[Thanks to Glenn Ashton for this and his subsequent message. NB: because of e-mail problems that arose earlier this month, this Conference will be extended an extra week until Friday May 26, so messages received up to and including the 26th May can be posted. You have thus one more week to convey your views/experiences on the theme of the conference to the participants (over 300 people joined), before the conference ends and they each go their separate ways !! ........Moderator]
Whilst many of the posts have reflected the polarity of the debate between advocates of biotechnology and those espousing caution, it is refreshing to see some meeting of minds. Dogmatism and polemic do little for the debate from either side but instead we should concentrate on the common ground.
Further, polarisation is (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged by the corporate sector; the following quote regards medical research but is equally applicable to any scientific data; "All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defence against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector," (THE LANCET, April 2000).
[We tried to trace the exact authorship/reference for this quote, looking at the four April editions on the Lancet website ( http://www.thelancet.com/ ), but we could not find it. Can Glenn provide us with this ?.....Moderator]
It must also be questioned if those involved in biotechnology, either academically or in the field, can be viewed as objective. Opinion is by its nature subjective and can be clouded by vested interests, be they personal or communal. Whilst scientists and academics utilise references ad nauseam, it must be asked if these references are unbiased and the background to the references must be borne in mind. Peer reviewed, published reports often give contradictory messages when compared side by side. Thus, use of peer reviewed reports unfortunately cannot always be seen as being objective.
Glenn Ashton.
Green Party of South Africa;
specialist spokesperson on genetic engineering and biotechnology.
ekogaia@iafrica.com
ekogaia@bigfoot.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: Friday, May 19, 2000 9:53 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Southern perspective on the debate
I shall attempt to comment on the application of biotechnology to developing nations. Whilst southern nations are poor in resources needed to apply the knowledge gained from these new discoveries, there is pressure from the corporate sector to introduce many crops identical to those used in the developed world. This is questionable, as irrelevant technology has regularly failed due to differing circumstances encountered in the south.
Many questions have not sufficiently been answered, or in many cases even asked, about the ability of southern nations to cope with negative consequences that may result from their use. Further, those promoting these crops do not accept downstream risks. The risk instead devolves to those least able to afford it, the users (farmers, retailers and consumers in South Africa).
Thus until such crops are developed that offer quantifiable and statistically significant long term benefits (as established by independent review) such as drought resistance or salt tolerance, the use of potentially disruptive crops should be avoided by following a conservative approach. Genetically engineered (GE) crops, being developed in the first world, should be trailed there exclusively to limit the impact on the south, which cannot afford further unnecessary risks.
The use of micropropagation is a more suitable technology for the south than GE crops. Many centres in Africa and elsewhere have developed good techniques for this technology, notably South Africa where it has been used to multiply endemic species that are difficult to propagate by usual means. On the other hand it would be short sighted to use micropropagation on crops which have GE traits; my previous statements on this subject apply.
Instead land races that have desirable traits should be selected and propagated. Further, it is also crucial that National (state) seed banks of endemic species or local land races should be given absolute ownership of the resource thus discouraging bio-piracy through nefarious actions. The sale of certain national seed banks in Africa to corporate interests should be viewed with great concern. On the other hand the success of the Neem patent appeal holds hope for the south.
It is my view that GE should be treated as a completely separate branch of biotechnology that has different, increased and unquantifiable risks due to its novelty and newness and thus it should be treated with utmost caution by the south. As far as molecular markers are concerned, these may be of some use in the field of biotechnology but present use has been problematic and it seems that developing countries would do well to concentrate their limited resources toward better understood and less complex technologies. [Would it be possible to give some more details on why their 'present use has been problematic' ? .....Moderator]
It has been stated in the conference that those expending large amounts of resources in developing new technologies should expect a return for this expenditure. I believe this is a deficient position and we must remember the input of generations of agriculturists in maintaining and improving local crops. Also the nature of business (and capitalism) is that developer bears the risk and nobody owes a return to those have taken that risk. To deny this is to perpetuate the colonial heritage and the continuing inequalities witnessed between north and south.
Glenn Ashton.
Green Party of South Africa;
specialist spokesperson on genetic engineering and biotechnology.
ekogaia@iafrica.com
ekogaia@bigfoot.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: Friday, May 19, 2000 12:04 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Polarization of Biotech debate
I would like to react to Glenn Ashton's contribution to the debate and in particular to the last paragraph
Whereas scientists involved in Biotechnology will eventually have to face regulatory reviews in order to have the fruits of their work approved, opponents of Biotechnology are not answerable to anybody. Yes, scientists use references to their studies, citing existing literature or other studies which are open to scrutiny by anybody willing to review their work.
