Forum Conf 1 (biotech and crop sector)

Some comments to Jeffrey Reel and Lorna Salzman [30 March]: Looks like we have here a typical example of a romantic view on the world: Organic farming is always good and balanced, conventional agriculture not. I do not agree. It depends case by case. It is a myth that hybridization is a rare event. 12 of the 13 most import crops based on cultivation area do hybridize with wild relatives somewhere in the world. This is in many cases a threat to wild plants, independent of genetically modified plants or not. And it is in many other cases no threat!

In the recent past, environmentalist organisations have fought against environmental threats like rain-forest destruction and trans-border hazardous waste export with reasonable, scientifically sound arguments. But today's campaign against gene technology has very often no base in ecologically-sound science. Without any doubt all new technologies raise questions about new risks, but in case of gene technology there is substantial evidence for positive environmental effects, with decreased pesticide use and healthier food.

Genetically modified (GM) corps are not necessarily unsafe. Our research group has shown that some of genetically modified sugar beets pose no threat to genetically susceptible wild relatives, humans, or the environment.

The international campaign against GM crops, like Bt-corn, deliberately neglects the beneficial effects of these plants for the environment. In contrast to traditional pest control, Bt-maize is the ideal solution to pest control since it combines biological theory and modern agricultural practice. A bacterial toxin, which is already in use for decades as a pesticide by organic farmers, is now produced by the plant itself and this considerably reduces the amounts of chemical pesticides that are needed. What this means for the environment is that Bt-maize, and many other GM crops, can be produced in a more ecologically friendly way than existing crops. As an example, US colleagues have demonstrated that some tested Bt cultivars were less contaminated by the toxic and highly carcinogenic compounds (mycotoxins) produced by moulds compared to conventional maize. In addition, the use of other pesticides can often be reduced. There is still much development work to do, and ecologists can help the safe development of this technology.

Unfortunately, many environmental activists have chosen to publicise only potential adverse effects of GM crops during their campaign. Much of their source material are biased reports with insufficient data produced by other environmental associations. The pattern is always the same: Natural phenomena like gene transfer or pollen movement between organisms are declared as phenomenona related only to GM crops, though this happens throughout nature. Combined with unproven allegations about allergies and antibiotic resistance effects, the dangers are grossly inflated or laboratory data is manipulated so that it does not reflect reality in the field (e.g. monarch butterfly). Scientific data that do not fit into this picture are ignored, providing the necessary ammunition for scare-mongering campaigns.

I regret the missing fairness and the slanted opposition by environmentalists to new technical developments. Ecology as a science should try to unveil the obvious political agenda behind this campaign. We should not miss out on chances for responsible use of gene technology.

Dr. Detlef Bartsch
Chair of Ecology, Ecotoxicology, Ecochemistry
Aachen University of Technology
Worringerweg 1
52056 Aachen
Germany
Tel. +49 241 806676
Fax. +49 241 8888182
e-mail: BARTSCH@RWTH-AACHEN.DE
Webpage:
http://www.rwth-Aachen.de/bio5/Ww/Ag-Barte.html (English)
http://www.rwth-aachen.de/bio5/Ww/AG-Bart.html (Deutsch)
Check also the new AIGM programme:
http://www.esf.org/life/lp/AIGM/AIGMa.htm

[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 31, 2000 9:13 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health

Regarding the comments of Werner Schenke [30 March]: I beg your pardon; I didn't discuss plant breeding and propagation. Nor do I know of any evidence that any of our major food crops is a result of interspecies breeding. Do you have evidence of this? Plant propagation considers hybridization as a crossing of varieties, sometimes called subspecies or races. Moreover, those interspecies that rarely occur in nature occur between closely related species, within a genus. Sorry but scorpions and rice aren't closely related, nor are corn and Bacillus thuringensis.

On the contrary, I have the utmost respect for land races, and for the accomplishments of indigenous peoples who developed locally compatible varieties, such as the potatoes in Peru, where there are hundreds of varieties adapted to different climate conditions. This kind of trial and error is barely faster than natural selection and evolution, and has no risky consequences. If if fails, it fails. Nothing irreversible, no ill side effects. It is experimenting within the genome.

