Forum Conf 1 (biotech and crop sector)

I think, as several contributors have pointed out, that we need to largely forget the argument of biotech crops "feeding the world". This has been shown to be a spurious argument on numerous occasions and to my mind is designed as a two-pronged public relations attack. On the one hand it tells Developed Country consumers how caring biotech firms are and on the other it pushes the products in developing countries. I have been extremely disappointed by the continuation of this campaign in Kenya even after the events in Britain last year.

On the technical side of this issue, as opposed to the socio-economic, is the fact that there is growing evidence that GM crops are not performing up to expectation. Recent studies by the USDA and National Center for Food & Agricultural Policy (July,99) [I think these are the studies available on http://www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/gmo/ ....Moderator] produce inconclusive and variable results for GM crop yield, cost reduction and profit factors depending on individual crop, year, location and planting conditions. These are hardly "militant environmentalists". A subsequent study on GM soybean crops produced the result that yields are approximately 6 - 7% DOWN and that pesticide use is higher - the advantage being that its a less complex process to manage weeds.

To my mind this feeds into Dr. Kumar's comments [ 31 March, Subject: Field Trials of GM crops in the developing world] on being sure that these technologies are right for developing countries. If the sole advantage of a crop is that its less complex to manage, that is not going to be enough for it to be of benefit in a developing country if it still costs more - which, since a large proportion of farmers here still rely on saved seed, it undoubtedly will.

There seems to be a concerted effort underway to make developing countries accept GM technologies without question or reserve. Anyone who queries this is labelled as a heretic - this includes anyone who suggests a primary emphasis on other technologies such as integrated pest management (IPM). In the context of the continued supply of things such as DDT to developing countries from the North I find this worrying - why are we not allowed to question? When this is taken in conjunction with the rash of illegal plantings in countries such as Zimbabwe, by some of the largest firms, in clear violation of what biosafety regulations there are, a very worrying trend emerges. Even the recent "charm" campaign in Nigeria is an interesting phenomenon, particularly considering Obasanjo's known predilection for advanced agricultural technology.

Even if these companies genuinely believe their own position that they will feed the hungry, they should be made to understand that a paternalistic approach to developing countries will still damage them - developing countries have to be free to make informed and objective decisions on all areas of technology - we are not just singling out GM crops. The idea of a clear code of ethics that has strong support, at least in terms of monitoring, would be an excellent idea - whatever organisation took on this responsibility (and the FAO would seem to be the most obvious current candidate) should make sure it considers all aspects - environmental and health risks, but also the actual potential performance of the products - from an objective body what are their realistic advantages? A 6 -7% loss in yield for a higher price is not going to work for Africa.

Robert Lettington
Law and Policy Consultant
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology
Kenya. rlettington@ICIPE.org

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 10:32 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Agricultural Biotechnology

This is Edilson Paiva, Brazil. I am a Plant Molecular Geneticist at the Brazilian National Maize and Sorghum Research Center - EMBRAPA.

I am sure that Agricultural Biotechnology "is here to stay because the advantages are so compelling". There is no doubt that crops improved through biotechnology will be essential to feeding rapidly growing populations in developing countries.

Modern intensive agriculture, is without doubt, a human activity that causes one of the major negative impacts in the environment. However, it would be a tremendous mistake to go back and opt for pre-1950 agriculture in which average crop yields are about half those of intensive agriculture. If we do so, billions of people, mainly in developing countries would be without food. One also has to consider that there is no more fertile land available around the world available for agricultural expansion, and the ones in use are in a rapid process of degradation, pollution, erosion and pressure of occupation by cities and industry. So if we don't opt very quickly for a productive and sustainable agriculture we are not going to be able to feed the extra 4 to 6 billions people that will be born in the next 50 years, mainly in developing countries. For example, I would like to ask: should we Brazilians give up this new biotechnologies and go to very sensitive environments such as the Amazon Forest, cut down the jungle to produce non GM soybeans? And then sell them to the Europeans at a premium price, so they can eat a low risk food? There is a saying that states "It is very difficult to be green when one is red in his bank account"

Exaggerated safety concerns will make it hard for developing countries to gain access to these new technologies. We that work with plant biotechnology directly associated to agricultural production can not understand this GM Technophobia. Political, ideological and economical issues, with lots of rhetoric, and plain lack of knowledge of how hard food production is at the farm level or of how these new biotechnologies work at the cellular or molecular level, are prevailing in all the discussions. I see these new Agricultural Biotechnologies as the tools that will allow us to conduct around the world an agriculture that will associate high productivity with sustainability. Capable of producing enough food to feed 10 to 12 billion people in the next 50 years, with much lower impact in our environment. Besides, they will also make It possible to access and protect biodiversity as never before, and even allow to recover part of what had already been degraded. In other words " we have developed genetic manipulation of plants just in time to experiment, not when a holocaust is upon us."

