Forum Conf 1 (biotech and crop sector)

I would like Ms. Halos to name the "foreign interests" who she claims are influencing Phillippine farmers to oppose genetic modification of crops. In the modern world, and with ecology in particular, there is no longer any such thing as "foreign interests", though one could make a strong argument that the only truly foreign interests are the agribusiness and chemical corporations like Monsanto who are using their money and political connections, not to mention hired scientific research hands, to promote their own interests regardless of the consequences.

In any case, the notion that farmers anywhere are ignorant or easily manipulated by others is patronizing. Farmers in France, US, Canada, India, Thailand, as well as the Phillippines do not need to be instructed on the uncertainties or risks of an untested technology being pushed on them by corporations whose interests are diametrically opposed to theirs, and whose actions up to and including the present have been unabashedly contrary to those of small farmers. Farmers fully recognize that corporate patenting of life forms is intended to monopolize and ultimately destroy the entire genetic and cultural heritage of small farmers everywhere. This is a fact that farmers have instantly recognized yet which Halos ignores. I find it peculiar that Ms. Halos makes no reference to such "foreign interests", nor is there any mention of the utter failure of technological approaches to agriculture and the fact that the techno-chemical methodology is both ecologically unsound and unsustainable as well as being politically and socially regressive.

The outrage of Halos and others such as Paul Krugman of the NY Times at what they consider presumptuous behavior by upstarts, agitators and uninformed activists needs to be recognized for what it is: a resentment at the notion that non-scientists - who are after all consumers of crops - have the audacity to question the self-promoting, self-interested claims of pro-biotech scientists. Halos should be reminded, as indeed I tried to do in questioning the background paper for this discussion,that neither corporations nor scientists nor opponents will make the final decision on biotech.

The decision must be made by fully informed citizens of each and every nation, who have the right to such determination and have the same right to demand evidence of necessity, safety and efficacy before having such foods shoved down their throats. This debate must be conducted on the assumption that the public must have freedom of choice, that the public need not prove the dangers of GM foods before rejecting them, and that scientists are ultimately accountable not to those who pay their wages but to this broader public. Until scientists recognize where their true responsibility lies, they cannot be accepted as scientific experts but merely as citizen proponents, having no greater weight or power in the debate than non-scientists. They cannot have it both ways.

Lorna Salzman
Box 775
East Quogue, NY 11942
718-522-0253; 516-653-3387
fax: 718-522-0253 (call first)
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, March 27, 2000 12:11 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Philippines - labour

I am Jay Smith, a student at Harvard Law School writing on international trade issues regarding agricultural biotechnology. My baccalaureate studies were in chemistry and molecular biology. jpsmith@law.harvard.edu

To echo Dr. Halos' sentiments [message of 24 March...Moderator], the 11.22.99 issue of the Wall Street Journal-Europe contained the following sentiment: "Before [Bt-corn's] arrival, . . . farmers had to hire crop-dusters to cover their land with insecticides so powerful they couldn't enter their fields for days afterward. All sorts of beneficial insects died, too, such as ladybugs and honeybees. . . . Bt corn resulted in a 20% decline in local insecticide sales. Without all those chemicals, farmers felt they were delivering a healthier crop. 'Personally, I'd rather eat a bowl of cornflakes made from Bt corn than from regular corn,' says Rick Gruber, 40, a corn farmer near Benedict, Nebraska."

Notwithstanding the agronomic advantages of GMO tech., the clamoring of biotech opponents in Europe, Asia, and lately in the U.S., have given farmers an economic incentive to abandon the use of altered seed. Politically vocal and well-funded organizations such as Greenpeace have successfully derailed the use of the technology in the E.U. and now seek to do the same in the U.S. They appeal to people's intrinsic fear of technologies that are not widely understood and in so doing obstruct an open debate by educated persons on the topic.

An earlier contributor to this forum mentioned that GMO technologies might precipitate resistance in the targeted pests; I see no reason to believe that the selective pressures on the pests, however, should be any greater with GMO technologies than with chemical pesticides.

With particular regard to the use of these technologies in developing countries, I fear that the "widespread panic" over GMO tech. has sapped the Western capital markets' confidence in this technology, pressuring companies invested in the sector to divest themselves (Monsanto, Novartis, and AstraZeneca are all expected to spin-off their agricultural divisions in the near future). Such spin-offs mean that the resources for research and development and for marketing of these technologies will shrink considerably.

