Forum Conf 1 (biotech and crop sector)

My name is Marcel Nwalozie, the Scientific Co-ordinator of the West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development (WECARD/CORAF). WECARD is charged with the co-ordination and facilitation of agricultural research co-operation in the sub-region, consisting of 24 countries, and has a population more than 230 million.

Having said this, may I make an attempt at the question: 'How appropriate are currently available biotechnologies in the crop sector for food production and agriculture in developing countries'. First, it is important to state that most national research systems in sub-Saharan Africa still have very low funding for institutional and operating costs. Therefore, most of these countries cannot afford the necessary enabling funding for the acquisition and maintenance of biotechnology facilities. For example, in crop improvement most national systems are still reliant on the use of agronomic characters (of varieties which sometimes have very close parental lines) for breeding. Physiological characteristics are sometimes used, but molecular biology (recombinant DNA technique) is little 'known' in crop improvement.

Thus, there may be the availability of inflow of biotechnologies into the zone (sub-Saharan Africa). There may also be the availability of other local or indegineous technologies (other than high biotech), but there is practically little new biotechnology being generated by the national systems to tackle the problems of crop production. The International Centres of the CGIAR may have the capacities for the development of these high technologies, but such capacities are sometimes over-stretched as a result of many factors. The factors include the fact that the national systems do not have the capacities/resources to sustain such high biotechs from the CG centres. Of course, the CG centers cannot do everything, and there are a number of crops that are not CG centres mandates.

A technology can only be appropriate if its use and sustainance is assured. Or what do you think?

Marcel Nwalozie, Ph.D
Scientific Co-ordinator,CORAF/WECARD,
N° 7 Avenue Bourguiba,
BP 8237, Dakar-Yoff, Senegal.
Tel. (221) 825.4823, 825.9618
Fax (221) 825.5569
Email: nwalozie@sonatel.senet.net, marcel.nwalozie@coraf.org
http://www.coraf.org

** To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org ** For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see ** http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 4:00 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Agricultural Research / Sub-saharan Africa / Resources

This is Saturnina C. Halos, a molecular geneticist from the Philippines. I currently provide advice to the Department of Agriculture on modern biotechnology development.

It is quite difficult to generalize and say that if one cannot sustain a technology one must not start. One must try to start something if one wants to progress. As for cost of techniques, tissue culture is relatively cheap and you just have to identify a problem where it could be very useful. If such a problem is critical and solving it could revolutionize production, then sustaining the technology later will not be a problem. A most revolutionary but simple technology developed and applied in the Philippines is mango flower induction. This technology involves the application of an inorganic chemical to mango plants and the flowering is assured. Increased and programmed fruit production has been achieved with this technology. We used to produce only for the local market but now mango is a major export. Going back to tissue culture, it is a very useful technique and there are a number of things one can do with it. Selection for desirable traits in tissue culture is manageable, for example and maybe more cost-effective than field selections.

We in the Third World are in the same boat, you know. Funds are always scarce and in our case the first item in the national budget that usually gets cut when the going gets rough is R & D. Then we also have a problem of maintaining our best scientists in R & D. They either migrate, go into consultancy or join the CGIAR centers. However, as I see it the only alternative technology to chemical pesticides for our farmers who often abuse chemical use are pest-protected GM-crops. The organics would disagree but organic farming is actually labor intensive and there are few in my country who can pay and willing to pay a premium for organically grown crops. On the other hand, collaboration with other countries with similar project or accessing grants might help reduce cost. It would be too expensive for us to start our own biotechnology programs that includes gene isolation to transformation to commercialization. It would be cheaper to access and adopt GM-crops developed elsewhere or access desirable genes which in some cases can be obtained free.

