Forum Conf 1 (biotech and crop sector)

I think, as several contributors have pointed out, that we need to largely forget the argument of biotech crops "feeding the world". This has been shown to be a spurious argument on numerous occasions and to my mind is designed as a two-pronged public relations attack. On the one hand it tells Developed Country consumers how caring biotech firms are and on the other it pushes the products in developing countries. I have been extremely disappointed by the continuation of this campaign in Kenya even after the events in Britain last year.

On the technical side of this issue, as opposed to the socio-economic, is the fact that there is growing evidence that GM crops are not performing up to expectation. Recent studies by the USDA and National Center for Food & Agricultural Policy (July,99) [I think these are the studies available on http://www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/gmo/ ....Moderator] produce inconclusive and variable results for GM crop yield, cost reduction and profit factors depending on individual crop, year, location and planting conditions. These are hardly "militant environmentalists". A subsequent study on GM soybean crops produced the result that yields are approximately 6 - 7% DOWN and that pesticide use is higher - the advantage being that its a less complex process to manage weeds.

To my mind this feeds into Dr. Kumar's comments [ 31 March, Subject: Field Trials of GM crops in the developing world] on being sure that these technologies are right for developing countries. If the sole advantage of a crop is that its less complex to manage, that is not going to be enough for it to be of benefit in a developing country if it still costs more - which, since a large proportion of farmers here still rely on saved seed, it undoubtedly will.

There seems to be a concerted effort underway to make developing countries accept GM technologies without question or reserve. Anyone who queries this is labelled as a heretic - this includes anyone who suggests a primary emphasis on other technologies such as integrated pest management (IPM). In the context of the continued supply of things such as DDT to developing countries from the North I find this worrying - why are we not allowed to question? When this is taken in conjunction with the rash of illegal plantings in countries such as Zimbabwe, by some of the largest firms, in clear violation of what biosafety regulations there are, a very worrying trend emerges. Even the recent "charm" campaign in Nigeria is an interesting phenomenon, particularly considering Obasanjo's known predilection for advanced agricultural technology.

Even if these companies genuinely believe their own position that they will feed the hungry, they should be made to understand that a paternalistic approach to developing countries will still damage them - developing countries have to be free to make informed and objective decisions on all areas of technology - we are not just singling out GM crops. The idea of a clear code of ethics that has strong support, at least in terms of monitoring, would be an excellent idea - whatever organisation took on this responsibility (and the FAO would seem to be the most obvious current candidate) should make sure it considers all aspects - environmental and health risks, but also the actual potential performance of the products - from an objective body what are their realistic advantages? A 6 -7% loss in yield for a higher price is not going to work for Africa.

Robert Lettington
Law and Policy Consultant
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology
Kenya. rlettington@ICIPE.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, April 03, 2000 10:32 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Agricultural Biotechnology

This is Edilson Paiva, Brazil. I am a Plant Molecular Geneticist at the Brazilian National Maize and Sorghum Research Center - EMBRAPA.

I am sure that Agricultural Biotechnology "is here to stay because the advantages are so compelling". There is no doubt that crops improved through biotechnology will be essential to feeding rapidly growing populations in developing countries.

Modern intensive agriculture, is without doubt, a human activity that causes one of the major negative impacts in the environment. However, it would be a tremendous mistake to go back and opt for pre-1950 agriculture in which average crop yields are about half those of intensive agriculture. If we do so, billions of people, mainly in developing countries would be without food. One also has to consider that there is no more fertile land available around the world available for agricultural expansion, and the ones in use are in a rapid process of degradation, pollution, erosion and pressure of occupation by cities and industry. So if we don't opt very quickly for a productive and sustainable agriculture we are not going to be able to feed the extra 4 to 6 billions people that will be born in the next 50 years, mainly in developing countries. For example, I would like to ask: should we Brazilians give up this new biotechnologies and go to very sensitive environments such as the Amazon Forest, cut down the jungle to produce non GM soybeans? And then sell them to the Europeans at a premium price, so they can eat a low risk food? There is a saying that states "It is very difficult to be green when one is red in his bank account"

Exaggerated safety concerns will make it hard for developing countries to gain access to these new technologies. We that work with plant biotechnology directly associated to agricultural production can not understand this GM Technophobia. Political, ideological and economical issues, with lots of rhetoric, and plain lack of knowledge of how hard food production is at the farm level or of how these new biotechnologies work at the cellular or molecular level, are prevailing in all the discussions. I see these new Agricultural Biotechnologies as the tools that will allow us to conduct around the world an agriculture that will associate high productivity with sustainability. Capable of producing enough food to feed 10 to 12 billion people in the next 50 years, with much lower impact in our environment. Besides, they will also make It possible to access and protect biodiversity as never before, and even allow to recover part of what had already been degraded. In other words " we have developed genetic manipulation of plants just in time to experiment, not when a holocaust is upon us."

Brazilian Agency for Agricultural Research - Embrapa
National Maize and Sorghum Research Center
Applied Biology Group
P.O.Box 151 35701-970
Sete Lagoas - MG
BRAZIL
Phone: + 55 31 779-1179
Fax: + 55 31 779-1088
E-mail: edilson@cnpms.embrapa.br

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 10:55 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: variable and high-stress environments

LAND RACES: Mr. McGuire writes: "Most of the important crops in Africa came from other continents in the last few centuries (maize, cassava)' and 'local varieties may no longer be suited to address all their needs [of the traditional farmers]."

I believe this points out a major reason why biotech crops may not be able to adequately and safely address the issue of large- and small-scale agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. I refer participants to a series of reports on "Lost Crops" issued by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences (United States). One of the series of reports - "The Lost Crops of Africa" - shows that Africa has more indigenous varieties of cereals than any other continent, including its own species of millet, rice (overshadowed by Asian rice), sorghum, fonio, tef, and several dozen more, all nutritionally superior than maize and cassava and all more suitable to the bioregions throughout Africa. According to the report, these grains are considered "lost" not because they are unknown but because they are given little or no attention by the mainstream of international agricultural science. These resilient crops are vital for extending cereal production onto the ever-more marginal lands. There is an unspoken assumption here that nutritionally inferior crops introduced through colonization are here to stay, and I believe this should be questioned. Native African crops require less chemical and technological intervention. Africa offers a cornucopia of food plants that people are not taking advantage of. In contrast to what Mr. McGuire writes, local varieties may be just the thing needed to suit the growing needs of traditional farmers. Displacing these foods with a few substitutes of foreign origin increases the need for biotechnological intervention in order to grow them successfully in habitats they are not best-suited. Instead of manipulating a nutrionally inferior grain to withstand conditons of low mositure, why not re-introduce traditional drought-resistant grains, and grains that thrive in poor sandy soils (fonio), grains that are naturally disease-resistant (pearl millet, which also grows in sandy soils and under arid conditions)? This is on aspect of biotechnology as applied to food crops that I question.

Jeffrey Reel
Planetary Food Council, a division of One Peaceful World
Becket, Massachusetts, USA
jeffreyreel@aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 11:06 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Feed the world

"Currently 60% of the people in the developing world are mainly dependent on agriculture for income."

I agree with Edo Lin's arguments [31 March] , and I would like to add another one. It is partly true that today severe stavation events are often correlated with wars and/or political problems. GMOs are of course not a solution for such problem: when you give seeds to hungry people, they eat the seeds...

However, even in peaceful third world countries, malnutrition can and does exist at large scale. I don't mean hunger, but lack of essencial proteins, vitamins or oligo-elements due to undiversified diet. This situation isn't as spectacular as strong starvations but causes losses in health, resistance to deseases and finally life length in these countries. One can live just by eating 100g of boiled rice per day, when you are used to this, you don't feel hunger, but this life is short and weak. I think that Vitamin A producting modified rice that already exist can for example be a partial response to such problems.

Romain Berruyer
Ph-D student. CIRAD, Montpellier, France.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 12:02 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: GMO's and the developing countries

This post is in response to some of the points made by Edo Lin (Thursday, March 30). Mr. Lin writes that 'poverty reduction in the developing countries is directly linked to increases in production of food staples'.

I think it is closer to the truth to say that there may be, at best, an indirect link. There is extreme poverty in those areas exporting an abundance of crops. National debt, the need for foreign currency, and the lack of a semblance of democratized government, judicial equity and free enterprise are the main drivers of hunger and poverty. But this Conference should focus not on politics but biotechnology as it relates to food production in developing countries.

Mr. Lin writes that biotechnology will drive the 2nd Green Revolution. That GM crops will increase yields seems evident at first, but this has not been proven yet in studies that compare GM foods to the top hybrid crops developed through traditional breeding methods. (C. Benbrook, "Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998," Ag Bio Tech InfoNet Technical Paper 1, www.biotech-info.net/new.html, July 13, 1999.) And there are two additional components that complicate this theory.

Genetically engineered crops might be toxic to human health. Aside from the more obvious allergic reactions some people have suffered during this intitial trial-and-error phase of biotech application (for example, Pioneer Hi-Bred using a Brazil nut gene to enhance soybeans), there are early indications of adverse side effects (S.W.B. Ewen and A. Pusztai, "Effects of Diets Containing Genetically Modified Potatoes Expressing Galanthus Nivalis Lectin on Rat Small Intestines," Lancet 354 (1999):1353-1354.) Human testing normally required for a new food additive is not required for GM foods, and testing on animals is insufficient.

The underlying problem that biotechnology is seeking to address is our system of monoculture. Monoculture is in trouble - the pesticides that have made it so successful no longer work, from a health standpoint or in terms of effectiveness. GM foods offer new hope for monoculture. But biotechnology is not a new paradigm -- rather, it is something that will allow the old paradigm to survive, for a while longer. That paradigm will always construe the problem as a "Colorado potato beetle problem" rather than as a problem with potato monoculture. It is one of the sadder parts of the history of migration of crops that the potato has swelled to be the 4th largest food crop in the world, a nutritionally poor substitute for the many traditional foods it has displaced, and one highly susceptible to infectious diseases except when grown in climates similar to its origins in the Andes Mountains (the highlands of Central Africa and the Himalayas), a potato 30%-50% larger than its ancestors but only one-half the dry weight.

Jeffrey Reel
Planetary Food Council, a division of One Peaceful World
Becket, Massachusetts, USA
jeffreyreel@aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 12:05 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Who owns the biotechnology? Intellectual Property Rights

One potential problem which could undermine the utilization of biotechnology and genetically modified crops in developing countries concern intellectual property rights and the fact that these technologies are often owned by research labs or multinational corporations that hold the rights to them. Thus if farmers in developing countries fully adopt these technologies, there is a possibility that, in the long run, they could be made dependent on the technologies in such a way that they cannot go back any more to the traditional crops. Farmers would become a function - a production arm - of the owners of the technology themselves.

This is one of the greatest fears of biotechnology I have heard being aired in Thailand. The fear concerns control of the economic destiny of the people here by global forces. The fear does not so much concern the potential risks of the genetically modified crops as does the possibility that after a while farmers may have to rely exclusively on the technologies owned by these corporations. Thus the ones who will benefit the most from these advances will not be the farmers, or the population of developing countries themselves.

In fact this fear is not anything new at all. When the technolgy of large scale pesticide and chemical fertilizers were introduced, many also feared the same thing. And it happens that the companies that are promoting biotechnological solutions seem largely to be the same as those that used to promote chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Granted that the new biotechnology really does everything it promises (granted that the risk level is acceptable and a level of safety can actually be scientifically guaranteed), then this issue will become the next point of controversy, and a far more serious one.

One thing that could be done to help solve this problem is for the holders of the rights to the technology to *release* their knowledge to the public domain. Another thing is that the knowledge and expertise should be directly transferred to the scientists and technicians in developing countries, so that the latter can develop their own brand of technology which will be more suitable to their local environments. There should be a series of sincere cooperations between scientists from the West who are experts in the area, and those in developing ones. Nothing should be held secret. To help developing countries develop their own technology is perhaps the best way to raise the standard of livings of the people there.

Soraj Hongladarom
Department of Philosophy
Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University
Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Tel. (+662) 218-4756 Fax. (+662) 218-4867

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 12:11 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: variable and high-stress environments

I fully agree with Shawn McGuire [31 March] for the need to develop site specific varieties or even systems of production. In the Philippines, agricultural areas are very diverse even within a 1-km radius. Furthermore, the poorest farmers are in the most stressful environments and that the commercial agricultural technologies are either unsuitable or unaffordable. This type of research should be the main focus of public institutions as well as international assistance. Biotechnology, as other forum members, wrote is just a tool but it would be most helpful since using this tool we can develop the type of crops that breeders have tried to develop for decades and without much success such as insect-resistant crops or virus resistant crops. These type of crops would ensure a good harvest to farmers. Whether the genes come from other species should not be an issue. We have been breeding crops since time immemorial. Did these improved varieties confer their improved genes to their wild relatives and make them more weedy? Why should we now look upon a transferred gene to behave differently in the genome of the same crop plant?

Furthermore, we eat and drink natural pesticides in coffee, hot peppers,etc. One reason why one crop plant is not eaten by the insect pest of another crop plant is the presence of a natural pesticide in the former that wards off or kills the insect pest of the latter. As long as that pesticide is digestible, nontoxic, nonallergenic, not accumulated by the body, where is the problem?

The rapid population growth impels us to seek new modes of production. We have to assess risk of these new modalities but we have to balance that decision with compelling need to feed more people. There is no way we shall not change the environment, what we can do is manage that change.

Furthermore, the new techniques can reduce the breeding period needed to develop a variety. I am sad to hear of plant breeders rejecting these new methods for ideological reasons, because we in the developing countries are in dire need of affordable technologies that would reduce cost of production, increase per unit area harvest and sustainably to help keep our farmers farming rather than they migrating to urban centers. If we can only package into the seed all the technologies needed to protect the crop from adversity thus ensuring a profitable harvest and make this seed available to the resource-poor farmer!

We have to agree that multinationals or the private sector are very efficient not only in developing but also in disseminating useful technologies. Now, can we develop a similar efficient non-profit system to take care of the problems the private sector will not address?

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 12:17 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Bt crops versus herbicide tolerant crops - environmental impacts

I am Ancha Srinivasan, an agricultural researcher working for the Regional Science Institute, Sapporo, Japan. In considering the appropriateness of biotechnologies to improve environmental quality in developing countries, I would like raise two points for attention with regard to Bt technology and herbicide tolerance. As everyone on this Conference is probably aware, the former technology is aimed at reducing insecticide applications, while the latter results in increased herbicide application over time.

1. Globally, more insecticides are used on cotton than any other crop. Global sales in insecticides amounted to about $12 billion in 1995 with cotton accounting for $1.8 billion. Over two-thirds of the world's cotton area treated annually with insecticides is in 3 developing countries (India, China and Pakistan), which are considered major markets by the international and domestic pesticide industry (Source: FAO Press release 99/32). Indiscriminate use of pesticides in these countries, however, led to enhanced resistance in insects, and damage to human health in many areas. Introducing Bt cotton in these countries is expected to reduce insecticide applications, improve farm profitability and reduce adverse environmental impact from insecticides.

However, recent studies show some adverse environmental impacts of Bt crops. For example, the December 2, 1999 Nature contains a brief communication entitled "Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn," by Saxena, Flores and Stotsky, researchers at New York University. The report shows that the activated Bt toxin is exuded through corn roots, binds with soil particles, becomes very stable -- persisting in the soil for 243 days, and remains active (i.e. toxic) to soil insects for very long periods. Hence, Bt toxin from root exudates will be augmented by toxin in residues from corn plant residues later in the fall and winter. There are also other concerns with Bt crops such as: emergence of Bt resistance in pink bollworms, possibility of damage to mammal immune system, kidneys, etc. (as Bt gene is now considered a form of lectin), and transfer of genes from genetically engineered varieties to other varieties of cotton and other crops. I am sure some of these concerns are unproved and/or exaggerated but I believe that development of some mechanisms to help developing countries decide on introduction and cultivation of these crops is essential.

2. Herbicide tolerance: If we look at the currently available products in the market world-wide, crops engineered for herbicide tolerance are predominant [See Section 3 of the Background Document to this conference: Of the 39.9 million hectares, 28.1 million (i.e. 71%) were modified for tolerance to a specific herbicide; 8.9 million hectares (22%) were modified to include a toxin-producing gene from a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, while 2.9 million hectares (7%) were planted with crops having both herbicide tolerance and insect resistance.....Moderator]. Are there any studies conducted on the total amount of chemicals (insecticides, herbicides) used on such crops as compared with conventional crops? If so, what are their effects on soil, air and water quality?

Can we say that only Bt crops are somewhat more appropriate than herbicide-tolerant crops for developing countries? What type of regulations would be necessary to reduce adverse environmental effects while improving food/fibre production? I seek the views of participants in this Conference.

