which eliminates the need for nitrogenous chemical fertilizers, particularly under tropical and sub-tropical conditions in rainfed agriculture, at one-tenth the cost of another approach based on TDN and TSR, it should certainly evaluate the necessity of adopting current types of biotechnology, and search for new approaches which are in consonance with TIN.
I am therefore proposing that the agricultural research agenda should be re-evaluating biotechnology offerings in the light of the theory of indirect nutrition.
Jagdish Nazareth
D-0716, Indian Institute of Management,
Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat,
INDIA 380013
Phone: 91-79-632 6716
jagdish_nazareth (at) hotmail.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 21 November 2002 16:47
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 34: Re: Publically funded genomics research
This is David Reece, Research Fellow (Genomics and Developing-Country Agriculture) in the ESRC Centre for Genomics and Society at the University of Exeter, UK.
I simply must respond to Michel Ferry's comments (message 32, November 21). As a matter of fact, it has been extremely well documented that modern plant breeding has made an enormous contribution to alleviating poverty, by means of (i) providing new varieties that required greater labour input than traditional crop varieties, thus increasing levels of employment (and ultimately wage levels) for agricultural labourers; (ii) making it possible for farmers of all social classes to obtain increased yields. Those who were already rich have gained most, and were the first to be able to benefit from using the new varieties, but there is abundant evidence that poorer farmers have also eventually increased their incomes by means of the new varieties.
It is probable, however, that these technologies have deepened inequality: that is a serious problem, but is not the same as absolute poverty.
David Reece,
ESRC Centre for Genomics and Society
University of Exeter,
UK
J.D.Reece (at) exeter.ac.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 22 November 2002 10:05
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 35: Developing countries stand to gain from agricultural biotechnology
According to Marcel Nwalozie (message 31, November 21), the debate is too much focused on why biotechnology "should be exclusive from developing countries". I think that nobody has claimed something like this here. But I recognize in this interpretation an argument that has been largely used recently by the pro-GMO lobby. I do believe that it is counter-productive to deform the arguments of the people who try to assess the interest of the GMO for the developing world but also for the developed world. This question is serious and the debate is necessary.
He is right to say that Africa is tired of aid but we probably know also that the donors are tired of helping Africa. One of the reasons is because the aid did not reach the people who were more in need and would have been capable of using it efficiently. Another reason is because the aid very often was based on technology transfers that were not at all adapted to the needs and the capacity. What about the adaptation of GMO technology to African needs? Do not forget that the main beneficiaries of this technology till now has been the powerful biotechnology industry? Do not forget that the situation of the small farmers in the USA and in Canada, two countries that have largely adopted GMOs, is day after day worse. Look at Argentina.
If the debate is about priorities of research and if you agree to consider the poor as the target group, I think that, without speaking about environmental and health issues, the utility of GMO development in Africa (but also in Europe) raises strong doubts.
Michel Ferry
Scientific Director
Research Station on date palm and arid land farming systems.
Apartado 996
03201 Elche
Spain
Tel: 34.965421551
Fax: 34.965423706
E-mail: m.ferry (at) wanadoo.es
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 22 November 2002 10:17
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 36: Capacity of developing the technology and holding IPRs
This is Swapan Datta from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Philippines.
Many people raised the question of how biotech products can reach the poor farmers in the remote villages of the developing countries. Good question, and I would like to respond with a simple answer.
Genetically improved seeds by genetic engineering (rice, maize, canola, cotton etc.) can reach anyone anywhere provided the national government takes care of developing it, or importing from elsewhere for the best interest of the people. Farmers need good seeds, either it comes from breeders or developed through molecular breeding. Either way, it serves to the people. The breeding, farming practice, integration in the environment etc. are all changing with time, we may need to perceive it through judgment of reality.
The most important question to me is the IPR (intellectual property rights) and how we can help the developing countries to have access to it. FAO, CGIAR (the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research), World Bank, Rockefeller Foundation, USAID (the United States Agency for International Development), EU (the European Union), SIDA (the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency) and others should help in this regard. Dr. Joseph Stiglitz (Noble laureate in Economics) asked me while visiting IRRI, how our work (transgenic rice research) can compete with companies like Monsanto/Syngenta. It is not the question of technology, whether it is safe or not, rather the difference is the capacity of developing the technology and holding the IPR.
Swapan Datta
SDatta (at) CGIAR.ORG
Plant Biotechnologist
IRRI, Philippines
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 22 November 2002 11:25
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 37: Biotechnology should contribute to wealth creation in developing countries
This message is from Jane Morris, of the African Centre for Gene Technologies in South Africa.
As a contributor from the developing world, I believe that we need to utilize all the technologies at our disposal to increase food production, alleviate poverty and stimulate wealth creation. Biotechnology, in all its facets (both GMO and non-GMO) should be regarded as one of the tools, which may offer solutions where other conventional approaches fail. A few of the contributors to the conference from the developed world seem to have a somewhat patronizing attitude in presuming what is "right" or "wrong" for the developing world.
I feel it is essential if we are to fast-track development in Africa, the continent I am most familiar with, that we must rapidly engage in all facets of biotechnology development. Africa should not be merely a receiver of technology developed somewhere else, but must generate its own intellectual property (IP) and its own solutions. As long as technology is seen as being imposed from outside, we will not get rid of the syndrome (actually a total non sequitur) that states Technology=Multinationals=Bad.
Africa has a huge wealth of natural resources and biodiversity, which are generally under-utilised and under-developed. If we want to develop new crop varieties that are appropriate for African conditions (and that could have considerable economic potential for the rest of the world as well), we should look to generation of new IP through gene mining of our biodiversity. The generation of IP by Africans for wealth creation in Africa gives the continent some hope of getting out of the poverty trap. Let's emerge from the negativism and feelings of victimisation to engage positively with the economic trends of the rest of the world.
I would, at the same time, urge public funding bodies to develop a mind-set that encourages the growth of real wealth creating activities in the developing world. Publicly funded R&D frequently does not lead to the development of true globally competitive research capacity in the developing world, and is often not self sustaining because IPR may not be retained by the organization undertaking the research. There also seems to be a temptation for funding agencies to fund organizations in the developed world to undertake research for the benefit of the developing world. This may act as a sop to the consciences of the funding bodies, but does nothing to enhance long term competitiveness of the developing countries.
E Jane Morris PhD
Director
African Centre for Gene Technologies
P O Box 75011
Lynnwood Ridge
Pretoria 0040
South Africa
Tel: +27 12 841 2642
Fax: +27 12 841 3105
Cellular: +27 82 566 2210
e-mail: jmorris (at) csir.co.za
[Note, in many messages posted this week there has been a tendency to focus on "whether biotechnology (particularily genetic modification) is appropriate for developing countries". We would like to emphasise that this is not the primary theme of the conference, it is instead, "What should be the role and focus of biotechnology in the agricultural research agendas of developing countries?". As most of you are aware, this FAO Biotechnology Forum, since it was established in 2000, takes particular areas of the entire "agricultural biotechnology for developing countries" debate and runs specific, time-limited e-mail conferences on these areas. We have, for example, dedicated Conference 6 to the theme of IPRs; Conference 7 to GMOs and gene flow; Conference 5 to the role of agricultural biotechnology in reducing hunger and increasing food security. This current conference focuses on agricultural research in developing countries and the role and focus that biotechnology (or, indeed, the range of available biotechnologies) should have here. We encourage participants to focus more on this theme in the remainder of the conference. The kinds of specific questions we would like to see addressed are those from Section 4 of the Background Document and these are included below as a reminder...Moderator]
- Of the limited resources (human and financial) dedicated to agricultural research in developing countries, how much should be devoted to biotechnology?
- Of the resources devoted to agricultural biotechnology research in developing countries, what priorities should be given to the different agricultural sectors (crop, fishery, forest, agro-industry or livestock)? How should these priorities be set?
- Of the resources devoted to agricultural biotechnology research in developing countries, which biotechnologies should be prioritised (e.g. use of molecular markers, tissue culture, genetic modification etc.)?
- Which objectives (e.g. increased production, better animal health etc.) should biotechnology research be prioritising within each of these sectors?
- At which level (regional, sub-regional or national) should the objectives of research in agricultural biotechnology be prioritised?
- Should some (or all) of the biotechnology research in developing countries preferably be carried out within the NARS or through collaborative regional efforts?
- For agricultural biotechnology research in developing countries, how important should collaboration with the IARCs be?
- For agricultural biotechnology research in developing countries, how important should collaboration with the private sector or universities in developed countries be?
- Should developing countries focus on developing the biotechnology products themselves or should they focus on adapting biotechnologies that have been developed elsewhere?
- Individual developing countries differ greatly in their capacities to do biotechnology research and in the resources they have available for such activities. How important are these differences for the role and focus of biotechnology in the agricultural research agenda?
- The needs of small farmers are generally being ignored in the so-called "biotechnology revolution". How can the biotechnology research agenda in developing countries be focused towards their needs? What concrete actions can be taken?