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

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 2:09 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Agricultural Research / Sub-saharan Africa / Resources

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

I think Marcel Nwalozie's point could in some ways be the beginning and end of the discussion in that if the national centres, and even the far better funded CG Centres in many cases, cannot support the full range of biotechnologies then what hope is there for their effective use in the field? Most sub-saharan African states are currently struggling to maintain traditionally oriented extension services. In Kenya there was a significant crisis in the supply of traditionally bred seed recently so how would we support more expensive seed and its associated inputs? This is quite apart from the ability to develop biotech capacity aimed at biosafety questions.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 2:39 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Agricultural Research / Sub-saharan Africa / Resources

This is David Heaf, UK. I'm a biochemist; a non-commercial organic grower; a member of a UK government working group helping implement the new European legislation aimed at keeping the organic food sector free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs); and UK contact for Ifgene -- International Forum for Genetic Engineering.

Saturnina C. Halos wrote on 23.3.2000 at 15.15 wrote "...organic farming is actually labor intensive and there are few in my country who can pay and willing to pay a premium for organically grown crops."

We are already paying a premium for non-organically produced foods only the premium is concealed from the marketplace in the costs of (inter alia):

*dealing with agrochemicals in water supplies
*global fossil fuel consumption in agrochemical production
*the health burden from agrochemicals in food and the environment
*food miles
*loss of biodiversity in cultural landscapes
*paying farmers not to produce (e.g. in EU)
*other farm subsidies
*unemployment benefit payments to people who would otherwise be engaged in sustainable agriculture
*compensating farmers for catastrophic failures of intensive
agriculture (e.g. bovine spongiform encephalopathy in UK) *and possibly one day cleaning up the global mess left by GMOs

I suspect that if these could all be costed and the sum added to the price tags of non-organic products in the marketplace there would be few who could pay or be willing to pay the premium for them.

David Heaf
www.anth.org/ifgene

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 2:42 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Agricultural Research / Sub-saharan Africa / Resources

My name is Lorna Salzman and I reside in Brooklyn, NY, USA. I am an environmental activist,writer and lecturer, formerly on staff of Friends of the Earth, Food & Water Inc., National Audubon Society and, most recently, a natural resources specialist with the NYC Dept. of Environmental Protection.

Ms. Halos raises some important issues (23/3). She refers to non-organic agriculture as labor intensive, which it is, and to the need for the third world to obtain GM seeds and materials elsewhere.

These comments actually demonstrate the need for changing the background document wording. Labor intensivity is not a bad thing, is it? Especially since the incredible influx into third world cities of people with no home, job or sustenance, means they have been displaced from their land. People want land they can work. But giant corporate agribusiness and international funding institutions,coupled with inequitable distribution of land in countries lacking democracy, have created this problem. The fact is that farmers WANT land and WANT to work on land. If given a choice they would leave the city and the factories and work the land. Why labor intensivity is considered a bad thing escapes me. In the view of many, labor is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Is begging on the streets or working in a dirty factory for slave wages under dangerous conditions, on the terms of the management and corporations a good thing? Does Halos think maquiladoras are a great idea?

As for getting GM materials from elsewhere, that again is a problem: dependence on agribusiness giants. Is Halos suggesting that we need increased dependence? That millions of third world farmers should become totally dependent on the largesse of corporations? That they should be at the mercy of what corporations decide upon regarding pricing, seed supplies, types of seed, etc? That they give up their freedom to choose the varieties that are appropriate to their local region? That they sacrifice their ability to nurture and develop local varieties, an integral part of sustainability and ecosystem protection? That they simply become a cog in a corporate machine that enhances corporate profit but provides nothing but servitude for the farmer and its community?

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 2:47 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Agricultural Research / Sub-saharan Africa / Resources

Hello, this is Chris A. Geiger, an entomologist at the Univ. of California at Berkeley. I worked in Southeast Asia for a number of years on integrated pest management projects and am quite interested in this topic.

The question of whether a technology is appropriate, for a given problem in a given context, has several corollary questions: Can it really solve the problem (without creating too many new ones), and do the potential benefits outweigh the costs and risks of the technology? I am not anti-biotech, but I am critical of the excessive and premature introduction of some of the technologies. The prevailing attitude is eerily similar to the early years of the pesticide age. There were faculty on my campus at that time who seriously proposed that entomology would soon be a superfluous science, since the new pesticides would solve all of our pest problems!