I think it is time for scientists who practice the GE faith to present an argument and evidence as to why GE across species barriers is NOT in contradiction to the process of natural selection. So far the best they have managed is a lie: that cross-species breeding is no different than traditional breeding. But we all know it IS different because it involves crossing OUTSIDE a given genome, whereas traditional breeding of varieties is WITHIN the same genome.

This kind of deceit is precisely the reason for the distrust of scientists.

Regarding the comments of Edo Lin [30 March]: if evolution were not an appropriate subject for plant breeding and agriculture discussions, crop scientists would be out of a job. Evolution is THE fundamental principle upon which all such research is based. Or do you believe that all plant species were individually created by God?

As for limiting discussion to biotechnology and existing chemical-based agriculture, these are not the only options. There is the option of organic methods of farming, without biotech or chemicals. This option is common, growing more widespread and is a perfectly viable option - perhaps the MOST viable option economically and socially - for third world countries. You can neither deny its existence nor pretend that it is not a relevant topic or option.

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 31, 2000 9:23 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health

I'd like to join Mr.Berruyer in his views about GMOs vis-a-vis the comments he received on his message from Jeffrey Reel and Lorna Saltzman [both 30 March ].

It is certainly useful to begin with the Equilibrium of Nature as it is conceived by most biological scientists. In fact, what a successful scientist does is to disturb the equilibrium of nature (there is no epigenetic rule that could prevent this on the part of humans). For many millions of years Nature was solely responsable for breaking its own equilibrium, but now humans have the power to disequilibrate Nature.

Nurture is becoming powerful and there is nothing wrong with that. If there is anything that epigenetic rules can assure, it is precisely Nurture to become stronger and stronger!

Today, when humans disequilibrate Nature on purpose in the search for the betterment of the species, an opportunity is created to reach a new and more productive (allowing for sustainability) equilibrium. But Nature will resist in many ways that have the effects of counteracting the disequilibrium, and if these effects were to become successful, they would re-establish the previous equilibrium of nature, or also conceivable, one less productive equilibrium. From this latter the fears of many people. Therefore, scientists (humans) are engaged in a constant struggle to "subdue" Nature in order to satisfy the wants of man as stated cogently by Alfred Marshall in his Principles of Economics in 1890.

The challenge then is to assure that a more productive and sustainable equilibrium is in fact the final result of the intervention. For this, the products of science that are thought to have any benefit for mankind (GMOs and the like) have to be thoroughly investigated before utilizing them.

There is no point in banning scientific progress, but what is needed is an arsenal of policies (national and international) that will control the undesirable consequences of that struggle of humans to subdue Nature.

Edgardo R. Moscardi
Executive Secretary
Regional Fund for Agricultural Technology
FONTAGRO
Colombia
Tel: 202-623-2873
Fax: 202-623-3968
E-mail: edgardom@iadb.org
Web-site: www.fontagro.org

[NB: Although the arguments in this and the preceeding messages are interesting, a greater focus on the direct theme of Conference 1, i.e. the appropriateness of specific biotechnologies for the crop sector in developing countries, is needed (especially given the time limitation of the conference).......Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 9:25 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health

My Name is Ben Lohberger from Tasmania, a State of Australia. I am an undergraduate student at the University of Tasmania.
blohberg@tassie.net.au

I would like to respond to Werner Schenkel's message [30 March] regarding "what feeds the world".

I am heartily disappointed when I see and hear scientists debating the efficacy of Genetically Modified crops using world hunger as a basis for their arguments. The entire content of such an argument is immediately doubtful as the context is obviously flawed - even to a mere undergraduate student. As an undergraduate, I have learned that world hunger is related to economic and social factors and has nothing to do with the relative productivity of specific crops; there is currently more than enough food to 'feed the world' produced right now, its just not distributed equitably.

It is my understanding that a biotechnology company advertising in the UK last year was forced to retract its statements regarding GM crops 'feeding the world' because they were found, by the relevant UK government body, to be blatantly untrue. I really wish this fact would percolate through to others involved in promoting biotechnology.

This excessive optimism, which seems to be part and parcel of being supportive of GM crops, is severely damaging the reputation and believability of the scientific community as a whole. The continued spurious use of the need to "feed the world" as a reason to embrace GM crops is a prime example of this aggressive style of optimism. Plant science appears to be rushing forwards towards GM crops at a rate which seems to preclude proper precautionary steps.

