I would like to respond to Mr. Berruyer's post (March 29). I appreciate the difficulties of engaging in a "dialogue" over the Internet, as well as the necessary constraints imposed by the rules governing this conference.
1. " any kind of agriculture destroys this balance [natural]." I respectfully disagree. Organic agriculture has been shown to not only maintain a natural balance (among other ways by encouraging diversity of fauna and flora), but it addresses imbalances due to the damage caused by chemical agriculture, and restores land to good heart. I have never heard or read anything to the contrary.
2. "GMO crops can be more environmentally protective than classical pesticides systems" This is very true. However: a.) Where I was once washing pesticides off my food before consumption, I am now expected to eat foods that secrete them. I feel this is far more damaging to my health. b.) Introducing GM food crops into the environment presents its own unique set of challenges, and potential damage. Again, the necessary constraints imposed by this Forum do not allow me to elaborate here. Although farmers will be saved from chronic exposure to pesticides, we are trading one problem [for] a series of others of a far grander scale.
3. "it is a given that any given pest and/or pathogen organism can evolve to acquire resistance" This is true. But it is the speed at which such change occurs that presents the dilemma. All organisms mutate, adapt, evolve over time, and it occurs in a very slow and methodical manner. It is one of the wonderful mechanisms found in nature. But when the nature of such change is accelerated in the way that is being seen here, we will trigger a series of unprecedented changes in our personal health and environment.
4. Malnutrition/Poor-Quality Soils: The chief causes of malnutrition are economic forces, politics, social conflict, national debt. It even has its roots in European colonization and the displacement of traditional crops with nutritionally poor substitutes unsuited to grow successfully in the environment into which they have been transplanted. Traditional African grains, for example, tend to be less dependent upon large amounts of water or irrigation, and are heat- and drought-tolerant than other major cereals, ideal even on marginal lands. But over time, the traditional grains languished and took on the stigma of being a second-rate source of food. The varieties number in the thousands.
"Economic dependence." There will be increasing economic and technical dependence and pressures upon farmers using GM food crops. I have not heard or read anything to the contrary. I would appreciate being led to anything that would lead me to believe otherwise.
"Vibrio cholerae, lead, as 'natural' phenomena." There is nothing natural about contaminated water supplies and unsanitary living conditions, which are the cause of the spread of cholera. Cholera and most other infectious diseases are man-made disasters, not natural disasters, as is poor-quality soil and malnutrition. And there has been no documented case in recorded history of anyone suffering or dying from exposure to lead found in its natural state. Lead poisoning is the direct result of its use in manufacturing and household and industrial products. Nature is more benevolent than that. It is man's view of natural processes as hostile that has created our adversarial relationship with it. And it has not been to our benefit.
Jeffrey Reel, Planetary Food Council, Massachusetts, USA.
JeffreyReel@aol.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: Thursday, March 30, 2000 9:55 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health
Jeffrey Reel [29 March] makes some cogent points about GE [genetically engineered] crops. I would just like enlarge on his comments about how humans have evolved and evolution in general.
With rare exceptions - exceptions which never lead to reproductive success or population increase - interspecies reproduction is a failure. Those few individuals (hybrids) who have parents of two different species cannot reproduce, and in those rare cases where they do, the number of their progency is extremely small, does not increase, and therefore the hybrid genome does not spread into a larger population. It cannot compete with existing adapted species.
The crossing of species barriers, like incest, is possible but is nonadaptive and is not selected for. In the case of humans, epigenetic rules evolve which enforce the incest taboo. Those who violate it are punished, the embryos often deliberately aborted, and thus the practice of incest, and the desire to commit it, is severely curtailed. The cultural taboos are enough to discourage incest, even were we ignorant of the fact that incest enhances hereditary deformities.
In the case of those rare events in nature that create hybrids, the hybrids are usually sterile, and if they are not, they do not expand their numbers.
It seems evident that although non-humans have no epigenetic rules, hybridization and cross-species breeding is nonadaptive and actively discouraged by other means. While there is heavy debate on what constitutes a species in practical or empirical terms, the lack of interbreeding is generally interpreted as signifying the existence of two distinct species. Behavioral characteristics, such as song in songbirds, are usually enough to discourage interbreeding. Geographic barriers then occur to further separate the species and diminish the opportunity for intensive overlap and potential interbreeding. Animals don't need epigenetic rules because they have no consciousness that can say: I'd like to try and breed with another species.
Clearly nature or evolution intended to minimize the opportunities for crossing the species barrier. There is no reward (reproductive success) for doing so. It is therefore clearly counter-evolutionary for humans to attempt to do so. This "ultimate experiment" could have dire consequences which we cannot forsee. But we already possess enough knowledge about evolution and natural selection to recognize that such experiments do not succeed. We need to listen to the lessons of evolution rather than finding out the hard way. And in the case of genetic engineering, the hard way could result in global ecological disaster, which we will not know about until it is too late.