True, transgenic crops hold a great deal of promise. But let's remember that we are tinkering with one very complex system (the genome) and introducing it into another very complex system (the ecosystem). I believe that the precautionary principle should be followed with all transgenic introductions, that is, err on the side of caution, unless we are faced with a true humanitarian crisis. But I have not yet seen a transgenic crop product for which there is a truly compelling need, a need that outweighs the unknown risks.

I'd like to respectfully disagree with Ms. Halos. She said "that the only alternative technology to chemical pesticides for our farmers who often abuse chemical use are pest-protected GM-crops." There are indeed better alternatives. It has been shown in many examples worldwide that implementation of IPM principles--especially monitoring, cultural controls, and the use of bio-pesticides--can lower pesticide use significantly. The FAO IPM program has made great strides towards these ends with its rice IPM program, which has also educated and empowered farmers in the process.

It is important to note that the "pest-protected GM crops" introduced to date do not hold promise for long-term pest supression. Bt crops instead promise to accelerate resistance development in pests and render one of IPM's most valuable tools--Bt spray, applied selectively--ineffective for everyone. While I am sure that the new biotechnologies hold a great deal of promise for solving agricultural problems, we have to remember that they are still merely tools. We have the responsibility to learn to use them correctly before releasing them on a wide scale.

It may be cliche, but please remember the story of the man who only had a hammer in his toolbox. To him, everything in the world resembled a nail.

OK, I'll get off my soap box now.

Sincerely,

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: Friday, March 24, 2000 2:49 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: crop biotechs - economic/technical/socio-political factors

Robert Lettington. Law and Policy Consultant. International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), Nairobi, Kenya.

Economic

Not only is biotechnology a multi-billion dollar industry but it has also been cited as "the fastest take up of a new technology in history". Given this fact, plus humanity's historical tendency to be dazzled by new and expensive technology, is there not a possibility that we haven't properly thought through the idea of biotechnology and that due to the enormity of commitments made industry doesn't actually want us to? Biotechnology is an enormously anthropocentric concept, a relatively recent (post-enlightenment) philosophy of man's creation. The idea that the technologies reflect market realities doesn't stand up - rather technology is trying to dictate market realities.

The question of IPRs spurring the biotech industry may well be true in the North but nearly all Southern countries' patents still fall in the lowest standards of enforceability category. Thus the idea of African IPRs spurring technological development is a little utopian to say the least.

Why are companies so loathe to assist with more than token in-country capacity building? This would seem to be the only way that developing countries can make sensible decisions about what to allow and what not.

Technical

With the technologies of molecular markers and the three types of GMOs there seems to be an explicit admission that we have no idea what effect these interventions may have on the wider functioning and effects of the organism involved, we only understand tiny elements of these systems. For instance, as the appellation implies, we have no idea what "junk DNA" does and if and how it interacts with other DNA. This is reinforced by the fact that we have only incorporated a limited number of genes in products to date, we are at the tip of the biotech iceberg and have no idea of what may lie below the surface. Could this not have tremendous implications for both human and environmental health? You can't insist on basing decisions on sound science one minute and then admit that you know very little about the science the next, there must be clear lines drawn.

Micropropagation seems a less inherently risky technology to date as we are not fundamentally altering anything but what are the implications of crop uniformity and thus vulnerability. Africa is a far more hostile environment in terms of disease and pests than Europe or the US so micropropagated seeds could be devastated by a new or unexpected threat as green revolution crops sometimes were in SE Asia and even the US. Subsistence farmers couldn't afford this loss, even once.

Herbicide Tolerance - what relevance can this have to developing countries where most of the time farmers will never be able to afford the herbicide - the only winners will be those who are already wealthy. Since there seems to be some evidence that Bt may harm some insects (from the Monarch Butterfly study) what other unknowns might exist regarding this product? This comes back to the querying of our competence with GMOs.

Socio-political

If most land suitable for agriculture is already in use should we not focus first on what amount of agricultural land in use is being used for its optimum sustainable production given local circumstances? This could be based on previous agricultural experiences in Africa and elsewhere rather than going straight for the newest and most expensive technology available.