Ancha Srinivasan, Ph.D.
Senior Researcher, Regional Science Institute
4-13, Kita 24 Nishi 2, Kita-ku, Sapporo 001-0024 JAPAN
Tel: +81-11-717-6660 Fax: +81-11-757-3610
E-mail: ancha@vtt.co.jp or ancha_s@yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 4:41 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Biotechnology by Africans for Africa

My name is Brenda Wingfield and I am an academic at the Dept. Genetics, University of Pretoria in South Africa. I have just joined the forum and read some of the discussions with interest. South Africa is considered by many to be a developing country and we are without doubt a "Sub-Saharan" country. While we suffer from all the budget limitations stated in earlier messages we have the capacity to carry out our own transgenic work and trials. Those of us involved in these trials believe that recombinant DNA technology has a vital role to play in providing developing countries with a sustainable agricultural base. We also realize that the needs of the developing world are often quite different from those of the so-called first world countries.

Due to these differences I have to agree that some of the genes that have already been inserted into some crops are likely to be of little benefit for the developing world. However, I do not see that this is a reason to "throw out the baby with the bath water". One of the contributors suggested that he had yet to be convinced that the benefits of GMO crops outweighed the risks. I think that there are a number of examples in the developing world where the benefits could far outweigh the risks. At a very basic level the difference between having food and starving has to be an extremely convincing one. Some of the recent studies currently being done in South Africa suggest that there is a significant increase in crop yield for "rural" farmers using Bt maize. (this is not my study but I do think that there is also a very real need for independant studies to address the REAL advantages of transgenic crops for rural farmers - studies done in developing countries by rural farmers - unfortunately there is not always money to do this with rural farmers - commercial farmers are another story).

This does not mean that genetic manipulation should be allowed to go ahead without the appropriate checks and balances. I think that genetic manipulation should be promoted in developing countries. However, we need to keep in mind that many of the traditional crops in these countries are not the ones that are the current focus of the multi- nationals. Rather than a moratorium on "GMOs" what should be promoted is the appropriate monitoring and evaluation for each circumstance. For example, crops that are likely to hybridize with native flora are different in different parts of the world. Different diseases are important in different countries/continents. For me one of the most frustrating aspects of this whole debate is the tendency of both the "anti" and the "pro" lobby to generalize. Each transgenic crop has its risks and benefits; each needs to be assessed separately. Some of these crops will help developing countries, others will not. We need the former.

While I firmly believe that genetic manipulation through recombinant technologies will be incredibly important to enable developing countries to feed their populations, I think we also need to realize that this is not the only technology which is needed. It is one of a suite of technologies that urgently needs to be implemented. The idea that genetic manipulation is going to provide the "magic bullet" for developing countries is a very dangerous one. We are dealing with a biological system, which is in a continuous flux. Whenever, a disease resistant cultivar is introduced to the system, natural selection will select for pests and pathogens that will overcome the resistance.

I would like to promote the responsible use of this very powerful technology. Currently there is little capacity for doing this kind of science in the developing world. As an African I would like to promote the use of this technology by Africans for Africa.

Brenda Wingfield
Brenda.Wingfield@fabi.up.ac.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 5:23 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Multinationals and the public perception of biotechnology

Researchers in the field of biotechnology are stymied at what they call "Technophobia," the public's skepticism of biotech. I believe that one reason is because there is confusion in the public mind, brought on by the past behavior of large multinational concerns. Many of the largest biotech companies today were not biotech companies just a few short years ago. They were large chemical companies, producers of agricultural chemicals worldwide.

For years, against public sentiment, they assured us of the wholesale safety of their herbicides, fungicides, pesticides. And when research concluded, beyong reasonable doubt, that some of those chemicals were harmful to health, these companies, in fact, simply turned their attention toward developing countries in order to aggressively market these very same outlawed chemicals.

Today, these same companies have now mysteriously "seen the light." One of the reasons for promoting GM crops, they say, is because of their "grave concern" for the harmful effects of agricultural chemicals. This is disingenious.

The public is unable to separate the work of biotechnologists and the economic thrust of the larger companies. I am not saying the public is justified in this point of view, but I am saying that it is not enough for researchers to say "we just cannot understand the public's phobia," and leave it at that. The first step toward dissolving the skepticism is to understand its roots. As much as researchers do not want to become embroiled in the politics and economics of biotechnology, public sentiment has woven the research of biotech with the marketing -- and the history -- of many companies funding it and marketing it.

Jeffrey Reel
Planetary Food Council, a division of One Peaceful World
Becket, Massachusetts, USA
jeffreyreel@aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 11:39 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Bt crops versus herbicide tolerant crops - environmental impacts

Several of the recent postings to this debate made reference to environmental impacts from GM crops. These comments make it sound as if GM crops are not properly tested before being introduced into the environment. From my own work with GM crops I know this to be untrue. As a matter of fact, if you could see the amount of studies which are provided to the regulatory agencies (FDA/EPA in US and different competent authorities in Europe/Africa), you would be more worried about the loss of trees for making the paper than about the environmental impact of GM crops.

Bt exudates in the soil. The study cited [by Ancha Srinivasan, 3 April] appeared in December in NATURE [Dec 2; 402 (6761) 480...Moderator] and was presented as a new and alarming finding. One of the authors of the study, Stotzky, has published extensiely before on proteins from Bt in the soil and its biodegradation [Go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=PubMed and search for Stotzky to get some references...Moderator] . If anybody is interested, I could cite at least 9 publications going back to 1992. So what is new? The only thing that is new, is that it will grab attention and secure research funds for Dr. Stotzky, thanks to the current GM debate. In the Nature publication, the authors conclude that they have no indication on how soil communities might be affected by root exudates from Bt crops.

It is a pity that the study fails to make a comparison between Bt crops and non-Bt but chemically sprayed crops. From many published studies we know that the half life of Bt proteins in the soil is shorter that that of synthetic pesticides.

Risk assessments.

Assessments of the risk to humans and the environment are part and parcel of the approval process. These principles are also laid down in the Biodiversity protocols. As the science and our knowledge increases, risk assessment rules and protocols will also evolve. For instance in Europe there is a lot of dicussion on post-release monitoring of GM crops.It is important that we build capacity in developing countries which will enable risk assessments to be done in a scientific manner.

Edo Lin, France
lin.edo@free.fr

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 11:45 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: cost vs. benefits / one step at a time

[Thanks to Werner Schenkel for this well-written contribution, which directly addresses the theme of this Conference .....Moderator]

I agree fully with Brenda Wingfield (3.Apr, Subject: Biotechnology by Africans for Africa). The key question in this e-mail conference is how appropriate each of the different biotechnologies, may be for the crop sector in developing countries and regions. There are still very few answers to this question but too much "general" discussion if biotechnology is benefitial or not.

I have got the feeling, that (almost) nobody can deny the potential benefits of at least some bio-technologies in some contexts.

Obviously not appropriate is biotechnology in every case were it competes for fundings with basic technologies. If there is for example a lack of basic seeds supply, extension service, and breeding it is not appropriate to spend the limited money available for biotechnology. If there is no systematic conventional breeding strategy for a crop it is not appropriate to spend money on marker assisted selection because this technology builds upon a systematic conventional breeding strategies. But marker technologies can be appropriate (cost effective) for evaluation of genetic diversity before new breeding efforts are started.

If there is a functional breeding system dealing with a special problem (e.g. Virus) it can be appropriate to use markers to incorporate a resistance gene from a wild progenitor. But it might be inappropriate to try to transfer that gene directly, because it is very costly to identify it and monitor the risk potential.

I believe the cost effectivity of any technology should be the determining factor in developing countries. If there is a easy and cheap way to achieve a goal, first use this befor applying the hightech expensive one!!! Unfortunatelly "governments" in developed countries, and often in developing as well, are more willing to fund cooperations in high biotechnology than in basic breeding and extension systems. This means developing countries have to honestly analyse their true demands and possibilities, and ask assistence for the next possible step, not two steps ahead.

I was working in a project with Indonesia with the aim to use marker assisted selection to improve stress tolerance in soybean. With time we realised, that there was no systematic breeding to base this on. This is a typical example were the technology was not appropriate, because the starting point was not considered correctly. Additionally I found out, that farmers were more lacking good quality seeds than new genotypes.

Finally I would like to state, that proper biotechnology is very sustainable, since improvments fixed in the genome are available over generations (of crops and farmers!!) and don�t require a yearly input. This means even the poorest farmer benefits from improved seeds without further input, as long as he is able to maintain them.

I don't see why a farmer becomes more dependent when obtaining improved seeds, if these are adapted to his needs. I agree that big international companies are probably not the right organsations to adapt crops to the needs of rural farmers, but it is not "biotechnology", or even the companies, that should be blamed for that.

Since I know these "multinationals" hold power I see, like others , the necessity of national laws and an international organization monitoring the dealing with GM crops. This is true for all regions of the world!!

Werner Schenkel
TU Muenchen-Weihenstephan
Institut fuer Pflanzenbau und Pflanzenzuechtung
Alte Akademie 12
D-85350 Freising, Germany
Tel.: xx49-8161-713749
Fax: xx49-8161-714511

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 11:49 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Philippines - GM Corn - field trial

As Dr. Lettington [27 March] has suggested, the Asian corn borer example (presented by Dr. Halos [24 March]) illustrates the temptation to take a black or white stance on an emotional, value-laden, and profoundly grey issue (such as the engineering of new life forms, and the appropriateness of selling them to resource-poor farmers).

The exchange has also brought up several other issues that I would like to raise, along with some general observations:

"Who should decide what technologies farmers may use?" Farmers are the foremost experts on their own local needs and conditions. Obvious, yes, but it has taken many years for national/international agricultural research organizations to recognize this fact. If Bt corn in the Philippines were merely an issue of the short-term farm-scale economics of a new technology, then by all means let the farmers make their own decisions. If the new technology is unprofitable, they will be the first to throw it out. Thus the question of financial feasibility of technologies (in the theme of this session) is easily answered.

However, with respect to the other questions in the theme, Bt GMOs are not so simple, and it therefore is only natural that Bt transgenics should be such a prominent topic here. Their most important feature is they will accelerate Bt resistance, and in tropical areas with multiple generations of pests per year, resistance will develop quickly. This fact is strongly supported by research, as pointed out by Dr. Lettington (for a good collection of resources pro and con, check out http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/sc/scp/out35_en.html). The loss of Bt as a nondisruptive, nontoxic, highly selective insectide is a major loss for farmers and for society.

Should Bt corn be available to Philippine farmers simply because it exists and they want it? I'll answer that by asking: Should DDT be available to farmers (any farmers) because it exists and they want it? Governments around the world now regulate pesticides (at least nominally) because of their recognized negative impacts on human and environmental health. By the same token, there are important issues surrounding GMOs that we have barely begun to explore, which in my opinion warrant the use of the precautionary principle. We simply haven't had time to explore them, and have lacked the institutional mechanism to restrict release in the face of market forces.

Judging the appropriateness of particular technologies (referring here primarily to GMOs) in developing countries requires detailed case-by-case analyses; in other words, as Dr. Kumar [31 March. Subject: Field Trials of GM crops in the developing world] has suggested, we need an international institutional mechanism that does not yet exist. This mechanism should include, as Mr. McGuire [31 March] has suggested, due attention to local needs through a "participatory, decentralized" process. The fact that "the devil is in the details" on these questions is indeed a major hindrance to the goals of this conference (although the debate has been lively and interesting).

To many people, the GMO debate is more a moral than scientific question, and we as scientists sometimes do not grant credence to moral (i.e., nonscientific) arguments. "With power comes responsibility," and the unprecedented power of some biotechnologies pose some of the most fundamental moral questions of our age. On the other hand, introducing unsubstantiated "scientific" statements in support of these moral convictions does a disservice to us all.

The walls between scientific specializations are highlighted in these discussions. The extreme level of specialized knowledge required to comprehend the risks and possiblities of a particular technology leads us to stake our opinions on incomplete information. As a result, there are schisms between the biochemists, the agricultural ecologists, and the development economists, for example. It is important to bring this up because it speaks to the overriding importance of interdisciplinary technology reviews proposed above.

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: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 11:51 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Multinationals and the public perception of biotechnology

This is to comment on the message by Jeffrey Reel [3 April].

I believe he is talking about US experience with multinationals who are key players of their economy.

In the Philippines, the multinationals are not aggressively pushing for GMOs so I hope that removes the issue of multinationals trying to ram GMOs down our throats. But they may have genes we could use and as one who have tried doing similar work here, I think it fair to pay for these genes because their isolation, identification and manipulation takes money. Whether multinationals will be fair in pricing these genes, whether they will make it available to help us develop the kind of crops our farmers need, is a matter of negotiations or whether they will like to develop the suitable varieties themselves, then that will be their decision. Monsanto provided free genes to small potato farmers in Mexico who want to retain their own varieties and they also helped train the scientists that did the work. So in this case, crop biodiversity is maintained and the local capacity for modern biotechnology was developed.

I think we should focus more on whether the current techniques of modern biotechnology and available products would be useful to us in developing countries and I would say, yes. If we can already avail of biotech products that would help us produce more food and make small farming profitable and sustainable, then we should do so. However, we need to develop the capacity to assess what is good for us and develop the technologies useful to us. We do need external assistance, though. All of these are our decisions and I do not think that the time will come for us to relinquish that decision-making process to outside groups and that includes these NGOs disseminating wrong information and half-truths so that we shall follow their philosophy. It is these groups using scary tactics and preventing us from making an informed decision that are not doing us in the developing countries any service and are trying to keep us ignorant forever. Many of the issues raised against GMOs by these groups are based on selected preliminary research and more extensive literature exists to the contrary.

I am currently preparing an annotated bibliography of the scientific literature on GMOs so I would appreciate fellow researchers to send me more materials. This is a voluntary work and I am not receiving any renumeration from any multinational.

Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D.
Bureau of Agricultural Research
Dept. of Agriculture, Philippines
e-mail: shalos@bar.da.gov.ph; halos@mozcom.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 11:53 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: plant breeding and biotech and farmers breeding

I am Julien Berthaud. I have been interested in plant genetic resources for a long time. I belong to a French public research institute (IRD) and I work at CIMMYT in a joint project CIMMYT/IRD on the dynamics of maize genetic diversity in the farmers fields in Mexico.

When we consider what plant biotechnology can do to help poor farmers we usually think of the creation of new and more efficient plant varieties and implicitely consider that these new varieties will find their way to these poor farmers and will be used by them as is. However, one result of studies of farmers management of plant varieties is that their varieties are managed dynamically and will genetically change (evolve) over time. It is a part of the system and can be seen very positively. That means that whenever farmers get new varieties (formal or unformal or biotech or participatory breeding) they will manage these new varieties as the former ones, (i.e. dynamically) and transform or adapt them to their (new) needs. So any effective breeding work would contemplate as a result not only the release of the variety but its dynamical adoption. New biotechnologically-improved varieties will have to go through the same path. When we will breed new varieties using these biotech tools we should keep in mind the way these varieties will be used at the farm level, i.e. how these new seeds will be distributed, how they will reach the farmers and be maintained with their engineered potential in these farms we are interested in.

Biotech is just a perfect tool in a very industrialised agricultural system, where breeding and production are two very separate activities and the agricultural product goes to the market. In others systems, very often called traditional agricultural systems, it is not sure that biotech will be the only and perfect tool. So, we should try to identify all the limiting factors of plant production and see which ones can be overcome by breeding and which one can be overcome by biotech breeding, and those that are not related to breeding. Currently, agrobiotech has only addressed some simple problems in very defined geographical areas whith a strong technified agriculture. To move from this to the improvement of plants for poor farmers will require using innovative strategies, still to be defined and which could be discussed in this Conference.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 12:07 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Philippines - GM Corn - field trial

I must take issue with Chris Geiger's statement [4 April] that an advanced ("extreme") level of specialized knowledge is a requirement for understanding the risks of a new technology ['The extreme level of specialized knowledge required to comprehend the risks and possiblities of a particular technology leads us to stake our opinions on incomplete information'..Moderator]. You don't have to be a chicken to judge the quality of an egg. Moreover, in a democracy there can be no deference to experts in public policy making and ethics. These belong to the realm of democratic decision making, whether scientists like it or not. The public has a right to demand clear demonstration of benefit, need and benignity. Do scientists have a problem with that? If they can't stand the heat,they should get out of the kitchen.

You also have to be an honest scientist in order to acknowledge the uncertainties and potential risks of a largely untested technology. One Monsanto-funded study does not merit a finding of safety for biotechnology. Yet scientists decry Arpad Pusztai's rat/potato study as being only one study. There can be no double standard here.

Nor do short-term crop plantings, funded or carried out by pro-biotech interests, carry weight, especially when those that have adverse findings are ignored or downplayed.