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 22 November 2002 14:31
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 38: National agrobiotechnology must be supported globally
This is from Prof. Nazimi Acikgoz. I am one of the administrators of a seed technology center in Turkey and also the editor of a monthly, bilingual (turkish/English) on-line agricultural biotechnology journal (AGBIYOTEK - http://www.agbiyotek.ege.edu.tr ) which is in its fourth year. Since the beginning of my career in rice breeding, I have been one of the few people who tried to develop the establishment of agricultural biotechnology in Turkey, which still requires the employment of some specific strategies. Our experiences might be valuable to evaluate the settlement of agricultural biotechnology in developing countries.
1. If everyone in the public, from consumers to politicians, is bombarded with biased information from one direction and made to believe that transgenic varieties are Frankenstein; it is extremely difficult for pro-biotechnologists to make their case and persuade the public. At this point, what is required is financially strong NGOs. (Switzerland, late 90's!)- CamBioTec (The Canada-Latin America Initiative on Biotechnology for
Sustainable Development): Canada, Mexico, Argentine, Colombia, Chile, and
Cuba Biotechnology Partnership. Let's take a look at some of the
organizations that support this partnership: Canadian International
Development Agency(CIDA), Agriculture and Agrifood Canada, Industry Canada,
Environment Canada, Intermadiary Biotechnology Service (IBS), International
Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR)
- FAO's Technical Co-operation Network on Plant Biotechnology (REDBIO), in Latin America;
- The Ibero-American Program for Science and Technology (CYTED) Bioatlantec,
- Indo-Swiss Collaboration in Biotechnology (ISCB)
Such successful consortiums offer solutions for a number of challenges
through:
- Forming agricultural developing strategies;
- Helping prepare required regulations;
- Easily sharing research conclusions and solving the intellectual property
rights (IPR) problem;
- Conducting field trials and easy commercialization.
There are many local plant varieties in each country which, in the short term, should be replaced by new cultivars of higher yield or quality, which are resistant to a particular disease or insect, to meet consumer demands. This implies that national agrobiotechnology must be supported globally. Such an initiative led by FAO, CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) or ISAAA (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications) (as coordinator of private companies) seems to be indispensable.
Prof. Dr. Nazimi Acikgoz
EGE UNI. Seed Technology Center
35100 Bornova
Turkey
nacikgoz (at) ziraat.ege.edu.tr
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 25 November 2002 11:36
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 39: Place and role of biotechnology in agricultural research agenda in developing countries
[Thanks to Dr. Traoré for directly addressing some of the specific questions we wished to see discussed during the conference...Moderator].
My name is Adama Traoré. I am from Mali (West Africa) and a specialist in animal reproduction. I am presently chairman of the Malian National Council for Agricultural Research.
I am pleased to react to some of the issues raised in the Background Document and to some contributions posted in the conference so far. The comments of the Moderator at the bottom of message 37 (November 22) will help me to focus on the subject. As he said, a lot of issues raised by several contributors are interesting but in fact directly address themes already covered by former e-mail conferences.
Now, let me try to give some answers, where I find this possible, given my experiences as a NARS (national agricultural research systems) leader and an actor in international cooperation on agricultural research.
1) How much resources, of those allocated to the agricultural research agenda, should be devoted to biotechnology? This question is surely not simple to be answered! In a lot of NARS the allocated resource are far below the expected level, and sometimes donors-driven! But, in many NARS, like the case of Mali, the research agenda is becoming more and more demand driven (by the needs of the end users of the research result). Approximately, more than 80% of the resources have been allocated to applied and adaptive research! mostly to conventional research methodologies. Some resources could be devoted to selective biotechnology tools like molecular markers or tissue culture which could efficiently complement the ongoing conventional research!.
2) The prioritised sector will be very different from country to country; the setting of such priorities should be based on the added value the biotech tools bring to the research program!. In the case of Mali, the crop research is more targeted than the others sectors, due partly to the state of trained manpower and labour facilities. In livestock research, heat control and artificial insemination, as I have stated in a previous conference of this Forum, are already in use. Due to long generation intervals, biotech can also have some relevance to the forestry sector. [This reference is to Conference 3 (12 June to 25 August 2000) which was entitled "The appropriateness, significance and application of biotechnology options in the animal agriculture of developing countries."...Moderator].
3) I am convinced of the necessity for our NARS to tackle also some strategic issues in biotech research, inclusive genetic engineering, focusing more on our specific needs. To some extent, this could help our scientific partners, especially the IARCs (the international agricultural research centres) and ARIs (agricultural research institutes), to give more focus to a pro-poor biotech research.
4) I agree with some contributors who have expressed their scepticism about international private corporations addressing properly a pro-poor research agenda, since they are primarely guided by profit! But for me, the only alternative to this is to build a strategy based on active cooperation among NARS and alliance between NARS and public sector research institutions (IARCs, ARIs, universities) to enable NARS to have a certain research capacity to address issues important to them and to the poor. The international cooperation on biotech research should be encouraged to complement the individual national or sub-regional research agendas. In our African region, the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) is, in conjunction with the subregional organisations, going to play an important catalytic role in this.
5) Coming back to the case of Mali, the remaining 20% of resources allocated to strategic research will be partly use to enable some of our researchers to join appropriate subregional cooperation initiatives. Networking, establishment of sub-regional Centre of Excellence, launching of regional and subregional competitive Funds, participating in Challenges programs (CGIAR) and in Global partnership Program (GFAR) are some of the opportunities which are currently offered to NARS to strength their capacity to address some of the biotech research issues.
6) Collaboration with the international private sector, universities of the North and IARCs should be also encouraged to ensure that essential biotechnology research results stay public-good and accessible to NARS. The issue of intellectual property right (IPR) seem to me a crucial one if we want to see biotech research being relevant to poverty alleviation. In this regard, and of course in regard to biosafety issues and environmental preservation, the contribution of the civil society, in particular the NGOs, is highly appreciated! That is, among others reasons, why our regional, subregional and, more and more, national agricultural research governance bodies are opening themselves to these important constituencies.
Dr Adama TRAORE
Chairman of the National research council for agricultural research
CNRA Bamako (MALI)
B.P: E1911
Tel /fax: (223) 222 71 65
adama.traore (at) afribone.net.ml
or adama.traore (at) coraf.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 25 November 2002 13:31
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 40: Re: Theories of direct nutrition and of superior races
I found the posting by Jagdish Nazareth (message 33, November 21) most informative and interesting. Similar research seems to be happening by Searice in Philippines. There is a library with historical books on agriculture at http://chla.library.cornell.edu/ . The picture that emerges from some of these old books really challenges a lot of the developments in plant breeding as it has been performed during the last 100 years or so. I especially would refer to the book Hunger fighters by Paul de Kruif and the book The beginning of agriculture in America by Lyman Carrier.
There seems to be two groups in this debate. One group consists of researchers in the "public" research institutes who all favour gene technologies and a group of researchers and NGO-representatives who favour going in another direction.
Concerning the role of biotechnology in plant breeding, Marcel Nwalozie (message 31, November 21) mentioned tissue culture as a good technique. However, I would like to point out that tissue culture, like genetic engineering (GE), can also make harmful mutations in plants. In the "developed" world it was until recently a technique not used for vegetable crops but only for ornamental crops. I have some doubts about the extensive use of tissue culture for food crops. I would also like to point out that GE is not really playing a significant role in food crop production in the "developed" world. Until now, it involves only two major food crops soya and maize, (canola and cotton are not really food crops), most of which serves as animal feed in the "developed" world.
Why not focus biotechnology research on the classical biotechnology? From all I heard there is still much to gain by improving fermenting techniques, especially also on household level. No need for transgenics there but there seems to be some need to teach people to do their fermenting processes in safer ways.
Wytze de Lange
XminY Solidarityfunds
De Wittenstraat 43-45
1052 AL Amsterdam
Netherlands
wdl (at) xminy.nl
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 25 November 2002 13:38
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 41: Re: Developing countries stand to gain from agricultural biotechnology
I am Drew Kershen, a law professor who has focused on agricultural biotechology law and policy issues for the past six years. I teach agricultural law courses at the University of Oklahoma School of Law in the state of Oklahoma, United States.
Dr. Marcel Nwalozie (message 31, November 21) argued for Africa to become engaged in biotechnology so that Africa could gain independence from reliance on aid and could develop its own human and resource potential. Dr. Michael Ferry (message 35, November 22) responded stating that he was not arguing for excluding Africa from biotechnology but he proceeded to argue that Africa should not devote funds to biotechnology, which effectively means that Dr. Ferry desires that Africa should ignore biotechnology.
I respond by quoting from the newly released UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) document, "Harnessing technologies for sustainable development" (ECA Policy Research Report, August 2002). On page 18, in the last paragraph of Chapter 1 Overview, the UNECA writes: "Modern medical and agricultural biotechnology can contribute much to increased food security and better health in African countries by speeding the agricultural productivity and epidemiological transitions in these countries. For that to happen, it is critical that biotechnology be viewed as one part of a comprehensive, sustainable poverty reduction strategy, not as a technological "quick fix" for Africa's hunger and poverty problems. It is also essential that the necessaary innovations and investments be made in institutions. And particularly critical is building national and regional consensus to invest in the future. Indeed, the greatest risk for Africa is to do nothing, allowing the biotechnology revolution to pass it by."