In every food security oriented meeting I've been to, that wasn't called with the purpose of discussing biotech, it has always been socio-political factors that have been cited as holding African farmers back most. These include access to markets, price manipulation at market, access to credit, access to extension services etc. Thus even with biotech seed the situation won't change unless these factors are addressed first.

There is even an argument that the "green revolution" and biotech have harmed developing countries by increasing oversupply in the North and consequently depressing world prices which in turn destroys small farmers in the South. This has certainly had dramatic effects in East Africa. Kenya, at least, is producing lower volumes of most agricultural products in both actual and real terms for reasons that have nothing to do with factors that can be addressed by biotech. This is clear as the government agricultural research agency has enthusiastically embraced various biotechnologies.

Conclusion

Biotech certainly could have a strategic role to play in certain fields and areas but why should it be taken as anything more than a limited strategic tool to be used where other tools such as integrated pest management or conventional breeding and soil enhancing techniques fail? If we don't understand it then it should be used sparingly as the tool of last resort, we haven't reached the point of last resort on food security yet except in a few extreme circumstances.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 3:02 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Philippines - GM corn - field trial

We in the Philippines is experiencing birth pains in the first field trials of Bt corn. This Bt corn is being tested for effectiveness against the Asiatic corn borer found in Mindanao where infestation causes 30-80% loss in yields in farmer's fields. Also, aflatoxin, a mycotoxin associated with borer infested grains has been detected in corn grains from this region. Farmers in this region have only two options for control: 1. the corn borer egg parasite Trichogramma which farmers say is not always effective. Maybe the borer multiplies faster than the parasite. 2. Use of the systemic chemical Furadan which farmers apply with their bare hands. Farmers have reported fainting during application and one reported death of his carabao( Philippine water buffalo) after ingesting newly Furadan-sprayed corn leaves. Researchers from the University of the Philippines Institute of Plant Breeding and Monsanto Agroseeds collaborated to set up the Bt corn field trials after having determined under stringent greenhouse conditions that the Philippine Asiatic corn borer does not survive in the Bt corn. The results of the field trials show that Bt corn plants are 100% protected from corn borer infestation. Corn farmers in the area have monitored this experiment and today are clamoring to have not only Bt corn seeds but also other pest-protected crops, like rice, vegetables, fruits. They admit to using a lot of pesticide which they know is bad for the environment but for these farmers, there is no other option until they saw the Bt corn plants.

Unfortunately, we have an anti-GMO coalition well-funded by foreign interest groups that for the past year have started to campaign against GMOs and specifically against this Bt corn field trial. This group has access to printed media, to our lawmakers who drafted resolutions and a bill to stop the Bt corn trials or declare a moratorium on the entry of GMOs in the country. In one of the proposed location of the field trial, they were able to incite the local populace to prevent the establishment of the field trial. In the other location where the field trials were successfully established, this group has incited the urban poor, some Catholic priests and the city council of the locality to have the Bt corn trials stopped. They were able to place one of their members in the National Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP), the body that evaluates whether proposed experiments with GMOs does not pose unnecessary risks to health and the environment, who from the start had tried to stop the trials and had tried all means to stop it. Finally, they also tried to bring the case to the Supreme Court by citing a law that is supposedly violated by making misrepresentation about the field trials. The Supreme Court citing technicalities dismissed the petition.

Fortunately, our lawmakers have public hearings and called scientists and the farmers for their views about the proposed ban and moratorium on GMO entry and testing. While most scientists gave very strong scientific arguments in favor GMO entry and testing, it is the farmers who have monitored the field trials that were very effective in getting the concerned lawmakers drop their objections. Now, it is our farmers who are pushing for more trials to hasten the commercialization of Bt corn in their area. They feel strongly that the NGOs are keeping a very useful technology from them.

