Forum Conf 1 (biotech and crop sector)

[Polarization of the debate on GM crops is a real element in any discussion on modern-day crop production. For the theme of this conference ('how appropriate are currently available biotechnologies in the crop sector for food production and agriculture in developing countries'), it would be especially interesting to discuss the impact of this polarization on developing countries and policymaking in these countries.

Below, we post a message that considers not just polarization of the debate on GM crops, but polarization of the debate in this conference and in paragraphs 6 and 8 directly considers FAO's role (pro or contra) regarding GM food. Although it is not directly relevant to the theme of the conference, we will in this exceptional case post the message. To see why FAO established this Forum, we recommend that one reads the Objectives, Background and Practicalities of the Forum (which people got in the Welcome Text on joining the Forum - also available on the Forum website http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ). FAO has also published a Statement on Biotechnology http://www.fao.org/biotech/stat.asp . The statement is not cast in stone - it could change as the state of knowledge on biotechnology improves. The issues being raised in the current debate about biotechnology are such that FAO considers it appropriate to provide a platform for all shades of opinion on the subject to be expressed. This is provided for in our constitution - to provide a forum for discussion on issues of relevance to the sustainability of food, agriculture, forestry and fisheries production. Safeguards for biosafety (including food safety), biodiversity and the environment are high on the FAO agenda. We take no sides in the discussions of the conferences in the Forum and we would modestly hope that, by providing a platform for people with different views to express themselves and to openly discuss their opinions, it might contribute to a reduction in polarization of the debate about biotechnology. We appreciated the sentiments expressed by Glenn Ashton, 19 May, who said '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.'...Moderator]

It might be profitable to find out just what caused the"polarization" on this forum about biotechnology.

My opinion is that this debate was doomed to such polarization because we are all "in the middle of the stream" regarding biotechnology, i.e. the technology has already been implemented and we are only now belatedly being asked to inquire into its potential hazards and handicaps. The time for a proper inquiry is or should be PRIOR to implementation, so that problems can be avoided rather than having to be solved later. And we all know that deferred "solutions" are the worst of all possible worlds, since they will necessarily involve some inconvenience to some parties, particularly those with a financial stake.

Of course this same belated process is routinely used, because, first, scientists are funded by those with a financial stake (that stake can be corporate jobs or money, or government grants, or just peer group standing and jobs), and rarely if ever are most scientists up front about the uncertainties of their work, the gaps in knowledge, and the potential hazards or lack of evidence about benefits. Those with any kind of stake will minimize these at best, ignore them, or intentionally put a postive spin on their work such as "feeding the hungry people of the world".

This is exactly what is happening with biotechnology, in particular with the genetic engineering (GE) of plants, animals and food crops. To expect anything but acrimony and huge gaps of trust and mutual confidence, as well as attributions of ignorance or bad faith to opponents, would be naive in the extreme.

Nonetheless, it seems clear that the burden of proof must rest in all cases on the scientists to demonstrate efficacy as well as lack of harm. If their work has not come up with such evidence, then it is incumbent on them to admit this, not to stonewall, vilify their opponents, or dismiss the concerns of consumers and citizens. Citizens have the right, indeed obligation, to demand such evidence. Consumers have the right to know what they are eating and to refuse to do so if they are not happy. It is not they but the SCIENTISTS who must demonstrate lack of harm.

So the FAO forum is in a sense an exercise in futility. Were FAO itself at the beginning of the debate rather than in mid-stream, perhaps one could have confidence that its forums were truly seeking unbiased evidence and opinion, and that their policies might conceivably be influenced by evidence or the lack of it. Sadly this is not the case. We all know full well that the FAO is committed to promoting the distribution and development of genetically modified foods, that it has not conducted any impartial studies itself, that it is not interested in the accumulating evidence of potential adverse effects, and that it is supporting full speed ahead on the distribution of GE foods to the third world, in the hope that the impoverished third world will swallow the food and the propaganda whole, thus creating a demand for moe of the first world corporate products and ultimately dependency on tightly controlled corporate entities for their food supply.