Some comments on this Conference have deplored what they perceive as peripheral or unrelated discussions. I wish to take issue with this belief. Why? Because while there is a body of literature - based mostly on speculation or modelling and less on empirical evidence - that is mainly hypothetical at this point, there is an even larger body of "unknowns", of unanswered questions. Such information voids are no more speculative than the beliefs of scientists about the potential benefits of biotechnology. Scientists do not have a monopoly on either knowledge or comprehension of the lack of knowledge. If anything, biotech scientists should be taking their cue from the sceptics and pursuing the concerns of non-scientists.

Science involves more than just dredging up evidence to support an a priori hypothesis. It also requires an impartiality that recognizes shortcomings and mistakes, and which actively SEEKS ways of proving itself wrong. This is what peer review is about: not cheerleading for one's profession but putting it to the acid test of deliberately seeking information to prove one's hypothesis wrong. Konrad Lorenz once said that the first thing he did upon rising in the morning was to discard a pet hypothesis.

I initially posted my concerns in a memo questioning the background document for this forum, but the forum manager refused to post it as being irrelevant [A clarification: the message was not posted because it was not of direct relevance to the theme of Conference 1. This aspect of "relevance" was also emphasised at the end of section 4 of the Background Document to the conference...Moderator]. The discussion has only proven him wrong and me right. If the FAO wanted a forum that unquestioningly accepted the need for and inevitability of biotechnology in agriculture, they should have invited "experts" only, who agreed with their proposition that only the technical details of biotechnology are worthy of discussion.

Comments from sceptical scientists in this forum clearly demonstrate that the science is inseparable from politics, economics and social policy.

The doubts of non-scientists are specifically based on the forementioned unknowns. Surely the FAO is not saying that all possible questions about biotech have been answered, that the social, ethical and economic implications of applying biotech are not relevant, and that even if they are, only scientists can address them. Surely they have not appointed scientists to be policy makers in non-scientific areas? Or have they?

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

[Just to re-emphasise the aspects/focus of Conference 1, we reproduce Section 4 from the Background Document below.....Moderator]

4. Certain Factors that Should Be Considered in the Discussion:

The key question in this e-mail conference is how appropriate each of the different biotechnologies, mentioned previously in this document, may be for the crop sector in developing countries and regions.

The question of appropriateness should consider the following elements

- The factors determining or influencing the appropriateness of the different biotechnologies e.g. their environmental impact; their impact on human health; the status with respect to intellectual property rights; the status with respect to biosafety regulations and controls; the degree of access to the biotechnologies; the level of capacity-building or resources required to use them; their financial cost; their impact on food production and food security;

- The relative costs (financial, social, political or otherwise) of the biotechnologies versus the relative benefits (productivity, food security or otherwise);

- Whether they are more (or less) appropriate than existing conventional methods in the crop sector for food production and agriculture, given the realities of life in developing countries;

- Whether some of the biotechnologies are more (or less) appropriate than others;

- Whether some biotechnologies are more (or less) suited to certain regions in the developing world than others.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 9:53 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Re: Philippines - GM Corn - field trial

Lorna Salzman [5 April] has written an impassioned plea that I think rather accurately reflects many "non- scientist" views. As scientists and biotechnologists we are guilty for allowing such a lack of understanding of science to have evolved. I do not think there is any point in tackling each point she made. Many of them are made in my opinion from a lack of understanding of the process of science and publication. She implies that the scientist's views that genetic manipulation is safe are based on very few studies. This is not accurate, but has science done enough to inform the public about this? She implies that only honest scientists would admit that there are risks. I don't know anyone in biology who does not think there are risks. Biology is based on probabilities; any result with a 95% probability of being correct is accepted. However, what about the other 5%? I would consider all the biologists I know as honest. I do not see how we can practice science with a 100% probability, nor without 100% honesty.

In a perfect world there would be no risks, but then human beings would also be living in perfect harmony with nature. Which we are obviously not. Everything we do has some affect on our environment. Transgenic crops responsibility regulated and monitored pose less threat to the biodiversity in developing countries than allowing things to carry on as they are. It is essential that more food is produced on the same or less land. If this cannot be achieved then more and more of our natural ecosystems will be put to use as agricultural land. This is not fantasy this is fact. Pests and diseases cause significant losses to Agriculture in developing countries. Genes such as the Bt gene, which is currently available, offer a real solution. Other genes yet to be identified or in the "testing" process may offer similar solutions in the future.

A fact that is commonly ignored is that "Scientists" are people too. We live in the same world as everyone else and we are as concerned as everyone else is. In fact biologists have greater reason to be concerned about transgenic plants than the man in the street. We have an idea of what can go wrong and we also know all too well about the consequences of introducing alien plants into a "virgin" ecosystem. What scientists are not good at is explaining what they do and why they do it to the lay public. Science is not a mystery to the layman because it is a "secret" which we are trying to hide. The system in which we operate does not encourage communication with anyone other than scientists. It is sometimes not easy to explain things without making gross generalisations. The scientific background of most journalists is very meagre. The result is a very basic lack of communication between the public and most scientists.

In developing countries, scientists face an even bigger challenge to try to educate the public. Educating the end users of any biotechnology is essential. The public must be able to make informed decisions. Ignorance is not "Bliss". This education must be part of any biotechnology programme.

Brenda Wingfield
Dept. Genetics
University of Pretoria
Phone +27 12 420 3946
Fax +27 12 420 3947
Brenda.Wingfield@fabi.up.ac.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 9:55 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Developing Countries Desire for GMO Tech.

One of my professors recently suggested that, with the notable exception of the U.S., there is an inverse relationship between the wealth of a nation and its farmers' (and pertinent agricultural authority's) desire to utilize GMO agrotechnology. This sentiment correlates with an earlier contributor's clever maxim "It's hard to be green when you're in the red."

I was wondering if Conference contributors representing developing countries believe these sentiments to be generally true.

Additionally, I am interested in how these same contributors feel about the development of so-called "terminator" gene technology, which, although compelling farmers to re-purchase new seed stock year after year, might enable GMO seed producers to utilize a system of price discrimination for developing countries that would make the technology more affordable therein. (The idea being that terminator technology would prevent trans-national shipping of the technology in subsequent seasons, allowing the manufacturer to charge different prices in different jurisdictions, according to the market's ability to pay; also, the manufacturer's being able to charge less up-front for the seed, since it does not have to worry about making several years' worth of profit in one sale). Or perhaps it ['terminator' gene technology I presume ...Moderator] would so interfere with farmers' capacity to tailor crops to the particular environment as to render it an overall negative.

Jay Smith
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, Massachusetts
jpsmith@law.harvard.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 9:57 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: cost vs. benefits / one step at a time

I would like to compliment Werner Schenkel on his excellent post of April 4 .

He has raised one point though that begs an answer. Mr. Schenkel writes: "I don't see why a farmer becomes more dependent when obtaining improved seeds, if these are adapted to his needs." I believe there is the possibility (but not inevitability) of just the opposite occurring.

The main problem, and the present inertia, is toward increased expense and dependence for the farmer upon outside sources for seed. It lies in the basic patenting of traits. Patents and similar legal mechanisms are giving companies control over farmers. For example. as a way of securing their patent rights, biotech companies are requiring farmers to sign "seed contracts" when they purchase transgenic seeds. Some contracts even stipulate what brand of pesticides the farmer must use on the crop. (Until recently, patent rights governing the use of commercial seed were relatively limited, including farmers reserving the right to save seed for planting the following year. Today, the purchaser is paying for one-time use of the germplasm. Monsanto has already filed 300 lawsuits against farmers for replanting proprietary seed.)

In the developing world, approximately 1.4 billion farmers rely almost exclusively on seed saving for their planting needs. The poorer farmers, of course, cannot yet afford transgenic seed, but this conference points toward that day when they will be offered such technology. I point toward that same day, when their costs rise, dependence increases, and choices diminish in regard to seed acquisition.

Biotech companies say their right to own genes is essential for driving their industry, and this is, of course, true. Novartis was recently awarded a patent for a gene technology that would tie a whole set of plant development processes, including germination, flowering and fruit ripening to externally applied chemicals, perhaps (and most likely) to Novartis' own proprietary chemicals. Agracetus has filed a patent that would cover ALL transgenic cotton and soybeans.

And there is the issue of patent INFRINGEMENT that comes with this. Examples include is the yellow bean, a staple in Mexico for generations. In 1999, the president of the company PODNERS brought back from Mexico samples of these beans, cultivated them and won a patent for what the company now calls the Enola bean. They are now suing two Mexican companies that export the yellow bean into the US for patent infringement. (The World Trade Organization's Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) gives corporations the ability to patent traditional crops, as well as medicinal plants.); two varieties of chickpea and the Mexican guaje tree; in 1997, RiceTec Inc., won a patent for basmati rice, threatening India's US$425 million in basmati exports. India is currently suing the company. (A small Indian village, Pattuvan, has declared absolute ownership of all genetic materials growing in its jurisdiction.) And the industry is consolidating. Of the 56 transgenic products approved for commercial planting in 1998, 33 belonged to just four corporations (Monsanto, Aventis, Novartis and DuPont).

Biotechnology researchers express a reluctance to get embroiled with the politics and economics of their specialty. But flowing like an undercurrent beneath this conference is the reality that economic imperatives will govern who benefits from the fruits of your research. With increasing consolidation, and increased investment in the industry, biotech will focus on large secured markets within the developed and developing countries. That is, the focus of biotech in developing countries will be on those larger-scale farms growing food for export, not subsistance farmers. It simply wouldn't pay.

Fair and affordable access to GM seed will require more than well-intentioned monitoring by independent organizations. If and when biotech foods prove safe and effective, it will require wholesale subsidizing in developing countries.

Jeffrey Reel
jeffreyreel@aol.com
Planetary Food Council, a division of One Peaceful World
Becket, MA, USA

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 4:25 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Philippines - GM Corn - field trial

Lorna Salzman [5 April] has misunderstood my 4 April statement about the risks of some new biotechnologies ['the extreme level of specialized knowledge required to comprehend the risks and possibilities of a particular technology leads us to stake our opinions on incomplete information.']. This is a pity because I think she actually agrees with me.

My point was NOT that scientists should make all of society's decisions. That's a chilling thought. My point is that a certain "democracy of scientists" is required to deliver reliable risk assessments on technologies so complex and profound as GMOs. Communication within such a "democracy" is hampered by the very narrow specializations we pursue, and is sidetracked by the push of corporate money. When we eventually develop an appropriate institutional watchdog, its evaluations should then be the BASIS for truly democratic decisions by the populations at large, to allow for the many ethical, moral, and political facets of the GMO question.

In the meantime, as so many contributors have noted, creating GMOs and releasing them into the environment is a complex (yet promising) operation on several fronts that we don't fully understand. As such:
--the research must continue, and
--the precautionary principle must apply.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 4:32 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health

Dr. Detlef Bartsch [31 March] wrote: "... the case of gene technology there is substantial evidence for positive environmental effects, with decreased pesticide use and healthier food."

I would appreciate it if Dr. Bartsch would elaborate on these points, and kindly lead me to the substantail evidence.

1. "positive environmental effects"
2. "healthier food"

Specifically, the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis/insecticide Bt: Select GM crops now "produce" this lethal insecticide. Do you consider it completely safe to ingest this plant and, if so, why?

Jeffrey Reel
jeffreyreel@aol.com
Planetary Food Council, a division of One Peaceful World
Becket, MA, USA

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 4:35 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Concerns about GM food crops

My concerns regarding the use of biotech in the growing of GM food crops in developing countries are:

- Impairment of Immune Function: the autoimmune disease SLE, rheumatoid arthritis, and immune complex glomerulonephritis may be enhanced from exposure to foreign DNA fragments and nucleoproteins introduced by GM foods S. Martin, "Immunological Reactions to DNA and RNA," PSRAST, July 2, 1999).
- Evidence that BGH Increases Risk of Cancer: (J.L. Outwater et al., "Dairy Products and Breast Cancer: The IGF-1, Estrogen, and BGH Hypothesis," Medical Hypotheses 48:453-61, 1997.)
- Increased Risk of Heart Disease: (See "Alterations in Clinically Important Phytoestrogens in Genetically Modified Herbicide-tolerant Soybeans," Journal of Medicinal Foods 1:4, 1999.)
- Lethal Food Supplements: a genetically engineered form of L-tryptophan used to treat people with EMS produced toxic contaminants, killing 37 people and permanently disabling 1,500 (A.N., Mayeno: "EMS and Tryptophan Production," Tibtech 12:346-52, 1994).
- Horizontal Transfer of Transgenic DNA: Bacteria in the mouth and pharynx can take up and express transgenic DNA, including antibiotic resistance marker genes. (D.K. Mercer et al., "Fate of Free DNA and Transformation of the Oral Bacterium Streptococcus Gordonii DL1 by Plasmid DNA in Human Saliva," Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 65:6-10, 1999.)
- Emergence of New Viral Diseases
- Decline of Birds and other Wildlife, including Insects and Fish. (K. Harding, "The Potential for Horizontal Gene Transfer within the Environment," Agro Food Ind. Hi-Tech, 7:31-35, 1998).
- Contamination of Organic and Conventional Crops (already well-established)
- Contamination of Wild Plants (T. Mikkelsen et al., "The Risk of Crop Transgene Spread," Nature 380:31, 1996).
- Decline in Soil Fertility.
- Bt May Remain Active: Genetically altered Bt toxin does not break down as rapidly in some soils at natural Bt. Further, the "naked" DNA remaining in decaying cells in the soil may remain biologically active for thousands of years, which can be eaten by mice, and inherited by offspring or eliminated in feces and eaten by other wildlife. (C. Crecchio and g. Stotzky, "Insecticidal Actvitiy and Biodegradation of the Toxin from Bt Subsp. Kurstaki Bound to Humic Acids from Soil," Soil Biology and Chemistry 30:463-70, 1998).
- Spread of New Viruses
- Emergence of Disease-Resistant Insects (B.E. Tabashnik et al., "One Gene in Diamondback Moth Confers Resistance to Four Bacillus thuringiensis Toxins," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94:1640, 1997).
- Increased Allergic Reactions and Lung Problems (based on 1996 study, University of Nebraska re: modified rapeseed and soybean oils and the use of genes from brazil nuts).
- Altered Pollen Affecting the Lungs: risk assessment so far has ignored the impact of GM pollen in this regard.
- Introduction of Foreign Proteins in the Body.
- Altered or Reduced Nutritive Value: Laboratory studies in Scotland show 20% less protein in GM potatoes. New protein products may alter the bioavailability of essential nutrients.
- Damage to Stomach, Intestines, Blood: I have referred earlier to a study in Lancet.
- Emergence of Drug-Resistant Bacteria
- Denial of Freedom of Choice
- Patenting of Once-Traditional Seeds and Denial of Traditional Communities from Freely Planting.

Jeffrey Reel
jeffreyreel@aol.com
Planetary Food Council, a division of One Peaceful World
Becket, MA, USA

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 4:39 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Developing Countries Desire for GMO Tech.

This is Peter Mwangi from Kenya, an Msc. student in Theoretical Ecology at Lund University, Sweden. My research is geared toward risk assessment of transgenics.

In response to a contribution [6 April] by Jay Smith about 'terminator' gene compelling farmers to re-purchase new seeds. In Kenya for example small scale holders accounts for 75% of agricultural produce. For various socio-economic reasons including lack of purchasing power most of these farmers sows seeds from the previous harvest (or borrow seeds from their neighbours or friends) especially if production is high. As a result of gene segregation the harvest is usually very poor especially if the seeds are from an improved hybrid variety.

There are few or none frontline extension staff to advise these farmers and removal of agricultural subsidies has worsened the situation. The farmers are not able to buy new seeds and other inputs every season so they revert to UNimproved varieties that have relatively stable seasonal production. Varieties that require new seeds every season might not succeed in such situation and therefore plant breeders and biotechnologists should bear this in mind when improving crops.

You can think what would happen when such farmers sow 'terminated' seeds, we can learn from results of sowing hybrids seeds. The appropriate technology should suit their systems.

In a study by Dr. Njoka J.T et.al (1999) for National Council of Churches of Kenya (NCCK), Food Security, Agriculture and Trade 'The Kenyan Case Study of the Impacts of the Agricultural Sector Reforms on Food Security' (which I was partly involved in) it showed that 74% of the small scale farmers do not use fertilizers or apply sub-optimal doses. These farmers are poor and it will not be possible for them to purchase new seed every season?

The risk of the escape of terminator genes into the wild also brings a controversy between ecologists and bioengineers. Regarding the 'inverse relationship between the wealth of a nation and its farmers' I don't think it is fair to compare large-scale farmers (characteristic of US) who are engaged in processing their products with small-scale farmers (characteristic of developing countries).

Other than increasing production, an appropriate and sustainable biotechnology should go hand in hand with distribution of the farm produce. In Kenya for example, a lot of milk and maize goes to waste during bumper harvest in some areas. Then biotech techniques to improve shelf life of farm produce is the most appropriate technology, in this areas where seasons are not definite such that pre harvest losses can be reduced in such times when it rains before the crops are ready for harvest though mature.