What we see from this experience is the need to have a strong information campaign about GMOs especially GMcrops which are the subject of a villification campaign by foreign interest groups. Field trials are not only important scientifically but also as a demonstration trial for farmers. The strongest argument for the current GM crops is how they compare with the current extensive practice of using chemical pesticides in environmental protection and in human health. There is also a need to understand how these crops are regulated in the country where they are produced and how we are regulating them in our own countries.

Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D. (halos@mozcom.com)
Senior Project Development Adviser, Bureau of Agricultural Research and member, Secretary's Technical Advisory Group, Department of Agriculture, Philippines

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 5:14 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Turkey - GM crops

From Prof. Nazimi Açi.kgöz, an editor of "agbiyotek", a bilingual (Turkish and English) monthly electronic biotechnological newsletter, Being a plant breeder and a seed specialist, I'd like to contribute the following summary to your electronic forum:

"Possible contributions of transgenics to Turkish agriculture; Corn has an acreage of 550000 ha. In Turkey. The general trend seems to be a linear increment. However some agronomic alternatives like second crop application of corn after barley or wheat harvest seem quite promising in case we would have a corn cultivar with its European corn borer or ear worm resistance. It is not easy to estimate exactly but at least 100 000 ha acreage is waiting for such a variety. It is to be mentioned here that early applications could not be carried on because of the not existence of suitable varieties. And such an application would bring roughly 1000 $ per ha.

Cotton is grown in 700000 Ha in Turkey. The number of insecticide applications is not less than 5 per season and it increases from time to time up to 10 in western Turkey whereas it rises up to 15 times in Adana region. Please imagine the amount and cost of insecticide and their residual effect to the environment and compare the contribution of transgenics to the Turkish cotton growers!"

Sincerely
----------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Nazimi Açi.kgöz
Head, Ege Uni. Seed Tech. Center
35100 Bornova TURKEY
----------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 5:32 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: non-GMO biotechnology tools

Hi, I am Mark Guiltinan, a Plant Scientist at Penn State University, USA.

With all of the controversy surrounding GMOs the various dimensions of biotechnology seems to be lumped into the same basket, and some people forget that the new biotechnology holds many tools to hit many different types of nails, many of the tools have nothing to do with genetic engineering (although it is one of them). For example:

Marker assisted selection: a tool to vastly speed up plant breeding and introgression of horizontal and durable resistance factors with high yields ect.

Plant tissue culture: a tool which can be used to vegetativly propagate elite lines for research and production, to recover progeny of wide crosses for introgression of resistance factors from wild relatives into cultivated varieties, and which can be used to preserve biodiversity in low cost cryopreservation, ect.

Genomics methods: with an amazing promise to speed up gene discovery for basic mechanistic research and identification of breeding targets.

There are many other non-GMO biotechnology tools. Although it is necessary to be cautious in the implementation of GMOs, this should not inhibit the use of the other, non-GMO biotechnologies to help developing countries.

The trick is, how to use these tools effectively to impact the well-being of people in the developing countries, the ecosystem and the economy. In my work, I have become convinced that it can be done, we can support the work of the excellent scientists and extensionists in the developing countries with training, collaboration and support services, and it will have a positive impact.

Mark Guiltinan
Associate Professor of Plant Molecular Biology
Department of Horticulture
The Biotechnology Institute   office: 814 863-7957
Penn State University   lab: 814 863-7958
306 Wartik Lab    fax: 814 863-6139
University Park, PA 16802-5807    mjg9@.psu.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 12:05 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Philippines - GM Corn - field trial

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

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

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

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 12:11 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Philippines - labour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Lettington wrote on 24.3.2000 [Subject: crop biotechs - economic/technical/socio-political factors] "Micropropagation seems a less inherently risky technology to date as we are not fundamentally altering anything but what are the implications of crop uniformity and thus vulnerability."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 24, 2000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:49 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Bt

So far there has been much focus on Bt products by both the pro and the anti-biotech viewpoints in this forum. I don't think of myself as anti-biotech per se but the example of Bt only serves to highlight my concern.

