Several of the recent postings to this debate made reference to environmental impacts from GM crops. These comments make it sound as if GM crops are not properly tested before being introduced into the environment. From my own work with GM crops I know this to be untrue. As a matter of fact, if you could see the amount of studies which are provided to the regulatory agencies (FDA/EPA in US and different competent authorities in Europe/Africa), you would be more worried about the loss of trees for making the paper than about the environmental impact of GM crops.
Bt exudates in the soil. The study cited [by Ancha Srinivasan, 3 April] appeared in December in NATURE [Dec 2; 402 (6761) 480...Moderator] and was presented as a new and alarming finding. One of the authors of the study, Stotzky, has published extensiely before on proteins from Bt in the soil and its biodegradation [Go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=PubMed and search for Stotzky to get some references...Moderator] . If anybody is interested, I could cite at least 9 publications going back to 1992. So what is new? The only thing that is new, is that it will grab attention and secure research funds for Dr. Stotzky, thanks to the current GM debate. In the Nature publication, the authors conclude that they have no indication on how soil communities might be affected by root exudates from Bt crops.
It is a pity that the study fails to make a comparison between Bt crops and non-Bt but chemically sprayed crops. From many published studies we know that the half life of Bt proteins in the soil is shorter that that of synthetic pesticides.
Risk assessments.
Assessments of the risk to humans and the environment are part and parcel of the approval process. These principles are also laid down in the Biodiversity protocols. As the science and our knowledge increases, risk assessment rules and protocols will also evolve. For instance in Europe there is a lot of dicussion on post-release monitoring of GM crops.It is important that we build capacity in developing countries which will enable risk assessments to be done in a scientific manner.
Edo Lin, France
lin.edo@free.fr
[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: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 11:45 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: cost vs. benefits / one step at a time
[Thanks to Werner Schenkel for this well-written contribution, which directly addresses the theme of this Conference .....Moderator]
I agree fully with Brenda Wingfield (3.Apr, Subject: Biotechnology by Africans for Africa). The key question in this e-mail conference is how appropriate each of the different biotechnologies, may be for the crop sector in developing countries and regions. There are still very few answers to this question but too much "general" discussion if biotechnology is benefitial or not.
I have got the feeling, that (almost) nobody can deny the potential benefits of at least some bio-technologies in some contexts.
Obviously not appropriate is biotechnology in every case were it competes for fundings with basic technologies. If there is for example a lack of basic seeds supply, extension service, and breeding it is not appropriate to spend the limited money available for biotechnology. If there is no systematic conventional breeding strategy for a crop it is not appropriate to spend money on marker assisted selection because this technology builds upon a systematic conventional breeding strategies. But marker technologies can be appropriate (cost effective) for evaluation of genetic diversity before new breeding efforts are started.
If there is a functional breeding system dealing with a special problem (e.g. Virus) it can be appropriate to use markers to incorporate a resistance gene from a wild progenitor. But it might be inappropriate to try to transfer that gene directly, because it is very costly to identify it and monitor the risk potential.
I believe the cost effectivity of any technology should be the determining factor in developing countries. If there is a easy and cheap way to achieve a goal, first use this befor applying the hightech expensive one!!! Unfortunatelly "governments" in developed countries, and often in developing as well, are more willing to fund cooperations in high biotechnology than in basic breeding and extension systems. This means developing countries have to honestly analyse their true demands and possibilities, and ask assistence for the next possible step, not two steps ahead.
I was working in a project with Indonesia with the aim to use marker assisted selection to improve stress tolerance in soybean. With time we realised, that there was no systematic breeding to base this on. This is a typical example were the technology was not appropriate, because the starting point was not considered correctly. Additionally I found out, that farmers were more lacking good quality seeds than new genotypes.
Finally I would like to state, that proper biotechnology is very sustainable, since improvments fixed in the genome are available over generations (of crops and farmers!!) and donīt require a yearly input. This means even the poorest farmer benefits from improved seeds without further input, as long as he is able to maintain them.