To conclude, I would urge contributors to not put further emphasis on GM since it is only one of biotechnology technique and it seem to have dominated the current debate. It is also (I stand to be corrected) the technique that is associated with most risks, especially when it involve gene transfer between genera or higher orders.

Peter Mwangi
Theoretical Ecology
Lund University, Sweden
Phone +46 (0)70 273 9027
peter.mwangi.507@student.lu.se

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 1:47 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health

My name is Tim Roberts. I am a UK patent lawyer, and cannot claim to be an expert in the relevant biotechnology sciences.

However, even limited knowledge is sufficient to query some of the positions taken in the debate. Mr Reel [7 April] asks if (and why) it should be considered " completely safe" to ingest GM crops that produce the "lethal insecticide" BT. Two points on this:

Firstly, it is not "completely safe" to ingest anything. As Paracelsus said "The dose makes the poison". Even pure water is toxic if consumed in sufficiently large quantities. To eat anything is to take a risk - usually quite small. These risks are unavoidable - unless one starves.

Secondly, while it may be strictly correct to call BT a 'lethal insecticide", it is extremely misleading. It is lethal to caterpillars. To humans it is remarkably safe (unlike many conventional insecticides, for example most organophosphorus compounds).

Edible GM plants are tested in comparison with their unmodified counterparts, and in general no relevant differences in food quality are detected. This is the concept of "substantial equivalence". The GM plants are not guaranteed to be 'completely safe', any more than the corresponding unmodified plants. In fact, they may sometimes be slightly safer than unmodified plants, for example where the unmodified plants have been treated with toxic chemical insecticides, or where the unmodified plants have not been protected at all against insect attack (which can lead to the presence of dangerous fungal pathogens).

I'd like to make a more general point. GM technology is extremely powerful. It is right to be concerned about the problems it may cause. Everyone agrees caution is essential - we differ only about how much. GM will not solve all difficulties. Some difficulties would be better tackled in other ways. However, the idea that the technology has no safe use is literally incredible. All technologies (from fire on) are tools, that can be used for good or for ill. The task in every case is to maximise the good and avoid the ill.

Tim Roberts
twr@compuserve.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 5:35 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Concerns about GM food crops

Jeffrey Reel's 7th April contribution will be more balanced if he make a follow up with the other side of the coin.

Since GM is a growing biotechnology developing countries should not be discouraged from benefiting from the technology. If anything they (developing countries) stand a better chance to learn from the mistakes of the developed.

Additionally, most of the traits modified in crops in developed countries would not boost production of small scale holders in developing eg herbicide tolerance. Instead traits that confer tolerance to abiotic stresses like high temperatures and drought are of priority in developing countries.

Peter Mwangi,
Lund University, Sweden
peter.mwangi.507@student.lu.se

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 5:40 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health

Re BT ingestion: Tim Roberts [10 April] says BT is "remarkably safe" for humans. Perhaps with regard to skin contact, but do you have evidence that INGESTION of Bt for humans is safe? If so, could you cite such studies? (which probably dont exist since they would be unethical). I am amazed that this argument is being used without the benefit of demonstrable proof.

You compare the "safety" of GM plants as better than that of pesticide-ridden plants, as if these were the only two alternatives. If you had read this forum more thoroughly, you would understand that the alternative of farming using neither pesticides nor GM plants is a viable option, and in fact has proven in this country [USA] to be economically and ecologically feasible. That it is more labor intensive is a fact but this makes it all the more appropriate for decentralized agrarian countries.

Lorna Salzman, USA
718-522-0253; 631-653-3387
lsalzman@aba.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 5:43 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health

As requested by Jeffrey Reel [7 April], I would like to give background information to the 'substantial evidence for positive environmental effects, with decreased pesticide use and healthier food':

1. Healthier food with less mycotoxins by Bt corn:
http://www.scisoc.org/feature/BtCorn/Top.html

2. Positive environmental effects by potentially less amount of pesticides used: http://www.econ.ag.gov/whatsnew/issues/gmo/

You also may want to ask Prof. Ingo Potrykus about his contributions to sustained food security in developing countries through genetic engineering with rice, wheat, cassava and Sorghum.(e.g. vitamin A rice).

Please note that GM crops are not safe or unsafe per se. It depends case-by-case. I really want to make the point that it is hard to believe dogmatic anti- and pro GM fundamentalists on both sides of the debate.

Additionally, there is an interesting review article available: Beever, D.E. & Kemp, C.F. (2000) Safety issues associated with the DNA in animal feed derived from genetically modified crops. A review of scientific and regulatory procedures. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews Series B: Livestock Feeds and Feeding Vol 70 (3), pp. 175-182. The article's conclusion: "Additionally there is a growing body of scientifically valid information available that indicates no significant risk associated with the consumption of DNA or the resulting proteins from the GM crops that are registered in any of these countries. Based on the safety analyses required for each crop, consumption of milk, meat and eggs produced from animals fed GM crops should be considered to be as safe as traditional practices."

Detlef Bartsch
Biology V (Ecology, Ecotoxicology, Ecochemistry)
Aachen University of Technology RWTH
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)

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 5:47 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Concerns about GM food crops

Jeffrey Reel in his E-mail [7 April] quotes a number of different articles in which potential problems are associated with genetically modified crops. I have not read all the articles that he quotes but I think we need in response to his very real concerns to focus on how the scientific world actually works since there seems quite often to be a lack of understanding in this respect.

To focus on one particular example which Jeffrey Reel quotes: "Increased Allergic Reactions and Lung Problems (based on 1996 study, University of Nebraska re: modified rapeseed and soybean oils and the use of genes from brazil nuts)." This very important study was an extremely crucial one and to me goes a long way in illustrating that SCIENCE WORKS. Ironically it is also a study which is quoted very often as an example of why we should not plant Genetically modified crops. The crux of the matter here is that this study was a study on crops that were undergoing trials and significant testing. As a result of this study, crops containing Brazil nut genes were NOT released. That is, as a result of this study, the GM crops used in the study were found to be unacceptable and therefore not commercialised.

This study is therefore, an example of how science works and works for the safety of the consumer, crops are tested and then the results are published. Sometimes the results may indicate that there are problems, these problems need to be investigated further before a crop containing a foreign gene may be released. The Brazil nut genes used in this study are therefore, an example of genes that should most probably not be used. This study is also an example of how scientists did their job properly and tested the crop before it was released. This study is not an example of why genetic modification is potentially dangerous. To give an analogy, if a car manufacturer comes up with a new tyre, which is then tested and found to be faulty. The tyre is not commercialised but it does not mean that new tyres should not be developed.

A second example is "Emergence of Drug-Resistant Bacteria". This is another example of genes that were identified as problematic. The early crops that were engineered contained drug resistance genes. In response to this problem the next generation of genetically modified crops do not contain bacterial drug resistant genes. Thus this is again a problem that was identified and the scientific community have investigated the concerns and now developed crops that no longer have these genes. Certainly in South Africa no crops have been (nor will be) released which contain bacterial antibiotic resistance genes. Again I fail to understand why this is cited as an example why genetically modified crops are a potential danger to developing countries.

In an earlier E-mail [3 April. Subject: Biotechnology by Africans for Africa] I stressed the fact that we must be very careful not to lump all "genetically modified" crops together. Each crop needs careful evaluation. Some will "fail" the evaluation test while others will not.

In his E-mail Jeffrey Reel gives many more quotes from publications. I do not think that this is the Conference to discuss these. I would suggest that any responsible research group in the area of plant biotechnology would be able to do this with him on a point by point basis. We have been asked to restrict our E-mails in this forum to 600 words and I'm at my limit.

Brenda Wingfield
University of Pretoria
South Africa
Brenda.Wingfield@fabi.up.ac.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 10:30 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Kenya / Farmers

Below are extracts from an article in one of Kenyan daily newspapers 11 April.

Biotechnology: New danger or solution to Africa's food deficit?

"An entire country faces famine. The government calls out for food relief to help stem the death and starvation across. The relief food that is donated is genetically-modified. The government knows this. Should it accept the food or not? Or is this really a rhetorical question?"

"This technology will help fight hunger in Kenya," states agriculture economist Gem Argwings-Kodhek. A senior research fellow at Egerton University's Tegemeo Institute, he says: "The cost of production of commodities will decrease and help protect plants against pests." He sums it up as "High production for little seed input".

"If the whole debate is really just about more people having more food to eat in Africa, in general, and Kenya, in particular, has anybody asked the farmer why she (for, in most cases, it is a she) or he generally produce less and less each year? Why is she or he experiencing famine? The answers to these questions may be surprising."

The last part highlights an important issue, i.e. farmers should be involved in biotechnology development so that their needs are addressed.

Peter Mwangi
Lund University, Sweden
peter.mwangi.507@student.lu.se

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 10:33 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health

Ms Salzman [10 April] makes a sound point about the labor-intensive nature of traditional cultural practices. People need work. However, increasingly people migrate to cities. They will not be able to farm there - and it is doubtful if traditional farming practices would enable them to be fed there. Another objection is that traditional cultural practices produce less per hectare and thus put greater pressure on the wild environment. Land is increasingly scarce. The more land used for farming, the less rainforest, and the greater the pressure on biodiversity.

In contrast, what she says about BT ingestion is unconvincing. The evidence for the safety of BT is derived from experiments on animals other than humans. However, if I've got it right (if not, please correct me) we understand why BT is not toxic to animals: it is because their digestive systems are fundamentally different from those of insects. It is thus possible to predict with confidence that BT will also be safe to human beings, because they are much more closely related to animals than to insects.

Tim Roberts, UK
twr@compuserve.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 10:47 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Molecular markers - Examples from developing countries?

[Thanks to Dr. Srinivasan for a good contribution which raises the subject of the appropriateness of marker-based technologies in developing countries. Only 5 previous messages have referred to marker-technologies (Robert Lettington, 24/3 ; Mark Guiltinan 24/3 ; Danladi Dada Kuta 30/3 ; Edo Lin 30/3 and Werner Schenkel 4/4.......Moderator]

As suggested by the Forum Administrator, I wish to raise a query on the impact of molecular markers in development of genotypes useful for developing countries. It is an undeniable fact that molecular marker-based technology is effective for identifying and mapping quantitative trait loci (QTLs) in many crops. However, the impact of marker-based QTL analysis on the development of new genotypes with improved quantitative traits has been less than satisfactory, barring a few examples in tomato and maize. If my perceptions are wrong, I would appreciate if participants of this conference can identify a few examples of genotypes that have been developed using marker-based QTL analysis especially in crops of importance to developing countries. Tanksley and Nelson (1996) pointed out two reasons for such a low impact:

1. The discovery of QTLs and variety development are two separate processes.
2. Most breeding-related QTL studies have been targeted toward the genetic manipulation of quantitative traits in elite germplasm. Further, at least in some crops, there is a significant interaction of QTLs with environments. Are there other reasons and if so, can we do something about it?

A researcher from Ghana recently expressed interested in utilizing RFLP technology for differentiating the sex of nutmeg seedlings. Because Nutmeg is a dioecious species, farmers are unable to determine sex until flowering, which takes about 6-8 years. Likewise, a few other researchers are interested in employing this technology in tropical fruit crops. It would be good if someone on this conference can list out successful examples of employing marker-based technologies in resolving problems that have been difficult with conventional techniques.

Reference: Tanksley, S.D. and Nelson, J.C. 1996. Advanced backcross QTL analysis: a method for the simultaneous discovery and transfer of valuable QTLs from unadapted germplasm into elite breeding lines. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 92:191-203.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 1:48 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Molecular markers - Examples from developing countries?

We are working on 2 sweetpotato projects together with Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP), Lima, Peru using marker technology.

One is to characterise the world population using gene bank and regional samples. Already RAPDs could reveal improved insight in global dispersal routes, other marker types are now used to build a system for tracking germplasm bank duplicates and assessing provenance.

The second project is to set up molecular linkages with drought tolerance and other parameters. We consider this as necessary basic work to improve and enhance breeding. Transformation technology is another option. The two approaches are complementary rather than interchangeable.

Josef Schmidt
Head, Biotechnology Department
Austrian Research Center Seibersdorf
A-2444 Seibersdorf, Austria
phone: +43 2254 780 - 3519
fax: +43 2254 780 -3653
email: josef.schmidt@arcs.ac.at

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 1:50 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Molecular markers - Examples from developing countries?

[Thanks to Edo Lin for comments and useful references below....Moderator]

I think that Dr. Srinivasan makes some excellent points. However, it also must be borne in mind that the science underlying QTL mapping is still relatively new and a lot of developments are underway. It may be useful to include some links here :

QTL Mapping Resource Page
http://www.informatics.jax.org/~cjb/qtldb/qtl_home.html
QTL in cereals
http://wheat.pw.usda.gov/ggpages/maps.html
Wild species genes in rice
http://www.news.cornell.edu/science/Aug97/WildRice.bpf.html

In addition to germplasm improvement, QTL and other mapping tools provide valuable contributions to taxonomists which is important in the context of the Biodiversity protocol and the sustainable conservation of Plant Genetic resources.

See, for example, the Experimental Taxonomy page at
http://www.ipk-gatersleben.de/

I am not a specialist on QTL and mapping but I have found references to the following crops : maize, rice, wheat, barley, oats, onions, sugarcane, tomatoes, beans (Phaseolus vigna), pawpaw and rye.

Also many references to tree species but that is a subject for the second conference.

Edo Lin,
France

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 4:53 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health

[Three responses (A, B, C) to Mr. Robert's message of 12 April....Moderator]

A)
Concerning paragraph 2: you are right, but the way you say it is not totally correct.
1) Insects are animals, and the Bt toxin has been tested for inocuity on mice, which are mammals, like us. Bt toxin is not toxic for mammals because their digestive systems are diferent than insect ones.

2) Digestive system of most mamals include a stomach with a low pH (pH=2 in human stomach) that denature most of the proteins, including Bt toxins. Denaturing does not mean destroy, but mean destroy specific activity related with structure. I would like to make a comparison with a pullover: if one completely un-ravels it, it is not destroyed (you always have the same amount of wool) but it has lost its capacity to protect you from cold that was correlated with the structure. Bt toxin activity does not exist anymore if it is denaturated.

3) Bt toxin's activity is to prevent chitin anabolism. Chitin is the major constituant of insect's exoskeleton that cover all the skin, including digestive system. Because chitin anabolism is prevented, the insect's digestive system loses it's stability and destroys itself. Humans and mamals do not anabolise (i.e. make) chitin. Because of this, the activity of Bt toxin cannot be harmful to them. That does not mean that Bt toxin "must" be safe, that mean that eventual nocivity (that finally does not exist) is not directly related to principal activity. Theorically, allergies could exist, or it is not a priori totally impossible that Bt toxin blocks another anabolic pathway. As a conclusion, as you said, Bt toxin has been tested and proved not to be toxic on mice. Numerous humans ate it, and finally no allergies was detected.

Romain Berruyer, France
Ph-D student, berruyer@cirad.fr

B)
1) Concerning labor-intensive agriculture and migration to cities.

There have been occassional postings throughout this conference expressing the need to support labor-intensive agriculture in those areas where migration is not an issue. Adequately feeding and supporting people on such a large scale in developing nations willl require regional solutions. Ms. Salzman's point is well taken in that respect.

2) Concerning "The more land used for farming, the less rainforest...":

It is necessary to introduce the consumption patterns of people in developing nations to address this concern. Any displacement of rainforests for agricultural land is strictly to support the cattle-exporting businesses to developed nations. The loss of rainforest is due chiefly to feed cattle, not people, and people in developing countries do not reap the benefits of this land-intensive agriculture.

Jeffrey Reel
jeffreyreel@aol.com
Planetary Food Council, a division of One Peaceful World
Becket, MA, USA

C)
Mr. Roberts is fundamentally correct that expanded farming means less forest habitat. But expansion of the land devoted to farming is necessary only if
1)population is growing and
2)farmers are forced to intensify production or grow cash crops for export for income or debt reduction, rather than for subsistence and local markets.

Lorna Salzman, USA
718-522-0253; 631-653-3387
lsalzman@aba.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 5:24 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Molecular markers - Examples from developing countries?

[An excellent contribution....Moderator]

Unfortunately I can only give a example of an attempt to use QTL analysis for stress improvement with limited success. The background is the problem of soil acidity and Aliminium-toxicity in red soils of Indonesia.

The problem is without doubt worth being dealt with, since an estimated 40% of world�s arable land is concerned. Marker assisted selection (MAS) seems to be a promising approach, since there are hints for the possibility of genetic improvements to overcome the problem. Since the trait is extremely complex, gains from conventional breeding are expected to be very slow and limited in overall success. Despite this promising basis, the results of the approach will be limited due to following reasons.

1. QTL analysis requires extensive field testing to reference markers, but the project was restricted mostly to biotech.
2. Development of markers is time-consuming but results are expected in 5 years only.
3. Marker assisted selection cannot replace conventional breeding but only adds a technology to a existing system. This is not sufficiently considered. Marker assisted selection can only be successful if it is preceeded, accompanied and followed by a excellent "conventional" breeding strategy.
4. There was no time and money allocated for validation of identified markers and implementation in a breeding system.

