Hello, my name is Jeffrey Reel and I represent the Planetary Food Council, a division of One Peaceful World, a federally approved 501(3)(c) nonprofit educational organization located in Becket, Massachusetts, USA.
JeffreyReel@aol.com
The use of genetically modified crops have already been shown to upset the balance of nature's life cycle, and a brief look at just one aspect of this first generation of GM crops shows the technology to be unreliable and expensive.
The Practical Use/Effectiveness of Bt Crops.
It is a given that pests will swiftly develop resistance to Bt crops. The companies developing and marketing these products - as well as the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States - now require growers of Bt crops to develop "resistance management plans." Farmers growing genetically modified crops are to set aside enough land to grow strains of the non-GM variety as well. The purpose is to attract enough of the "pests" to the non-GM plants. In this way, the theory goes, the pests will be satiated in great enough numbers to slow - but not halt - the resistance they will develop from feeding exclusively off of the GM food crops nearby.
Since most farms in developing nations average one hectare in size, farmers will not be willing or even able to set aside enough land for the explicit purpose of feeding pests (instead of their own families) in hopes of slowing - and not even halting - the inevitable genetic mutation/resistance of small organisms that feed of genetically modified plants. All major companies in the biotech field are developing "successors" to Bt crops, knowing that resistance to such crops is inevitable. This model is identical to that seen in the field of allopathic medicine, and in our current history of the indiscriminate use of antibiotics and other aggressive medicines - the growing resistance by microorganisms. In this sense -- natural laws presiding -- we know full well what to expect in terms of genetically modified food crops. What is intrinsic in all of this is nature's unique capability to adapt and thrive in the face of adversity. We are choosing to fight a battle against nature that will require an ever-stronger arsenal of weapons at escalating costs, all beyond the means of farmers in developing countries. This is fact, not fancy. It is our history, not a prediction of the future.
Human and Animal Consumption: An Issue Overlooked
It is imperative to remember that we have evolved for over 100,000 generations under conditions of natural light, pure water, and simple, unadulterated food. Environmental influences that range over such a vast span of time have fashioned human physiology like the hands of a sculptor, and we can safely assume that the very essence of who we are has been defined by that relationship. Any deviation at all from this natural order will invite a measure of stress and, eventually, disease. We are all witnesses to this effect, especially in the industrialized countries. From the additives in the field (pesti-, fungi- and herbicides) to additives in food processing (flavor and color enhancers, artificial ingredients), we have introduced countless foods that our bodies can neither recognize nor properly metabolize. Now we introduce the consumption of GM foods, and this aspect needs to be thoroughly investigated before it is thoroughly marketed.
There is no question about the immediate need to address, through major commitment of funds/priorities, the needs of the chronically hungry throughout the developing nations. Toward this end, we need to redress the entire issue of monoculture, which is poorly fitted to the way nature works (A vast field of identical plants encourage large population of insects, weeds and disease). We need to reintroduce the "lost crops" of Africa, Asia and Latin America: the thousands of varieties of native grains, beans, vegetables and fruits that were perfectly suited for growing in their native habitats but were considered inferior, and displaced, with foods introduced by European colonists.
[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: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 8:53 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: agricultural biotechnology and capacity building
From Rick Gilmore, Chief Executive Officer, GIC Group, Virginia, USA.
The discussion to date has focussed very well on the merits of biotechnolgy and bioactive applications for agriculture (ag) worldwide. The focus on less industrial economies has been particularly helpful in identifying the priorities and contribution of ag biotech.
Our [the company, GIC Group] efforts are devoted to accelerating the development of ag biotech capacities in these markets. In particular, we think that joint ventures with leading companies and public institutions is a cost effective strategy. At the same, it is clear that there need to be more successes to confirm the claims, documented by field trials and product development.
Ag biotech has the makings of a new revolution for global agriculture. Like any breakthrough of this consequence, it has to be accompanied by a regulatory framework to insure the safety and maximize the public welfare benefits.