As I read Dr. Nwalozie's message, he wants to invest in Africa's future by investing in biotechnology as the UNECA urges. By contrast, as I read Dr. Ferry's message, he wants Africa to ignore biotechnology, thereby letting the biotechnology revolution pass it by. I endorse Dr. Nwalozie's message and the UNECA report. Africa must invest in biotechnology if Africa is to have any future hope of gaining independance from aid, food security, and health security. The report is available at http://www.uneca.org/harnessing . The document is quite long (178 pages in PDF format) and I had difficulty getting it to download, though ultimately successful in the ZIP format.
Drew L. Kershen
Earl Sneed Centennial Professor of Law
University of Oklahoma College of Law
Norman, Oklahoma 73019-5081
U.S.A.
Ph.: 1-405-325-4784
FAX: 1-405-325-0389
dkershen (at) ou.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 25 November 2002 13:59
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 42: Site-specific agroecological research
This is Miguel Altieri again. After reading some of the messages posted so far it is interesting to note that most people assume that technological modernization of small farms, through monocultures, new varieties and agrochemicals, is perceived as a critical prerequisite for increasing yields, labor efficiency and farm incomes. What is most interesting is that we assume that this is what small farmers want, when in fact major peasant movements in the world, represented by groups such as via Campesina or the Landless Workers' Movement (MST) in Brazil, have repeatedly expressed rejection to transgenics and the corporate control of biotechnology. Obviously, their voice is again absent from this fora, as it is from most international meetings setting the agenda for the poor. I don't claim to represent them, but as somebody intimately involved in research for resource-poor farmers, I think it is crucial the we make the process more participatory.
It is well known from the Green Revolution experience that as conversion from subsistence to cash agricultural economy occurs, the loss of biodiversity in many rural societies progresses at an alarming rate. As peasants directly link to the market economy, economic forces increasingly influence the mode of production, characterized by genetically uniform crops and mechanized and/or agrochemical packages. As adoption of modern varieties occurs, landraces and wild relatives are progressively abandoned, becoming relics or extinct. Greatest loss of traditional varieties occurs in lowland valleys close to urban centers and markets, than in more remote areas.
The above situation is expected to be aggravated by the technological evolution of agriculture based on emerging biotechnologies, whose development and commercialization is increasingly concentrated and under the control of a few corporations, accompanied by the increased withdrawal of the public sector as a major provider of research and extension services to rural communities. The social impacts of local crop shortfalls, resulting from genetic uniformity or changes in the genetic integrity of local varieties due to genetic pollution, can be considerable in the margins of the developing world. In the extreme periphery, crop losses mean ongoing ecological degradation, poverty, hunger and even famine. It is under these conditions of systematic market failures and lack of public external assistance that local skills and resources associated with biological and cultural diversity should be available to rural populations to maintain or recover their production processes.
Diverse agricultural systems and genetic materials that confer high levels of tolerance to changing socio-economic and environmental conditions are extremely valuable to poor farmers, as diverse systems buffer against natural or human-induced variations in production conditions. Impoverished rural populations must maintain low-risk agroecosystems that are primarily structured to ensure local food security. Farmers in the margins must continue to produce food for their local communities in the absence of modern inputs, and this can be reached by adopting agroecological methods and by preserving in-situ ecologically-intact locally-adapted agrobiodiversity.
Natural resource problems experienced by poor farmers are not amenable to the research approaches previously used by the international research community. In most organisations, including the 16 international agricultural research centers associated to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), research has been commodity-oriented with the goal of improving yields of particular food crops and livestock, but generally without adequately understanding the needs and options of the poor, nor the ecological context of the systems being addressed.
Most scientists use a disciplinary approach, often resulting in recommendations for specific domains and failing to equip farmers with appropriate technologies or empower them to make informed choices between available options. Biotechnology research which, by its very reductionist nature, dominated by molecular biologists most of whom lack ecological background and also social-cultural sensitivity, still treats the complex agrobiodiversity characteristics of small farming systems as a "black-box". If truly inter-disciplinary research is to be conducted, crop, soil, water and pest management aspects must be addressed simultaneously at the field or watershed level in order to match elements for production with forms of agroecosystem management that are sensitive to maintaining and/or enhancing biodiversity. Such integrated approaches to agroecosystem management can allow the definition of a range of different strategies that can potentially offer farmers (especially those most reliant on the functions of agrobiodiversity) a choice of options or capacity to manipulate their systems according to their socio-economic constraints and requirements.
What is lacking in top-down defined research agendas is not only the perspective of the local people, but also the explicit description of methods to increase our understanding of the structure and dynamics of agricultural and natural resource ecosystems and providing guidelines to their productive and sustainable management. The high variability of ecological processes and their interactions with heterogeneous social, cultural, political, and economic factors, generate local systems that are exceptionally unique. When the heterogeneity of the rural poor is considered, the inappropriateness of biotechnological recipes or blueprints becomes obvious. The only way that the specificity of local systems, from regions to watersheds and all the way down to a farmer's field, can be taken into account is through site-specific agroecological research. A people's relevant agricultural strategy requires the use of general agroecological principles and customizing agricultural technologies to local needs and circumstances. Where the conventional technology transfer model breaks down is where new management systems need to be tailored and adapted in a site-specific way to highly variable and diverse farm conditions. Methodologically, this is the biggest weakness of biotech research. On the contrary, agroecological principles have universal applicability but the technological forms through which those principals become operational depend on the prevailing environmental and socio-economic conditions at each site.
Miguel A. Altieri, Ph.D.
Professor of Agroecology
Division of Insect Biology
201 Wellman Hall-3112
University of California
Berkeley CA 94720
tel 510 6429802
fax 510 6427428
agroeco3 (at) nature.berkeley.edu
www.agroeco.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 25 November 2002 14:05
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 43: Rice production
This is from Udeni Edirisinghe, I am a Senior Lecturer in Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka and my field is fisheries.
I have been involved with rice-fish integration research and, from the results, I believe that rice production can be increase in developing countries such as Sri Lanka if the farmer is given the technology of cultivating in an intensive method, with or without the use of inorganic fertilizers.
The method used by farmers in Sri Lanka is to give minimum care to the paddy cultivation. In most instances, there are more weeds than the paddy plants. They apply lot of inorganic fertilizers, more than required and ultimately find that it is not economical. I did not find any technology to use organic farming for paddy cultivation in the literature and these would be more important than most of the areas where such research funds are being used.
Hence, I wish to indicate that the areas for biotechnology should be properly discussed at an appropriate forum and such areas should only be permitted to involve in research since a large quantum of assets have already been wasted by the researchers.
Dr. Udeni Edirisinghe
Dept. of Animal Science
University of Peradeniya
Sri Lanka
udenie (at) pdn.ac.lk
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 25 November 2002 14:13
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 44: Re: Capacity of developing the technology and holding IPRs
This is Terry Young, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Technology Transfer and Executive Director of the Technology Licensing Office at The Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas, USA. I am also Immediate Past President of the Association of University Technology Managers (www.autm.net)
I am a member of a working group convened by the Rockefeller Foundation. My subgroup is focused upon development of intellectual property (IP) clauses for contracts for transfer of improved plant varieties/GMOs that would serve to facilitate the dissemination of such varieties in developing countries. The work on these proposed contract terms continues in "real time," with e-mails even this morning [23 November...Moderator] on the topic.
I believe it is possible to develop agreements that both (i) enable the availability of improved varieties in developing countries, while (ii) protecting the commercial interests of the Monsanto's of the world.
I also believe that there is a significant need for training programs on IPR (intellectual property rights) in the developing countries that should run in parallel with these efforts to develop favorable IP terms in contracts. Monsanto and other companies or organizations might even require that acceptance of "humanitarian" contract clauses for developing countries be in concert with or accompanied by IP training in the respective country(s).
I propose to work with others of similar interests to develop proposals to USAID (the United States Agency for International Development), CGIAR (the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research), private foundations, and other sources of funding to implement such training programs.
Terry Young
The Texas A&M University System
United States
t-young (at) tamu.edu
Telephone - 979-847-8682
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 25 November 2002 14:20
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 45: Funding research programs
I am Sabu again from the National University of Malaysia.
Agriculture production and food safety are always related to technological inputs. This is not the contribution from biotechnology sector alone; there is enough room for the conventional plant breeders and agricultural technologists too. It is also worthwhile to remember that biotechnology is not just dealing with GMOs. There are so many other options, like plant tissue culture (PTC). A PTC lab can be set up in any 'not well funded public sector' institution/university. In fact, there are instances where PTC saved farmers, as in the case of sugar cane somaclonal variants resistant to certain diseases.
