Forum Conf 1 (biotech and crop sector)

[Excuse the delay in posting this message, plus the 2 subsequent ones. We received them last week on 3 and 4 April but our problems with the e-mail system prevented us sending them out until now.....Moderator]

This is from Konstantin Schestibratov, PhD in Biotechnology, Researcher at Artificial Climate Station "Biotron", Branch of Shemyakin and Ovchinnikov Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry RAS. E-mail schestibratov@mail.ru

I have followed with a big interest the discussions on this list since few days and read some of the emails. Here I will try to discuss simple question: Potential Reductions in Pesticide Use Through Genetically Enhanced Crops

The use of agricultural biotechnology to create crop varieties that are resistant to insects, diseases or herbicides is likely to result in dramatic reduction in the amount of pesticides used in agriculture These products offer farmers the opportunity to reduce the use of chemical pesticides, while maintaining, if not improving, yields and profitability

Herbicide resistant or tolerant crops are not new. Indeed, natural crop resistance or tolerance to certain herbicides is a prerequisite for herbicide-based weed control programs. Selective herbicides (i.e., those that affect only certain species or families of plants) allow farmers to control a wide range of weeds in a crop with little risk of injury to the crop. Recently, researchers have developed genetically enhanced crops with resistance to non-selective herbicides, such as Roundup and Liberty, that kill almost all plants upon which they are sprayed. Development of resistant varieties has now made it possible to use these herbicides in a growing crop. Previously non-selective herbicides could only be used when a crop was not growing in the field (e.g., before planting or after harvest) or the crop would also have been killed

Use of crops resistant to non-selective products offers growers the potential of reduced weed control costs through the use of fewer and less expensive herbicides. For example, some growers have indicated reduction in herbicide cost of $30 per acre, depending on their previous program

Moreover, in some cases transfer of resistance genes into the plant genome may increase resistence to diseases. For example, rs-afp2 is antibiotic-like protein from black radish and have antimicrobial and antifungal activity; thaumatinII protein is pathogenesis-related protein improving response of plant tissue to microbial or fungal attack. These genes have not any possible risk for the enviroment. I think that researchers should pay attention to this family of proteins

[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, May 09, 2000 9:48 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: interspecific hybrids, induced mutation and GMOs

From Dr Ahmed Rebai, CBS, Tunisia, Ahmed.Rebai@cbs.rnrt.tn

This email to is to close the GMO debate (at least for myself) which has unfortunately dominated, since the opening, the discussions on this list. I want to recall some scientific things to think about.

Crossing the species, genera and sometimes family barriers is not only possible but it occurs (rarely, but it does) in nature or can easily be be done artificially (triticale is a hybrid between two genera with different genomic constitutions: Triticum and Secale). What do you think about protoplast fusion which also creates somatic hybrids impossible in nature?

Evolution has given raise to different species but many plant species have similar genetic constitutions (conserved gene sequences, conserved order of genes on the chromosomes, homologous conserved DNA segments..) as we are now discovering in comparative genomic studies (using tools such as genome mapping with molecular markers and other molecular biology techniques). The homology (or similarity) between the genomes of two different plant species from two different tribes can be as large as 93% (between rice and wheat, knowing that wheat do not intercross with rice, see for example paper of Paterson et al, 1995, Science Vol269: 1714- on comparative mapping) so will you consider a GM wheat with gene from rice as 'unnatural '? This traduces to me a simple and evident thing: the homogeneity and unity of living organisms which all derive from a single ancestor and are made of the same basic elements (AGTCU, methylated or not!) with the same genetic code.

Of course, GMOs constitue a new paradigm in the history of science and humanity and need special concerns and biosafety measures but I do not consider those Genetically Modified Organisms as 'Alien' things (nor do I consider induced mutated organisms as such), as long as the modification does not affect their integrity as living organisms (viability and reproduction ability). This, as you may understand excludes GMOs with terminator technology and some others.

For those interested in knowing more about the use of molecular markers in studying difference between species and hybrids, I recommand an excellent review article on 'Hybridization, introgression and linkage evolution"by Riesberg et al. Plant Molecular Biology, Vol 42, N° 1, January 2000.

I will end this email by giving useful information about the state of plant biotechnology in Tunisia; We have three major crops: wheat, potato, tomato (and olive trees) and our main problems are parasites (fungal and viral diseases, insects), drought and salt stresses and weeds which can cause large losses of production. We are dealing with these problems from different angles:
- agricutural practice: optimized use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides; IPR
- development of adapted cultivars with or without marker assisted selection or in vitro culture techniques;
- production of local GMOs; we already have our local transgenic potato resistant to PVY virus and ready for field tests; we are developing herbicide resistant durum wheat ..

Agricultural biotechnology for us is not a dream, it is a challenge we are to win; it is a matter of food security. Not all developing countries could afford this, but all should keep trying to stay in the biotechnology train as drivers and not as spectators, as active makers and not passive consumers.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 9:54 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Implementing biotechnologies in developing countries

I am Sunil Archak,Scientist,National Research Centre on DNA Fingerprinting, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, New Delhi, 110 012, INDIA sarchak@nbpgr.delhi.nic.in

In the Background Document for Conference 1, it was indicated that three major kinds of recently-developed biotechnologies could potentially be used for the crop sector in developing countries:

a) biotechnologies based on molecular markers,
b) genetically modified crops,
c) micropropagation.

It has been witnessed that utilisation of the biotechnological products have hurdles that go beyond cost-benefit ratio. Consider the Indian scenario:

Firstly, since such technologies have clear cut food-security connotations, political parties can play it to the village folk in whatever way they intend. Government organisations remain influenced by the political party in power. Unfortunately NGOs have an inclination to oppose anything to do with biotech. Thus, correct information hardly reaches the farmers. Second, like most countries, India has also seen the biotech era heralded under the aegis of Multi-National Corporations (MNCs). By the very nature of the farming community, large agrarian population and current socio-economic changes, this may become a tedious process. e.g. Bt-cotton was seen as an imposition by MNCs rather than as a future technological need.

I would like to bring to the notice of all the participants that the following things do matter in implementing biotechnologies (technology developed or transferred) especially in countries like India:

1. (New technology + existing crop) is better than (new technology + new crop).
2. It is better to start with genetic engineering of native genes, e.g. for over expression, rather than foreign genes, e.g. fish genes.
3. Biotechnology needs to be made a common word rather than an alien monster, by introducing biotech-based non-crop technologies in the target areas.
4. MNCs need to enter the market in collaboration with the public sector to avoid the capital tag to the technology.

Potential of any technology depends upon how well the non-technical factors are internalised.

In India, biotech experience is in infancy. Effect of extraneous factors on implementation of potential technologies in other countries will be interesting to discuss.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 10:39 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Conference Update of 7 May

Your May 7th posting, with its review of the first forum [i.e. the update of Conference 1 of the Forum...Moderator], was incomplete.

You did not include any of the dissenting or adversary views expressed by some participating scientists. Instead your report is badly distorted because you picked up only on those pro-Genetic Engineering views in your report.

This is not surprising given the provenance of this forum and its intent. I wish to register my strong protest against your bias and your report. Furthermore, your report and conclusions cannot be used to substantiate your pre-conceived views. You are obliged to present the spectrum of views expressed by participants, not limit yourself to those you agree with.

Lorna Salzman
Brooklyn NY, USA
718-522-0253; 631-653-3387
lsalzman@aba.org

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