Forum Conf 1 (biotech and crop sector)

From Robert Lettington. Law and Policy Consultant. International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), Nairobi, Kenya. rlettington@ICIPE.org

I think Marcel Nwalozie's point could in some ways be the beginning and end of the discussion in that if the national centres, and even the far better funded CG Centres in many cases, cannot support the full range of biotechnologies then what hope is there for their effective use in the field? Most sub-saharan African states are currently struggling to maintain traditionally oriented extension services. In Kenya there was a significant crisis in the supply of traditionally bred seed recently so how would we support more expensive seed and its associated inputs? This is quite apart from the ability to develop biotech capacity aimed at biosafety questions.

[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, March 24, 2000 2:39 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Agricultural Research / Sub-saharan Africa / Resources

This is David Heaf, UK. I'm a biochemist; a non-commercial organic grower; a member of a UK government working group helping implement the new European legislation aimed at keeping the organic food sector free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs); and UK contact for Ifgene -- International Forum for Genetic Engineering.

Saturnina C. Halos wrote on 23.3.2000 at 15.15 wrote "...organic farming is actually labor intensive and there are few in my country who can pay and willing to pay a premium for organically grown crops."

We are already paying a premium for non-organically produced foods only the premium is concealed from the marketplace in the costs of (inter alia):

*dealing with agrochemicals in water supplies
*global fossil fuel consumption in agrochemical production
*the health burden from agrochemicals in food and the environment
*food miles
*loss of biodiversity in cultural landscapes
*paying farmers not to produce (e.g. in EU)
*other farm subsidies
*unemployment benefit payments to people who would otherwise be engaged in sustainable agriculture
*compensating farmers for catastrophic failures of intensive
agriculture (e.g. bovine spongiform encephalopathy in UK) *and possibly one day cleaning up the global mess left by GMOs

I suspect that if these could all be costed and the sum added to the price tags of non-organic products in the marketplace there would be few who could pay or be willing to pay the premium for them.

David Heaf
www.anth.org/ifgene

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 2:42 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Agricultural Research / Sub-saharan Africa / Resources

My name is Lorna Salzman and I reside in Brooklyn, NY, USA. I am an environmental activist,writer and lecturer, formerly on staff of Friends of the Earth, Food & Water Inc., National Audubon Society and, most recently, a natural resources specialist with the NYC Dept. of Environmental Protection.

Ms. Halos raises some important issues (23/3). She refers to non-organic agriculture as labor intensive, which it is, and to the need for the third world to obtain GM seeds and materials elsewhere.

These comments actually demonstrate the need for changing the background document wording. Labor intensivity is not a bad thing, is it? Especially since the incredible influx into third world cities of people with no home, job or sustenance, means they have been displaced from their land. People want land they can work. But giant corporate agribusiness and international funding institutions,coupled with inequitable distribution of land in countries lacking democracy, have created this problem. The fact is that farmers WANT land and WANT to work on land. If given a choice they would leave the city and the factories and work the land. Why labor intensivity is considered a bad thing escapes me. In the view of many, labor is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Is begging on the streets or working in a dirty factory for slave wages under dangerous conditions, on the terms of the management and corporations a good thing? Does Halos think maquiladoras are a great idea?

As for getting GM materials from elsewhere, that again is a problem: dependence on agribusiness giants. Is Halos suggesting that we need increased dependence? That millions of third world farmers should become totally dependent on the largesse of corporations? That they should be at the mercy of what corporations decide upon regarding pricing, seed supplies, types of seed, etc? That they give up their freedom to choose the varieties that are appropriate to their local region? That they sacrifice their ability to nurture and develop local varieties, an integral part of sustainability and ecosystem protection? That they simply become a cog in a corporate machine that enhances corporate profit but provides nothing but servitude for the farmer and its community?

Lorna Salzman
Box 775
East Quogue, NY 11942
718-522-0253; 516-653-3387
fax: 718-522-0253 (call first)
lsalzman@aba.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 2:47 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Agricultural Research / Sub-saharan Africa / Resources

Hello, this is Chris A. Geiger, an entomologist at the Univ. of California at Berkeley. I worked in Southeast Asia for a number of years on integrated pest management projects and am quite interested in this topic.