But now the question is: When the farmers are ready to suggest what they really want, who will come to fulfil that? Who is going to fund this? Whether the private sector will come and rescue the farmers where they may not able to protect their intellectual property rights (IPR), considering the request for supplying planting materials at minimal price. Since the fruits from the farmers field are eaten by all people, and not only those from the public sector, I think it is the responsibility of every tax payer that one portion of their tax should go to the farmers needs. Whenever this amount is not enough for a particular research program, there should be an alternative approach like collecting money from those who can contribute heavily - like implementing a surcharge to food production or pharmaceutical companies.
KK Sabu PhD
Post Doctoral Fellow
Plant Genetics and Biotechnology
School of Environmental and Natural Resource Sciences
Faculty of Science and Technology
National University of Malaysia
43600 Bangi, Selangor
Tel: 603-89215870, Fax: 603-89253357
kksabu (at) yahoo.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 25 November 2002 17:26
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 46: Nutritional Security and AgriBiotech
I am Jagdish Nazareth a doctoral candidate in the Agricultural area at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India.
I made a typology of the main threats to nutritional security (as I have studied and observed them over the last 21 years of rural development with low-income rural families). The percentage figures are indicative and do not add up to 100 as the populations overlap. They are indicative for the Indian context:
A. In Rainfed Areas:
1. Insufficient nutritional variety in the basket of agricultural
commodities produced by village griculture. This impacts the women, children
and elders among the landless rural workers who do not participate in the
monetised economy of the village and who have a small logistical radius in
which to gather their diets (about 15% of the population).
2. Ignorance among farmers about the essential nutrient elements which are
deficient in their arable soils, which may have an impact on their crop
productivity and the nutritional quality of their produce (about 25% of the
population).
3. Lack of purchasing power among sections of the rural population,
especially the women-headed households or those where the wage-earners are
disabled.
4. Short term food shortages in the beginning of the monsoon season until
edible components of the monsoon crop have grown, especially when carry-over
stocks from the previous year are low (about 20% specially tribal
populations).
5. Lack of rural food distribution systems for perishable produce such as
leafy vegetables and fruits, linking villages with assured irrigation to
villages without assured irrigation where demand exists but which cannot be
satisfied from local production (about 35%).
6. Elimination of pulses from the basket of agricultural production of
villages because of low productivity (about 20%).
B. Irrigated Areas:
7. Cultivation of non-edible cash crops for export on too much of the
village landmass, which prevents poor families from obtaining their full
nutritional quantity and quality (about 10% and growing).
8. Micronutrient malnutrition caused by use of nitrogenous chemical
fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides (about 40%).
9. Use of groundwater with toxic levels of boron, fluorine and arsenic
(about 15%).
10. Use of polluted surface water from rivers and untreated urban:industrial
effluent streams for cultivation of food crops (about 20%).
11. Use of too much pesticides in the upper areas of river basins which
re-enters rivers and pollutes drinking water sources of downstream
communities (35%).
C. Urban Areas:
12. Practically 100% consumption of foodstuffs grown with chemical
fertilizers which have lower densities of essential nutrients (30%).
13. High levels of pesticide residues which have toxic impact on consumer's
nutritional status through destruction of heme building pathways, cytochrome
p450 enzymes, glutathione and superoxide dismutase enzymes (35%).
14. Inadequate purchasing power in low-income urban groups, especially when
the agriculture in surrounding peri-urban areas is of non-essential crops
such as cut-flowers and of high cost-intensity, and farmers will allow
produce to rot in fields rather than transport it to cities to sell it at
reduced prices (15%).
I propose that the agricultural research systems take a look at these 14 causes of nutritional insecurity and evaluate current offering from agri-biotech to see how much they are part of the problem and to what extent they can be solutions.
Jagdish Nazareth
D-0716, Indian Institute of Management,
Vastrapur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat,
INDIA 380013
Phone: 91-79-632 6716
jagdish_nazareth (at) hotmail.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 25 November 2002 17:33
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 47: Pooling together regional resources in agricultural biotech research
This is Marcel Nwalozie again. Thanks to all for the various reactions, for and against, my argument in message 31 (November 21). I maintain, however, that developing countries should not just adapt biotechnologies developed in other countries. These technologies should be developed in the developing countries or in the sub-region of the developing country! And that biotechnology development needs to be participatory in developing countries.
In this current message may I draw the attention of participants to the existence of regional, and sub-regional, research organisations for developing countries. The sub-regional organisations are composed of national agricultural research systems (NARS) as the building blocks. The sub-regional organisations, and their activities, are not meant to replace national programmes, or priorities. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the sub-regional organisations have drawn strategic plans for agricultural research co-operation. In the West and Central Africa sub-region, the strategic planning process was a long consensus-seeking exercise, involving several national, zonal and regional consultations. A broad spectrum of most actors (NARS, international agricultural research centres, ARIs scientists, farmers, extension, NGOs, etc.) were involved. Research partnerships with international centres of the CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) and the Advance Research Institutes (ARIs) was advocated in the strategy. Biotechnology was identified as a very urgent tool to service the identified regional agricultural research cooperation and development priorities.
Given the definition of priorities at the regional levels, and the expensive nature of biotechnology, in general, I think it makes partnership and economic sense to pool human, material and financial resources together at regional levels in respect of biotechnology research in developing countries. This does not mean that national biotech programmes should be stopped. A regional approach can undertake certain research of common interest, and also strengthen national capacities in biotechnology. (In a recent study in West and Central Africa, it was discovered that the capacity of the various national systems in respect of biotechnology was too different. In fact in some NARS the capacity was near zero). I think it is plausible to designate some NARS' biotechnology research centres to play regional roles; or an out-right creation of regional centres in biotechnology with multi-stakeholder collaboration.
Marcel Nwalozie, Ph.D.
Scientific Co-ordinator, CORAF/WECARD,
7, Avenue Bourguiba,
BP 8237 Dakar-Yoff
Senegal
email: marcel.nwalozie (at) coraf.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 26 November 2002 08:30
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 48: Agricultural research in developing countries // cake icing
This commentary is from Prof Denis Murphy, Head of the Biotechnology Unit at University of Glamorgan, Wales, UK.
For over 15 years I have worked as a researcher and advisor in the area of agbiotech where my speciality is oilseed crops. I have advised numerous international government agencies and NGOs and more recently have been working in South East Asia, particularly Malaysia. I am clear that GM crops have the potential to contribute significantly to sustainable agriculture in the longer term but I am far less convinced about their much touted role as panaceas to many of the immediate challenges faced by agriculture in most developing countries.
One of the issues that I have advised on is how do deploy relatively scarce R&D (research and development) resources & manpower to have the most impact in crop improvement programs. To some extent, the answer will depend on the cropping system involved and the uses of the downstream products. For example, in Malaysia the oil palm industry occupies a dominant position in land use, as an employer, a generator of exports and has the potential to supply expanding markets from Europe to China and India. The country has an increasingly effective and diverse scientific infrastructure and is well placed to benefit from significant investment in agbiotech. Nevertheless, even here, one would council against a headlong rush into transgenic technologies. Huge yield gains can be obtained by improvement in plantation management and selection & cultivation of superior germplasm. Further gains will be possible by better knowledge of genetics (including genomics) and the use of mass-propagation techniques.
In short, what is needed is a diverse and well-resourced infrastructure to support the better understanding of crop performance and the development of advanced breeding technologies, including marker-assisted selection and tissue culture. In this context, transgenesis would represent something of a leap in the dark (especially for a long-lived perennial, which may not display a phenotype for 5-7 years). It is doubtless useful to develop the relevant expertise in gene transfer, but more immediate and dramatic crop improvements will probably be forthcoming by using the increasing arsenal of other (non-transgenic) biotech methods to facilitate advanced breeding programs.
The situation in other countries and with other crops will of course be different. Throughout Southern Africa, there are huge exports of horticultural crops, especially to Europe. Zambia alone exported over 8,400 tons of horticultural products in the 1999-2000 season, recording earnings of $63 million (almost 7% total exports). A substantial proportion of these crops is designated "organic" by the European supermarkets that buy them. This is one of the factors that may be motivating the reluctance of such countries to accept GM food aid from the US - lest it jeopardise their organic status and result in the loss of desperately needed export earnings. A GM approach to improving such crops is ruled out by the current "zero tolerance" rules specified by organic farming organisations in the West. Hence, there would seem to be little incentive for funding research into GM-related crop improvement programs in this context.
My overall gut feeling about agricultural research in developing countries
(DCs) is as follows:
* There is still a great dearth of basic knowledge about the agronomy,
physiology and genetics of many major DC crops. More breeders and
physiologists are needed.
* An appropriate infrastructure, both for education & training and for
advice & outreach to farmers is still being developed.
* Many dramatic yield benefits may be possible by simple improvements in
management practices and by better use of existing germplasm.
* In the longer term, DCs will need to deploy the full range of modern
agbiotech methods and they should therefore foster a modest research effort
in this area.