When one considers the recent US Environmental Protection Agency restrictions on both Bt cotton and corn for the 2000 growing season and the request for increased monitoring of resistance as well as the recent studies from New York University that indicate Bt exudates from Bt-Corn roots and may have unknown consequences for soil ecosystems there are some serious problems that Monsanto, Novartis, DeKalb, Mycogen et al did not consider. Not even the EPA considered these issues until recently.

If one just took the potential impacts on soil ecosystems, developing country farmers could be in a potentially disastrous position. If the fertility of soils is lost due to disruptions in the ecosystem it won't matter how pest or drought resistant your seed variety is. Thus once again taking the example of the farmers in Mindanao [the Philippines, see message on 'Philippines-GM corn - field trial' from Dr. Halos, 24 March...the Moderator], Bt may be a very attractive prospect in the short term but unless adequately monitored it could take away whole livelihoods in the future.

The ultimate problem is that developing countries are still too tied to accepting what the transnationals give them in terms of seed and information relating to that seed if they enter this new market. Bearing in mind that it is possible that NO studies have been done to date on the effects of Bt-crop toxins on communities of insects living in the soil, we need to take far greater strides in developing, and to be realistic, even developed, country capacity building for the purposes of biosafety.

I agree that pesticides involve many of the same problems as GMOs, both in terms of resistance and side effects, but that's why we need to be open in approaches to crop development using only the technology we have to in a given situation - restraint. IPM may be more time consuming, and in some instances have its own problems, but its certainly far more certain a technology than GMOs. Using a GMO because its significantly easier, with a consequent rise in risk, seems like a parallel with "get rich quick" schemes.

Robert Lettington
Law and Policy Consultant
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology
Kenya.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:54 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Crop biotechnologies in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)

From Edgardo Moscardi, Executive Secretary of FONTAGRO (Regional Fund for Agricultural Technology)

Fontagro has been established as a financial and competitive mechanism to promote agricultural projects of cross country interest in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). More in the web page. To discuss the issue of availability of biotechs in our Region, it is useful to distinguish those countries located between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn and those outside this belt. The area within includes all of LAC except for the southern cone of Argentina, Chile, Uruguay , south of Paraguay and Brazil, and northern part of Mexico. These more temperate regions have not been hit severely by globalization and more open economies, and the countries are basically following their traditional competitive advantages in cereals, oil seeds,beef and milk, temperate fruits and vegetables. The use of modern technologies is largely spread and integration with agroindustry and value added to primary production are very significant. More important for these countries, is that the stock of scientific knowledge to support gains in productivity for those products is, as well, quite large, both because the national agricultural research systems (NARS) are more developed and due to international technology transfer from other developed temperate countries of the world. Availability of new tools and biotechs products (GMOs in corn, soybean and tomatoes for example) for these countries is quite good. At the same time these countries have put together IPRs and biosafety rules.

But for the countries located between the Tropics, the situation is quite different. Traditional export crops (sugar cane, coffee and bananas) have maintained their share in total agricultural production, but cereals, oil seed, pulses and tubers have lost pace as price subsidies and other protective measures have been removed. New products entering diversification and crop substitutions in those countries are: tropical fruits, some vegetables, fast-growing tropical trees, aquaculture, medicinal plants for nutraceuticals, among others. Problem is that for these new crops and products, availability of biotechs and the like is in very short supply. The private sector is not expected to invest in research for these products and the public sector resources allocated to agricultural research are scarce. So for the more tropical and subtropical areas, where most of the poor people live, technologies as international public goods are desperately needed. Who can help?? Thanks.

________________________________________
Edgardo R. Moscardi
Secretario Ejecutivo
Fondo Regional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
FONTAGRO
Tel: 202-623-2873
Fax: 202-623-3968
E-mail: edgardom@iadb.org
Web-site: www.fontagro.org
________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 3:32 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: crop biotechs - economic/technical/socio-political factors

From Romain Berruyer Ph-D student [berruyer@cirad.fr]. Centre International de Recherche Agronomique pour le developpement(CIRAD), Montpellier, France. The purpose of my Ph-d work is to clone and study a (natural!) resistance gene from rice.