The question of whether a technology is appropriate, for a given problem in a given context, has several corollary questions: Can it really solve the problem (without creating too many new ones), and do the potential benefits outweigh the costs and risks of the technology? I am not anti-biotech, but I am critical of the excessive and premature introduction of some of the technologies. The prevailing attitude is eerily similar to the early years of the pesticide age. There were faculty on my campus at that time who seriously proposed that entomology would soon be a superfluous science, since the new pesticides would solve all of our pest problems!

True, transgenic crops hold a great deal of promise. But let's remember that we are tinkering with one very complex system (the genome) and introducing it into another very complex system (the ecosystem). I believe that the precautionary principle should be followed with all transgenic introductions, that is, err on the side of caution, unless we are faced with a true humanitarian crisis. But I have not yet seen a transgenic crop product for which there is a truly compelling need, a need that outweighs the unknown risks.

I'd like to respectfully disagree with Ms. Halos. She said "that the only alternative technology to chemical pesticides for our farmers who often abuse chemical use are pest-protected GM-crops." There are indeed better alternatives. It has been shown in many examples worldwide that implementation of IPM principles--especially monitoring, cultural controls, and the use of bio-pesticides--can lower pesticide use significantly. The FAO IPM program has made great strides towards these ends with its rice IPM program, which has also educated and empowered farmers in the process.

It is important to note that the "pest-protected GM crops" introduced to date do not hold promise for long-term pest supression. Bt crops instead promise to accelerate resistance development in pests and render one of IPM's most valuable tools--Bt spray, applied selectively--ineffective for everyone. While I am sure that the new biotechnologies hold a great deal of promise for solving agricultural problems, we have to remember that they are still merely tools. We have the responsibility to learn to use them correctly before releasing them on a wide scale.

It may be cliche, but please remember the story of the man who only had a hammer in his toolbox. To him, everything in the world resembled a nail.

OK, I'll get off my soap box now.

Sincerely,

Chris A. Geiger, Ph.D
Dept. of Environmental Science, Policy & Management
Div. of Insect Biology
201 Wellman Hall
University of California, Berkeley 94720-3112
(510) 428-1945 (phone) (510) 428-1845 (fax)
cgeiger@firstworld.net (email)

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 2:49 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: crop biotechs - economic/technical/socio-political factors

Robert Lettington. Law and Policy Consultant. International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), Nairobi, Kenya.

Economic

Not only is biotechnology a multi-billion dollar industry but it has also been cited as "the fastest take up of a new technology in history". Given this fact, plus humanity's historical tendency to be dazzled by new and expensive technology, is there not a possibility that we haven't properly thought through the idea of biotechnology and that due to the enormity of commitments made industry doesn't actually want us to? Biotechnology is an enormously anthropocentric concept, a relatively recent (post-enlightenment) philosophy of man's creation. The idea that the technologies reflect market realities doesn't stand up - rather technology is trying to dictate market realities.

The question of IPRs spurring the biotech industry may well be true in the North but nearly all Southern countries' patents still fall in the lowest standards of enforceability category. Thus the idea of African IPRs spurring technological development is a little utopian to say the least.

Why are companies so loathe to assist with more than token in-country capacity building? This would seem to be the only way that developing countries can make sensible decisions about what to allow and what not.

Technical

With the technologies of molecular markers and the three types of GMOs there seems to be an explicit admission that we have no idea what effect these interventions may have on the wider functioning and effects of the organism involved, we only understand tiny elements of these systems. For instance, as the appellation implies, we have no idea what "junk DNA" does and if and how it interacts with other DNA. This is reinforced by the fact that we have only incorporated a limited number of genes in products to date, we are at the tip of the biotech iceberg and have no idea of what may lie below the surface. Could this not have tremendous implications for both human and environmental health? You can't insist on basing decisions on sound science one minute and then admit that you know very little about the science the next, there must be clear lines drawn.