Brazilian Agency for Agricultural Research - Embrapa
National Maize and Sorghum Research Center
Applied Biology Group
P.O.Box 151 35701-970
Sete Lagoas - MG
BRAZIL
Phone: + 55 31 779-1179
Fax: + 55 31 779-1088
E-mail: edilson@cnpms.embrapa.br

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 10:55 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: variable and high-stress environments

LAND RACES: Mr. McGuire writes: "Most of the important crops in Africa came from other continents in the last few centuries (maize, cassava)' and 'local varieties may no longer be suited to address all their needs [of the traditional farmers]."

I believe this points out a major reason why biotech crops may not be able to adequately and safely address the issue of large- and small-scale agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. I refer participants to a series of reports on "Lost Crops" issued by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences (United States). One of the series of reports - "The Lost Crops of Africa" - shows that Africa has more indigenous varieties of cereals than any other continent, including its own species of millet, rice (overshadowed by Asian rice), sorghum, fonio, tef, and several dozen more, all nutritionally superior than maize and cassava and all more suitable to the bioregions throughout Africa. According to the report, these grains are considered "lost" not because they are unknown but because they are given little or no attention by the mainstream of international agricultural science. These resilient crops are vital for extending cereal production onto the ever-more marginal lands. There is an unspoken assumption here that nutritionally inferior crops introduced through colonization are here to stay, and I believe this should be questioned. Native African crops require less chemical and technological intervention. Africa offers a cornucopia of food plants that people are not taking advantage of. In contrast to what Mr. McGuire writes, local varieties may be just the thing needed to suit the growing needs of traditional farmers. Displacing these foods with a few substitutes of foreign origin increases the need for biotechnological intervention in order to grow them successfully in habitats they are not best-suited. Instead of manipulating a nutrionally inferior grain to withstand conditons of low mositure, why not re-introduce traditional drought-resistant grains, and grains that thrive in poor sandy soils (fonio), grains that are naturally disease-resistant (pearl millet, which also grows in sandy soils and under arid conditions)? This is on aspect of biotechnology as applied to food crops that I question.

Jeffrey Reel
Planetary Food Council, a division of One Peaceful World
Becket, Massachusetts, USA
jeffreyreel@aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 11:06 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Feed the world

"Currently 60% of the people in the developing world are mainly dependent on agriculture for income."

I agree with Edo Lin's arguments [31 March] , and I would like to add another one. It is partly true that today severe stavation events are often correlated with wars and/or political problems. GMOs are of course not a solution for such problem: when you give seeds to hungry people, they eat the seeds...

However, even in peaceful third world countries, malnutrition can and does exist at large scale. I don't mean hunger, but lack of essencial proteins, vitamins or oligo-elements due to undiversified diet. This situation isn't as spectacular as strong starvations but causes losses in health, resistance to deseases and finally life length in these countries. One can live just by eating 100g of boiled rice per day, when you are used to this, you don't feel hunger, but this life is short and weak. I think that Vitamin A producting modified rice that already exist can for example be a partial response to such problems.

Romain Berruyer
Ph-D student. CIRAD, Montpellier, France.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 12:02 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: GMO's and the developing countries

This post is in response to some of the points made by Edo Lin (Thursday, March 30). Mr. Lin writes that 'poverty reduction in the developing countries is directly linked to increases in production of food staples'.

I think it is closer to the truth to say that there may be, at best, an indirect link. There is extreme poverty in those areas exporting an abundance of crops. National debt, the need for foreign currency, and the lack of a semblance of democratized government, judicial equity and free enterprise are the main drivers of hunger and poverty. But this Conference should focus not on politics but biotechnology as it relates to food production in developing countries.

Mr. Lin writes that biotechnology will drive the 2nd Green Revolution. That GM crops will increase yields seems evident at first, but this has not been proven yet in studies that compare GM foods to the top hybrid crops developed through traditional breeding methods. (C. Benbrook, "Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998," Ag Bio Tech InfoNet Technical Paper 1, www.biotech-info.net/new.html, July 13, 1999.) And there are two additional components that complicate this theory.