Evolutionists need to speak out about this blasphemous experiment which is totally unnecessary and only enhances the power of the scientific elite over our daily bread and our daily lives. The threat of nuclear war pales next to the possibility of global ecological disaster from novel organisms that never participated in the evolutionary process.
Lorna Salzman
Box 775
East Quogue, NY 11942, USA
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: Thursday, March 30, 2000 10:43 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Nigeria - biotechnology will enhance crop research
This is from Danladi Dada Kuta, from Nigeria, who has just concluded a 3-years-PhD research programme in Moscow on the topic : "Markers of inheritable resistance to blast disease in rice callus culture''
Why is it that, especially in the last few years, agricultural products are becoming more and more unaffordable to most Nigerians? In the first place, nature did not cheat Nigeria on the availability of arable land - it is estimated that 82 million hectares out of Nigeria's total land area of about 91 million hectares are arable. Moreover, the agro-climatic conditions are suitable to provide the ever-increasing population of Nigeria with affordable agricultural products without necessarily depending on foreign imports. Presently, there are some talks about urban migration adversely affecting the agricultural activities of rural areas, but about 54% (more than 20 million people) of the labor force is still engaged in agriculture! This figure is significantly higher than in most developed countries that export food products. Where is the problem then? This is the question that worries most Nigerians. It worries them because agricultural products are first and foremost food products, without which it is simply impossible to survive. Insufficiency of these products or increase on their prices unfavorably affects the standard of living of the population. Currently, 75% of the income of most Nigerians is spent on food products alone.
According to available statistics (FAOSTAT Agriculture Data, 1999), the domestic production of some food crops (rice, millet, sorghum, groundnut, etc) in Nigeria has been expanding at a phenomenal rate since 1990. An example of a "success story" is rice production. About 2.5 million tons of paddy rice was harvested in 1990 on 1.2 million ha of land. The paddy rice harvest increased to 2.9 million tons in 1995 on an expanded area of 1.8 million ha. By 1998, the area under rice increased to about 2.1 million ha, from which over 3.3 million tons of paddy rice was harvested.
"This is a fantastic success story ", some might say, but I beg to differ. In 1998, as stated above, Nigeria devoted about 2.1 million hectares (ha) to produce about 3.3 million tons of rice. In that same year, the United States of America used just about 1.3 million ha to produce over 8 million tons of rice. Nigeria also beat Japan in the size of land under rice production in 1998 (Japan - 1.8 million ha, Nigeria - 2.1 million ha), but Japan produced almost 4 times more of rice (11.2 million tons) on its smaller area, than Nigeria. Success story indeed! A true success story in rice production is Egypt. In 1998, they devoted just about 0.6 million ha for rice production and produced around 4.5 million tons of paddy rice.
Why? You see, most farmers in Nigeria grow crops that are low yielding, that lack the capability of adequately resisting frequent attacks by insect, bacterial, fungal and viral pests, and that can not withstand severe drought and other abiotic stress conditions. It is now clear that the conventional crop improvement programs in the national agricultural research institutes of Nigeria need to be complemented with innovative biotechnology techniques.
THE BIOTECHNOLOGY METHODS FOR NIGERIA
Biotechnology is very important for Nigerian agriculture, not
necessarily for the production of GM foods, but for enhancing research in
the field of crop breeding, crop stress physiology, crop protection, to
mention but a few.
Marker-assisted selection: for disease resistance will go a long way in
accelerating the production of disease-resistant crop varieties.
Microspore culture: is a useful tool for stabilization of promising lines in
the first generation, instead of the laborious screenings over several
generations in conventional breeding.
In vitro screening: could be exploited to create mutants that are
resistant/tolerant to biotic/abiotic stress factors
Micropropagation: is also necessary for rapid multiplication of superior
breeding lines or varieties.
With the above biotech methods, the crop improvement programs in Nigeria
will be greatly enhanced. However, Nigeria lacks enough specialists in plant
biotechnology. In the agricultural research institute where I work in
Nigeria, there is no biotechnology laboratory. The same with several others.
The immediate major task, therefore, is the training of enough specialists
in the field of plant biotechnology and creation of well-equipped modern
biotechnology laboratories in the various national agricultural research
institutes of Nigeria.
Danladi Dada Kuta
Crop Stress Physiologist, Plant tissue culturist
National Cereals Research Institute, Badeggi,
P.M.B.8, Bida, Niger State, Nigeria
Moscow contact address:
Moscow 117198, P.Box 95. e-mail: d.kuta.asp@agro.pfu.edu.ru
[Comment from the Moderator: A very clear message about the problems in the crop sector in Nigeria. The final comments of the message, concerning lack of resources, echo those made in the first 2 messages posted in the Conference, on 23 March.]