Micropropagation seems a less inherently risky technology to date as we are not fundamentally altering anything but what are the implications of crop uniformity and thus vulnerability. Africa is a far more hostile environment in terms of disease and pests than Europe or the US so micropropagated seeds could be devastated by a new or unexpected threat as green revolution crops sometimes were in SE Asia and even the US. Subsistence farmers couldn't afford this loss, even once.

Herbicide Tolerance - what relevance can this have to developing countries where most of the time farmers will never be able to afford the herbicide - the only winners will be those who are already wealthy. Since there seems to be some evidence that Bt may harm some insects (from the Monarch Butterfly study) what other unknowns might exist regarding this product? This comes back to the querying of our competence with GMOs.

Socio-political

If most land suitable for agriculture is already in use should we not focus first on what amount of agricultural land in use is being used for its optimum sustainable production given local circumstances? This could be based on previous agricultural experiences in Africa and elsewhere rather than going straight for the newest and most expensive technology available.

In every food security oriented meeting I've been to, that wasn't called with the purpose of discussing biotech, it has always been socio-political factors that have been cited as holding African farmers back most. These include access to markets, price manipulation at market, access to credit, access to extension services etc. Thus even with biotech seed the situation won't change unless these factors are addressed first.

There is even an argument that the "green revolution" and biotech have harmed developing countries by increasing oversupply in the North and consequently depressing world prices which in turn destroys small farmers in the South. This has certainly had dramatic effects in East Africa. Kenya, at least, is producing lower volumes of most agricultural products in both actual and real terms for reasons that have nothing to do with factors that can be addressed by biotech. This is clear as the government agricultural research agency has enthusiastically embraced various biotechnologies.

Conclusion

Biotech certainly could have a strategic role to play in certain fields and areas but why should it be taken as anything more than a limited strategic tool to be used where other tools such as integrated pest management or conventional breeding and soil enhancing techniques fail? If we don't understand it then it should be used sparingly as the tool of last resort, we haven't reached the point of last resort on food security yet except in a few extreme circumstances.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 3:02 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Philippines - GM corn - field trial

We in the Philippines is experiencing birth pains in the first field trials of Bt corn. This Bt corn is being tested for effectiveness against the Asiatic corn borer found in Mindanao where infestation causes 30-80% loss in yields in farmer's fields. Also, aflatoxin, a mycotoxin associated with borer infested grains has been detected in corn grains from this region. Farmers in this region have only two options for control: 1. the corn borer egg parasite Trichogramma which farmers say is not always effective. Maybe the borer multiplies faster than the parasite. 2. Use of the systemic chemical Furadan which farmers apply with their bare hands. Farmers have reported fainting during application and one reported death of his carabao( Philippine water buffalo) after ingesting newly Furadan-sprayed corn leaves. Researchers from the University of the Philippines Institute of Plant Breeding and Monsanto Agroseeds collaborated to set up the Bt corn field trials after having determined under stringent greenhouse conditions that the Philippine Asiatic corn borer does not survive in the Bt corn. The results of the field trials show that Bt corn plants are 100% protected from corn borer infestation. Corn farmers in the area have monitored this experiment and today are clamoring to have not only Bt corn seeds but also other pest-protected crops, like rice, vegetables, fruits. They admit to using a lot of pesticide which they know is bad for the environment but for these farmers, there is no other option until they saw the Bt corn plants.

Unfortunately, we have an anti-GMO coalition well-funded by foreign interest groups that for the past year have started to campaign against GMOs and specifically against this Bt corn field trial. This group has access to printed media, to our lawmakers who drafted resolutions and a bill to stop the Bt corn trials or declare a moratorium on the entry of GMOs in the country. In one of the proposed location of the field trial, they were able to incite the local populace to prevent the establishment of the field trial. In the other location where the field trials were successfully established, this group has incited the urban poor, some Catholic priests and the city council of the locality to have the Bt corn trials stopped. They were able to place one of their members in the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP), the body that evaluates whether proposed experiments with GMOs does not pose unnecessary risks to health and the environment, who from the start had tried to stop the trials and had tried all means to stop it. Finally, they also tried to bring the case to the Supreme Court by citing a law that is supposedly violated by making misrepresentation about the field trials. The Supreme Court citing technicalities dismissed the petition.

