Lorna Salzman [5 April] has written an impassioned plea that I think rather accurately reflects many "non- scientist" views. As scientists and biotechnologists we are guilty for allowing such a lack of understanding of science to have evolved. I do not think there is any point in tackling each point she made. Many of them are made in my opinion from a lack of understanding of the process of science and publication. She implies that the scientist's views that genetic manipulation is safe are based on very few studies. This is not accurate, but has science done enough to inform the public about this? She implies that only honest scientists would admit that there are risks. I don't know anyone in biology who does not think there are risks. Biology is based on probabilities; any result with a 95% probability of being correct is accepted. However, what about the other 5%? I would consider all the biologists I know as honest. I do not see how we can practice science with a 100% probability, nor without 100% honesty.
In a perfect world there would be no risks, but then human beings would also be living in perfect harmony with nature. Which we are obviously not. Everything we do has some affect on our environment. Transgenic crops responsibility regulated and monitored pose less threat to the biodiversity in developing countries than allowing things to carry on as they are. It is essential that more food is produced on the same or less land. If this cannot be achieved then more and more of our natural ecosystems will be put to use as agricultural land. This is not fantasy this is fact. Pests and diseases cause significant losses to Agriculture in developing countries. Genes such as the Bt gene, which is currently available, offer a real solution. Other genes yet to be identified or in the "testing" process may offer similar solutions in the future.
A fact that is commonly ignored is that "Scientists" are people too. We live in the same world as everyone else and we are as concerned as everyone else is. In fact biologists have greater reason to be concerned about transgenic plants than the man in the street. We have an idea of what can go wrong and we also know all too well about the consequences of introducing alien plants into a "virgin" ecosystem. What scientists are not good at is explaining what they do and why they do it to the lay public. Science is not a mystery to the layman because it is a "secret" which we are trying to hide. The system in which we operate does not encourage communication with anyone other than scientists. It is sometimes not easy to explain things without making gross generalisations. The scientific background of most journalists is very meagre. The result is a very basic lack of communication between the public and most scientists.
In developing countries, scientists face an even bigger challenge to try to educate the public. Educating the end users of any biotechnology is essential. The public must be able to make informed decisions. Ignorance is not "Bliss". This education must be part of any biotechnology programme.
Brenda Wingfield
Dept. Genetics
University of Pretoria
Phone +27 12 420 3946
Fax +27 12 420 3947
Brenda.Wingfield@fabi.up.ac.za
[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: Thursday, April 06, 2000 9:55 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Developing Countries Desire for GMO Tech.
One of my professors recently suggested that, with the notable exception of the U.S., there is an inverse relationship between the wealth of a nation and its farmers' (and pertinent agricultural authority's) desire to utilize GMO agrotechnology. This sentiment correlates with an earlier contributor's clever maxim "It's hard to be green when you're in the red."
I was wondering if Conference contributors representing developing countries believe these sentiments to be generally true.
Additionally, I am interested in how these same contributors feel about the development of so-called "terminator" gene technology, which, although compelling farmers to re-purchase new seed stock year after year, might enable GMO seed producers to utilize a system of price discrimination for developing countries that would make the technology more affordable therein. (The idea being that terminator technology would prevent trans-national shipping of the technology in subsequent seasons, allowing the manufacturer to charge different prices in different jurisdictions, according to the market's ability to pay; also, the manufacturer's being able to charge less up-front for the seed, since it does not have to worry about making several years' worth of profit in one sale). Or perhaps it ['terminator' gene technology I presume ...Moderator] would so interfere with farmers' capacity to tailor crops to the particular environment as to render it an overall negative.
Jay Smith
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, Massachusetts
jpsmith@law.harvard.edu
[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: Thursday, April 06, 2000 9:57 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: cost vs. benefits / one step at a time
I would like to compliment Werner Schenkel on his excellent post of April 4 .
He has raised one point though that begs an answer. Mr. Schenkel writes: "I don't see why a farmer becomes more dependent when obtaining improved seeds, if these are adapted to his needs." I believe there is the possibility (but not inevitability) of just the opposite occurring.
The main problem, and the present inertia, is toward increased expense and dependence for the farmer upon outside sources for seed. It lies in the basic patenting of traits. Patents and similar legal mechanisms are giving companies control over farmers. For example. as a way of securing their patent rights, biotech companies are requiring farmers to sign "seed contracts" when they purchase transgenic seeds. Some contracts even stipulate what brand of pesticides the farmer must use on the crop. (Until recently, patent rights governing the use of commercial seed were relatively limited, including farmers reserving the right to save seed for planting the following year. Today, the purchaser is paying for one-time use of the germplasm. Monsanto has already filed 300 lawsuits against farmers for replanting proprietary seed.)
In the developing world, approximately 1.4 billion farmers rely almost exclusively on seed saving for their planting needs. The poorer farmers, of course, cannot yet afford transgenic seed, but this conference points toward that day when they will be offered such technology. I point toward that same day, when their costs rise, dependence increases, and choices diminish in regard to seed acquisition.
Biotech companies say their right to own genes is essential for driving their industry, and this is, of course, true. Novartis was recently awarded a patent for a gene technology that would tie a whole set of plant development processes, including germination, flowering and fruit ripening to externally applied chemicals, perhaps (and most likely) to Novartis' own proprietary chemicals. Agracetus has filed a patent that would cover ALL transgenic cotton and soybeans.
And there is the issue of patent INFRINGEMENT that comes with this. Examples include is the yellow bean, a staple in Mexico for generations. In 1999, the president of the company PODNERS brought back from Mexico samples of these beans, cultivated them and won a patent for what the company now calls the Enola bean. They are now suing two Mexican companies that export the yellow bean into the US for patent infringement. (The World Trade Organization's Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) gives corporations the ability to patent traditional crops, as well as medicinal plants.); two varieties of chickpea and the Mexican guaje tree; in 1997, RiceTec Inc., won a patent for basmati rice, threatening India's US$425 million in basmati exports. India is currently suing the company. (A small Indian village, Pattuvan, has declared absolute ownership of all genetic materials growing in its jurisdiction.) And the industry is consolidating. Of the 56 transgenic products approved for commercial planting in 1998, 33 belonged to just four corporations (Monsanto, Aventis, Novartis and DuPont).
Biotechnology researchers express a reluctance to get embroiled with the politics and economics of their specialty. But flowing like an undercurrent beneath this conference is the reality that economic imperatives will govern who benefits from the fruits of your research. With increasing consolidation, and increased investment in the industry, biotech will focus on large secured markets within the developed and developing countries. That is, the focus of biotech in developing countries will be on those larger-scale farms growing food for export, not subsistance farmers. It simply wouldn't pay.
Fair and affordable access to GM seed will require more than well-intentioned monitoring by independent organizations. If and when biotech foods prove safe and effective, it will require wholesale subsidizing in developing countries.
Jeffrey Reel
jeffreyreel@aol.com
Planetary Food Council, a division of One Peaceful World
Becket, MA, USA
[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 ]