What about the opponents of Biotechnlogy ? In a recent piece, widely circulated over the Internet, I found the following statements : "It is very obvious that ......", "it is a scientifically establised fact that ......", "it is a fact recognized by all experts that ....." shamelessly being touted without any reference at all.
Yes, peer reviewed reports do contradict each other sometimes and that is the beauty of living in a democratic society. Unfortunately, the Puztai report on which so much of the opposition is based, was not peer reviewed.
Edo Lin, France
lin.edo@free.fr
[The quote regarding medical research in Glenn Ashton's message of 19 May was a press release from the lancet based on an article published on 8 April, 2000 entitled Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study in the Lancet 355; 1253-1259 by E.K. Ong and S.A. Glantz. Thanks to Glenn for the reference...Moderator]
[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: Friday, May 19, 2000 1:34 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Polarization of Biotech debate
Mr. Lin [19 May] exhibits the very bias that we would like to transcend. He writes: "...scientists involved in Biotechnology will eventually have to face regulatory reviews in order to have the fruits of their work approved..." These scientists will also have to face regulatory reviews to have the fruits of their labor rejected -- as well as approved.
"...opponents of biotechnology are not answerable to anybody." They are answerable to what they feel to be their personal health, the health of their families, surrounding communities and the world at large. Mr. Lin is implying a renegade-type attitude on the part of opponents. Most early opponents to biotech -- as applied to food (distinct from medical applications) -- feel that it requires a great degree of caution. They make distinctions among those who are restricted to the pure research (and who are, by the very nature of that work, both in favor of and dependent upon its success), to the policymakers, corporate incentives, politics and the like. It is a terribly confusing and complex issue.
The verdict is still out in terms of the efficacy and dangers of biotech as applied to foods. There are many preliminary studies, and they are just that -- preliminary. Such studies will waffle between the inherent dangers and benefits for YEARS, as studies CONTINUE to do with far less complex issues (the benefits of fiber in the diet, low-salt vs. high-salt intake, etc.). A conclusive study one year can easily become unstrung the next. We witness this time and time again with ALL research.
The very assumptions upon which researchers are basing their work is open to question -- questions that most researchers reject outright and which render any "dialogue" on the subject highly volatile. I have tried to introduce non-scientific ideas into this forum which the moderater has refused time and again, so I am unable to flesh out and substantiate to you what I have written above -- effectively, I have been rendered mute, which I believe is a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the guidelines.
Jeffrey Reel, USA
jeffreyreel@aol.com
[Are there participants from developing countries who would like to comment on the impact of this polarization (of the debate on GM crops) on their country or on policymaking in the crop sector in their country ? ...Moderator]
[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: Friday, May 19, 2000 2:03 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Land fragmentation vs GMOs
First I would like to commend the FAO for such a facinating, informative and yet very important debate. Most interesting because it is taking place over the internet.
Then I would like to concur with Dr. Saturnina C. Halos [17 May. Subject: other biotechnologies for developing countries] who rightfully pointed out that one reason to adopt GMOs in developing countries would be the rapid increase in population with the rapid decrease in land area. In Uganda, for example, land fragmentation due to increasing population is increasingly threatening food security and even the environment (deforestation, poor agricultural practices which lead to soil erosion etc.). Each family lives a subsistence life whereby it grows its own food on their plot. Then when the boys grow up, family land is distributed so that each can set up his own home, leading to smaller and smaller homesteads. This fragmentation, coupled with increasing pests and diseases, is a major factor in reducing food and income security in the third world. Leading to famine and other poverty-related problems.
Current breeding activities (conventional crossing and selection), especially for banana (as an example), are likely to take many years to develop cultivars which are acceptable and worthwhile. Consider also that third world governments do not have the money to finance such activities. GMOs engineered to resist pests and diseases while yielding higher would go a long way in alleviating such problems, at least in the mean time.
Andrew Kiggundu,
Plant Breeder, Uganda National Banana Research Programme, Kawanda
Agricultural Research Institute, P. O. Box 7065, Kampala, Uganda.
Email
(andrew@kari.go.ug) currently while on research visit to ICIPE:
akiggundu@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 ]