Forum Conf 1 (biotech and crop sector)

[Thanks to Brenda Wingfield for focusing on micropropagation, which so far has only been briefly refered to in 3 previous messages (Robert Lettington 24/3 ; David Heaf 27/3 and Danladi Dada Kuta 30/3). Are there other comments/experiences about the appropriateness/costs/benefits of micropropagation for specific developing countries ?.....Moderator]

There are some tremendous benefits to using micropropagation in a developing country. I am not directly involved in this myself but there is a group in Zimbabwe doing a tremendous job of producing virus free sweet potatoes through micropropagation for both the commercial and rural farmers. Their operation is not particularly high tech but they are producing a high quality product all the same. It is possible to do some of these types of techniques in a lower tech environment. However, it takes quite a bit of initiative and energy. It is also sometimes quite difficult to persuade your scientific peer group that this is worthwhile doing.

Doing some of the modern techniques in a developing country can be prohibitively expensive. There is a very definite niche for people to develop procedures to do biotech using locally available material. As soon as you start importing equipment everything becomes far too expensive. This is one of the problems I see of training people in the developed world. They learn how to do science in a developed country. When they return to their home countries if they try to practice science in the way they were taught there can be tremendous problems and frustrations.

The level of technological development in different countries is very different. For instance at least 40% of all the eucalyptus plantations in South Africa are not produced using seed. The majority of this material produced using cuttings rather than micropropagation because the latter is too expensive and it is fairly easy to clone elite eucalyptus lines using cuttings. Cuttings are considered too expensive in other countries because of much higher labour costs.

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 13, 2000 4:22 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health

I am a newcomer to this Conference and I haven't read all the archives, I am just surprised that there is still some discussions about the toxicity of Bt toxin;

In addition to the message of Romain Berruyer [12 April] it seems necessary to recall:

-Bt toxin is deactivated quickly by ultra-violet
-Bt toxin is denatured by relatively low temperature (about 37°C).
-Bt is used since years by organic farmers as insecticide, they even use a crude preparation which contains living bacteria, and not a purified toxin. I never saw any discussion when they were the only one to use this product.
-Any product, absolutely any product and not only Bt toxin, can be allergenic for someone in particular. Bt toxin has not been shown to be more allergenic (and certainly less) than chocolate or peanut butter!!!

GM crops can be used by farmers from developing countries with help of their national institution or international centers such as IRRI or CIMMYT (CGIAR centers). BUT precautions are evidently necessary, one defense mechanism is not enough, constitutive expression is not good, agricultural practices have to be applied, presence of refuges for instance, but this is another debate.

Alexandre de Kochko
GeneTrop
Centre IRD de Montpellier
911 Av Agropolis
BP 5045
F-34032 Montpellier
France
Tel: 33 (0)4 67 41 62 24
Fax: 33 (0)4 67 41 62 22
alexandre.dekochko@mpl.ird.fr

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 4:35 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: developed/developing countries // private/public research

[This is the first of 3 interesting contributions from Dr. Carneiro, Brazil.....Moderator]

This is Mauro Carneiro, PhD (mauro@cenargen.embrapa.br), coordinator of the National Biotechnology Program (EMBRAPA/CENARGEN) and international coordinator of the Biotechnology Program (PROCISUR)

The domination of the gene transfer technology by developed countries and the commercialization of transgenic products by transnational firms, have consequences at the productive, environmental, social and scientific level of the developing countries (DC).

This scenario, reinforced by the globalization process and the adoption of the intellectual property rights (IPR) in biotechnology by the DC, maintains the trend of the world-wide economy where the DC are the exporters of raw materials but consumers of technologies and of products with high aggregated values.

The DC are, in general, agriculturally-oriented and, as such, potentially the major site for the production of genetically modified grains. Moreover, most of them still have around 80% of their soil not cultivated, in contrast with the 15% of the developed countries counterpart. Therefore, it is mainly in DC that the production of "food" has space to grow. This partially explains the great interest of transnational seed companies in the DC.

The fact that the transnational companies rooted in industrialized countries detain the know-how in the field of modern biotechnology, suggests that the immediate impact of biotechnology in the DC will be in sectors of high economic importance without a balance in the sectors of social interest. This impact is likely to encourage the small farmers to give up agricultural activities and migrate to the cities, increasing social problems.