One participant [Edo Lin, 19 May] decried the fact that GE opponents are "not answerable to anybody" as scientists are. This statement is meaningless and irrelevant because GE opponents are not actually DOING anything but asking questions and demanding proof. Citizens who get up at public meetings, call in to radio shows, write their congressmen, and otherwise seek information are not accountable to anyone but themselves. They are involved in a search for information and answers. They are not employed by, getting a salary from or otherwise connected to an organization that is promoting a product from which they will derive a financial benefit. As citizens they have a right to be heard without their motives being suspected. But, as I say, attacking the motives of one's opponents is the last refuge of scoundrels, who have no substantiation for their own beliefs and must therefore attack others.

Why the FAO initiated these forums is not known. Perhaps they want to use the pro-GE arguments presented by self-interested scientists on the forum to demonstrate that they have "consulted" with experts and found support for their position. If so, they should be put on notice that there were as many dissenting scientists on this forum as concurring ones, and that such a forum can and should never be regarded as a substitute for open democratic discourse and citizen decision-making. If and when pro-GE scientists will support these processes, letting the chips fall where they may, then and only then can such a forum be taken seriously.

Lorna Salzman
Brooklyn NY, USA
(Genetic engineering project director for the Earth Society Foundation, NYC)
718-522-0253; 631-653-3387
lsalzman@aba.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 ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 12:01 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Southern perspective on the debate

Glenn Ashton [19 May] is quite right to say that: "the nature of business (and capitalism) is that developer bears the risk and nobody owes a return to those have taken that risk." Conversely, if one wants something done in the future, it helps to offer a reward for it. Business will only invest where it expects to make a profit. For the South to grow richer, it needs to encourage private investment, including investment in the new technologies that are enriching the North (though whether GM can yet be considered one of these is perhaps doubtful). One may argue that no-one is owed a return for what was done in the past: but without the hope of such a return what will be done in the future ?

Tim Roberts twr@compuserve.com
Bracknell, UK

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 12:02 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Land fragmentation vs. GMOs

Firstly, I would like to thank Glenn Ashton for his very good contribution (19 May No.2)

I share his concerns about using GM crops developed for developed countries, but he also shows that there is some potential in biotech to help developing countries. I also share his opinion that the limited resources of developing countries shall be concentrated on methods that give the best return. I think these are often the conventional methods of agronomy and breeding.

Secondly, in this regard, I would like to comment on the contribution of Andrew Kiggundu (19 May

). 1. I am afraid if a country does not have the money to support a consistent conventional breeding programme it should not spend any money on GMOs. Any molecular techniques MUST be based on a sound conventional breeding programme, otherwise success is very questionable ! [Werner Schenkel has previously given more background and details on this subject on 12 April...Moderator]

2. It is true that biotechnology can be faster than conventional breeding, but only if it is well established for a crop and if there is very much money and manpower allocated to it (e.g. molecular markers).

3. The problems described by Andrew Kiggundu seem to me typical problems which cannot be best solved by biotechnology (poor agricultural practices which lead to soil erosion). I believe that a good agricultural extension service is much more of need and will give better return for the investment.

4. Production of GMOs is still very, very expensive. It gives only a good return (to companies) if the cultivar is widely used. The extensive use of only one (or few) cultivars is only possible in a strongly mechanised (industrialised) agriculture. For a agriculture in small plots, I think it is better to have cultivars that are well-adapted to each microclimate (e.g. in Germany there are many different barley cultivars. The best performing cultivar often changes within only a few 100 km range)

To my view the question of appropiateness splits up into questions.

1. Has a technology the potential to solve a problem ? Here I would answer a clear "Yes"!

2. Does the technology give the best return for the investment ? Unfortunately, here I would say "No" for many developing countries, due to a lacking basis.

This raises another question: Shall developing countries not use biotechnology because they do not have the funds for it ? I think no !! This would mean again, that a new technology is exploited only by the developed countries but the developing world cannot benefit from it. I think it is a absolute must for the developing world to make this technology available to the developed world. This must be a process of cooperation which allows the development of products (cultivars, methods) adapted to the local needs. I think the CGIAR centers have done this mostly exemplary. Therefore it is scandalous that the German government has reduced the funding for CGIAR by almost 50%. I desperately hope no other countries will follow this example and appeal to our Government to change this decision immediately

Werner Schenkel dipl.Ing.agr.
Technical University Munich Chair for Agronomy and Plantbreeding
Alte Akademie 12 D 85350 Freising-Weihenstephan
Tel. xx49 8161 713749 Fax. xx49 8161 714419
schenkel@pollux.weihenstephan.de

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 12:04 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: south vs. north regarding biotechnology

Consider the following fundamental differences between the north (used to represent genetic engineering (GE) technology rich/generating countries) and the south (those countries where the technological advancements in agriculture are essential for future survival):

1. Proportion of the peasants' community

The north has a minority of farmers however with greater access to information and they possess a voice. The south has the majority of the population depending on agriculture for their livelihood. But their opinion is never significant.