Unfortunately, the global availability of this technology will be driven by its commercial profitability, which in turn depends on its being accepted in developed nations. If demand for the technology ceases to grow, or even diminishes, in these jurisdictions, I fear the cost of the technology will become prohibitively high for any but the largest farmers.

I would finally respond to Ms. Salzman's comments on the movement of labor from rural to urban areas in developing nations. To subsidize the continuing viability of inefficient farmers through objection to technologies that enable farmers to produce more per capita is (1) to interdict the economic law of comparative advantage, through which nations are best able to maximize the productive capability of their economies, and (2) to argue that developing countries should remain reliant on agriculture, instead of industrializing. Industrialization demands an available work force, and the movement of labor from the farm to the city is as much a part of the economic maturation of a nation in the modern epoch as it was of all industrializing nations of the nineteenth century. Granted, this migration is best absorbed in an orderly fashion, but the notion that a country should resist it altogether stands on very shaky economic ground.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 12:15 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Micropropagation

Robert Lettington wrote on 24.3.2000 [Subject: crop biotechs - economic/technical/socio-political factors] "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."

It is precisely for this reason that the European multi-centre Sustainable Organic Plant Breeding initiative (1), after a lengthy consultation ruled out such in-vitro techniques, including cytoplasmic male sterility hybrids without restorer genes; protoplast fusion; radiated mentor pollen; and mutation induction. It also recommended gradual phasing out from organic plant breeding the following techniques: embryo culture; ovary culture; in vitro pollination; in vitro selection; anther culture; microspores culture; meristem culture; somatic embryogenesis; use of silver thiosulphate/nitrate, growth stimulants, colchicine etc. (2) The reasoning for their approach is to return the process of breeding of plants back into its proper context of environmental influences. This would involve on-farm breeding through cooperation between farmer and specialist. The more that plants are adapted to breeding in the laboratory, the more the unsustainable conditions of the labratory such as the use of synthetic nutrients and a pathogen free environment will have to be created artificially in the field.

Notes
1) New Scientist 29th January 2000, page 12
2) Sustainable Organic Plant Breeding -- Final Report, Choices, Consequences & Steps. E.T. Lammerts van Beren et al. Louis Bolk Instituut, Driebergen, NL. 1999. (enquiries to info@louisbolk.nl). The consultation document which led to this report is at http://www.anth.org/ifgene/breed1.htm

David Heaf
Wales,UK
101622.2773 (at) compuserve.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 12:18 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: pesticide-resistant GM crops / IPM

In response to Chris Geiger's comments about integrated pest management (IPM) of the 24 March. As far as the corn farmer-leaders ( who represent a total of 4,000 members) I talked to IPM is too time consuming. For them, it is cheaper to use a pesticide which they apply only periodically rather than visit their farm often to monitor pests. Corn farming in small areas does not make much income especially for the common farm household of six or more. Most of our corn farms are about one hectare or so. During slack periods in the farms , farmers have to take up other income-generating activities. Hence, it is more helpful to them to have a technology that allows them to take up other jobs between planting and harvesting.

Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D.
Bureau of Agricultural Research
Department of Agriculture, Philippines

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 12:20 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Philippines - crop biotechnologies

Farming does not make much money in this country and that is a fact. Hence, increasing labor needs in the farm does not help us lift our people from poverty. Our arable land area is limited and our population has one of the highest growth rates as encouraged by the Catholic Church. Our best option is to make these lands produce as much and as consistently as possible. As for organic farming, in addition to requiring more labor, a small farm does not produce enough biomass to support the animals that will provide the manure for fertilizing. Our average farm size is a hectare or so. Fertilizing with composted crop biomass according to some farmers I talked to, spread crop diseases hence, even if a new rapid plant residue composting technique has been developed and introduced, its adoption was not sustained.

As for people wanting land to till, we have had land reform beneficiaries who opted to sell their land and used the money to obtain a job abroad. What most of our people want is a job or a livelihood source that can give them sufficient income to own their house and lot, live decently and send their children to school. Presently, a small farm cannot give them that.

Most of our farmers appreciate good seeds and they are willing to pay for these. They do not always pay in cash but they do barter. For them, the seed is just one of the inputs they need, much like the pesticides they buy from large multinational companies. They do not expect a largesse from multinationals, they understand that these must make money just like they want to make money from farming also. Our government has been active in introducing and supporting the adoption of different production technologies to our farmers: organic farming, IPM, agrochemicals, etc. Farmers choose their own most profitable technology. No one forces them to use a particular technology. Hence, GM seeds must also be seen as simply another option for our farmers.

Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D.
Bureau of Agricultural Research
Department of Agriculture, Philippines

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 12:24 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Africa - crop biotechnologies

This is from Ssekyewa Charles, Horticulturist/Plant pathology, National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO), Uganda. (ipmhort@imul.com]

Biotechnology is a technique in science to be proud of. It has lead to break throughs in human health care, industrial processing, environmental biodiversity and agriculture, especially in developed countries. Today we can see advances towards orally administered vegetable based vaccines against human diseases. One is able to get Vitamin D by just eating Yogurt or drinking milk, saving resources that would otherwise be spent looking for sunlight. Many micro-organisms in our environment, together with their diversity are currently understood and considered using advanced molecular techniques.

Biotechnology has enabled scientists to come up with noval germplasm with resistance to diseases that would otherwise be stubborn and lead to serious economic losses, where no natural resistance could be found. However, through genetic engeneering nasty products, such as the terminator gene, have been produced.

On the other hand, in developing countries, with emphasis on Africa, not much has been done in utilising biotechnological findings. It would be healthy that these countries moved in that direction. This would require well developed and facilitated manpower who would then be able to develop and scrutinise biotechnological advances for the safety of the environment and mankind.

Africa and other developing countries should go ahead to embrace biotechnologies that would enable them to understand existing biodiversity and to harness it. Further more, all sustainable biotechnological findings aimed at producing germplasm with resistance to otherwise difficult to cure or prevent plant diseases, should be adopted with the care and momentum they deserve. Biotechnological findings would then be possible components of sound integrated crop/pest management programmes for improved crop production and productivity.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 12:27 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Appropriate biotechnologies for developing nations

Biotechnology in agriculture is undoubtedly going to be the driving force behind growth and expansion in food production in the future as opposed to increased crop acreage, yield per unit area, and use of agro-chemicals and mechanization. Mass production of Bt for an example may be used to control black flies in Lima beans, which are vectors of river blindness or mass production of Round-up ready soybean seed, which effectively controls weeds without destroying the soybean plant are already having significant results in the world.

However, appropriate biotechnology in developed countries may not apply in underdeveloped or developing nations. Specific biotechnology products must be developed to address specific problems in Third World countries. While biotechnology products are customer driven in the developed countries, they are by far and large driven by interest groups in the Third World countries. Corporate interests offer biotechnological products to Third World countries which are patented and ensure total control of the farmer(customer).

Biotechnology is seen as the ultimate solution to hunger in Third World countries in the twenty-first century. Note that hunger in these countries has mainly been blamed on population increases, economic and social instability. We cannot at this point deem as appropriate biotechnology available in these countries. As long as population increases, economic and social instability remain unresolved, no form of biotechnology will ever be appropriate.

Environmental impacts of the available biotechnology in these countries is not monitored by any effective regulatory agencies. Serious ecological imbalance may already have been inflicted on the world's largest reservoir of biodiversity. Insertion of foreign genes into host cells is a process that is not under the control of the genetic engineer. It is important to educate the masses unbiasedly of agriculture biotechnology positives and negatives and let the choice remain in the hands of these countries. The developed world has the resource infrastructure needed to exploit biotechnology use and yet lack the full understanding of the biodiversity in Third World countries and how this is keyed to economic and social activities. On the other hand Third World countries lack the resources required to bioprospect the large pool of biodiversity in their specific regions and take economic and social advantages of their resources. Agriculture biotechnology in Third World nations provides for a basis of social, political, economic and ofcourse scientific interaction between the developed and underdeveloped/developing nations.

Lastly, intellectual property rights need to be enhanced in Third World countries. Such a trend may not be well received by the developed world, but is overdue. Those familiar with the case of patenting the Neem-tree bioproducts will agree with me that Third world countries need to protect their products before they are exploited and patented far away from their origins. It must be understood that protection of intellectual property rights does promote inventiveness, encourages investment and spurs general activity in enhancing agriculture biotechnology.