Consumers world-wide are obviously more aware of this lack of precaution than plant scientists and the resultant disparity in levels of trust is powering the disbelief in and rejection of GM foods specifically, and scientists generally, by growing numbers world-wide.

To move this debate forward both sides need to become a little bit more mature, especially the optimists.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 9:29 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Field Trials of GM crops in the developing world

Biotechnology may as Saturnina Halos [e.g. 27 March 'Philippines - crop biotechnologies'...Moderator] says be the answer to the problem of providing food to the ever-increasing population of the Developing World.

However, it is now clear, as Jeffrey Reel reiterates, that the products of biotechnology are not free of dangers although the perceived dangers may be overstated. There is I believe a need for a lot more research before the free and unrestricted use of the products of biotechnology can be permitted.

I would like to point out another danger which has not been given enough exposure in the debate.

The developing world has long been the dumping ground of multinationals of products not acceptable to the industrialised world. Drugs which have been banned in the West have been promoted in the Third World. The tobacco companies while on the defensive in the West are simultaneously expanding their activities in developing countries. Hazardous chemicals are periodically dumped in Third World countries, usually without the informed consent of the country.

I fear that the developing world will in the coming decades provide, willingly or unwillingly, the sites for the "field trials" on the products of biotechnology. These trials will most probably take place without the prior informed consent of these countries. Developing countries possess limited scientific infrastructure and expertise and do not have the wherewithall to monitor such experiments or the products of such experiments. Furthermore they are ill-equipped to deal with any environmental disasters emanating from these products. A fast growing herbicide resistant weed which escapes into the field may spell the end of agriculture in a small developing country.

A clear code of ethics like that used for the introduction and clinical trials of new drugs is necessary. A code of ethics alone will not solve the problems. A powerful body (like the WHO for drugs) must actively monitor the introduction of the products of biotechnology and research in the field anywhere in the world to ensure that the code is followed. All suspected disasters however small must be investigated by an international team of scientists able to access state of the art research facilities. Penalties for infringement should be no less than those imposed by industrialised countries.

Dr. Vijaya Kumar
Senior Professor and Head
Department of Chemistry,
University of Peradeniya,
Peradeniya, SRI LANKA
Phone: +94-8-389129, +94-77-801184
Fax: +94-8-389939
e-mail; vkumar@mail.ac.lk

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 4:35 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Field Trials of GM crops in the developing world

I agree whole-heartedly with the point of view expressed by Dr. Vijaya Kumar.

A code of ethics must precede serious field studies, and a code of enforcement must be cleary established. "Gene flow," "genetic drift" are only two of many possible undesirable effects of studies in the field.

"It's interesting to note that while biotechnology depends for its power on the ability to move genes freely among species and even phyla, its environmental safety depends on the very opposite phenomenon: on the integrity of species in nature and their rejection of foreign genetic material." As Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin has observed: "[In an ecosystem] you can always intervene and change something in it, but there is no way of knowing what all the downstream effects will be or how it might effect the environment. We have such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we DON'T get one rude shock after another." [New York Times Magazine, Oct. 25, 1988, p. 49]

The unprecedented challenge for us is that certain environmental mistakes during the trial-and-error phase (the fast-growing herbicide-resistant weed, cited as an example) may not remain a localized problem.

Jeffrey Reel
jeffreyreel@aol.com
USA

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 4:30 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: variable and high-stress environments

This is Shawn McGuire, a PhD student in the Netherlands. My research looks at the potential for 'participatory plant breeding' in Ethiopia, specifically at looking at the perceptions and practices of both farmers and formal breeders in their management of sorghum varieties and sorghum diversity. I have been associated with the CGIAR's Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Program.

Sadly, this debate has already polarised along predictable, 'cultural' lines (people in particular institutions tend to focus on certain risks). I completely agree with Edo Lin that we need to rethink (and reviatalise!) the role of public research, and think creatively about institutions, available tools, and whether these can combine to address stakeholders' goals. Let's hope that that some of the helpful suggestions so far - tissue culture, micropropagation, molecular methods to support conventional breeding - can be elaborated to explore if these are realistic options for Southern countries, and not let existing GMO technologies or fear of transnationals entirely shape the discussion.

Might I make a couple of points, about which I hope there is general agreement, to focus discussion on the third?