2. Choice of consumers

Consumers in the north can choose between GM and organic food. Hence their opposition, if exists, is against the ethics and the environmental impacts of the technology. In the south, in case of many countries, origin of food is inconsequential. Availability of food is more of a concern than of choice. If any doubts and anxiety exist, they arise out of fear of failure of any new and expensive technologies. For instance, if Bt-cotton performs par excellence in India (one of the most trying conditions for a plant protection scientist), the GE will be a welcome technology. The need far outweighs the concerns that exist about the new technology. Since the majority of the population is farmers, producers and consumers are the same group. "You eat what you grow"

3. Plant genetic resources and the type of Biotechnologies

The number of crops and allied plant populations seen in the south are very large. Any technology that can be applied across genera and species would be a great success. Thus, one particular gene construct accepted in a particular crop safe for consumption can be easily used for at least a dozen more crops (transformation technology is another issue). Salinity tolerance gene, for instance, is looked at with great expectation in various parts of India affected by excessive fertilizer use. The source of genes can also be, more often than not, the wild and weedy relatives of crops themselves. On the contrary, research and development of the north, with limited number of crops, has to look for more genes (often foreign) rather than more crops.

Summary:

In India, the interplay of socio-economic factors, the need of the growing population and the availability of genetic resources have convinced most of the agricultural scientists about the need, efficacy and the suitability of modern biotechnologies to meet the food demand quantitatively and qualitatively. Opposition based on scientific apprehensions has been the hallmark of democratic society. This is required to eliminate the bandwagon symptoms and make everyone see both sides of the coin. The green revolution has taught India the pros and cons of implementation of technological advancements and prudence in the management of development-environment relations. Except for few NGOs funded externally, India is embarking on its GM-trip steadily and smoothly. (add to this Andrew Kiggundu's remarks [19 May]. Land fragmentation, reduced supply of water, weather vagaries have always made "embodied technology" the most suitable technology for developing countries. GE just supplies that ).

[Note, Werner Schenkel on 22 May had an opposing conclusion about the situation described by Andrew Kiggundu....Moderator]

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 12:04 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Biotechnology in Pakistan

This is Iftikhar Ahmad Khan, Professor of Plant Breeding and Genetics and Director, Centre of Agricultural Biochemistry and Biotechnology (CABB), University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. piak@brain.net.pk

Unfortunately I joined Conference 1 late (2nd May, 2000) and could not take part in discussions of March and April. However, I have downloaded the stuff and am going through that. I have noted interesting controversies in the views about the appropriateness of currently available biotechnologies in the crop sector for food production and agriculture in developing countries.

In Pakistan, we are just at the begining of developing facilities in this area. We have quite an established research system in agricultural crops using conventional breeding techniques and I do not find any reason for not adopting novel techniques as tools to help our already established system. But, to depend totally on such techniques without any basic infrastructure available is not advisable. In a country like Pakistan where the availability of funds for Research and Development is already a problem, importing sophisticated lab equipment and even chemicals from the other countries and then to put our whole system on such acquired and imported technologies will be a disaster. Presently, whenever any of our hi-technology instruments/equipment goes out of order, we are stuck and have to wait for some technician from the concerned company - which is a time and money consuming practice. The situation is similar with importing the chemicals.

As regards Bt-crops, some companies like Monsanto are trying to introduce seed of Bt-crops (cotton) in Pakistan. I do not agree with this type of introduction and supplying the seed directly to the farmers for general cultivation. This may create many agricultural problems in future. We have quite a satisfactory history and outcome of our conventional research system in crop improvement and, particularly in cotton production, we have a brilliant record except a very few debacles. By making such introductions (Bt-crops), it is not advisable to sabotage our already established breeding system and to depend on multinational companies for seed of a very important crop of the country. Yes, when our research system improves and is well equipped with expertise and facilities in biotechnology we should try to transform our local varieties /strains by incorporating such genes.

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