In summary, a headlong rush into GM technology is not called for at this stage (at least for the vast majority of DC crops). However, DCs would benefit from more resourcing of R&D across the spectrum of crop improvement - from basic physiology & biochemistry through to agronomy & outreach and extending to advanced breeding such as marker-assisted selection and eventually (perhaps) transgenesis. Transgenesis may be the eventual "icing on the cake" but icing alone is not very useful if there is no cake to put it on!
Professor Denis J Murphy
Biotechnology Unit
School of Applied Sciences
University of Glamorgan
Treforest
Cardiff CF37 1DL
United Kingdom
email: dmurphy2 (at) glam.ac.uk
phone: +44 1443 483 747
fax: +44 1443 483 554
mobile/cellphone 07714 105 381
web site: http://www.glam.ac.uk/saps/staff/MurphyDenis.php
news: http://www.glam.ac.uk/news/newsDetails.php?id=92
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2240495.stm
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 26 November 2002 08:36
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 49: Re: Pooling together regional resources in agricultural biotech research
Regarding message 47 (November 25) by Marcel Nwalozie:
Respectfully, I find this is politizing what should not be politized!!!. Saying regional, sub-regional, national ...etc. All these terms is politizing the question. Why should we not adapt biotechnology developed in other countries? Why should we developing countries spend hundreds of millions of dollars on research that can be made by developed countries?, and receive it already made, only adapt it, and saving huge budget for our poor people. Why?
Nagib Nassar
Professor,
Universidade de Brasilia
Brazil
nagnassa (at) rudah.com.br
website on the subject where many questions are being answered:
www.geneconserve.pro.br
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 26 November 2002 08:40
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 50: Farmers making choices
My name is Tamala T. Kambikambi an agronomist currently lecturing at the University of Zambia. However, I have spent many years working in a private seed company.
From a scientific point of view, I have no problem with biotechnology, since as already pointed out, it is but just one tool in a tool box that can be used in our bid to improve food production and help to alleviate poverty.
However, once we move on to the farmers use of the technology, there are a number of assumptions that are sometimes wrongly drawn. For example, there has been discussion on the fact that farmers have choices and should hence be given that choice to choose. That unfortunately is not always true for a number of our countries. I will be definite - for Zambia, that is not true. That is why even in our seed certification system we opt for certification by minimum standards rather than by truth in labelling, since most of our farmers have not reached that level of literacy. Therefore, if GM seed is released on the market, very few of the small scale farmers will even know that it is GM and even if told, they may not comprehend. So, I think as we discuss this very important topic, it is equally important to know what assumptions hold and which ones do not.
Tamala Kambikambi
University of Zambia
Zambia
tkambikambi (at) agric.unza.zm
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 26 November 2002 09:51
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 51: GM crop research and field testing
There is a basic dilemma in genetic engineering (GE) research I hope participants in this conference can help clarify. The dilemma is the field-testing of live GMOs.
Many farmers, including Pakisama, the national federation of farmers I work with, are opposed to field-testing of GMOs, because of the real danger of genetic contamination, which will expose farmers to unforeseen environmental and health side-effects of GMOs as well as make their product less marketable. Yet, some researchers insist that field-testing is necessary for overall testing, to resolve some of the environmental and health issues against GMOs.
Here's a situation where it seems that uncertainty can be resolved only through field-testing. This in turn exposes farmers and the environment to that very uncertainty through likely genetic escape and contamination, as has happened in the Starlink, Mexican Bt corn, Nebraska/Iowa pig vaccine cases and other cases of contamination. If it should eventually turn out that the undesirable side-effects of GMOs are confirmed through field-testing, and genetic escape and contamination occurs, then the testing itself would have caused the very harm it was supposed to verify, and made it a permanent, irreversible problem in the countryside. This is particularly true in the Philippines and other countries where many farmers still save their seeds for the next planting season.
This very real research dilemma must be seen beside another real consideration: that U.S. and biotech GE corporations do have a motive to contaminate GE-free countries with GMOs. Widespread GE contamination in soya- or corn-exporting countries like Brazil, for instance, can eliminate the competitive advantage these GE-free countries enjoy vis-a-vis the U.S. Widespread contamination will also render moot and academic some of the debates on GMOs now going on, with the biotech corporations winning by force not of argument but of circumstance.
Thus, researchers must be aware that their efforts at field-testing, even if driven by purely scientific considerations, can be used to carry out a hidden agenda of deliberate contamination of GE-free countries and areas to undermine export competitors or to moot opposition to GMOs.
Please be aware that "research" can be used in a deliberate effort to contaminate GE-free fields, precluding from us the option to stay GE-free and enjoy the expanding and premium markets for GE-free products. Researchers can unwittingly play a role to play in this agenda.
Roberto Verzola
Philippines
rverzola (at) gn.apc.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 26 November 2002 16:22
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 52: Focus of biotechnology research in developing countries
I agree with several messages that biotechnology research in developing countries should focus on solving technical problems of each country's agriculture. In addition, research should also address biosafety issues including setting up the necessary infrastructure to comply with biosafety regulations. That is, when a country decides to invest in biotechnology research it should also establish biosafety regulations. In this manner, issues raised against biotechnology are scientifically addressed. Although this raises the cost of the technology, it does provide assurance to the public that proper measures are adopted to ensure that biotech products are safe.
The Philippines has adopted biosafety regulations covering biotechnology research since 1991 and has recently established regulations covering the import, commercialization and release into the environment of biotech plant and plant products. These regulations define the biosafety research agenda in developing a biotech crop.
Another research focus should be edible vaccines for humans as well as animals. The development of edible vaccines is undertaken primarily by researchers in industrialized countries, supposedly for developing countries. To hasten this development, it is about time that we in the developing world should actively participate in developing the effective edible vaccine for our own country needs.
Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D.
Senior Project Development Adviser
Bureau of Agricultural Research
Department of Agriculture
The Philippines
Tel No. 63(2) 920-0239
halos (at) mozcom.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 27 November 2002 09:58
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 53: Priority setting in agricultural research // aircrafts
I am Chittranjan Bhatia, a plant geneticist and breeder by training and profession. I have worked in agricultural research in several developing countries of Asia and Africa, also in Europe, US, and international organizations, and have helped in developing agricultural biotechnology programs for different organizations. This is to share my views on the questions that the organizers wish to be addressed in this conference. Considering the limitations of space, only the points are mentioned.
Biotechnology is a logical extension of the knowledge, tools and techniques of genetics. We have to solve the problems, and use the best available tools and techniques that one can afford, to reach that objective.
The goal is important, not the technology to achieve that goal. Not using the advanced tools, and techniques of modern biotechnology is equivalent to using firewood for cooking food when coal, gas, electric and microwave devices are available. The choice depends on the availability, convenience, cost and taste of the cooked food that one likes. Those living in high-rise apartments cannot use firewood. Unfortunately, there are others who have no choice other than using fuel wood. There can be many examples in different spheres, transport choices are to walk, use donkey, horse, or camel or other animal drawn carriage, cycle, automobile, steam, diesel or electric traction of railways, sail boat, ships, propeller and jet air crafts. The best available, and affordable, is used in different situations.
Most developing countries need increased productivity, lower production costs, reduction in all inputs tillage, water, pesticides, fuel, machinery or human labor (total energy inputs), with minimal environmental impact of the production system. Different biotechnologies ranging from vermiculture, biofertilizers, biopesticides to genetically engineered crop cultivars can help in reaching the above goals.
In the production systems there are many constraints, they can only be removed one by one. The most limiting constraint (the limiting factor) for the area needs to be identified, and the best available technology that can ameliorate the situation in the shortest time frame, at an affordable cost, should be used. The aim is to reduce the yield loss due to the constraint, and not to promote one technology over the other.
For biotechnology research, and development of new products, the first three necessities are: human resources, infrastructure, and funds required to reach the goal. High-tech biotechnology research is expensive.
There are known methods for priority setting in agricultural research, the same should be used for identifying the areas which would give maximum return in the shortest possible time, with minimum investment. However, here the conflict of interest arise, even in a small community. Farmers having irrigation facilities would like the investment in rice; dry land farmers would prefer groundnut or castor bean. As a scientist, I know I cannot compete with IRRI (the International Rice Research Institute) in rice, and with ICRISAT (The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics) in groundnut, and hence would use the resources to improve the productivity of castor. Participatory evaluation of the new cultivars of rice and groundnut from the above CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) institutes can improve rice and groundnut.
Unfortunately, national agricultural research systems (NARS) in most countries have very little expertise, and infrastructure for the high-tech end of biotechnology research. Expertise in these areas is available in certain traditional, non-agricultural universities and research institutions in some countries. However, such institutions do not have any mechanisms to test and deliver the new products to the farmers. This can only be done by the private sector, NGOs and NARS. Competition and ego between individuals, departments and institutions keep them away from active collaborations. Biotechnology needs greater collaborations between persons with different knowledge, skills and understanding of the issues. Look at the number of authors, and laboratories, involved in biotechnology publications in high impact journals.