I am convinced, that utilisation of QTLs is at least one step ahead for most developing countries, since it is the most demanding marker technology. A reasonable precedure would be to:

1. Establish a sound conventional breeding system with medium and longterm goals and strategies !!!!!!!!!!!!!
2. Use markers to estimate, evaluate, and monitor genetic diversity to develop breeding strategies.
3. Identify important monogenic traits that are difficult to handle conventionally (e.g. sex in Nutmeg, virus resistance).
4. Develop markers for these monogenic trait. This might be best done in cooperation with developed countries or CGIAR centers.
5. Implement these markers in national breeding strategies.
if this works-
6. Identify a important quantitative trait and work on it by conventional breeding and extensive field trials until basic genotype x environment interactions are understood.
7. Streamline the breeding process by identifying QTL markers, and utilise them.

Of course some of these steps might overlap.

Experience shows that in Germany, small and medium breeding enterprises are only very slowly starting to use MAS due to high costs. Conventional strategies are in most cases still competitve. If MAS is used, markers are generally provided by public research. Therefore I am afraid that most developing countries will not be able to establish a systematic utilisation of the technique on a national level in medium-term.

The more important is it to enable centers of the international agricultural research to develop markers and maps, that can be used by national breeding systems. There is no question that marker techniques are appropriate, if "appropriate" is reduced to the meaning "beneficial". This view might change with the meaning of "cost-effectiveness".

Werner Schenkel
TU Muenchen-Weihenstephan
Institut fuer Pflanzenbau und Pflanzenzuechtung
Alte Akademie 12
D-85350 Freising
Tel.: xx49-8161-713749
Fax: xx49-8161-714511

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 8:40 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: micropropagation

[Thanks to Brenda Wingfield for focusing on micropropagation, which so far has only been briefly refered to in 3 previous messages (Robert Lettington 24/3 ; David Heaf 27/3 and Danladi Dada Kuta 30/3). Are there other comments/experiences about the appropriateness/costs/benefits of micropropagation for specific developing countries ?.....Moderator]

There are some tremendous benefits to using micropropagation in a developing country. I am not directly involved in this myself but there is a group in Zimbabwe doing a tremendous job of producing virus free sweet potatoes through micropropagation for both the commercial and rural farmers. Their operation is not particularly high tech but they are producing a high quality product all the same. It is possible to do some of these types of techniques in a lower tech environment. However, it takes quite a bit of initiative and energy. It is also sometimes quite difficult to persuade your scientific peer group that this is worthwhile doing.

Doing some of the modern techniques in a developing country can be prohibitively expensive. There is a very definite niche for people to develop procedures to do biotech using locally available material. As soon as you start importing equipment everything becomes far too expensive. This is one of the problems I see of training people in the developed world. They learn how to do science in a developed country. When they return to their home countries if they try to practice science in the way they were taught there can be tremendous problems and frustrations.

The level of technological development in different countries is very different. For instance at least 40% of all the eucalyptus plantations in South Africa are not produced using seed. The majority of this material produced using cuttings rather than micropropagation because the latter is too expensive and it is fairly easy to clone elite eucalyptus lines using cuttings. Cuttings are considered too expensive in other countries because of much higher labour costs.

Brenda Wingfield
Dept. Genetics
University of Pretoria
Phone +27 12 420 3946
Fax +27 12 420 3947
Brenda.Wingfield@fabi.up.ac.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 4:22 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health

I am a newcomer to this Conference and I haven't read all the archives, I am just surprised that there is still some discussions about the toxicity of Bt toxin;

In addition to the message of Romain Berruyer [12 April] it seems necessary to recall:

-Bt toxin is deactivated quickly by ultra-violet
-Bt toxin is denatured by relatively low temperature (about 37�C).
-Bt is used since years by organic farmers as insecticide, they even use a crude preparation which contains living bacteria, and not a purified toxin. I never saw any discussion when they were the only one to use this product.
-Any product, absolutely any product and not only Bt toxin, can be allergenic for someone in particular. Bt toxin has not been shown to be more allergenic (and certainly less) than chocolate or peanut butter!!!

GM crops can be used by farmers from developing countries with help of their national institution or international centers such as IRRI or CIMMYT (CGIAR centers). BUT precautions are evidently necessary, one defense mechanism is not enough, constitutive expression is not good, agricultural practices have to be applied, presence of refuges for instance, but this is another debate.

Alexandre de Kochko
GeneTrop
Centre IRD de Montpellier
911 Av Agropolis
BP 5045
F-34032 Montpellier
France
Tel: 33 (0)4 67 41 62 24
Fax: 33 (0)4 67 41 62 22
alexandre.dekochko@mpl.ird.fr

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 4:35 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: developed/developing countries // private/public research

[This is the first of 3 interesting contributions from Dr. Carneiro, Brazil.....Moderator]

This is Mauro Carneiro, PhD (mauro@cenargen.embrapa.br), coordinator of the National Biotechnology Program (EMBRAPA/CENARGEN) and international coordinator of the Biotechnology Program (PROCISUR)

The domination of the gene transfer technology by developed countries and the commercialization of transgenic products by transnational firms, have consequences at the productive, environmental, social and scientific level of the developing countries (DC).

This scenario, reinforced by the globalization process and the adoption of the intellectual property rights (IPR) in biotechnology by the DC, maintains the trend of the world-wide economy where the DC are the exporters of raw materials but consumers of technologies and of products with high aggregated values.

The DC are, in general, agriculturally-oriented and, as such, potentially the major site for the production of genetically modified grains. Moreover, most of them still have around 80% of their soil not cultivated, in contrast with the 15% of the developed countries counterpart. Therefore, it is mainly in DC that the production of "food" has space to grow. This partially explains the great interest of transnational seed companies in the DC.

The fact that the transnational companies rooted in industrialized countries detain the know-how in the field of modern biotechnology, suggests that the immediate impact of biotechnology in the DC will be in sectors of high economic importance without a balance in the sectors of social interest. This impact is likely to encourage the small farmers to give up agricultural activities and migrate to the cities, increasing social problems.

The greatest investments in science and technology in the DC in the last years has been around 0,7% of the GIP, while it runs around 3,0% in industrialized countries. Despite the relatively low investment, the action of governmental agencies has allowed the training of scientists and the formation of biotechnology research groups in the last decades. These groups, working in public institutions, have given an impulse to the introduction of new techniques and strategies in the areas of Molecular Biology, Cellular Biology, Biochemistry and Immunology, among others and the formation of a reasonable critical mass of young scientists mastering these new technology. However, due to the limited number of researchers, the competition for research grants and the lack of a tradition of collaboration it has been difficult to congregate research teams around specific problems.

The research that was carried out comprised mostly the transfer of technology and did not allow significant breakthroughs at the scientific or technological levels. With the adoption of IPR in biotechnology by the DC, this approach becomes obsolete, therefore new products and processes specific for the DC agriculture have to be generated.

The consolidation of the research groups is strategic for the progress of biotechnology in developing countries. Equally important is the generation of new technologies that may be converted into products and processes of commercial interest. However, the completion of this "biotechnological cycle", through the generation of products and processes in DC, has been extremely deficient so far.

Therefore, the public research sector need to find new forms to promote the scientific development of DC. In this way, it is very important to build up the relationship between the public and private sectors at the national and international level as well as between scientific and productive sectors. This has to be seen not as a danger but as an opportunity to promote scientific and technological development.

This is particularly important since the existing public funds for research are not sufficient to support the desired development of biotechnology in DC. While the demand for funds progressively increases, the investments do not grow at the same rate or is even shrinking in some of the countries. Stable sources of funds would have to be found through partnerships with non governmental organizations, cooperatives and private companies. One possibility would be the creation of a "Transgenic Tax for Research and Development" (TTRD), to be paid by the Firms/Exporters from the commercialized transgenic products.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 4:39 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: IPR for developing countries

The recognition of intellectual property rights (IPR) of biotechnological products and processes, opens several possibilities to protect knowledge and guarantee the return of funds for research. Among them, developing countries (DC) may patent their inventions themselves, file joint patents in the case of joint projects or license their inventions. In any case, it has to be kept in mind that patenting is an expensive process and requires qualified personnel. Considering the costs involved in the process it is reasonable to negotiate the technologies with private companies instead of going through to the patenting process.The recognition of IPR for products and processes in biotechnology, makes clear the necessity of training of staff in this area and the establishment of procedures of IPR.

Dr. Mauro Carneiro, Brazil
mauro@cenargen.embrapa.br

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 5:06 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Priorities for biotechnology in developing countries

Considering the present structural, economic and technical situation of developing countries (DC), it is important to establish priorities for the biotechnology, in order to prevent the absence of focus of the research and to make it possible to solve specific problems of the productive chains.

In some DC, research in agricultural biotechnology is already organized in National Programs. Despite that, the research in progress is not guided by one general strategy based on the position of DC in present world situation, nor the possible market niches and the relevant problems of national agriculture. The established priorities should take into account the sustainability and social aspects which, so far, are hardly considered by the private companies.

Integrated pest and weed management is an important area where biotechnology can give relevant contributions. Together with cultural practices, biological control is an essential tactic of integrated pest and weed management. The use of chemical control for dealing with pests and weeds is a major cause of contamination of products and environmental problems. This is particularly important in the case of horticultural crops where high-intensity agriculture is necessary to increase the yield and quality of harvested products. Therefore the development and production of biopesticides on a small or large scale basis is strategic for the agriculture of DC. Among the many products developed as a result of the rapid advances in molecular biology are the biologically produced pesticides (biopesticides), which usually include naturally occurring organisms (e.g. fungi, viruses, bacteria and nematodes) and the bioproducts derived from them (e.g. chemicals derived from Actinomyces and Streptomyces); products derived from insects (e.g. pheromones); and products derived from plants (e.g. Azadirachtin).

Host plant resistance is another tactic for integrated pest and weed management, that may use resistance genes, transferred to crops from different species or even phyla by several methods such as protoplast fusion, Agrobacterium infection, viral transfection and particle bombardment.

Transgenic plants have been obtained for weed and virus resistance based on single-gene insertion, among others. But it should be considered that the long-term stability of crop performance with single-gene insertions, especially those that select for pest aggressiveness or tolerance, is still an open question. Experience in crop breeding has been that long-term stability of crop performance in high-stress environments rests on complex gene action. In view of the complexity of managing transgenic crops in an economy of small farmers, a more strategic focus may be upon the accumulation of multiple minor genes through marker-assisted breeding.

Therefore, when pest and weed resistance is addressed, it may be important to strengthen capacities, such as plant breeding, seed production, biological control allied to cultural practices, before diverging a major share of the scarce resources to develop transgenic plants.

Dr. Mauro Carneiro, Brazil
mauro@cenargen.embrapa.br

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 10:32 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: developed/developing countries // private/public research

I would like to discuss some points of the very interesting communications by Dr. Carneiro [13 April]. Here are my remarks on the first communication.

� The domination of the gene transfer technology by developed countries and the commercialization of transgenic products by transnational firms, [...] reinforced by the [...] adoption of the intellectual property rights (IPR) in biotechnology by the DC [developing countries], maintains the trend of the world-wide economy where the DC are the exporters of raw materials but consumers of technologies and of products with high aggregated values. �

I can only agree.
The possibility of patenting natural genes strengthens this imbalanced relation
: Firms can go in developing contries, collect genes of interest and patent them without any counterpart for the origin's country.

� The DC are, in general, agriculturally-oriented and, as such, potentially the major site for the production of genetically modified grains.�

This is true.
Moreover, in these countries, environmental and sanitarian laws are often more interesting for the firms than for the citizens. I think some of them use the very bad strategy of making trials and errors in the third world countries in the purpose to promote secure transgenic crops in developed ones. First, this is a contemptuous attitude toward third world people, second this is a very bad strategy for the image of GMOs in the public opinion. The case of Basta resistant transgenic rice in India is scholar.

� The research that was carried out comprised mostly the transfer of technology [...]. With the adoption of IPR in biotechnology by the DC,[...] new products and processes specific for the DC agriculture have to be generated. �

I know it could sound repetitive, but if patenting of natural genes were not possible, such a transfer of technologies would continue to be possible. Now, DC have no longer the possibility of using known genes of interest, and must discover and develop other genes, which is the most expensive part of transgenic plant making process. Moreover, they have to do this in a context of strong competition with huge transnational firms that do not have interest in such a � genetic independance � of DC. On the other hand, DC have the possibility to accept co-operations with transnational firms, that means a long term dependance of local farmers on these firms.

� In this way, it is very important to build up the relationship between the public and private sectors [...] as well as between scientific and productive sectors. This has to be seen not as a danger but as an opportunity �

First : It is obvious that agricultural research has to interact with crop procucers, to know their needs and let them know about its inovations. Second : there is always a danger in cooperating with a transnational firm when you are poor. I would like to remind you that the only purpose of any kind of industrial company is money (there is no moral jugement in this sentence) and that contracts, instead of laws, only reflect the balance of forces, which are not in the advantage of DC. I'm not sure that local development of integrated production by small farmers is the most � cash making � way of exploiting a newly patented gene.

� Stable sources of funds would have to be found through partnerships with non governmental organizations, cooperatives and private companies. �

I would just like to make a little correction : To be sure that the purpose of public research of any kind of country will not be biased by foreign private interests, the private partner has to be smaller than the public or nonprofit organisation. As an example, if Monsanto makes a partnership contract with the national biotech institute of Zimbabwe, I'm not sure that the purpose of the research will match well Zimbabwean farmer's interests.

� ... a "Transgenic Tax for Research and Development" (TTRD), to be paid by the Firms/Exporters from the commercialized transgenic products. �

This is an interesting idea.

Romain Berruyer
Ph-D student, CIRAD, France
berruyer@cirad.fr

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 10:35 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: IPR for developing countries

In response to Dr. Carneiro's message [13 April] � The recognition of IPR [...] opens several possibilities to protect knowledge [...]. Among them, developing countries (DC) may patent their inventions themselves, file joint patents in the case of joint projects or license their inventions. �

It would be very comfortable for me to agree with your optimism. By the time that third world countries will be able to efficiently isolate and caracterise genes, the global cake will already be shared between two or three agrotech industrial companies. To be direct, because you do not possess the knowlege, you have no interest in its protection. In the case of natural genes, no one exept agrotech industries has interest in their protection by patents. � Protecting � them is stealing them to mankind.

Romain Berruyer
Ph-D student, CIRAD, France
berruyer@cirad.fr

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 10:39 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Priorities for biotechnology in developing countries

Dr. Carneiro [13 April] says

� Host plant resistance is another tactic for integrated pest and weed management, that may use resistance genes, transferred to crops from different species or even phyla by [trangenese and somatic hybridation]. �

I feel it is the most important utilisation of transgenesis for developing countries. But of course, as a plant pathologist, I've perhaps a biased point of view.

� In view of the complexity of managing transgenic crops in an economy of small farmers, a more strategic focus may be upon the accumulation of multiple minor genes through marker-assisted breeding. �

I respectfully disagree : Today's transgenic crops are obtained from high yelding modern cultivars that need protective technical environment. There is no technical difficulties in transforming local traditional varieties with genes of interest. This is a cheap and well-adapted GMO-making way for the third world. If the same trangene has been used in another cultivar of the same crop, it would be easier to make this new transformed variety and to assess its inocuity to human health and environment. It is also easy for the local farmer to use it :
it is the same plant with the same caracteristics as the one he was used to, plus a new resistance or vitamin, or other. The only limit to such a local transgenesis strategy is natural gene patenting... I let you make the conclusion.

Romain Berruyer
Ph-D student, CIRAD, France
berruyer@cirad.fr

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 11:02 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Molecular markers - Examples from developing countries?

This is from Dr. Siva Sivaramakrishnan, International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT),Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India

I would like to take up the role of marker-assisted selection (MAS) as a tool in breeding. This will hasten the breeding process and help in the introgression of novel genes that can improve the quality of the product. Breeders can hasten their breeding efforts using MAS for complex traits such as disease resistance and drought which are the major yield reducing factors. A lot of research is going on in this direction but we still haven't heard much about the practical application of this technology which can definitely benefit the breeders (both public and private) who can develop high yielding varieties under adverse environmental conditions.

I would like to give two examples from the research that is being carried out at ICRISAT where we are trying to identify quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for two complex traits, downy mildew in pearl millet (an economically important disease) and drought tolerance in sorghum and chickpea (stay green character and root volume). In the case of disease resistance, we have identified a number of QTLs that account for a high percentage of the variation in pathogenicity. In the case of drought, we have broken the trait into smaller components and try to identify QTL. In the case of drought, we are yet to identify the right QTL for drought tolerance. I must say that even the identification of the right QTL which is tightly linked to the trait of interest itself is a time -consuming and hard work. One of the impediments in our case is the non-availability of a good saturated map for the crops that we deal with at ICRISAT.