Genetically engineered crops might be toxic to human health. Aside from the more obvious allergic reactions some people have suffered during this intitial trial-and-error phase of biotech application (for example, Pioneer Hi-Bred using a Brazil nut gene to enhance soybeans), there are early indications of adverse side effects (S.W.B. Ewen and A. Pusztai, "Effects of Diets Containing Genetically Modified Potatoes Expressing Galanthus Nivalis Lectin on Rat Small Intestines," Lancet 354 (1999):1353-1354.) Human testing normally required for a new food additive is not required for GM foods, and testing on animals is insufficient.

The underlying problem that biotechnology is seeking to address is our system of monoculture. Monoculture is in trouble - the pesticides that have made it so successful no longer work, from a health standpoint or in terms of effectiveness. GM foods offer new hope for monoculture. But biotechnology is not a new paradigm -- rather, it is something that will allow the old paradigm to survive, for a while longer. That paradigm will always construe the problem as a "Colorado potato beetle problem" rather than as a problem with potato monoculture. It is one of the sadder parts of the history of migration of crops that the potato has swelled to be the 4th largest food crop in the world, a nutritionally poor substitute for the many traditional foods it has displaced, and one highly susceptible to infectious diseases except when grown in climates similar to its origins in the Andes Mountains (the highlands of Central Africa and the Himalayas), a potato 30%-50% larger than its ancestors but only one-half the dry weight.

Jeffrey Reel
Planetary Food Council, a division of One Peaceful World
Becket, Massachusetts, USA
jeffreyreel@aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 12:05 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Who owns the biotechnology? Intellectual Property Rights

One potential problem which could undermine the utilization of biotechnology and genetically modified crops in developing countries concern intellectual property rights and the fact that these technologies are often owned by research labs or multinational corporations that hold the rights to them. Thus if farmers in developing countries fully adopt these technologies, there is a possibility that, in the long run, they could be made dependent on the technologies in such a way that they cannot go back any more to the traditional crops. Farmers would become a function - a production arm - of the owners of the technology themselves.

This is one of the greatest fears of biotechnology I have heard being aired in Thailand. The fear concerns control of the economic destiny of the people here by global forces. The fear does not so much concern the potential risks of the genetically modified crops as does the possibility that after a while farmers may have to rely exclusively on the technologies owned by these corporations. Thus the ones who will benefit the most from these advances will not be the farmers, or the population of developing countries themselves.

In fact this fear is not anything new at all. When the technolgy of large scale pesticide and chemical fertilizers were introduced, many also feared the same thing. And it happens that the companies that are promoting biotechnological solutions seem largely to be the same as those that used to promote chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Granted that the new biotechnology really does everything it promises (granted that the risk level is acceptable and a level of safety can actually be scientifically guaranteed), then this issue will become the next point of controversy, and a far more serious one.

One thing that could be done to help solve this problem is for the holders of the rights to the technology to *release* their knowledge to the public domain. Another thing is that the knowledge and expertise should be directly transferred to the scientists and technicians in developing countries, so that the latter can develop their own brand of technology which will be more suitable to their local environments. There should be a series of sincere cooperations between scientists from the West who are experts in the area, and those in developing ones. Nothing should be held secret. To help developing countries develop their own technology is perhaps the best way to raise the standard of livings of the people there.

Soraj Hongladarom
Department of Philosophy
Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University
Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Tel. (+662) 218-4756 Fax. (+662) 218-4867

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 12:11 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: variable and high-stress environments

I fully agree with Shawn McGuire [31 March] for the need to develop site specific varieties or even systems of production. In the Philippines, agricultural areas are very diverse even within a 1-km radius. Furthermore, the poorest farmers are in the most stressful environments and that the commercial agricultural technologies are either unsuitable or unaffordable. This type of research should be the main focus of public institutions as well as international assistance. Biotechnology, as other forum members, wrote is just a tool but it would be most helpful since using this tool we can develop the type of crops that breeders have tried to develop for decades and without much success such as insect-resistant crops or virus resistant crops. These type of crops would ensure a good harvest to farmers. Whether the genes come from other species should not be an issue. We have been breeding crops since time immemorial. Did these improved varieties confer their improved genes to their wild relatives and make them more weedy? Why should we now look upon a transferred gene to behave differently in the genome of the same crop plant?