1) Landraces: like Lorna Salzman, I respect landraces and farmers' crop development activities- this is the core of my research. But, it is incorrect to assume that a) local diversity has always been there, and b) that it is always sufficient to meet farmers' (and others') needs. Most of the most important crops in Africa came from other continents in the last few centuries (maize, cassava), and even 'traditional' farmers are often searching for new varieties, even completely replacing their variety portfolios. Local varieties may no longer be suited to address all their needs. Local innovation is important, but is not always enough in the face of changing needs, land degradation, and social disruptions. Using loaded terms like 'modern' and 'traditional' can cloud the discussion.

2) Breeding can play a role here, bringing in new genetic diversity, new crops, disease resistance, etc. to farmers. Nobody familiar with farmers' realities would suggest seeds are the entire solution - when inputs, water, markets limit, crop technologies may make little difference. RE: Ben Lohberger (economic and political power relations)- sure, these are important, but, it is unrealistic (and unreasonable) to expect Southern agricultural scientists to become political activists as well, especially in charged settings. This is, after all, a forum for crop technologies: these can make a contribution, so let's discuss where that might be in a given setting.

3) Often, where conventional, centralised breeding has not been of much use, it has been where environments are diverse (e.g. mountainous and semi-arid regions), or where diverse users' needs have not been met. Decentralisation and participation are the buzz-words here - many different approaches are currently being explored worldwide, though it has yet to be widely proven if they will be a cost-effective solution. So far, centralised crop development settings have been implied in this forum's discussion of biotechnology. Applying techniques to varieties developed under a limited (and often favourable) set of conditions may not help, if the varieties do not fit users' needs, because of strong genotype-by-environment (GxE) interactions.

There *are* possible ways for de-centralised (even community-level) biotech. For instance. the Cassava Biotech Network is exploring 'artisanal' work at community level to address community needs. But to really address varied needs in difficult environments, we need to think about institutions, and how they, and biotech, could be decentralised.

Shawn McGuire

Technology and Agrarian Development
Wageningen University
6709 PA Wageningen, NETHERLANDS
e-mail: Shawn.Mcguire@TAO.TCT.WAU.NL

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 4:44 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Feed the world

I would like to respond to Ben Lohberger (31 March) who addresses the issue of feeding the world.

Ben makes the following statement : I am heartily disappointed when I see and hear scientists debating the efficacy of Genetically Modified crops using world hunger as a basis for their arguments. The entire content of such an argument is immediately doubtful as the context is obviously flawed - even to a mere undergraduate student. As an undergraduate, I have learned that world hunger is related to economic and social factors and has nothing to do with the relative productivity of specific crops; there is currently more than enough food to 'feed the world' produced right now, its just not distributed equitably.

1) Scientists and reputable International Organisations (FAO/WHO/FIS etc) have never claimed that GM crops alone will solve the problem of hunger in the world. What has been said is that by the year 2025, to feed the expected 8.3 billion people of the world, the demand for plant based food will have doubled. And that, to meet this challenge, new and innovative changes are needed in food production systems. Such changes could include better cultivation practises, more efficient use of fertilisers and pesticides, reduction of post harvest losses and the use of Biotechnology as a powerful tool.

2) Yes, world hunger is a function of economic and social factors and it has, for the majority of the poor, EVERYTHING to do with the relative productivity of specific crops. Currently 60% of the people in the developing world are mainly dependent on agriculture for income. By 2010, the number will still be 47% in spite of the increasing urbanisation (source FAOSTAT 1999). Food staples are a direct source of nutrition but also provide income whether you are a farmer or a labourer. Increase productivity in food staples production increases income potential.

3) The fallacy of "there is enough food but it is not distributed equitably" has been around for decades and has served nicely as an excuse to do nothing. Yes, there is surplus food in the world, mainly in the industrialized world. Unfortunately, in many cases it is the wrong food. Surplus maize is mainly yellow dent but in large parts of Africa, maize consumed is white. There is surplus milk but how do we get it to Africa and what does it contribute to calorific deficiency? Surplus butter is not very useful unless you have bread to put it on or other foodstuffs to use for frying.

Even if we would find ways of distributing the world food surplusses more equitable (logistics, costs), we would still be faced with the problem of who will pay for it. In subsaharan Africa and SE Asia more than 45% of the population live on less than $1 per day.

Edo Lin, France
lin.edo@free.fr

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