I don't see why a farmer becomes more dependent when obtaining improved seeds, if these are adapted to his needs. I agree that big international companies are probably not the right organsations to adapt crops to the needs of rural farmers, but it is not "biotechnology", or even the companies, that should be blamed for that.
Since I know these "multinationals" hold power I see, like others , the necessity of national laws and an international organization monitoring the dealing with GM crops. This is true for all regions of the world!!
Werner Schenkel
TU Muenchen-Weihenstephan
Institut fuer Pflanzenbau und Pflanzenzuechtung
Alte Akademie 12
D-85350 Freising, Germany
Tel.: xx49-8161-713749
Fax: xx49-8161-714511
[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: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 11:49 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Philippines - GM Corn - field trial
As Dr. Lettington [27 March] has suggested, the Asian corn borer example (presented by Dr. Halos [24 March]) illustrates the temptation to take a black or white stance on an emotional, value-laden, and profoundly grey issue (such as the engineering of new life forms, and the appropriateness of selling them to resource-poor farmers).
The exchange has also brought up several other issues that I would like to raise, along with some general observations:
"Who should decide what technologies farmers may use?" Farmers are the foremost experts on their own local needs and conditions. Obvious, yes, but it has taken many years for national/international agricultural research organizations to recognize this fact. If Bt corn in the Philippines were merely an issue of the short-term farm-scale economics of a new technology, then by all means let the farmers make their own decisions. If the new technology is unprofitable, they will be the first to throw it out. Thus the question of financial feasibility of technologies (in the theme of this session) is easily answered.
However, with respect to the other questions in the theme, Bt GMOs are not so simple, and it therefore is only natural that Bt transgenics should be such a prominent topic here. Their most important feature is they will accelerate Bt resistance, and in tropical areas with multiple generations of pests per year, resistance will develop quickly. This fact is strongly supported by research, as pointed out by Dr. Lettington (for a good collection of resources pro and con, check out http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/sc/scp/out35_en.html). The loss of Bt as a nondisruptive, nontoxic, highly selective insectide is a major loss for farmers and for society.
Should Bt corn be available to Philippine farmers simply because it exists and they want it? I'll answer that by asking: Should DDT be available to farmers (any farmers) because it exists and they want it? Governments around the world now regulate pesticides (at least nominally) because of their recognized negative impacts on human and environmental health. By the same token, there are important issues surrounding GMOs that we have barely begun to explore, which in my opinion warrant the use of the precautionary principle. We simply haven't had time to explore them, and have lacked the institutional mechanism to restrict release in the face of market forces.
Judging the appropriateness of particular technologies (referring here primarily to GMOs) in developing countries requires detailed case-by-case analyses; in other words, as Dr. Kumar [31 March. Subject: Field Trials of GM crops in the developing world] has suggested, we need an international institutional mechanism that does not yet exist. This mechanism should include, as Mr. McGuire [31 March] has suggested, due attention to local needs through a "participatory, decentralized" process. The fact that "the devil is in the details" on these questions is indeed a major hindrance to the goals of this conference (although the debate has been lively and interesting).
To many people, the GMO debate is more a moral than scientific question, and we as scientists sometimes do not grant credence to moral (i.e., nonscientific) arguments. "With power comes responsibility," and the unprecedented power of some biotechnologies pose some of the most fundamental moral questions of our age. On the other hand, introducing unsubstantiated "scientific" statements in support of these moral convictions does a disservice to us all.
The walls between scientific specializations are highlighted in these discussions. The extreme level of specialized knowledge required to comprehend the risks and possiblities of a particular technology leads us to stake our opinions on incomplete information. As a result, there are schisms between the biochemists, the agricultural ecologists, and the development economists, for example. It is important to bring this up because it speaks to the overriding importance of interdisciplinary technology reviews proposed above.