Two articles on this theme have recently been published which may be of interest (in VOICE, a Japanese magazine, November 1999, and in the April 2000 issue of Nature Biotechnology - it will be available on their web site)
Rick Gilmore
GIC Group
1016 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314, USA
www.gicgroup.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: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 3:30 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Uganda / Biotechnology - The benefit
Further more, biotechnology products are becoming of value in developed countries. In spite of the recent negation of their use ignited by the production and marketing of the terminator gene, developed countries highly value each and every useful biotechnology product, beit extracted genes or tissue culture plants. To me, this indicates that in future it is likely that these renewable resources but products of high level intelligence and inovation, will be replacing the non renewable resources such as gold and diamond. As such, if developing countries do not take advantage of this knowledge now, time will come when even acquiring it will be extremely costly for us to afford. One should not with concern the current trend towards having scientific finding patented.
Therefore, one would wish to re-emphasise the need for developing countries to get as much exposed to biotechnology as possible, that is beyond, tissue culture, polymerase chain reaction into possibly cloning and related sequencing, RLPM, gene transfer etc. This done, then developing countries will be in good position to say no or yes to biotechnology, with clear understanding of the concept/its products.
The current denial of existing biotechnological findings is just based on reports on the terminator gene and propaganda from activists in developed countries, but no developing nation has been able to reject biotechnology with concrete reasons based on existing data.
In Uganda, there is a big problem of coffee wilt which is number one foreign exchange earner. Resistance to the disease is not yet understood. The most apparently feasible solution is to develop coffee plants that are engineered (NB:personal opinion not adapted by the nation), otherwise conventional breeding programmes will take not less than 10yrs. So should Ugandans say no to biotechnology (leave alone the fact that marketing the crop to developed countries will be another problem) ?
Another interesting finding is the recent identification of a tomato geminivirus with part of its DNA sequence resembling that of HIV type 1 DNA sequence. Though it was a small part of about 109 nucleotides, if Uganda was advanced in biotechnology shouldn't we have developed it into possible vaccines for the No.1 killer disease in Uganda (AIDs) ?
We understand that different Fusarium spp. can produce certain enzymes that are useful in medicine and even with possible use in biological weapons(though not advocated for), in biodiversity studies and crop pest management. Tropical Africa has a wide range of such fungal species, but harnessing them would best be done with use of biotechnology, unfortunately, we go ahead to refuse it instead of exploiting it.
Once again developing countries should be assisted in developing sustainable biotechnological advances, through creation of awareness and developing a strong reliable manpower.
Charles Ssekyewa,
Horticulturist, Plant pathology.
National Agricultural Research Organisation, Uganda.
Currently working on tomato geminiviruses/other major viruses in the tomato
agro-ecosystem, Uganda.
Tel.256-41-566790
Fax.256-41-567649
[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: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 4:25 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health
I would like to answer to Mr Jeffrey Reel's post (March, 29th)
« balance of nature's life »
I would like to remind you that any kind of agriculture destroys this balance. In some cases, GMO crops can be more environment protective than classical pesticides system while being more productive than organic farming.
« It is a given that pests will swiftly develop resistance to Bt crops. »
It is a given that any given pest and/or pathogen organism can evolve to acquire resistance to any kind of chemical product and/or to overcome plant or human resistance.
It also is a given that antibiotics saved and continue to save lifes, and that pesticides, resistance genes, Bt toxin transformed plants can increase crop yield, which finally is not so important in developed countries but can be in underdeveloped ones, for saving lifes from stavation and aquire economic independance.
This is a reason to make local GMOs cultivars for different purposes like environmental-friendly pest management, fight against malnutrition, use of poor or salted soils, and a lot of others applications that can have GMOs. The interest of GMOs is that you can add any kind of gene in the genome with any kind of purpose. Of course, these « local GMO's » should easily be integrated in local and traditional mixed species cultures.
This action, carefully conducted regarding environment and local populations attempts, will not make big and fast profits and does not interest agrotech industries. Nevertherless it has to be conducted by international organisations and states because of the general positive effects we can expect from this.
« All major companies in the biotech field are developing "successors" to Bt crops, knowing that resistance to such crops is inevitable. This model is identical to that seen in the field of allopathic medicine »
This fact argues for the idea I had presented in my last post : It would be far more profitable for mankind to permit GMO patent that allows private research to occur and not gene patent, that prevent public organizations and/or local private goups to use genes of interest in locally-adapted GMO-making.
« We are choosing to fight a battle against nature that will require an ever-stronger arsenal of weapons at escalating costs »
Nature is not a benevolent god. All our life depends of nature but nature does not care about mankind. We have to protect it, but we do not have to accept to be destroyed by natural phenomenons like Yersinia pestis.