On the question of import or local development of biotech products, I ask the question: How many countries have developed their own passenger aircrafts? Development of a genetically engineered crop plant with agronomically useful traits with desired expression levels is a fairly high genetic manipulation technology, and takes a minimum of five years. Biosafety and field evaluation another 3-4 years, if everything goes well. The same gene can be introduced through back crossing in about 2-3 years, when 3-4 generations in a year can be grown in controlled environments. As a private breeder, putting my own money, I would import the seeds from the Multi-national corporation (MNC), and go for accelerated back crossing program. Alternatively, if it is the question of competence building for the human resources, or the technology is not available, or far too expensive, public funds should be used for indigenous development.
International biotechnology research and development programs supported by the Government of Netherlands in India, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Colombia have taken the "interactive bottom up approach". Farmer's representatives, and NGOs working with the farmers present their perception of the priorities in joint meetings with the scientists, and program managers. These are discussed across the table to evolve farmer demand-driven research objectives that are achievable with reasonably good chances of success. In India, this program is confined to the problems of two dryland districts of the state of Andhra Pradesh.
Lastly, I feel that the utility of the genetically engineered crops should be judged by their field performance, keeping out the issues of globalization, private versus public ownership of the technology, MNCs, intellectual property rights and, above all, the religious beliefs that "humans have no right to tinker with the creation of God". If the products benefit the poor, small farmers, these issues can be sorted out. Several alternatives are possible to make the products available to the developing countries while providing reasonable profits to the shareholders of the MNCs for their investment.
C. R. Bhatia Ph.D.
17 ROHINI,
Plot 29-30, Sector 9-A,
Vashi, New Bombay 400 703
India
Phone: 022 2765 5178 / 2765 8504
nbhatia (at) vsnl.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 27 November 2002 10:22
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 54: Are we pursuing the wrong research objectives?
The need for biotechnology research, often established based on projections of future demands, almost always do not take into consideration solutions that can be found in other fields of technology. To give an example, wood-based biomass requirements of the future (requiring longer crop cycles) are also dependant on whether the same uses continue or whether alternatives to current materials and processes are found by the researchers who are working on it currently. This include new biodegradable polymers, better recycling technology and so on. A convergence of research outputs from different areas of technology can result in totally different objectives for agricultural research in the not-too-distant future and, if that were so, then it doesn't make sense to invest so much of the funds in the wrong place. Particularly for the developing countries the money could go into meeting short term goals.
Experts from different areas of human endeavour don't seem to be getting together to exchange ideas. Or am I wrong?
Dr. E.M. Muralidharan
Genetics Division
Kerala Forest Research Institute
Peechi 680 653 Thrissur,
Kerala State, India
Email: emmurali (at) kfri.org
Web: www.kfri.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 27 November 2002 10:31
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 55: Save the funds for conventional agricultural research
Still arguing the case for having publically funded biotechnology research for developing countries, I have the following issues to comment on. One fallout of having GM crops (or, for that matter, high yielding varieties of any crop) in a developing country will be the erosion of the existing diversity of crops in favour of a few that fetch foreign exchange but do nothing to improve the food security and sustainability of agriculture in the region. Private biotech companies will narrow down the variety of crops they work on but public funding can ensure that strategically important ones (for poor developing countries) also find a place in research priorities.
The consortium of publically-funded research organizations, that I had previously advocated (message 6, November 15), involving developing countries (and focusing on biotechnology of crops that are important to the economy and food security of these nations), can tackle issues in biotechnology of specific species of interest to the constituent countries and that at a fraction of the cost they will have to incur if they were to set up the neccessary infrastructure individually.
Scarce public funds then made available, can go for agricultural research to support research on improving and implementing modern, but relatively conventional, agricultural practices that have a better chance of reaching the poor farmers and have less uncertainties than GMO's. Most of research in biotechnology today appears to be on blinkers - presuming that biotechnology is a solution to everything. Would it make more sense, for example, to invest in improvement of post-harvest protection, storage and in developing means of equitably distributing food grains, so that increasing yields beyond a certain limit is no longer a requirement?
Dr. E.M. Muralidharan
Genetics Division
Kerala Forest Research Institute
Peechi 680 653 Thrissur,
Kerala State, India
Email: emmurali (at) kfri.org
Web: www.kfri.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 27 November 2002 14:30
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 56: Biotechnology ofen more justified by faith in technological progress than by rigorous analysis
I have found remarkable the commentary of Denis Murphy (message 48, November 26). It comes from someone working in a biotechnology unit and does not say that the salvation of the developing countries is, at least in the short term, in the GMOs. He says something that biotechnologist propagandists usually do not like to recognize: dramatic yield improvement can be obtained through other ways than biotechnology. The modesty and the prudency of Murphy's point of view is so rare from biotechnologists that it has to be underlined. I am convinced that the debate on biotechnology is often impossible because many scientists involved in this field develop an arrogant (a director of Monsanto himself recognizes it two years ago) and sectarian position...probably because hard scientific competition and huge economic interests caracterize this sector. The power of this technology gives also to its users the frequent and naïve illusion that miraculous solutions for problems exist that however, to be correctly adressed, need evidently a global approach and not the very short sectorial one followed by many biotechnologists.
Of course when this point of view is adopted by international institution decision makers, the case is more serious. The UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) report that Drew Kershen (message 41, November 25 dares to present as a reference, constitutes a dramatic example of an approach based much more on the faith in the technology progress and power than on comprehensive and rigorous analysis. In this report, the justification of the biotechnology is based on assertions like these concerning the low crop yield in Africa: "irrigation is one means to increase crop yield", but it does not work in Africa; applying fertilizer is no longer the solution because "existing crop varieties are unable to absorb more fertilizers" and, to conclude, "if environmental sustainability is to be ensured, the increase in yields will have to be achieved through means other than fertilizer use, area expansion, irrigation and traditional plant breeding". !!!!!!!! [The quotations are from pages 84-86 in Chapter 3 of the report...Moderator].
In Denis Murphy's message, nevertheless, I have found one point that, I think, is very questionable. The two examples that he gives to illustrate his point of view, concern products where the export aspect is important or essential. The humanitarian catastroph that is presently occuring in Zambia, a country that Murphy has chosen as one of his examples, must make us think.
To produce for the international market is advocated by many institutions as the royal way of development. This idea belongs now to the unique thought, like liberalism and free market. It constitutes of course the base of the UNECA report previously quoted. But when we realize that these slogans are promoted by countries that belong to the wealthier ones and do not respect the rules that they advocate, we must be very cautious. It looks very much like a deception.
All these considerations may perhaps seem far from the subject of this conference. But I think that they are very much linked to it. It is not possible to debate the role of biotechnology in the agricultural research agenda without debating what should be the role of the agricultural research.
Michel Ferry
Scientific Director
Research Station on date palm
and arid land farming systems.
Apartado 996
03201 Elche
Spain
Tel: 34.965421551
Fax: 34.965423706
E-mail: m.ferry (at) wanadoo.es
[Note, as reminded in message 37, the theme of this particular conference is the role and focus of biotechnology in the agricultural research agendas of developing countries. There are many subjects that are linked to this theme, but in the limited time available for this conference we urge participants to focus directly on the theme. Further comments on the merits of the UNECA report will not be posted...Moderator].
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 27 November 2002 14:35
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 57: Re: Pooling together regional resources in agricultural biotech research
My name is Alejandro Martinez. I am a Mexican national currently finishing my PhD here in Australia. My research topic is concerned with modelling sustainable grasslands in Mexico. My background is as an animal production technician, farm manager and lecturer at the University of Mexico.
This is in response to Nagib Nassar (message 49, November 26), in which he mentioned that some participants are politizing what should not be politized, and that developing countries should only try to adopt what developed countries produce. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Nassar's opinion which, in my view, illustrates one of the most compelling reasons for failure and non-adoption of technology at the field-level: the reductionist, kind-of-tunnel-vision of what otherwise is essentially a complex, multi-dimensional phenomena.
It is clear that the issue of producing and extending e.g. biotechnology use is, among others, a political one, as much as it is social, economic, and technological. The ideal situation for biotechnology application would then result from a systemic, holistic approach to describe the dynamic behaviour of a given complex, multi-objective agricultural system, using what has been described as a social relativism approach. The idea is to facilitate social evolution and to promote farmer's adaptive skills, whatever that means for the farmer's specific circumstances. Then, a set of problems (including goals and constraints) would be identified, with a set of possible solutions to such complex, multi-objective problems. From there, a description of the system's needs, feedback loops, conflicting goals and likely future scenarios resulting from the application of the proposed solutions (including biotechnology) will help to assess the possible effects of the suggested solutions.
As I hope I had described, the issue of the pros and cons of biotechnology application at the farm level should consider first the farmer's vision, goals, needs and capabilities, tailoring the set of solutions (more than one solution resulting from a multi-objective problem) offered to the farmer's specific set of constraints and goals. And that won't be achieved by simply importing technology developed for a different population target with different sets of goals and constraints. Importing technology could be as good a solution as producing it locally, but I here suggest that most of the problems farmers in developing countries face are essentially of a political, social and economic nature.