Furthermore, we eat and drink natural pesticides in coffee, hot peppers,etc. One reason why one crop plant is not eaten by the insect pest of another crop plant is the presence of a natural pesticide in the former that wards off or kills the insect pest of the latter. As long as that pesticide is digestible, nontoxic, nonallergenic, not accumulated by the body, where is the problem?

The rapid population growth impels us to seek new modes of production. We have to assess risk of these new modalities but we have to balance that decision with compelling need to feed more people. There is no way we shall not change the environment, what we can do is manage that change.

Furthermore, the new techniques can reduce the breeding period needed to develop a variety. I am sad to hear of plant breeders rejecting these new methods for ideological reasons, because we in the developing countries are in dire need of affordable technologies that would reduce cost of production, increase per unit area harvest and sustainably to help keep our farmers farming rather than they migrating to urban centers. If we can only package into the seed all the technologies needed to protect the crop from adversity thus ensuring a profitable harvest and make this seed available to the resource-poor farmer!

We have to agree that multinationals or the private sector are very efficient not only in developing but also in disseminating useful technologies. Now, can we develop a similar efficient non-profit system to take care of the problems the private sector will not address?

Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D.
Bureau of Agricultural Research
Department of Agriculture
Philippines

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 12:17 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Bt crops versus herbicide tolerant crops - environmental impacts

I am Ancha Srinivasan, an agricultural researcher working for the Regional Science Institute, Sapporo, Japan. In considering the appropriateness of biotechnologies to improve environmental quality in developing countries, I would like raise two points for attention with regard to Bt technology and herbicide tolerance. As everyone on this Conference is probably aware, the former technology is aimed at reducing insecticide applications, while the latter results in increased herbicide application over time.

1. Globally, more insecticides are used on cotton than any other crop. Global sales in insecticides amounted to about $12 billion in 1995 with cotton accounting for $1.8 billion. Over two-thirds of the world's cotton area treated annually with insecticides is in 3 developing countries (India, China and Pakistan), which are considered major markets by the international and domestic pesticide industry (Source: FAO Press release 99/32). Indiscriminate use of pesticides in these countries, however, led to enhanced resistance in insects, and damage to human health in many areas. Introducing Bt cotton in these countries is expected to reduce insecticide applications, improve farm profitability and reduce adverse environmental impact from insecticides.

However, recent studies show some adverse environmental impacts of Bt crops. For example, the December 2, 1999 Nature contains a brief communication entitled "Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn," by Saxena, Flores and Stotsky, researchers at New York University. The report shows that the activated Bt toxin is exuded through corn roots, binds with soil particles, becomes very stable -- persisting in the soil for 243 days, and remains active (i.e. toxic) to soil insects for very long periods. Hence, Bt toxin from root exudates will be augmented by toxin in residues from corn plant residues later in the fall and winter. There are also other concerns with Bt crops such as: emergence of Bt resistance in pink bollworms, possibility of damage to mammal immune system, kidneys, etc. (as Bt gene is now considered a form of lectin), and transfer of genes from genetically engineered varieties to other varieties of cotton and other crops. I am sure some of these concerns are unproved and/or exaggerated but I believe that development of some mechanisms to help developing countries decide on introduction and cultivation of these crops is essential.

2. Herbicide tolerance: If we look at the currently available products in the market world-wide, crops engineered for herbicide tolerance are predominant [See Section 3 of the Background Document to this conference: Of the 39.9 million hectares, 28.1 million (i.e. 71%) were modified for tolerance to a specific herbicide; 8.9 million hectares (22%) were modified to include a toxin-producing gene from a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, while 2.9 million hectares (7%) were planted with crops having both herbicide tolerance and insect resistance.....Moderator]. Are there any studies conducted on the total amount of chemicals (insecticides, herbicides) used on such crops as compared with conventional crops? If so, what are their effects on soil, air and water quality?

Can we say that only Bt crops are somewhat more appropriate than herbicide-tolerant crops for developing countries? What type of regulations would be necessary to reduce adverse environmental effects while improving food/fibre production? I seek the views of participants in this Conference.