« natural light, pure water, and simple, unadulterated food »
And natural Ammanita phaloides, natural Vibrio cholerae, natural radon,natural lead, etc. Adoring nature without willing to understand it nor use any kind of technologies is a respectable personnal philosophy but cannot be a guideline for mankind. How do you manage to use internet that contains electronic systems filed up of toxic chemicals and fed with nuclear or oil consuming electricity ?
« Now we introduce the consumption of GM foods, and this aspect needs to be thoroughly investigated before it is thoroughly marketed. »
Of course. Just like nature, GMO's are not benevolent gods.
As a conclusion, remember that biotechnologies are only a tool. It is not because you do not like those who possess it (big multinational agrotech and phamaceutical industries, which are centers of undemocratic power) that you have to forbid this tool for yourself, your friends and mankind.
Romain Berruyer, Centre International de Recherche Agronomique pour le
developpement(CIRAD),
Montpellier, France
berruyer@cirad.fr
[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: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 4:45 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: (micro)propagation and virus-testing / sweet potato and potato
I am a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Plant Virology, Agricultural Research Organization, Bet Dagan, Israel and formerly head of the department. My interests (inter alia) were and are virus diseases of sweet potatoes and potatoes, their identification, development of suitable indexing methods and preparation of virus-tested propagation material by conventional and rapid propagation technologies. I was and still am involved in Research and Development (R&D) projects on sweet potatoes and potatoes in Kenya and Kazakhstan, respectively.
I want to relate to the production of sweet potatoes and potatoes in developing countries.
A. Sweet Potatoes
Sweet Potatoes (SP) are one of the major food crops in the world, ranking fourth in the tropics. They are propagated only vegetatively, by cuttings or tubers. Therefore, virus diseases, once infecting a plant, are then carried continuously to the next planting seasons. Virus diseases decrease tuber yields from about 10% up to a total loss, depending on the virus and if more than one virus infects the plant. Several viruses are known to infect SP, among them: Sweet potato feathery mottle Potyvirus (SPFMV), Sweet potato sunken vein Clostero-like virus (SPSVV), Cucumber mosaic Cucumovirus (CMV) (infecting sweet potatoes only when already infected by SPSVV) and Ipomoea crinkle leaf Gemini-like virus (ICLCV). Schemes for providing virus-free tested planting material require both simple virus-testing assays and rapid propagation technologies. The virus assays procedures at present depend to a large extent on test plants and improvements in serological and/or molecular assays are a necessity.
B. Potatoes
The potato crop ranks fourth in economic importance. Yields vary markedly from less than 10 ton/ha up to 70 ton/ha and more. Low yields are often the result of poor quality of the "seed tubers" (ST) due to high virus incidence. This is particularly evident in areas with warm climates - due to rapid re-infection by viruses and in countries without efficient seed certification schemes, as in Central Asia. One way to overcome these problems is to import high quality ST. This, however, requires foreign currency, which is in shortage. Traditional schemes for growing certified seeds require growing areas with low aphid and virus incidence as well as long term investments, due to the 7-9 years required to build up the scheme from "base plants" to "certified seeds".
Rapid propagation technologies through stem cutting and/or minituber production should enable seed tuber production within a 3-4 years period.
Development of these technologies for low income countries, combined with improved techniques for testing viruses, especially in ST, should increase potato yields in areas with warm climates and in the Central Asian Republics.
I am presently involved in such an R&D scheme in Kazakhstan. As a first step a good virus testing laboratory was established in Almaty based on serology, where local high quality antisera were also produced. We also developed a high sensitive test for detecting Potato leafroll virus in tubers, based on a non-radioactive riboprobe (Loebentein et al. 1997. Plant Disease 81: 489-491). In parallel rapid propagation techniques based on minitubers is in operation in Akmola. Last summer the third generation was tested in the field with yields being more than three times compared with the local controls.
It is suggested that a combination of improved virus assays for tubers (based on serology and molecular methods) with rapid propagation technologies could improve potato yields in many areas within a relatively short time.
A prerequisite for such a project is the close cooperation between the potato expert and the virologist.
===========================
Prof. Gad Loebenstein
Dept. of Virology
Agric. Res. Org.
Bet-Dagan, 50-250, Israel
e-mail gadtalma@netvision.net.il
[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 ]