Alejandro N. Martinez-Garcia, BVSc MAgSc
PhD scholar
Advanced Computational Modelling Centre
The University of Queensland.
St. Lucia Campus.
QLD 4072
Australia
e-mail: amartine (at) maths.uq.edu.au
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 27 November 2002 15:02
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 58: Re: Priority setting in agricultural research // aircrafts
I am Prof J Ralph Blanchfield, a professional food scientist for 56 years, a Past President, and currently Chair of External Affairs, of the Institute of Food Science and Technology (IFST), the professional body of food scientists and technologists. Neither I nor IFST has any connection with the biotech industry nor with any anti-biotech organization. My, and IFST's, stance is that Genetic modification (GM) has the potential to offer very significant improvements in the quantity, quality and acceptability of the world's food supply. Food scientists and technologists can support the responsible introduction of GM techniques provided that issues of product safety, environmental concerns, information and ethics are satisfactorily addressed. IFST considers that they are being, and need even more intensively to continue to be, so addressed, so that the benefits that this technology can confer may become available, not least to help feed the world's escalating population in the coming decades.
I would like to applaud Dr Bhatia's (message 53, November 27) masterly and objective response to the questions that the organizers wish to be addressed in this conference.
I also agree with much that Dr Muralidharan (messages 54 and 55, November 27) has written, but disagree on two points.
I think it is a mistake to pose short-term vs. longer-term, as he appears to
do. A balance is needed between the two. The present intolerable situation
of malnutrition, hunger, starvation, death for so many people cries out for
short-term remedies. But we also have a responsibility to future
generations. Of course, as Dr Muralidharan correctly points out (message
54), we cannot wholly foretell the future by extrapolation from the present,
but I think we can clearly foresee that in a few decades time the world will
be facing the need for much more land and water to feed a greatly escalated
population (growth mainly in the developing countries). Without destroying
the environment, this will require development of
* Crops with improved agricultural performance (yields) and reduced usage of
agricultural chemicals
* Ability to grow crops in previously inhospitable environments (e.g. via
increased ability of plants to grow in conditions of drought, salinity,
extremes of temperature, consequences of global warming, etc.)
* Improved food quality (i.e. flavour, texture, shelf-life, nutritive value,
etc.)
* Improved processing characteristics leading to reduced waste and lower
food costs to the consumer.
This leads to my second point of disagreement, where he writes (message 55) "Most of research in biotechnology today appears to be on blinkers - presuming that biotechnology is a solution to everything". I know of no reputable scientist who makes that presumption. He is actually quoting a "straw man" widely used by activists of vested interest opposing GM biotechnology (yes, there are vested interests at both ends of the spectrum). Of course, hunger in many parts of the world cannot be solved by science alone, but cannot be solved without the use of science. As part of the use of science, biotechnology will be one of the indispensable tools -- not the biotechnology of today, but the biotechnology of the future that can, however, only be "built on the shoulders" of the present biotechnology. If I may join in the practice of homely examples, a screwdriver is the indispensible tool to drive in a screw, hitting it with a hammer does not work, though a hammer has other indispensable uses. Remember too that the present-day advanced automobile technology had to be "built on the shoulders" of Henry Ford's Tin Lizzie.
Prof J Ralph Blanchfield, MBE
Food Science, Food Technology and Food Law Consultant
Chair, External Affairs, Institute of Food Science and Technology
Adjunct Professor, Michigan State University
United States
IFST Web address www.ifst.org
Personal Web address www.jralphb.co.uk
jralphb (at) easynet.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 27 November 2002 15:06
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 59: Fund conventional research
Bob Howe, Independent Organic Inspector, Northeast USA.
The point that many of the participants are missing is significant. They are naive about governments, university research and world cooperation on any scale that involves more than two entities. Further, they seem to imply that the multinational corporations are going to "do the right thing" for poor and developing regions. We need only to look at history and the present state of world affairs. Add to that enlightenment the knowledge that the greater portion of funding for biotech research comes from the corporations - funding for university research and other so called private and public research. These corporations are not doing this so they can "do the right thing". The governments have their own agendas and you can look at the most powerful and least powerful of these governments and you will find that they are not effectively involved in regulation of biotech, other than to bend to the will of the corporations (the US is a blatant example). And, how can one expect that the diverse cultures of this planet, and its ongoing political and religious conflicts, could or would convene a real cooperation to the end that would benefit the poor and developing regions. Funding needs to be applied to conventional development. The only funding that needs to go to biotech in food production is to work toward reversing harm that has already occurred, and preventing further harm.
Bob Howe
28 Brodhead Road
West Shokan, NY 12494
USA
earthorganic (at) aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 28 November 2002 09:42
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 60: Biotechnology research
This is from Dr Aisha, A. Badr, Tropical fruit division, Sabahia Horticultural Research Station, Alexandria Egypt.
I think that we cannot speak generally about priorities. This means that these priorities differ according to country and within country. In one country, we can find cities dependent on fishery, regions dependent on animal, or forestry activities and so on.
As an example, the ARC (Agriculture Research Center of Egypt) includes institutes of different fields of researches. There are also regional research stations distributed according to the main activities in these regions. You can find main crops, forest or fruit research stations in regions with great plantation area of crops, or forest or fruits. This does not prevent the presence of more than one station in the same place for serving local researches. This helps research trials for new varieties and selection in different locations. One of the best activities of ARC is the research groups, which contains different specialists for guiding growers, recognizing their problems for setting research to solve problems and to help them to apply new technology.
I think that this is the ideal way to inform growers about the fields of biotechnology and simplify the progress in research in such fields to small growers. This will help small growers to accept the progress in biotechnology (I explained this problem in conference 7 of this Forum [Dr. Badr submitted messages number 21, 29, 44 and 70 to the previous conference on GMOs and Gene Flow...Moderator]). Simply, when a small grower watches the success of a guide field experiment beside his field or farm and finds differences in yield, he will try to apply the same technology.
The question is: Who will decide the research, including biotechnology, for one of the developing countries, and who will be the decision makers? In my opinion, we must begin from the base. That means the growers needs and natives' needs. No one can feel hunger than those in poor countries. Did they stay hungry until we try biotechnology researches in their countries, or stay ten years to gain the advantages of these researches. We can ask them.
Biotechnology research is an amazing field and I am one of the researchers who worked for 35 years in the fields of both physiology and tropical fruit breeding and completing my research using new biotechnology research. So I am not against biotechnology research. At the same time, I believe that the research must continue even in poor starving countries, not only developing and developed countries (according to the needs of each one individually). First we must know the people's needs regionally and try to solve their problems. Human resources is one of the most important factors and training is also important. To find people appreciate the biotechnology research (not to put a jewel in mud). These trained people are also jewels. The collaboration must be internal and external because one only could not cover all fields of biotechnology research. Some countries need funds, others need experts and training, others need human resources and others need facilities. All the above, need safe biotechnology and research on safety.
One other comment about hunger. As we learned from prophet (SAW), to teach the poor or begger a work to help him all his life is better than giving him money as a begger. So, small projects and training can help for tomorrow's programs. This, besides giving immediate help for hunger.
Dr Aisha, A. Badr,
Tropical fruit division,
Sabahia Horticultural Research Station,
Alexandria
Egypt.
momidic (at) hotmail.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 28 November 2002 11:54
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 61: Re: Are we pursuing the wrong research objectives?
I think there is a need for me to respond to some of the points raised by Prof. Blanchfield (Message 58, November 27) and others.
I often find (in project proposals, research papers, lectures etc., even of my own) that when justification for carrying out a particular line of research is required, the arguments are lopsided, weighted in favour of biotechnology and the scope of the alternatives is underplayed. This perhaps might be happening with most researchers in all other areas of research too.
How then can we counter the exaggerated importance being given to biotechnology in terms of funds and scientific talent and its preoccupation for goals that are not always the priority in the short-term fight against hunger and poverty? Much of what is happening today is because of the hype and the charm of a new and fashionable science, whetted by the interest shown by huge biotech companies.
While the bulk of the laymen critics of biotechnology are so inclined because of ignorance, they do have a case as far as potential threat to the environment is concerned, if testing is not taken seriously. The scientists themselves are unjustifiably confident that GMOs pose no serious threat and are overtly anxious to stifle any dissenting opinion. In any case, even after the concerns of the anti-GM lobby have been addressed, biotechnologists still need to demonstrate that short- and medium-term benefits will be realized and is worth the time and money spent. Just look at the way some of the less sophisticated but appropriate biotechnologies (mentioned by Dr. Bhatia, Message 53, November 27), which require low capital, are hardly ever considered in a discussion on biotechnology.