Dr. Elliot M. Munsanje %
Research Associate, Dept. of Agriculture %
University of Maryland Eastern Shore %
Princess Anne, MD 21853. U.S.A %
Tel: 410-651-3070/6632 Office %
410-651-5778 Home %
Fax: 410651-7656 Office %
email: Munsanje@umes-bird.umd.edu Office %
emunsanje@hotmail.com Home %

Permanent Address: %
Research and Specialist Services %
Mount Makulu Research Center %
Private Bag 7, Chilanga, Zambia %

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 5:21 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Consolidation of biotech industry - GURTs

From Walter I. Knausenberger, Ph.D., Senior Regional Environmental Advisor USAID/REDSO/ESA
Tel. (+254-2) 86 24 00/02, ext. 2267. Fax: (+254-2) 86 09 49
E-mail: wknausenberger@usaid.gov

I have shortened the below news release, produced distributed by RAFI and distributed by PANUPS. It is very pertinent to the subject of Conference 1 'How appropriate are currently available biotechnologies in the crop sector for food production and agriculture in developing countries.'

"Suicide seeds" are very inappropriate for developing or developed countries. My own personal bias is with RAFI and opposed to those who seek to put a lock-grip control on genetic traits for commercial gain. The world's future agrobiodiversity should not be left in the hands of the multinationals.

===========================================
Suicide Seeds on the Fast Track

March 24, 2000

A report released by the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) reveals that Terminator and Traitor technology are riding a fast track to commercialization. Terminator technology, the genetic engineering of plants to produce sterile seeds, is universally considered the most morally offensive application of agricultural biotechnology, since over 1.4 billion people depend on farm-saved seeds. Traitor technology, also known as genetic use restriction technology (GURTs), refers to the use of an external chemical to switch on or off a plant's genetic traits.

"After Monsanto and AstraZeneca publicly vowed not to commercialize terminator seeds in 1999, governments and civil society organizations were lulled into thinking that the crisis had passed. Nothing could be further from the truth," said RAFI's Executive Director Pat Mooney. "Despite mounting opposition from national governments and United Nations' agencies, research on Terminator and Traitor (genetic trait control) is moving full speed ahead."

RAFI's report concludes that corporate commitments to disavow Terminator are virtually meaningless in light of the pace of corporate takeovers. Monsanto and AstraZeneca have each merged with other companies since they pledged not to commercialize suicide seeds.

* On December 2, 1999 Novartis and AstraZeneca announced they would spin-off and merge their agrochemical and seed divisions to create the world's biggest agribusiness corporation -- to be named "Syngenta."

* On December 19, 1999 Monsanto announced that it will merge with drug industry giant Pharmacia & Upjohn to create a new company, named Pharmacia, with combined annual sales of $17 billion.

The Director General of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Jacques Diouf recently declared his opposition to Terminator. In publicly rejecting Terminator, FAO's Diouf has come to the defense of the 1.4 billion people who depend upon farm-saved seed for their survival.

Among the national governments that have announced their intention to oppose Terminator technology are Panama, India, Ghana, and Uganda. India, one of the first governments to publicly reject Terminator, explicitly prohibits Terminator genes in a draft bill now before the Indian Parliament. Ghanaian Minister of Environment, Cletus Avoka, says that his government will not tolerate the use of Terminator technology. Panama's Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries writes that his government "will adopt measures to prohibit the specific patents as well as the technology in general." Ugandan officials have said that their government is discussing measures to outlaw Terminator at the highest levels of government.

Terminator and Traitor technologies are not limited to a single patent, nor is the research confined to one or two companies. Delta & Pine Land is currently the high-profile crusader for Terminator, but the goal of genetic trait control is industry-wide. According to RAFI, over 30 patents are collectively held by the multinational agrochemical firms that dominate the field of biotechnology.

According to RAFI, the future of Terminator/Traitor Technology rests with national governments and multinational corporations. The pressure points for political action are, first and foremost, with national governments around the world. Second, pressure should be applied at key international fora such as through the BioSafety Protocol at the Convention on Biological Diversity, and intellectual property negotiations at the World Trade Organization.

Entitled "Suicide Seeds on the Fast Track," the new RAFI Communiqu� is available on RAFI's Web site http://www.rafi.org.

Source/contact: RAFI International Office, 110 Osborne Street, Suite 202, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3L 1Y5 Canada; phone (204) 453-5259; fax (204) 925-8034; email rafi@rafi.org.
===========================================
P A N U P S
Pesticide Action Network Updates Service
Email: panna@panna.org
Web: http://www.panna.org

[Comment from The Moderator: The above press release contains some interesting information, so we decided to post it. However, we should emphasise that, as indicated in the Background Document, the main theme of this conference concerns biotechnologies that are currently available today and that, in practise, could be used in developing countries today. GURTs are obviously of considerable interest in their own right (and may be discussed in detail in later conferences) but they should not be a subject of priority in Conference 1.]

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