I wish to answer the arguments of Mr Lettington [24 March] who seems to have a critical but constructive point of view.

> A) Economic

It seems true that the biotech industries do not have interest in giving citizens the tools for judging them. We can hope that more information ( eventually biaised ) would be given to populations by biotech industries in the future because of the pressure brought by public opinion. About which dictate the other, between market and technologies, I think this issue is not so important, because both of them are blind systems that are not good guides for mankind, neither democratic. Biotechnologies, and generally technologies, are just tools, and the way they are made or used is not a technological but a political issue.

> B) Technical

> Could this not have tremendous implications for both human and > environmental health?

Yes, but remember that these implications can be tremendously good. It is of course not a reason to use them thoughtlessly. I agree when you say that the side effects of these techniques have to be carefully studied before the widespread use of them at the field level. It is impossible to definitely prove that GMOs do not make any risks, in the same way that one can't prove that a knife is not risky. One can't neither prove that organic crops do not present a risk for human health. Of course, this risk is far higher with strongly DDT treated crops. The use of GMO carrying herbicide resistance, especially in areas wich contains near wild species has to be forbidden. On the other hand, the use of Bt toxin-transformed corn seems more sustainable than the use of the classical hybrids that need massive pesticide income. Alternatively to pesticides, Bt toxin only lies in the plant and rhyzosphere, and has a very small retentivity.

> C) Socio-political

In the most part of Africa, traditional agriculture is not sustainable because of the demographic pressure. The use of GMOs in Africa can be helpful in developing a new sustainable agriculture for a tremendously increasing population. On the other hand, it is undoubtable that GMOs won't give what Africa needs first: roads, scools,peace, and stable democratic states.

> D) Conclusion

For my conclusion, I would say that the problem with biotechnologies is not the tool, but who has the tool. Genetically modified cultivars made by international institutions for local producers and freely distributed to them is a solution: Most of the cost of GMO is not the cost of the transformation itself, but the cost of the isolation and study of a potentially interesting gene. Today, the patents on GMO's are often patents on the natural genes used in the constructions. This point has to be debated for two reasons :

First, genes are part of nature and are the property of mankind. The one who discovers a gene does not invent it. Inventions can be patented, and patent system is a fairly good way to promote inventions and technological progress, but discoveries can't.

Secondly, the impossibility to patent natural genes would lead to the wide use of them in "local GMOs" obtained by transgenesis of local cultivars: biotech industries can patent Bt corn, and the rights of this patent can be paid by farmers in developed countries, but it would be useful, for example, to make freely available Bt-modified traditional corn cultivars in Mexico or Bolivia. Such a GMO proliferation would have, of course, to be strictly controlled in an environmental point of view, but would permit to harvest benefits of Biotechnologies without endangering global biodiversity and without falling into the power of international biotechnological industries.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 9:53 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health

I would like to respond to Mr. Berruyer's post (March 29). I appreciate the difficulties of engaging in a "dialogue" over the Internet, as well as the necessary constraints imposed by the rules governing this conference.

1. " any kind of agriculture destroys this balance [natural]." I respectfully disagree. Organic agriculture has been shown to not only maintain a natural balance (among other ways by encouraging diversity of fauna and flora), but it addresses imbalances due to the damage caused by chemical agriculture, and restores land to good heart. I have never heard or read anything to the contrary.

2. "GMO crops can be more environmentally protective than classical pesticides systems" This is very true. However: a.) Where I was once washing pesticides off my food before consumption, I am now expected to eat foods that secrete them. I feel this is far more damaging to my health. b.) Introducing GM food crops into the environment presents its own unique set of challenges, and potential damage. Again, the necessary constraints imposed by this Forum do not allow me to elaborate here. Although farmers will be saved from chronic exposure to pesticides, we are trading one problem [for] a series of others of a far grander scale.

3. "it is a given that any given pest and/or pathogen organism can evolve to acquire resistance" This is true. But it is the speed at which such change occurs that presents the dilemma. All organisms mutate, adapt, evolve over time, and it occurs in a very slow and methodical manner. It is one of the wonderful mechanisms found in nature. But when the nature of such change is accelerated in the way that is being seen here, we will trigger a series of unprecedented changes in our personal health and environment.