Chris A. Geiger, Ph.D
Dept. of Environmental Science, Policy & Management
Div. of Insect Biology
201 Wellman Hall
University of California, Berkeley 94720-3112
(510) 428-1945 (phone) (510) 428-1845 (fax)
cgeiger@firstworld.net (email)
[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: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 11:51 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Multinationals and the public perception of biotechnology
This is to comment on the message by Jeffrey Reel [3 April].
I believe he is talking about US experience with multinationals who are key players of their economy.
In the Philippines, the multinationals are not aggressively pushing for GMOs so I hope that removes the issue of multinationals trying to ram GMOs down our throats. But they may have genes we could use and as one who have tried doing similar work here, I think it fair to pay for these genes because their isolation, identification and manipulation takes money. Whether multinationals will be fair in pricing these genes, whether they will make it available to help us develop the kind of crops our farmers need, is a matter of negotiations or whether they will like to develop the suitable varieties themselves, then that will be their decision. Monsanto provided free genes to small potato farmers in Mexico who want to retain their own varieties and they also helped train the scientists that did the work. So in this case, crop biodiversity is maintained and the local capacity for modern biotechnology was developed.
I think we should focus more on whether the current techniques of modern biotechnology and available products would be useful to us in developing countries and I would say, yes. If we can already avail of biotech products that would help us produce more food and make small farming profitable and sustainable, then we should do so. However, we need to develop the capacity to assess what is good for us and develop the technologies useful to us. We do need external assistance, though. All of these are our decisions and I do not think that the time will come for us to relinquish that decision-making process to outside groups and that includes these NGOs disseminating wrong information and half-truths so that we shall follow their philosophy. It is these groups using scary tactics and preventing us from making an informed decision that are not doing us in the developing countries any service and are trying to keep us ignorant forever. Many of the issues raised against GMOs by these groups are based on selected preliminary research and more extensive literature exists to the contrary.
I am currently preparing an annotated bibliography of the scientific literature on GMOs so I would appreciate fellow researchers to send me more materials. This is a voluntary work and I am not receiving any renumeration from any multinational.
Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D.
Bureau of Agricultural Research
Dept. of Agriculture, Philippines
e-mail: shalos@bar.da.gov.ph; halos@mozcom.com
[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: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 11:53 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: plant breeding and biotech and farmers breeding
I am Julien Berthaud. I have been interested in plant genetic resources for a long time. I belong to a French public research institute (IRD) and I work at CIMMYT in a joint project CIMMYT/IRD on the dynamics of maize genetic diversity in the farmers fields in Mexico.
When we consider what plant biotechnology can do to help poor farmers we usually think of the creation of new and more efficient plant varieties and implicitely consider that these new varieties will find their way to these poor farmers and will be used by them as is. However, one result of studies of farmers management of plant varieties is that their varieties are managed dynamically and will genetically change (evolve) over time. It is a part of the system and can be seen very positively. That means that whenever farmers get new varieties (formal or unformal or biotech or participatory breeding) they will manage these new varieties as the former ones, (i.e. dynamically) and transform or adapt them to their (new) needs. So any effective breeding work would contemplate as a result not only the release of the variety but its dynamical adoption. New biotechnologically-improved varieties will have to go through the same path. When we will breed new varieties using these biotech tools we should keep in mind the way these varieties will be used at the farm level, i.e. how these new seeds will be distributed, how they will reach the farmers and be maintained with their engineered potential in these farms we are interested in.
Biotech is just a perfect tool in a very industrialised agricultural system, where breeding and production are two very separate activities and the agricultural product goes to the market. In others systems, very often called traditional agricultural systems, it is not sure that biotech will be the only and perfect tool. So, we should try to identify all the limiting factors of plant production and see which ones can be overcome by breeding and which one can be overcome by biotech breeding, and those that are not related to breeding. Currently, agrobiotech has only addressed some simple problems in very defined geographical areas whith a strong technified agriculture. To move from this to the improvement of plants for poor farmers will require using innovative strategies, still to be defined and which could be discussed in this Conference.