Before MAS can become routine it need to be rigorously tested under different agro-ecological zones to establish the stability of the marker in the different agro-eco regions just like any other conventional varietal improvement methods. All this means a lot of carefully planned research, which is resource intensive. Unless the trait has a significant economical benefit and the crop has a potential market the research is not going to be done seriously. It is here the resource intensive nature of the biotechnology research that becomes a limiting factor in the developing countries. This may not be the case of crops like rice, maize, wheat etc. where the potential market can offset some of the cost implications.

The question was asked how the resource poor farmer could adopt such resource intensive technologies when he cannot even afford fertilizer or weeding [e.g. Peter Mwangi 7 April...Moderator]. With the improved varieties, even the seeds will become expensive and the farmer may not be able to afford. These are issues in which a cost-benefit analysis needs to be done at different levels for arriving at tangible solutions.

S. Sivaramakrishnan Ph.D.
Scientist
Cellular and Molecular Biology
S.SIVARAMAKRISHNAN@CGIAR.ORG

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 11:07 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: GM crops in developing countries

A problem that has been discussed at length in the Conference is GMOs. No one denies the benefit that can be obtained from crops that incorporate alien genes against specific biotic constraints. However, it is wrong to say GMO is the only solution for increasing the productivity of crops in the developing countries. I have seen arguments that state that without accepting GMOs the developing countries are doing a great damage to their agriculture. There are inherent bio-safety issues associated with GMOs which need to be addressed adequately before these can be taken up in any developing country. One needs to have the right kind of monitoring system for GMOs in the country where the ecosystems are different and the expression levels of the transgene can be altered differently. For example, countries like India have a strong Bio-safety system in force but still the monitoring process takes more effort, time, and resource which is not that easily available.

Another important issue is public awareness which needs to be in place if one has to debate the pros and cons of such technologies than over react as in the case of what happened with respect to the terminator gene and the cotton crops in India. The long-term effects of these GMOs or their influence on the ecosystem are still not available. And such studies need more time as we are addressing the issues of gene flow and their effects on biodiversity in the ecosystems which are now a major global environmental concern. There is nothing wrong in being cautious than overreacting to such issues. Here I see it is important to make the public aware of such issues with the use of IT tools that are playing a critical role in the developing countries.

S. Sivaramakrishnan Ph.D.
Scientist
Cellular and Molecular Biology
International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT),
Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India
S.SIVARAMAKRISHNAN@CGIAR.ORG

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 4:08 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Priorities for biotechnology in developing countries

Dear Romain Berruyer.Thanks for your comments [14 April].

The situation is not so simple as you mentioned, specially with regards to the small farmers. First, one would have to consider two sort of products: commodities and non commodities. Generally, small farmers are mainly involved in non commodities, since they cannot compete with big producers.

In order to make a transgenic one would need:
Market Considerations ( e.g. acceptation)
Genes
Promoters
Transformation System
Deregulation.

In general, developing countries don't have genes, promoters, they may have/or not the skill to transform local varieties, and they are not able to perform the requirements recommended by WTO (ISO 25000) with regards to deregulation.

Who is going to pay for that?
Do you know how much it costs to license one gene? or a promoter? How about the transformation system?
Well, lets say all that is solved. The costs of deregulation of one plant runs around 1 million dollars. Who is going to pay for that?

Transformation is also not so evident. You could ask the French people from ex Rhone Poulenc. They have experience on this. They can tell you how easy it is to transform the local varieties of commodities (at least), how long it takes and how much it costs.

Mauro Carneiro, PhD
SAIN Parque Rural - Final Av. W/5 Norte
70770-900 Bras�lia DF
P.O. Box 02372
E mail: mauro@cenargen.embrapa.br
Phone: +55 61 4484760
Fax: +55 61 4484758.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 4:10 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: GM crops in developing countries

In response to Dr. Sivaramakrishnan [14 April], who writes: "For example, countries like India have a strong Bio-safety system in force but still the monitoring process takes more effort, time, and resource which is not that easily available."

First off, thank you for your recent postings, which reflect a sober, balanced view of the potential benefits and problems surrounding use of GMOs.

In the case of what was written above, I have no doubt that most countries will adopt monitoring regulations and even very strict codes. The point about "resources" not being easily available, in my mind, will allow for frequent violation of such codes. In terms of technology, up until now the damages resulting from said violations were, by nature of the technology, localized. The potential damage in the case of GMOs, especially during trial and error stages, especially in terms of loose enforcement of said codes, could be widespread and perhaps irreversible.

Jeffrey Reel
jeffreyreel@aol.com
Planetary Food Council, USA

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 11:44 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Bt, risks and developing countries

Luca Bucchini, MPH student, John's Hopkins School of Public Health.

I am following the discussion on Bt toxin with amazement. Many things have been said without care or precision.

For example, Cry9c is an example of a heat and digestion resistant Bt toxin (all Bt toxins currently used in US marketed crops are of the Cry group); it is inserted in one of Aventis' GM corn lines currently under US Environmental Protection Agency's scrutiny. This same protein has no history of human exposure (it was not present in the strains used for spraying crops). Even it were, if a protein is expressed in a different system (not the bacteria used for spraying but in the plant itself), one can think of a number of issues (eg, post-translational modifications, quantity), that are and should be addressed.

I do not intend to imply that Cry proteins are allergenic, or, worse, toxic. But I am not aware of any study that has assessed their allergenicity - an impossible task with the available technology, as far as I know. And detection of a new, relatively potent allergen (latex, for example) may take a relatively long time, if based solely on medical reports.

Unfortunately, I do not have the possibility to provide more background here, but I hope someone else soon will.

In the meantime, let me invite everyone to express well meditated and documentable views.

In general, there are concerns that cannot be ruled out with mere impatience. These concerns have not been fully addressed by what is regarded as the most transparent and efficient food regulatory system (the US one). Hopefully, the biotech regulatory system will improve before a GMO capable of exerting adverse health (or environmental) effects is placed on the market.

Let me add a couple of lines on developing countries. With my very limited knowledge of agriculture, I will not even try to enter the discussion on the merits of patented GM products versus traditional crops. I guess much depends on implementation.

I would rather like to address a question to participants from developing countries. Are they willing to take higher risks than their developed counterparts? It is my understanding that Europeans refuse GM crops mostly saying that they do not need them (hard to argue against this, given EU overproduction).

Luca Bucchini, PhD
School of Public Health
Johns Hopkins University, USA
lbucchin@jhsph.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 11:47 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: IPR for developing countries

Certain parties are very worried about the potential impact of the Terminator gene, and similar systems which stop farmers "brown-bagging" second generations of seed grown from seed purchased from seed companies. This is seen as being immoral on the part of the seed companies.

However, it is an issue of intellectual property rights (IPR), and is the basis of the capitalist system: those that invest in developing a product or technology shall get paid for their creativity, capital risk-taking and simple hard work.

It is no different to software companies demanding to be paid for every copy of their software. Pirate copies of computer software are illegal, so "pirate" seed should be equally illegal. The fact is that it takes 10-20 years, and costs millions of dollars, for a seed company to develop a new plant variety, say of maize. The seed companies are looking for the same protection of intellectual property that every computer software and hardware company in the world assumes is their right under international patent laws. And if this protection does not exist for seed companies, then what incentive have they to develop new varieties ?

No-one is forcing farmers to buy improved varieties from seed companies, whether they are GMO varieties or not. There are still many old-fashioned legacy varieties of virtually all crops. Farmers buy seed of new varieties because they have advantages, say of better yield or better shelf quality; and in the end, a better profit for the farmer. The farmer still has the freedom to buy older, non-GMO varieties, or retain existing landraces.

What is more alarming to me is the increasing loss of diverse germplasm, and especially the "old genes" carried in landraces, which occurs when small-scale farmers abandon their own selection and breeding of farmer varieties because the varieties offered by seed companies are SO much better yielding, at least in the short term. (The huge responsibility facing the seed companies is that they now have to guarantee crop stability, under all conditions, forever, something that genetic engineering is particular weak at doing).

However, it is an irreversible phenomenon, and genebanks do not really solve this problem.

Mark D. Laing
Professor, Plant Pathology, University of Natal, South Africa
laing@micr.unp.ac.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 3:10 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Photoperiod, temperature and yield

I am Don Wallace, Professor Emeritus of Plant Breeding, Cornell University. Some previous e-mails (e.g Shawn McGuire 31 March; Peter Mwangi) have stimulated me to present the following message: That photoperiod gene activity controls partitioning of photosynthate to the plant organs that become yield and thereby is the strongest control over crop adaptation and yield, even in tropical environments with short daylengths.

My study of physiological genetics of yield has suggested the following about crop yield and photoperiod and temperature.

1. Photoperiod-insensitive alleles instruct for partitioning a large proportion of the photosynthate toward growth of flower buds, pods and seeds (or tubers and roots) that will become yield. Therefore, these organs grow rapidly to develop to flowering and to harvest maturity in relatively few days, and have high yield per day, high harvest index and highest yield for short growing seasons.

2. Photoperiod-sensitive alleles reduce partitioning of photosynthate to yield under high temperatures and synergistically reduce yield more as daylength is longer and sensitivity higher. Such reduction competitively enhances growth of organs not yield, enlarges aerial biomass, days to flowering and harvest maturity, lowers harvest index, but gives highest yield for long enough seasons.

3. At five elevations in tropical Guatemala with unlimited growing season and 13-hour daylength, the most photoperiod-sensitive bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) genotypes flowered latest and gave lowest yield at lowland temperatures, but flowered early and gave highest yield at the highest elevations where low temperature reduced photoperiod gene activity. Yields of insensitive genotypes were the reverse.

4. The Institute of Crop Research for the Semi Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) conducted a multilocation pigeonpea yield trial spanning south to north arid India and measured: a) days to flowering, b) days to maturity, c) aerial biomass at maturity, d) yield, e) biomass/day to maturity, f) yield/day to maturity, g) yield/day of seedfill, the seedfill being estimated as h) days from flowering to harvest maturity, and i) harvest index. The largest Genotype x Environment interaction effect on days to flowering and maturity was the genotype x photoperiod x temperature (GPT) interaction. Control over yield for bean described in (3) was repeated. Photoperiod-gene activity directly controlled partitioning measured as the harvest index. Traits b, c and i account in full for yield of every genotype grown in any world environment.

5. Measurement of a to i listed in (4) indicated photoperiod gene(s) as a QTL without usual QTL methods and gene mapping.

6. Cheapest advance of understanding of how crop adaptation arises and yield is accumulated, including environmental effects, and how to breed for higher yield arises by measuring traits a to i in multilocation yield trials conducted to identify the genotypes the farmer should grow. Simultaneous marker-assisted gene and QTL identifications, and even micro array identification of many gene activities, could indicate the genes and QTL that should be selected for.

7. The following should be recognized. Every gene action requires an environmental resource (CO2, H2O, N, essential mineral) to be acted on. All intraplant molecules have arisen through such prior gene actions. Daylength and temperature are not acted upon. But, the Q10 effect of higher temperature enlarges every gene activity, and more delaying daylength and greater sensitivity to photoperiod enlarge any photoperiod gene activity. Reciprocally, no environmental influence occurs except through gene activity that is limited by non optimal availability of environmental resource(s) or intraplant molecules.

8. Two subsets of gene action jointly control traits a to i. The essential subset is virtually all the genes. Their integrated activities implement growth and an autonomous capability to develop to all stages. Any photoperiod genes inhibit and delay that autonomous development as described above. 9. Highest yield arises through optimal system functioning, genetic instruction that best uses the available environmental resources but simultaneously counters environmental stresses. Selection for highest possible level of any of traits a to i unbalances system functioning and lowers yield.

Don Wallace, USA
607-255-1657
Fax 607-255-6683
dhw3@cornell.edu or PBNews@cornell.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 4:54 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Bt toxins action/human toxicity/allergies

[An American/French Entente Cordiale....Moderator]

Here is the summary we made of a discussion between Dr Bucchini and myself about Bt toxins action, human toxicity, and allergies.

LUCA BUCCHINI (LB): I was not aware of that mechanism for the Cry proteins (chithine synthesis inhibition) [this was referred to in Romain Berruyer's message of 12 APril...Moderator]. Could you provide some reference?

ROMAIN BERRUYER (RB): I want to apologize: I mistook the effect of Bt proteins with chitinase inhibitors used as a new class of insecticide. Here is the information I collected for the moment: Cry proteins (i.e. Bt toxins), after partial degradation by insect's proteases, bind to specific receptors on insect gut epithelium and this binding lead to cell destruction and death by septicemia. These receptors are insect-specific and, more precisely, insect-family specific. As these proteins are receptor-specific, they would not wound human gut cells because these cells do not posses such specific receptors.

LB: And the stomach of mammals is at pH 2. Mmmm...what about milk-fed infants ?

RB: I'm not a specialist in human physiology, but in first instance it seems that milk-fed infants are fed with milk, not with Bt transgenic corn. I don't think that proteins can go through gut, blood, then milk without being degraded.

LB : Cry proteins have not been inserted in marketed soybean but some varieties are being field-tested. Can I also add that at least Cry9c (one of the Bt toxins), a protein inserted in Aventis' corn, is both heat- and digestion- stable?

RB : Because of their specificity, it does not seem to me to be a problem if these proteins are found active in human gut, except allergies. Because Bt crops are commercially used in U.S. today, I suppose and I hope that allergic studies have been done. I also suppose that if such allergies have been demonstrated, these results would have been widely reported, because of the atmosphere surrounding transgenic crops.

LB : It is unlikely that Cry protein endangers human health, plus the evidence so far does not exist. But I urge caution in this sector. There are possible concerns and they have to be addressed. As you say, the main concern is allergy. There is at least one study that has found Cry1 highly immunogenic (Vazquez-Padron et al. Braz J Med Biol Res 2000 Feb;33(2):147-155). But again this proves little. At this point in time, there is no validated animal test that can predict novel protein allergenicity, and a lack of any epidemiological studies. Cry9c is a regulatory nightmare and it may not be approved by federal authorities (though on shaky grounds)

RB : The risk of a strong allergic reaction that endangers life is low and quite difficult to measure. It depends of the person as much as on the protein. We eat every day a huge quantity of different proteins and each different protein can cause allergy to a small subset of the population. When the transgenically-added protein
a) is not from a well known allergenic family (like latex proteins, or ground nut proteins, for example)
b) has been tested not to be allergenic(even if the tests are never perfect)
c) is degraded by heat and/ordigestion,
I don't say that the risk is null, I say it is affordable. For the specific case of Cry9c, I agree with you: the best is not to approve cultivars containing this protein before a better allergenic test is made

LB : But let us realize that there are issues, and that the safety of the public comes first. About interactions allergic proteins/persons: it is difficult to predict what is allergenic, it is easier to know who.

RB : I agree.

Romain Berruyer
Ph-D student, CIRAD
France
and

Luca Bucchini, PhD
School of Public Health
Johns Hopkins University, USA

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 8:37 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Bt, risks and developing countries

I would like to reply to Luca Bucchini [17 April] who starts his message by stating that many things have been said without care or precision.

Luca Bucchini is co-author of comments submitted to the US Environemental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding Cry9C on behalf of Environmental Defense (see : http://www.edf.org/pubs/Filings/ ). The fact that the EPA has so far only approved Cry9C corn for animal feed and industrial uses (and not for human consumption) shows to me that the regulatory overview in the USA works and that room has been given to input from stakeholders.

Luca Bucchini claims not to know of any study that has assessed the allergenicity of Cry proteins. However, in the comments to the EPA of which he is the co-author, EPA is cited to have studied 4 criteria of the allergenic potential of Bt toxins that crops have been genetically engineered to produce.

One of the used criteria is homology to amino acid sequences of known allergens. According to the Environmental Defense comments to the EPA " a negative finding may not be an indicator of safety". In my humble opinion, a negative finding means that there is no homology to a known allergen. Possibly there could be allergens out there that we don't know of yet, but that can surely not be the basis for banning a substance. When Kiwi fruit was introduced, it was not sujected to any safety assessment but today cases of allergic reactions to kiwifruit are documented.

The Environmental Defense comments to EPA also refer to a study by Bernstein et al., 1999 (Env Health Perspectives 107; 575-578) which shows that workers exposed to Bt preparations can show skin allergies. This study was done not with transgenic plants but with Bt spray preparations which have never been analysed for allergenicity before their introduction.

Luca Bucchini finishes with a question to participants from the developing world and as such I do not qualify. However, I have problems with the question posed, " are people in the developing world ready to accept highr risks than their developed counterparts", as I think it is a very unfair question. Is Luca Bucchini implying that products that are not safe will be introduced into developing countries? Is she implying that regulatory agencies in developing countries are not able to access and read EPA deregulation petitions and take appropriate action? The recently approved Biosafety Protocol foresees the establishment of a Biosafety clearing house which will make available existing knowledge about Biotech products which may enter into International trade.