Fortunately, our lawmakers have public hearings and called scientists and the farmers for their views about the proposed ban and moratorium on GMO entry and testing. While most scientists gave very strong scientific arguments in favor GMO entry and testing, it is the farmers who have monitored the field trials that were very effective in getting the concerned lawmakers drop their objections. Now, it is our farmers who are pushing for more trials to hasten the commercialization of Bt corn in their area. They feel strongly that the NGOs are keeping a very useful technology from them.

What we see from this experience is the need to have a strong information campaign about GMOs especially GMcrops which are the subject of a villification campaign by foreign interest groups. Field trials are not only important scientifically but also as a demonstration trial for farmers. The strongest argument for the current GM crops is how they compare with the current extensive practice of using chemical pesticides in environmental protection and in human health. There is also a need to understand how these crops are regulated in the country where they are produced and how we are regulating them in our own countries.

Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D. (halos@mozcom.com)
Senior Project Development Adviser, Bureau of Agricultural Research and member, Secretary's Technical Advisory Group, Department of Agriculture, Philippines

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 5:14 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Turkey - GM crops

From Prof. Nazimi A�i.kg�z, an editor of "agbiyotek", a bilingual (Turkish and English) monthly electronic biotechnological newsletter, Being a plant breeder and a seed specialist, I'd like to contribute the following summary to your electronic forum:

"Possible contributions of transgenics to Turkish agriculture; Corn has an acreage of 550000 ha. In Turkey. The general trend seems to be a linear increment. However some agronomic alternatives like second crop application of corn after barley or wheat harvest seem quite promising in case we would have a corn cultivar with its European corn borer or ear worm resistance. It is not easy to estimate exactly but at least 100 000 ha acreage is waiting for such a variety. It is to be mentioned here that early applications could not be carried on because of the not existence of suitable varieties. And such an application would bring roughly 1000 $ per ha.

Cotton is grown in 700000 Ha in Turkey. The number of insecticide applications is not less than 5 per season and it increases from time to time up to 10 in western Turkey whereas it rises up to 15 times in Adana region. Please imagine the amount and cost of insecticide and their residual effect to the environment and compare the contribution of transgenics to the Turkish cotton growers!"

Sincerely
----------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Nazimi A�i.kg�z
Head, Ege Uni. Seed Tech. Center
35100 Bornova TURKEY
----------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 5:32 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: non-GMO biotechnology tools

Hi, I am Mark Guiltinan, a Plant Scientist at Penn State University, USA.

With all of the controversy surrounding GMOs the various dimensions of biotechnology seems to be lumped into the same basket, and some people forget that the new biotechnology holds many tools to hit many different types of nails, many of the tools have nothing to do with genetic engineering (although it is one of them). For example:

Marker assisted selection: a tool to vastly speed up plant breeding and introgression of horizontal and durable resistance factors with high yields ect.

Plant tissue culture: a tool which can be used to vegetativly propagate elite lines for research and production, to recover progeny of wide crosses for introgression of resistance factors from wild relatives into cultivated varieties, and which can be used to preserve biodiversity in low cost cryopreservation, ect.

Genomics methods: with an amazing promise to speed up gene discovery for basic mechanistic research and identification of breeding targets.

There are many other non-GMO biotechnology tools. Although it is necessary to be cautious in the implementation of GMOs, this should not inhibit the use of the other, non-GMO biotechnologies to help developing countries.

The trick is, how to use these tools effectively to impact the well-being of people in the developing countries, the ecosystem and the economy. In my work, I have become convinced that it can be done, we can support the work of the excellent scientists and extensionists in the developing countries with training, collaboration and support services, and it will have a positive impact.

Mark Guiltinan
Associate Professor of Plant Molecular Biology
Department of Horticulture
The Biotechnology Institute   office: 814 863-7957
Penn State University   lab: 814 863-7958
306 Wartik Lab    fax: 814 863-6139
University Park, PA 16802-5807    mjg9@.psu.edu

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