Ancha Srinivasan, Ph.D.
Senior Researcher, Regional Science Institute
4-13, Kita 24 Nishi 2, Kita-ku, Sapporo 001-0024 JAPAN
Tel: +81-11-717-6660 Fax: +81-11-757-3610
E-mail: ancha@vtt.co.jp or ancha_s@yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 4:41 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Biotechnology by Africans for Africa

My name is Brenda Wingfield and I am an academic at the Dept. Genetics, University of Pretoria in South Africa. I have just joined the forum and read some of the discussions with interest. South Africa is considered by many to be a developing country and we are without doubt a "Sub-Saharan" country. While we suffer from all the budget limitations stated in earlier messages we have the capacity to carry out our own transgenic work and trials. Those of us involved in these trials believe that recombinant DNA technology has a vital role to play in providing developing countries with a sustainable agricultural base. We also realize that the needs of the developing world are often quite different from those of the so-called first world countries.

Due to these differences I have to agree that some of the genes that have already been inserted into some crops are likely to be of little benefit for the developing world. However, I do not see that this is a reason to "throw out the baby with the bath water". One of the contributors suggested that he had yet to be convinced that the benefits of GMO crops outweighed the risks. I think that there are a number of examples in the developing world where the benefits could far outweigh the risks. At a very basic level the difference between having food and starving has to be an extremely convincing one. Some of the recent studies currently being done in South Africa suggest that there is a significant increase in crop yield for "rural" farmers using Bt maize. (this is not my study but I do think that there is also a very real need for independant studies to address the REAL advantages of transgenic crops for rural farmers - studies done in developing countries by rural farmers - unfortunately there is not always money to do this with rural farmers - commercial farmers are another story).

This does not mean that genetic manipulation should be allowed to go ahead without the appropriate checks and balances. I think that genetic manipulation should be promoted in developing countries. However, we need to keep in mind that many of the traditional crops in these countries are not the ones that are the current focus of the multi- nationals. Rather than a moratorium on "GMOs" what should be promoted is the appropriate monitoring and evaluation for each circumstance. For example, crops that are likely to hybridize with native flora are different in different parts of the world. Different diseases are important in different countries/continents. For me one of the most frustrating aspects of this whole debate is the tendency of both the "anti" and the "pro" lobby to generalize. Each transgenic crop has its risks and benefits; each needs to be assessed separately. Some of these crops will help developing countries, others will not. We need the former.

While I firmly believe that genetic manipulation through recombinant technologies will be incredibly important to enable developing countries to feed their populations, I think we also need to realize that this is not the only technology which is needed. It is one of a suite of technologies that urgently needs to be implemented. The idea that genetic manipulation is going to provide the "magic bullet" for developing countries is a very dangerous one. We are dealing with a biological system, which is in a continuous flux. Whenever, a disease resistant cultivar is introduced to the system, natural selection will select for pests and pathogens that will overcome the resistance.

I would like to promote the responsible use of this very powerful technology. Currently there is little capacity for doing this kind of science in the developing world. As an African I would like to promote the use of this technology by Africans for Africa.

Brenda Wingfield
Brenda.Wingfield@fabi.up.ac.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 5:23 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Multinationals and the public perception of biotechnology

Researchers in the field of biotechnology are stymied at what they call "Technophobia," the public's skepticism of biotech. I believe that one reason is because there is confusion in the public mind, brought on by the past behavior of large multinational concerns. Many of the largest biotech companies today were not biotech companies just a few short years ago. They were large chemical companies, producers of agricultural chemicals worldwide.

For years, against public sentiment, they assured us of the wholesale safety of their herbicides, fungicides, pesticides. And when research concluded, beyong reasonable doubt, that some of those chemicals were harmful to health, these companies, in fact, simply turned their attention toward developing countries in order to aggressively market these very same outlawed chemicals.

Today, these same companies have now mysteriously "seen the light." One of the reasons for promoting GM crops, they say, is because of their "grave concern" for the harmful effects of agricultural chemicals. This is disingenious.

The public is unable to separate the work of biotechnologists and the economic thrust of the larger companies. I am not saying the public is justified in this point of view, but I am saying that it is not enough for researchers to say "we just cannot understand the public's phobia," and leave it at that. The first step toward dissolving the skepticism is to understand its roots. As much as researchers do not want to become embroiled in the politics and economics of biotechnology, public sentiment has woven the research of biotech with the marketing -- and the history -- of many companies funding it and marketing it.

Jeffrey Reel
Planetary Food Council, a division of One Peaceful World
Becket, Massachusetts, USA
jeffreyreel@aol.com

Return to Logs of Conference 1 or go to the main Forum pages. Note: you must join the Forum to participate in these discussions.