Edo Lin, France
lin.edo@free.fr

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 8:40 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: IPR for developing countries

Mark D. Laing [17 April ] wrote: "It [terminator technology] is no different to software companies demanding to be paid for every copy of their software. Pirate copies of computer software are illegal, so "pirate" seed should be equally illegal."

The two examples given are very different from each other:

1) Seed is alive and programming it to die violates its very essence, i.e. what makes a seed a seed.
2) Seed self-replicates, computer software does not -- unless it is a computer virus (a computer 'disease'). And, preserving the mirror symmetry of Laing's analogy, a seed that does not germinate is a diseased seed.
3) Computer programs are essentially mechanical devices in writing. Regarding seeds the same way is falling prey to mechanistic-materialistic thinking.

The two examples cannot simply be lumped together. The obvious differences between them call for quite different moral arguments.

David Heaf, UK
101622.2773 (at) compuserve.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 8:42 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: IPR for developing countries

Prof. Laing [17 April] seems to see no difference between patents for life forms and patents (or copyrights) for software programmes.

There is a lot of intellectual input in software companies which develop new software and if any part of that software is based on copyrighted software, the software company is forced to pay royalties to the company owning the copyright.

In the case of a seed company, the new seed is developed from existing germ plasm, often from developing countries, and may involve a very small modification, or sometimes none at all, (like the yellow bean from Mexico patented in the US). What the patenting process does is to convert the "common heritage of mankind" into private property of an individual or a company for 20 years.

Certainly those that invest in developing a product or technology should get paid for their creativity, capital risk-taking and simple hard work. But what about the creativity and the very hard work that several poor farmers put into creating the base material which is often stolen or bought for a fistful of dollars. Or are the farmers of developing countries not entitled to any payment for their creativity and hard work ?

There are several developing country scientists working in state research institutes producing new varieties of crop plants every year. In Sri Lanka alone, tens of new varieties of rice and new tea clones are produced by the research institutes and released to the farmers and planters of the country. They are not patented simply because effective protection of any one variety in the major countries of the world costs about $ 75,000-$100,000 - far above the resources of a government institute in a developing countries. There is nothing to prevent a private company patenting one of these varieties in the West and no government institute will be able to find the funds, e.g. half a million dollars in the US, required to fight the patent.

Prof. Laing at least understands that Agribusiness advertising and (mis)information will lead to farmers abandoning their own selection for the better yielding new varieties promoted by seed companies. By the time developing country farmers realize that they cannot afford the new seeds (with no plantback possible and expensive inputs), they would have lost access to their old varieties and have fallen into the biotech trap.

So the developing countries certainly have a problem with the present patent system (and the new International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) system which is not very different)

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: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 1:58 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: IPR for developing countries

Re Dr. Kumar's Comments of 18th April:

My first point would be that I am not sure that extensive review of the IPR debate will really address the relevance of crops to developing countries as obviously intellectual property rights (IPR) are not inherent in any crop species. This latter point must of course be qualified by the development of so-called, in RAFI parlance, "terminator", "traitor" and "junky" gene products which are effectively biological, as opposed to legal, IPR systems.

I think the deeper question here is that raised by the Economist in January or February of this year - is TRIPS, and the idea of global IPR systems, a viable option in developing countries? The argument basically states that enforcing IPRs in developing countries creates a net loss for humanity and consequently is highly suspect. The profits of IPR holders are more than offset by the lack of access to information by those who may well most need it.

The software analogy is an extremely good one but, as with the question of cost of seeking and enforcing patents, is really one of specific relevance rather than a flaw in the overall theory of the system. The problem here is that the whole current intellectual property system was developed in Northern countries to serve a series of very particular purposes. As in all negotiations, the first party to place a comprehensive proposal on the table has tremendous influence on the final outcome. Thus what the developing countries need to do, assuming one accepts the current inevitability of TRIPs, is to develop and create their own parallel systems that ensure things such as that the holder of a patent that makes use of traditional cultivars must recognize and compensate the developers of those cultivars. I.e. we should be spending the time and effort, and of course unfortunately money, to develop systems that suit developing country needs - they must be more accessible, both technically and financially, which will include a host of issues such as community rights and stability of the innovation. These developments should also consider all sectors so that the particular needs of research centres, companies and rural populations etc etc are all taken into account.

On a local note, ICIPE policy guarantees recognition, including, where profits are involved, financial, for any informal sector contributors to research projects and IPRs are only sought for defensive purposes or to allow for bridging work. At the same time we are currently trying to make substantive contributions towards the development of concrete systems for the protection and promotion of traditonal and marginalized knowledge in developing countries.

The idea of the common heritage of mankind is a myth, at least from the developing country perspective, it was only ever common heritage if it belonged to the South. All this does is perpetuate the bizarre, but widely accepted assumption, that developing country populations had no systems of resource management before Europeans came along - they very obviously did and these systems were not based on any concept of global commons.

As regards the potential dependence of smallholders on agribusiness, I think Dr. Kumar raises a very pertinent and worrying point. Despite protestations to the contrary, such dependence relationships are being nurtured in East Africa, and I would assume elsewhere, which poses a real threat to long term viability. The accompaniment to this is that the possible threat to the smallholders is being accompanied by the threat to the genetic base and, while neither of these seems to have been accurately or objectively assessed as yet, the mere threat should be sufficient cause for concern.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 10:04 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Bt, risks and developing countries

A further comment on Dr Bucchini's remarks [17 April], and specifically the question about developing countries: "Are they willing to take higher risks than their developed counterparts?"

This question perhaps expects the answer that if they are, they should not be. That answer would be wrong.

It is for developing countries to decide what they want to do (they will get plenty of advice - and pressure - from all sides of the debate). However, generally, risk-avoidance is a privilege of the rich and fortunate. If you are rich, you can buy health insurance - if poor, you must hope to avoid getting ill. Developing countries have more problems and less resources than developed countries, and inevitably are exposed to more risks. They are justified in taking bigger risks to overcome bigger problems. They would not act in the best interests of their peoples if they took an absolutist view of risk and refused to entertain solutions which (while not risk-free) offered the best available chance of solving those problems.

Of course, significant risks that might be attached to introduction of specific GMOs must always be carefully assessed. But the result of the assessment should not be decided in advance.

Tim Roberts, UK

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 10:07 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Bt, risks and developing countries

A number of comments on my mail of 17 April were recently posted by Edo Lin [18 April], whom I thank for bringing to the mailing list's subscribers attention my comments on Cry9 and providing links for the ones interested.

Some of the points raised might have a general interest.

1) The US regulatory system and biotechnology

Most recently a report from the National Research Council (www.nas.edu) has recommended changes to the policy by stating "Even given the strengths of the U.S. system governing transgenic plants, regulatory agencies should do a better job of coordinating their work and expanding public access to the process as the volume and mix of these types of plants on the market increase. "

2) Criteria to assess novel proteins' allergenicity

The cited criteria (available at http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/bioallrg.html) are not the result of extensive studies by EPA, but the opinions of scientists present at a 1994 Conference. They stated:

"There are no direct methods to assess potential allergenicity of proteins from sources that are not known to produce food allergy. Although, some assurance can be provided to minimize the possibility that a new protein will cause an allergic reaction by evaluating its similarity with characteristics of known food allergens (i.e. whether the new protein has a similar protein sequence, is resistance to enzymatic and acid degradation, is heat stable, and is of the appropriate molecular size), no one factor is predictive."

3) Of safety and risks

We enter here a moral, political and historical field. The concept of safety is highly dependent on the situation a person or a society is in. The legal standard for food in the US is prescribed by the FQPA-and it is "reasonable certainty of no harm". You have to be certain of no harm, not that we do not know. One can agree or not with this principle, but it is the one chosen by the US. So, uncertainty is not an argument for approval.

4) Risks and developing countries

I would like to clarify this issue. As stated above, I believe that the acceptable level of risk is a societal and political decision. Some countries (eg, Italy) have banned nuclear power because they felt it was dangerous; some others did not. I read China believes that Western countries are too cautious about GE foods, and that they do need them and cannot wait. Allergy is far more prevalent in Western countries, etc..

My question is: should regulators from any country take decisions based on cost/benefit analysis or on safety grounds only?

Luca Bucchini, PhD
School of Public Health
Johns Hopkins University, USA
lbucchin@jhsph.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 10:13 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Bt, risks and developing countries

[Thanks to Professor Felsot and other recent contributors for their comments (and web links) regarding allergenicity and BT toxins. There is however a certain danger of drifting too far away from the theme of the conference (i.e. how appropriate are currently available biotechnologies in the crop sector for food production and agriculture in developing countries), so future contributors should keep this point in mind....Moderator]

Regarding the concerns about allergenicity, I would direct your attention to the following article that appeared recently and can be downloaded as a PDF file from the WEB at http://www.cgiar.org/biotech/rep0100/contents.htm Lehrer, S. 2000. Potential health risks of genetically modified organisms: how can allergens be assessed and minimized? Pp. 149-155 in "Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor", G. J. Persley and M. M. Lantin, ed. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, the World Bank, Washington, D. C.

This article explains the strategy currently in use for testing for allergens. Besides digestibility rate in simulated gastric environment, DNA base homologies are also relevant and useful. Much is already known about allergenic food proteins, and the databases are used to guide testing for allergenicity.

With regard to the Bernstein et al. article (Environ. Health Perspectives 107:575-582) [see Edo Lin's comments, 18 April...Moderator], you may want to be aware that the immune reactions were specifically to a Bt spray product called Javelin. Javelin is a certified organic pesticide in the Pacific Northwest. The real story behind these immune reactions is more complicated than just mere positive reactions in the IgE antibody agglutination test and skin prick tests. The authors fractionated the Javelin preparation according to water soluble components (which could include exotoxins as well as cell fragments), vegetative cells (this is potentially a problem with whole cell preparations), spores, and delta-endotoxin. Pertinently, only the water soluble extracts, the vegetative cells, and spores gave a positive IgE reaction and skin prick test. The test with delta-endotoxin (i.e., the full version of the Bt transgenic endotoxin protein) was essentially negative, prompting the authors of the study to conclude "results of this investigation should partially allay recent concerns about the occurrence of possible adverse health effects in consumers after exposure to transgenic foods." Furthermore, "it is unlikely that consumers would develop allergic sensitivity after oral exposure to transgenic foods (e.g., tomatoes, potatoes) that currently contain the gene encoding this protein." You may also be interested to know that the test population for this study were vegetable pickers in Ohio, where multiple sprays of Javelin were used during the growing season.

It's amazing what gems the literature holds if we are willing to read it thoroughly with a critical eye. If you are interested in an elaboration of human health aspects as well as a look at natural Bt ecology and its evolution into a transgenic technology, I direct your attention to our newsletter, Agrichemical & Environmental News (http://www2.tricity.wsu.edu/aenews). See the March and April issues. A third essay on nontarget organism ecological effects will be on the WEB in another week.

Allan Felsot
Professor & Extension Specialist
Entomology/Environmental Toxicology
Washington State University
2710 University Drive
Richland, WA 99352, USA
Voice: 509-372-7365
Fax: 509-372-7460
afelsot@tricity.wsu.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 11:20 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: IPR for developing countries

Robert Lettington (ICIPE, Kenya) [18 April] has suggested that developing countries should develop their own parallel patent systems that ensure that holders of patents using traditional cultivars recognize and compensate the developers of the cultivars. These systems must also address issues of community rights and stability of the innovation and consider all sectors so that the needs of research centres, companies and rural populations are taken into account.

The WTO Council on TRIPs met last October to review Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). Article 27.3(b) of TRIPs calls for WTO Members to protect intellectual property over plant varieties either by patent or by an effective sui generis system or by a combination of both. Developing countries are under pressure to adopt the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV 1991) as the mechanism to fulfil their 27.3(b) obligations.

At the meeting, both the U.S. and India submitted papers on Article 27.3(b). The U.S. recommended a patent-based model, arguing that an effective intellectual property protection system has been beneficial in stimulating research and development (A UN study last year has however found that there is no evidence for this). The U.S. warned that any sui generis model for plant variety protection not modelled on UPOV-1991 would need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

India analysed the problems associated with handling intellectual property in traditional knowledge in India due to its strong oral tradition, as opposed to the developed countries' text-based tradition. India advised developing countries to wait before implementing a sui generis systems, as the only model offered so far was that of the developed countries. India's position was supported by many of the developing countries.

The EU argued that there is no conflict between TRIPs and Members' commitments under the UN Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). The CBD obliges its signatories (U.S. is a non-signatory) to respect, preserve, and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities. The EU disagreed with India that traditional knowledge was within the scope of Article 27.3(b), and pointed out that the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) was currently working on this area.

This position was supported by developed countries, including Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Australia, and Korea.

India has now developed its own sui generis system which protects its farmers' rights, the rights of holders of indigenous knowledge and has recognized extant varieties. In the light of the position taken by developed countries, it is likely that the Indian sui generis system will be opposed by developing [maybe this should be developed...Moderator] countries.

If a large developing country like India cannot withstand pressure from developed countries, there is no doubt that most small developing countries would be coerced into accepting UPOV-1991. Next week, UPOV-1991 will in fact be being "marketed" in Sri Lanka by UPOV assisted by our Intellectual Property Office and Department of Agriculture probably to ensure that we do not try to develop an alternative sui generis system.

So, while Robert Lettington's strategy is no doubt what is best for developing countries, it would appear this is a luxury not permitted to developing countries by the developed world.

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: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 11:30 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: IPR for developing countries

MY RESPONSE (IN CAPITALS) TO DR KUMAR'S COMMENTS, 18TH APRIL

> Prof. Laing [17 April] seems to see no difference between patents for life forms and patents (or copyrights) for software programmes.
IN TERMS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, NO, THERE IS NO REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PLANT BREEDERS AND SOFTWARE PROGRAMMERS IN TERMS OF THEIR NEED FOR A RETURN ON INVESTMENT.

> In the case of a seed company, the new seed is developed from existing germ plasm, often from developing countries, and may involve a very small modification, or sometimes none at all, (like the yellow bean from Mexico patented in the US). What the patenting process does is to convert the "common heritage of mankind" into private property of an individual or a company for 20 years.

THE COMMON HERITAGE OF MANKIND IS NOT JUST LIFE FORMS. TODAY'S SCIENCE IS BASED ON THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF EARLIER SCIENCE. THE ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING OF TODAY IS ONLY POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF PAST DEVELOPMENTS AND INNOVATION. HOW MUCH OF THAT IS PATENTED ? ANY INNOVATION, OR MODIFICATION, EVEN IF IT IS SMALL, DESERVES TO BE RECOGNIZED AND REWARDED. WHO DECIDES HOW BIG OR HOW SMALL AND INNOVATION IS BEFORE IT IS RECOGNIZED ?

> Certainly those that invest in developing a product or technology should get paid for their creativity, capital risk-taking and simple hard work.

AND IF WE DO NOT REWARD IT, THEN WE WILL KILL INNOVATION. THIS PROCESS IS THE BASIS OF THE WORLD'S ECONOMY TODAY.

>But what about the creativity and the very hard work that several poor farmers put into creating the base material which is often stolen or bought for a fistful of dollars. Or are the farmers of developing countries not entitled to any payment for their creativity and hard work ?

ABSOLUTELY. BUT THE ANSWER IS NOT TO TRY AND STOP CAPITALISM IN ITS TRACKS, BUT TO TACKLE AN UNFAIR SYSTEM AND MAKE THE CHANGES SO THAT ROYALTIES ARE PAID IN THESE CASES. THE DIFFICULTY IS TO ENSURE THAT THE DESERVING PEOPLE ACTUALLY BENEFIT.

> There are several developing country scientists working in state research institutes producing new varieties of crop plants every year. In Sri Lanka alone, tens of new varieties of rice and new tea clones are produced by the research institutes and released to the farmers and planters of the country. They are not patented simply because effective protection of any one variety in the major countries of the world costs about $ 75,000-$100,000 - far above the resources of a government institute in a developing countries. There is nothing to prevent a private company patenting one of these varieties in the West and no government institute will be able to find the funds, e.g. half a million dollars in the US, required to fight the patent.

AGREED, BUT THE QUESTION THEN, HOW CAN THIS SYSTEM OF PROMOTING INNOVATION (ESPECIALLY IN PLANT BREEDING) BE MADE MORE EQUITABLE ? THE BIG PROBLEM IS COST, WHICH IMPACTS HEAVILY ON DEVELOPING COUNTRIES WHOSE CURRENCIES ARE MUCH WEAKER THAN SAY THE US DOLLAR, MAKING THE PATENTING PROCESS AND LITIGATION INACCESSIBLE.