The greatest investments in science and technology in the DC in the last years has been around 0,7% of the GIP, while it runs around 3,0% in industrialized countries. Despite the relatively low investment, the action of governmental agencies has allowed the training of scientists and the formation of biotechnology research groups in the last decades. These groups, working in public institutions, have given an impulse to the introduction of new techniques and strategies in the areas of Molecular Biology, Cellular Biology, Biochemistry and Immunology, among others and the formation of a reasonable critical mass of young scientists mastering these new technology. However, due to the limited number of researchers, the competition for research grants and the lack of a tradition of collaboration it has been difficult to congregate research teams around specific problems.

The research that was carried out comprised mostly the transfer of technology and did not allow significant breakthroughs at the scientific or technological levels. With the adoption of IPR in biotechnology by the DC, this approach becomes obsolete, therefore new products and processes specific for the DC agriculture have to be generated.

The consolidation of the research groups is strategic for the progress of biotechnology in developing countries. Equally important is the generation of new technologies that may be converted into products and processes of commercial interest. However, the completion of this "biotechnological cycle", through the generation of products and processes in DC, has been extremely deficient so far.

Therefore, the public research sector need to find new forms to promote the scientific development of DC. In this way, it is very important to build up the relationship between the public and private sectors at the national and international level as well as between scientific and productive sectors. This has to be seen not as a danger but as an opportunity to promote scientific and technological development.

This is particularly important since the existing public funds for research are not sufficient to support the desired development of biotechnology in DC. While the demand for funds progressively increases, the investments do not grow at the same rate or is even shrinking in some of the countries. Stable sources of funds would have to be found through partnerships with non governmental organizations, cooperatives and private companies. One possibility would be the creation of a "Transgenic Tax for Research and Development" (TTRD), to be paid by the Firms/Exporters from the commercialized transgenic products.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 4:39 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: IPR for developing countries

The recognition of intellectual property rights (IPR) of biotechnological products and processes, opens several possibilities to protect knowledge and guarantee the return of funds for research. Among them, developing countries (DC) may patent their inventions themselves, file joint patents in the case of joint projects or license their inventions. In any case, it has to be kept in mind that patenting is an expensive process and requires qualified personnel. Considering the costs involved in the process it is reasonable to negotiate the technologies with private companies instead of going through to the patenting process.The recognition of IPR for products and processes in biotechnology, makes clear the necessity of training of staff in this area and the establishment of procedures of IPR.

Dr. Mauro Carneiro, Brazil
mauro@cenargen.embrapa.br

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 5:06 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Priorities for biotechnology in developing countries

Considering the present structural, economic and technical situation of developing countries (DC), it is important to establish priorities for the biotechnology, in order to prevent the absence of focus of the research and to make it possible to solve specific problems of the productive chains.

In some DC, research in agricultural biotechnology is already organized in National Programs. Despite that, the research in progress is not guided by one general strategy based on the position of DC in present world situation, nor the possible market niches and the relevant problems of national agriculture. The established priorities should take into account the sustainability and social aspects which, so far, are hardly considered by the private companies.

Integrated pest and weed management is an important area where biotechnology can give relevant contributions. Together with cultural practices, biological control is an essential tactic of integrated pest and weed management. The use of chemical control for dealing with pests and weeds is a major cause of contamination of products and environmental problems. This is particularly important in the case of horticultural crops where high-intensity agriculture is necessary to increase the yield and quality of harvested products. Therefore the development and production of biopesticides on a small or large scale basis is strategic for the agriculture of DC. Among the many products developed as a result of the rapid advances in molecular biology are the biologically produced pesticides (biopesticides), which usually include naturally occurring organisms (e.g. fungi, viruses, bacteria and nematodes) and the bioproducts derived from them (e.g. chemicals derived from Actinomyces and Streptomyces); products derived from insects (e.g. pheromones); and products derived from plants (e.g. Azadirachtin).

Host plant resistance is another tactic for integrated pest and weed management, that may use resistance genes, transferred to crops from different species or even phyla by several methods such as protoplast fusion, Agrobacterium infection, viral transfection and particle bombardment.

Transgenic plants have been obtained for weed and virus resistance based on single-gene insertion, among others. But it should be considered that the long-term stability of crop performance with single-gene insertions, especially those that select for pest aggressiveness or tolerance, is still an open question. Experience in crop breeding has been that long-term stability of crop performance in high-stress environments rests on complex gene action. In view of the complexity of managing transgenic crops in an economy of small farmers, a more strategic focus may be upon the accumulation of multiple minor genes through marker-assisted breeding.

Therefore, when pest and weed resistance is addressed, it may be important to strengthen capacities, such as plant breeding, seed production, biological control allied to cultural practices, before diverging a major share of the scarce resources to develop transgenic plants.

Dr. Mauro Carneiro, Brazil
mauro@cenargen.embrapa.br

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