[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: Thursday, March 30, 2000 4:37 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health
My Name is Werner Schenkel from Germany. I work as scientist at Technical University of Munich, Chair of Agronomy and Plantbreeding.
I would like to add some points to think about in response to Lorna Salzmanīs comment about evolution [30 March].
She tries to prove that nothing good can come from cross-species breeding and this is a "blasphemous experiment which is totally unnecessary".
Wheat feeds the world !!! It is a hexaploid species combining three different genomes and evolved from spontaneous crossing of at least three species. Canola (Brassica napus) is the third most important oilcrop after soybean and cotton. It is a amphiploid bastard of Brassica campestris and Brassica oleracea combining genomes of both species. The evolution of potato most probably involved crosses of different solanum species.
Soybean is the most important oilcrop world-wide but no direct wild progenitor is known. None of the crops we are living on is able to survive natural selection (evolution) if not cultivated by man.
What is fit to effectively produce food for mankind must not necessarily be fit to evolve in nature and vice versa.
We will have to accept that a population of 6 billion people is not a result of natural balance. Simply giving "nature" its way is no option if we are not accepting to lose a lot of this population in a very unpleasant way (starvation and epidemics).
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 714511
schenkel@pollux.weihenstephan.de
[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: Thursday, March 30, 2000 4:45 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: GMO's and the developing countries
This is from Edo Lin. I have worked many years in Africa on seed projects
for FAO and I am
currently working for a French seed company on biotechnology issues.
lin.edo@free.fr
The current conference runs the risk of becoming sterile. It started promising with some good contributions which addressed the theme of the conference and now I think we need to re-focus our contributions to this topic and forget ideological discussions about the course of evolution or the benefits of organic food.
Most resource poor people in the developing world live in the rural areas and depend on food staples both as their source of income (either as farmers or as farm labourers) and as their main source of nutrition. Poverty reduction in the developing countries is directly linked to increases in production of food staples. Increased output per unit of land leads to increased labour productivity and income (Lipton, 1999). During the "Green revolution", between the years 1965 and 1985, yield of food staples (corn, wheat and rice) increased dramatically and equally dramatic falls in poverty were recorded, especially in SE Asia. Since 1985, the spectacular improvement in yields of food staples has slowed down due to various factors, like response of disease and insect vectors, genetic improvement ceilings, scarcity of water resources etc. GM crops can contribute to kickstart the second wave of the "Green Revolution" as it has the potential for improving yields, deal with renewed insect and disease pressure and could address water resource issues by developing more drought tolerant crops.
The theme of this conference is - whether the available biotechnologies are appropriate -.
To answer this question we should distinguish between available technology and available products from this technology. The available biotechnology tools are without doubt appropriate for the developing countries and are already widely used in several countries. Molecular biology has given us tools to speed up breeding of crops by using markers, micro-propagation is widely used to produce disease free stocks of bananas and other plants, etc etc.The development of nutritionally enhanced rice by recombinant DNA techniques has already been mentioned. In the near future the development of genomics will allow for the rapid screening of thousands of genes in crop plants to establish their usefulness. It is essential to realise that Biotechnology is more than the introduction of bacterial genes into crop plants. The fact that these tools are at the moment mostly used to improve corn for chickens rather than corn for humans (i.e. food staples) is related to the fact that the tools are developed and patented by private enterprises rather that public institutions. Where the first "Green Revolution" was based on science in the public domain, the second green revolution will depend on (a) a complete rethink about the role of public research and research funding and (b) on incentives to the private industry to make tools available.
The second part of the question is, whether the current products from available Biotechnology are appropriate. The current products from available biotechnology are input trait oriented, herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. Whether these are appropriate in the developing countries is a very complex issue and depends much on country or region specifics. As stated above, poverty reduction is dependent on farm related income. Herbicide tolerance would eliminate the use of labour for weeding and thus lower earning potentials and poverty reduction in many instances. However, in all developing countries there are also growing segments of commercial farmers who could benefit from herbicide tolerant crops in situations where labour is scarce.
Insect resistance is a win -win both in small and large scale farming in the developing world. In Africa, in corn, it is treat or don't eat. Busseola fusca (the african corn borer) and other insect pests are so destructive and attack the plants at such an early stage that chemical treatment (often done by hand by children and women without any protection) is essential for the survival of the crop. Bt corn could make a tremendous contribution to food security while eliminating some of the hazards associated with chemical treatment.
Please read Lipton (1999) at
http://www.worldbank.org/html/cgiar/publications/crawford/lipton.pdf
[Comment from Moderator: Some interesting points made very clearly here: especially regarding the separation of available biotechnology tools and available biotechnology products and the role of private interprises versus public institutions.]
[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 ]