> So the developing countries certainly have a problem with the present patent system (and the new International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) system which is not very different)

THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES HAVE A NUMERICAL ADVANTAGE AT GLOBAL MEETINGS. IF A MORE FAIR PATENT SYSTEM CAN BE DEVISED, THEN THE G77 NATIONS CAN PUSH FOR IT AT GLOBAL MEETINGS. THE CHALLENGE IS NOT HOW TO DO AWAY WITH THE PATENT SYSTEM, BUT HOW TO MAKE IT FAIR AND EQUITABLE FOR ALL.

Mark D. Laing
Professor, Plant Pathology, University of Natal, South Africa
laing@micr.unp.ac.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 11:35 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: IPR for developing countries

IN RESPONSE TO DAVID HEAF (APRIL 18TH):

> Mark D. Laing [17 April] wrote: "It [terminator technology] is no different to software companies demanding to be paid for every copy of their software. Pirate copies of computer software are illegal, so "pirate" seed should be equally illegal."

> The two examples given are very different from each other:
> 1) Seed is alive and programming it to die violates its very essence, i.e. what makes a seed a seed.

TRYING TO DEFINE THE "VERY ESSENCE" OF A SEED IS ABSURD. THIS ARGUMENT REJECTS THE THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF SELECTIVE BREEDING OF DEFECTIVE MUTANT SEEDS FOR THINGS LIKE YIELD, OIL CONTENT, AND EVEN GERMINATION, ALL WHICH VIOLATE THE SEED'S ORIGINAL "ESSENCE". WHAT ABOUT THE USE OF MALE STERILITY IN PLANT BREEDING ?

> 2) Seed self-replicates, computer software does not -- unless it is a computer virus (a computer 'disease'). And, preserving the mirror symmetry of Laing's analogy, a seed that does not germinate is a diseased seed.

MANY PLANTS DO NOT PRODUCE SEED, OR PRODUCE FEW VIABLE SEEDS, E.G., GERBERA. SEED IS JUST A TOOL OF REPRODUCTION, BOTH IN NATURE AND IN AGRICULTURE, ONE OF SEVERAL WHICH CAN BE USED TO ACHIEVE THE SAME END.

> The two examples cannot simply be lumped together. The obvious differences between them call for quite different moral arguments.

THE ARGUMENT CANNOT BE SEPARATED, BECAUSE IT IS ABOUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. THE WORLD'S ECONOMY DEPENDS ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT IF PEOPLE SPEND TIME, MONEY AND RISK ON DEVELOPING A NOVEL PRODUCT OR COMMODITY, THEN THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO ECONOMIC PROTECTION OF THAT PRODUCT. IT IS THIS PRINCIPLE WHICH UNDERLIES THE PRODUCTIVITY AND CREATIVITY OF THE WORLD TODAY. THERE ARE MANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS SYSTEM, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT POOR PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD TO CLAIM OR PROTECT THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. BUT IT IS THE GLOBAL STRUCTURE WHICH IS IN PLACE, AND IT IS NOT GOING TO DISAPPEAR. SO WE NEED TO WORK WITHIN IT, REFORMING IT, AND GETTING IT TO WORK BETTER. TRYING TO DENY IT OR TO DESTROY IT IS NOT GOING TO HELP ANYONE.

THE ISSUE WHICH DAVID HEAF FAILED TO ADDRESS WAS THIS: IF ALTERNATIVE VARIETIES ARE AVAILABLE, THEN WHY DO FARMERS CHOOSE GMO VARIETIES ? AND IF THEY WANT TO GROW A GMO VARIETY, THEN THAT IS THEIR CHOICE, AND THEY MUST PAY FOR THAT VARIETY.

Mark D. Laing
Professor, Plant Pathology, University of Natal, South Africa
laing@micr.unp.ac.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 11:46 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Molecular markers vs Genetic transformation

This is from Ahmed Rebai, Phd in Genetics and plant breeding, Researcher at the Centre of Biotechnology of Sfax, Tunisia. Ahmed.Rebai@cbs.rnrt.tn

I have followed with a big interest the discussions on this list since few days and read some of the emails. Here I will try to ask a simple question: what make the GMOs so attractive and why, compared to other 'risky' biotechnologies (such as radiation induced mutations), it has brought such animated discussions and public concerns?

I have been involved in research on molecular markers since 1991 with emphasis on their use in plant breeding, (including QTL mapping, marker-assisted backcrossing and selection). I am therefore convinced that with molecular markers (MM) we can do some of the things which are done by genetic transformation (GT) and even more. Take the example of resistance to fungal or bacterial plant diseases. As far as I know, there are no GMOs designed for these resistance (except some attempts with Chitinase genes or some others) because most of them are quantitative traits, i.e. governed by many genes with relatively small effect for each individual gene. These genes are bad candidates for GT as they do not confer total and durable resistance.

Some studies have shown that these genes (at least the biggest among them) can be pyramided in one variety using molecular markers giving a durably resistant cultivar. But GT is easier and faster than MM. It gives resistant varieties (to insects or viruses) in one or two years. It will take at least four years (with less efficiency) to produce them using plant genes with marker assisted or classical backcrossing. So for me the concern is that GT solves 'some' problems of agriculture more rapidly and better than do other biotechnologies, but consequently is more 'risky' than the others as it overcrosses the species barrier. This does not mean that we (in developing countries) have to refuse them in block and definetly. Some GMOs can solve some of our problems especially with our 'strategic' and 'major' crops. Thus we have to think twice before accepting or rejecting GMOs from our agriculture: the first is what are the actual risks and the second what are the benefits. The risk/benefit assessment of a GMO in my sense should be done on a case-by-case basis and not once for all!

[Thanks to Dr. Rebai for addressing in a very clear way one of the elements we wished to discuss in this conference i.e. whether some of the biotechnologies are more (or less) appropriate than others for developing countries. He compares the use of molecular markers (MM) with genetic modification of crops and points out that the use of MM may be more appropriate for disease traits, controlled by many genes, but that it may take a longer time to produce useful varieties. Are there other opinions about the comparison of MM with GT regarding appropriateness for developing countries ?.........Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 4:51 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Molecular markers vs Genetic transformation

My name is Andrew Kiggundu a Plant Breeder/geneticist working with The National Banana Research Programme, Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute, P. O. Box 7065, Kampala Uganda.
Email: andrew@kari.go.ug (currently visiting the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, ICIPE, where my address is akiggundu@icipe.org).

As a breeder of a very difficult perennial crop, banana, I would like to thank Ahmed Rebai for taking this discussion a little back and highlight the usefulness of differentiating molecular marker assisted selection (MAS) and genetic engineering (GE) based breeding, especially in the context of developing countries.

Although I have just joined this discussion, I have read through some of the contributions and yet to read more. At the beginning it was highlighted, and rightfully so, that developing countries do not and might not in the near future be able to afford the infrastructure, required finance, and personnel for GE [e.g. Marcel Nwalozie, 23 March; Danladi Dada Kuta, 30 March ...Moderator]. In Africa and other developing countries, plant breeding has been going on for many years and has in one way or another yielded varieties that are popular in local communities. Examples can be obtained from beans, maize, sweet potato etc. However these African breeders need to utilize the new advances in plant breeding, thus MAS and genetic engineering, to improve on their methods and successes. My suggestion is that genetically modified plants (GMPs) should be restricted to breeding materials whereby they remain only at breeding centers rather than be released into the environment.

Conventional breeding with the help of MAS can then use GMPs as improved parents. In this way, repeated crossings and selection will eventually incorporate the genes of interest in a more natural manner and thus with lesser effect on the environment. For example, in banana most cultivated varieties are triploid and highly sterile. Yet a resultant variety (to be released) must retain high pathenocapy otherwise a banana with seeds is highly inedible. These features make conventional breeding in banana extremely difficult, complicated, lengthy (a crop cycle lasts about 1-2 years), and expensive. Coupled with this key resistance genes (to pests and diseases) are lacking in the cultivated varieties and must be sought in wild relatives.

Genetically engineered plants can be rapidly developed with foreign genes for resistance, diploid, and with good fertility (both female and male) to serve as breeding parents only. While Molecular marker assisted selection can help expedite the process of conventional breeding. GMP's can be developed in collaborative ventures between scientists from developed countries and developing countries and then kept at gene banks, where they can be accessed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 4:53 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: IPR for developing countries

I believe that Dr. Kumar [25 April] has presented an excellent overview of the current state of play regarding a variety of areas in international IPR protection. Equally he rightly highlights the immense coercive pressure that is applied by developed countries when they feel that the current IPR system is threatened (and by this I mean threatened by expansion as much as by being done away with).

However, I would raise a couple of points to try to establish the idea that all is not lost. First is the fact that the only reason developed countries, and particular US business interests, made the move of taking IPRs to the WTO was because the developing countries had learnt to effectively outmanoeuvre them in fora such as the Paris and Berne Conventions. Second is recent moves by the US government and Pfizer to placate South Africa over HIV related pharmaceuticals - such moves are not made unless companies and developed countries have a real fear that they may lose control of a situation. Third is the fact that we do not have to depend on TRIPs 27(3)(b)'s sui generis regimes for a solution, we also have the alternative approach of arguing that we are simply extending the protections afforded by TRIPs according to Article I(1).

Overall I would argue that developing countries should be spending more time trying to "play the game" rather than simply railing against a situation which is a fait accompli - let's explore all the options we have and above all coordinate our approaches to these questions. If a country "as big as India" cannot stand up to the pressure then why don't we, as another contributor suggested, make sure that we have the G77, or some similar grouping, behind them and then see what the developed country reaction is.

Miracles do happen!

Robert J. L. Lettington
Law and Policy Consultant
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology
P.O. Box 30772
Nairobi, Kenya.
Tel: +254 2 802501/3/9
Fax: + 254 2 860110
E-mail: rlettington@icipe.org; rjllett@hotmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 11:13 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: IPR for developing countries

This is to add to Dr. Vijaya Kumar's (April 25) view point that Sui Generis systems are very much recommended and no single country can oppose it.

India's Bill No. 123 entitled " The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Right Bill 1999" is a good case for that. The bill is still being debated but once ready it may prove to be a model for most developing countries. This bill will also elucidate how hollow UPOV, Plant Variety Protection (PVP) and other protection mechanisms in place, are. Without a regulation in place for a country germplasm is nowhere safe. Gene prospectors' follow no rules and have many tools. Even CGIAR's "Leaky-Genebanks" cannot or are unable to protect the germplasm conserved there. Material Transfer Agreement is a paper tiger. Thus "gene rich" or so-called "developing countries" can protect and get their germplasm-worth of right and might only, when they have a regulation in place.

But developing countries can definitely learn from what India has put up and hopefully becomes a law soon. Wait and see !!

Ram C. Chaudhary
Chairman
Participatory Rural Development Foundation
Gorakhpur, India
rchaudhary@vsnl.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 12:08 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: interspecific hybrids, induced mutation and GMOs

Dr. Ahmed Rebai from CBS, Tunisia. Ahmed.Rebai@cbs.rnrt.tn

I would like first to comment an email by Lorna Salzman sent a month ago [Mar 30: subject: 'Re: pest res to Bt/GM and human health'] about GMOs, incest and crossing the species barriers. The Parallell between these three things does not make sense for a scientist. Crossing the species barriers is a natural phenomenon in the plant kingdom since thousands of year. What do you think bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) is ? It is a (allopolyploid) hybrid between three species: Triticum monococcum, Aegilops speltoides and Aegilops Squarrosa. Do you really think that wheat was disadvantaged by natural selection ?

Interspecific crosses are also possible by controlled sexual hybridization, as plant breeders used to do since many years for example in backcross breeding of tomato (e.g. crossing the cultivated tomato cultivars from species Lycopersicon esculentum with donor wild related species L. Pervianum to transfer resistance genes) or in creating new interspecific hybrid such as Triticale (between Wheat and Rye) which has been used in agriculture since many years. The equivalent of incest in plants is inbreeding which does not have anything to do with species barriers. Cross-fertilizing species generally show an inbreeding depression when selfed whereas autogamous species do not suffer from self-crossing.

Let's now go back to GMOs; in fact GMOs are made by a process which crosses the species barriers and even more: the genera and kingdom barriers (from animal or bacteria to plants). Sure, this makes a difference and that's why scientists themselves and since the beginning of the genetic engineering era (say 1975) have questioned and started to develop appropriate tools for studying the risks linked to the use of such 'transgenic' organisms. Now we have many tools to study the many different potential risks (on human health, environment, on agricultural practice and so on) of GMOs and we are able to carry out a risk assessment study for any GMO submitted for field release, based on the most recent scientific findings. Of course no body can garantie the zero risk (anyway it does not exist) but one can say that the risk is very minor, minor, medium or strong. Remember the thousands of poeple who were exposed to DDT (and other chemicals or drugs) before we find that it is can cause a big harm to the organism and environment. GMOs is the first thing in the history of human beings where the risk assessment is done prior to the commercial realease. Let us think about these and try to have an as-objective-as-possible point of view.

I will now end by going back a question: "Are GMOs more or less risky than radiation induced mutation?". There seems to be no public debate about the use of radiation to generate new mutated genes whereas we have much less control and knowledge of the genetic modifications induced by radiation (which can affect a large proportion of the genome) than on those induced by transferring a single gene (as we do in GMOs)! Any answer?

I am not defending anyhow the use of GMOs and as I've said before the final decision as to whether to use them or not should be based on a case-by-case risk/benefit assessment, taking into account scientific, socio-economic and cultural considerations. To me, there are other more easily accessible biotechnologies for the developing countries which can substantially improve crop production with minor financial inputs; among these are in vitro culture (mainly to produce disease-safe plants of vegetatively propagated species), molecular marker technologies (to improve efficiency and time-saving in breeding programs)... but we do not have to miss the GMO train and try to keep a 'kernel' research on genetic transformation of local major crops.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 4:59 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: interspecific hybrids, induced mutation and GMOs

Thanks for the measured and serious response. If you review my original posting [30 March], you will find that I did acknowledge successful hybrids, i.e. those derived from closely related species (usually in the same genus, sometimes in the same family). Dr. Rebai himself acknowledges that recombining genes of species very distantly related presents an entirely new paradigm, one that is routinely rejected by evolution. It is the uncertainties of this new situation that concern not just activists but many biologists.

Dr. Rebai is incorrect, however, in stating that such uncertainties and potential risks have resulted in required GMO testing before commercial release. Rebai is completely wrong in assuming there have been no untested releases. We have genetically modified ingredients in many many food products, almost too many to list. These ingredients are sometimes the main ingredient (corn) and sometimes a lesser one or a process ingredient (canola oil, soya lecithin).

Moreover, test plantings here and abroad mean that we have ENVIRONMENTAL release, which is obviously far riskier than "commercial" release because these releases cannot be recalled, whereas foods not purchased can be recalled. It is this fact of environmental experimental plantings - which release pollen and GE exudates such as that from Bt corn - that are of grave concern to biologists and environmentalists. The fact is that, because the US refused to conduct proper environmental impact statements and assessments before allowing recombinant-DNA experiments to move ahead in the 1970s, we now have totally uncontrolled environmental releases of genetically engineered seeds and crops (as well as GM products within foods).

It is broad-scale commercialization, by routine incorporation in foodstuffs and selling of GM fruits, vegetables, etc., that has not yet taken hold, but withholding these is no hardship except to corporations and agribusiness. Consumers are not going to be deprived of healthy food if GMO commercialization is stopped. They seem to have managed without it for a long time.

But the ecological, health and social implications of global broadcasting of GE seeds and crops are only just now beginning to manifest themselves. Until Arpad Pusztai conducted his rat experiments using GM potatoes, the claims of "safety" of GM foods rested on a single, corporate-sponsored study (Monsanto) relating to Roundup Ready soybeans, which are used for animal feed mainly, not human food. Nonetheless, corporations, agribusiness, Big Science (National Academy of Sciences (NAS)) and their government allies are unrelenting in their insistence that no harm to public health has been demonstrated yet. (Critics of the NAS report point out that the NAS study did NOT deal with GE foodstuffs or potential health problems but ONLY with the issue of genetically modifying a genome to incorporate pesticide resistance. This is hardly a wholesale demonstration of safety).

As some scientists admit, lack of evidence of harm is no evidence of safety. And the problem is that pro-GE scientists and corporations are intent on using the global environment and human beings as their experimental arena. We used to have an illustration of this: a man falls off the top of the Empire State Building, and as he passes the 80th floor, he announces "So far, so good".

In our case it is alien and novel genomically-distorted organisms that could in some circumstances (especially if modified for pesticide resistance) be selected for and successfully compete with established biotic communities, not just weedy relations or crop land races, and become dominant, irreversibly changing ecosystems and undermining their established processes and functions. This is not sci fi; this is evolution and natural selection, purportedly the hypothetical infrastructure for scientific experimentation. If scientists themselves choose to ignore these facts, they will continue to provide the general public with good reason for distrusting all their claims, including the benign.

Lorna Salzman, USA
718-522-0253; 631-653-3387
lsalzman@aba.org

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