To specifically respond to some of points mentioned by Prof. Blanchfield (Message 58, Nov. 27), who argued that "Without destroying the environment, this [feeding "a greatly escalated population (growth mainly in the developing countries)"...Moderator] will require development of":
* "Crops with improved agricultural performance (yields) and reduced usage
of agricultural chemicals"
- This is the focus of the majority of the biotechnologists today, but all I
am asking is to have an audit of the allocation of funds and manpower
vis-à-vis the benefits accrued, of biotechnology vs cheaper conventional
technologies (not necessarily agricultural technology).
* "Ability to grow crops in previously inhospitable environments (e.g. via
increased ability of plants to grow in conditions of drought, salinity,
extremes of temperature, consequences of global warming, etc.)"
- Most of these are man-made situations. We need to decide which is easier
to implement- the mass deployment of stress-tolerant crop varieties,
developed through biotechnology and sold for a price, all over the world or
work towards rehabilitation of the land and preventing the worsening of the
situation.
* "Improved food quality (i.e. flavour, texture, shelf-life, nutritive value
etc.)"
- I hardly consider this as a priority for the short-term needs of poor
nations.
* "Improved processing characteristics leading to reduced waste and lower
food costs to the consumer."
- This (energy saved!) is very important, but we would like to know if
there is any significant interest in such research in biotechnology today.
Dr. E.M.Muralidharan
Genetics Division
Kerala Forest Research Institute
Peechi 680 653 Thrissur,
Kerala State, India
Email: emmurali (at) kfri.org
Web: www.kfri.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 28 November 2002 12:42
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 62: Re: Are we pursuing the wrong research objectives?
My name is Farida Dollie and I am currently employed as a Senior Researcher at the South African Human Rights Commission. The Research Department is mandated by the South African Parliament to monitor human rights in our fledgling democracy. This includes economic and social rights such as the right to food and adequate nutrition, the right to health, housing, education, clean water, a healthy and sustainable environment, inter alia. I have been a research biochemist in the UK, Lebanon, Canada and South Africa and have always followed scientific developments especially in the area of increased food production and accessibility in so-called developing countries. The problem still remains unequal distribution and consumption of the world's resources and the pricing of "third world products" on world markets to the benefit of the rich North.
I tend to agree with Dr. E.M.Muralidharan's argument (message 61, November 28). In science, like in other fields, fashions prevail. At the moment, it is biotech- since companies can make huge profits. Scientists do not consider cheaper alternatives that may be more viable and sustainable on a regional basis to combat hunger and poverty which assail millions in developing countries.
Perhaps it is time to pause and re-prioritise.
Farida Dollie,
South African Human Rights Commission
South Africa
fdollie (at) sahrc.org.za
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 28 November 2002 15:04
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 63: Re: Are we pursuing the wrong research objectives?
This is Javier M. Claparols from the Ecological Society of the Philippines.
In this country we have the IRRI (the International Rice Research Institute), Philippine Rice Institute and other Research institutions and we are still one of the four largest importers of rice, our people's staple diet. In spite of all these institutions our production continues to decline. We all agree that the Green Revolution has not lived up to it's promise to feed the world's hungry. On the contrary it has polluted our enviroment and, in the process, caused tremendous damage to the peoples health. Let me add that it has also made many interest groups very rich.
Now we talk about GMOs that, again, are being projected as the solution to all the worlds hungry. Is it not time we re-research first the problems, causes, and solutions of the present before we jump into another "promise" of this new technology and ask who really benefits from this? In addition we should look at the economics of the unequal distribution of the resources and the subsidies of the rich north that keep poor developing countries poorer.
Javier M. Claparols
Ecological Society of the Philippines
Philippines,
jmc1 (at) mozcom.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 28 November 2002 15:36
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 64: Re: Are we pursuing the wrong research objectives?
Bob Howe, independent Organic Inspector, United States. Responding again.
I, too, tend to agree with Dr. Muralidharan's argument (message 61, November 28) that in science, like in other fields, fashions prevail. And, I think Farida Dollie (message 62, November 28) has inserted a sane response on the issue. These are words from someone on the front line and cannot be taken lightly. One thing I do take issue with is Dr. Muralidharan's statement "While the bulk of the laymen critics of biotechnology are so inclined because of ignorance..". I am an opponent and my views are thus because I have made a strong effort to both understand the process of genetic engineering and, with open mind, research the information about the effects and benefits of the science. I find that the majority of people I discuss the issues with are quite knowledgeable. Also, like me, they are justifiably suspicious of corporate activity and anything that is hyped as a panacea to hunger. As Farida Dollie states "The problem still remains unequal distribution and consumption of the world's resources and the pricing of "third world products" on world markets to the benefit of the rich North."
Bob Howe
28 Brodhead Road
West Shokan, NY 12494 USA
earthorganic (at) aol.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 29 November 2002 10:06
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 65: Re: Are we pursuing the wrong research objectives?
This is Prof Ralph Blanchfield again.
Dr Muralidharan (Message 61, November 28) opens by writing of the need for him to respond to some of the points raised by me (message 58, November 27) "and others". This is followed by three paragraphs of generalizations. I cannot speak for "and others", but those paragraphs have no relevance whatever to the tone or substance of what I wrote.
He then proceeds to take up two specific items from my section on our longer-term potential benefits from future biotechnology to fulfil our responsibilities to future generations, and mistakenly treats them as though they are proposals for short-term measures, indeed criticizes one of them because "I hardly consider this as a priority for the short-term needs of poor nations". In passing, I am surprised that he would consider drought, saline soils, and extremes of temperature as "man-made situations". However, before dealing with the longer-term aspects, I did write (in Message 58) "A balance is needed between the two. The present intolerable situation of malnutrition, hunger, starvation, death for so many people cries out for short-term remedies." I may add that I have been instigating a scheme, through the International Union of Food Science & Technology, which I hope will establish a database to enable greatly improved co-ordination of the many such short-term projects already being carried out by food scientists and technologists around the world.
Leaving Dr Muralidharan, may I now revert to my hammer and screwdriver analogy. Of course the hammer came much the earlier and was used in primitive and then increasingly better-designed forms. Then came the screw and the screwdriver. I observe that in this discussion, and in every such public discussion involving biotechnology, by analogy the discussion becomes increasingly polarized between those who understand that each tool serves purposes that the other cannot and regard each as a useful tool for its purpose, and those who with varying degrees of emphasis and ingenuity, and from a variety of agendas and motives, argue for a policy of hammers only, some even to the extent of wanting screwdrivers to be banned, and arguing that research should heavily concentrate on (or even be exclusively devoted to) improving hammer design. I do not see, here or elsewhere, anyone arguing for screws and screwdrivers only.
Prof J Ralph Blanchfield, MBE
Food Science, Food Technology and Food Law Consultant
Chair, External Affairs, Institute of Food Science and Technology
Adjunct Professor, Michigan State University
United States
IFST Web address www.ifst.org
Personal Web address www.jralphb.co.uk
jralphb (at) easynet.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 29 November 2002 10:08
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 66: Crop biotech reaching small farmers
This is from Jorge Mayer, CAMBIA (Canberra, Australia).
What is the currency of the small farmer? Seed. How does its value increase? Through improved seed.
Integrated crop and pest management go hand in hand with germplasm improvement. Biotechnology is an important component of the latter. Doing one without the other is like having roads and no cars, and doing breeding without using the best tools that you can get is like having a car with full-rubber tyres, bumpy and slow.
It will be very important to accurately identify the special needs of small farmers with respect to germplasm improvement and then to decide which is the best technical path to achieve the desired results. Biotechnology will not always be the answer but it definitely will in some cases.
In identifying traits that can be introduced by transgenesis, useful to small farmers in least developed countries (LDCs), it is important to identify genes that can be released without restrictions. It is probably not a good idea to give small farmers crops that produce pharmaceuticals, for example. Widely useful genes should be then introduced into many landraces used by the farmers so they won't exchange their crops for monocultures. We need here the development of robust transformation technologies for all important crops.
Apomixis (asexual reproduction) in otherwise non-apomictic crops: This is a very important area of biotechnology research, because fixation of heterotic vigor would not only guarantee higher yields and increased use of biodiversity but also reduce labor. Hybrid rice is taking over in China for obvious reasons. The problem is that crosses involve a lot of manual labor. Apomixis would boost rice production in the whole world.
Marker assisted selection (MAS) is an effort justifiable for the production of varieties that will be widely used, and therefore, this technology might not always be the appropriate one for small farmers. We must not forget that the ratio of urban to rural population is inverting in most countries, and that to feed the increasing number of city dwellers, we must promote an increase of medium-sized farms to cover the demand for land produce. We are not here to maintain the status quo, we should be promoting the development of every single country. In this context, MAS plays an important role. The countries do not need to develop new technologies for that, just adopt them and apply them to crops of their own interest.
Jorge E. Mayer, PhD
Principal Scientist & IP Analyst
CAMBIA
GPO Box 3200
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Phone +61 2 6246 4516
Fax +61 2 6246 4501
Email j.mayer (at) cambia.org
'Center for the Application of Molecular Biology to International
Agriculture'
An autonomous, not-for-profit organization affiliated to Charles Sturt
University
http://www.cambia.org