4. Malnutrition/Poor-Quality Soils: The chief causes of malnutrition are economic forces, politics, social conflict, national debt. It even has its roots in European colonization and the displacement of traditional crops with nutritionally poor substitutes unsuited to grow successfully in the environment into which they have been transplanted. Traditional African grains, for example, tend to be less dependent upon large amounts of water or irrigation, and are heat- and drought-tolerant than other major cereals, ideal even on marginal lands. But over time, the traditional grains languished and took on the stigma of being a second-rate source of food. The varieties number in the thousands.

"Economic dependence." There will be increasing economic and technical dependence and pressures upon farmers using GM food crops. I have not heard or read anything to the contrary. I would appreciate being led to anything that would lead me to believe otherwise.

"Vibrio cholerae, lead, as 'natural' phenomena." There is nothing natural about contaminated water supplies and unsanitary living conditions, which are the cause of the spread of cholera. Cholera and most other infectious diseases are man-made disasters, not natural disasters, as is poor-quality soil and malnutrition. And there has been no documented case in recorded history of anyone suffering or dying from exposure to lead found in its natural state. Lead poisoning is the direct result of its use in manufacturing and household and industrial products. Nature is more benevolent than that. It is man's view of natural processes as hostile that has created our adversarial relationship with it. And it has not been to our benefit.

Jeffrey Reel, Planetary Food Council, Massachusetts, USA.
JeffreyReel@aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 9:55 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health

Jeffrey Reel [29 March] makes some cogent points about GE [genetically engineered] crops. I would just like enlarge on his comments about how humans have evolved and evolution in general.

With rare exceptions - exceptions which never lead to reproductive success or population increase - interspecies reproduction is a failure. Those few individuals (hybrids) who have parents of two different species cannot reproduce, and in those rare cases where they do, the number of their progency is extremely small, does not increase, and therefore the hybrid genome does not spread into a larger population. It cannot compete with existing adapted species.

The crossing of species barriers, like incest, is possible but is nonadaptive and is not selected for. In the case of humans, epigenetic rules evolve which enforce the incest taboo. Those who violate it are punished, the embryos often deliberately aborted, and thus the practice of incest, and the desire to commit it, is severely curtailed. The cultural taboos are enough to discourage incest, even were we ignorant of the fact that incest enhances hereditary deformities.

In the case of those rare events in nature that create hybrids, the hybrids are usually sterile, and if they are not, they do not expand their numbers.

It seems evident that although non-humans have no epigenetic rules, hybridization and cross-species breeding is nonadaptive and actively discouraged by other means. While there is heavy debate on what constitutes a species in practical or empirical terms, the lack of interbreeding is generally interpreted as signifying the existence of two distinct species. Behavioral characteristics, such as song in songbirds, are usually enough to discourage interbreeding. Geographic barriers then occur to further separate the species and diminish the opportunity for intensive overlap and potential interbreeding. Animals don't need epigenetic rules because they have no consciousness that can say: I'd like to try and breed with another species.

Clearly nature or evolution intended to minimize the opportunities for crossing the species barrier. There is no reward (reproductive success) for doing so. It is therefore clearly counter-evolutionary for humans to attempt to do so. This "ultimate experiment" could have dire consequences which we cannot forsee. But we already possess enough knowledge about evolution and natural selection to recognize that such experiments do not succeed. We need to listen to the lessons of evolution rather than finding out the hard way. And in the case of genetic engineering, the hard way could result in global ecological disaster, which we will not know about until it is too late.

Evolutionists need to speak out about this blasphemous experiment which is totally unnecessary and only enhances the power of the scientific elite over our daily bread and our daily lives. The threat of nuclear war pales next to the possibility of global ecological disaster from novel organisms that never participated in the evolutionary process.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 10:43 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Nigeria - biotechnology will enhance crop research

This is from Danladi Dada Kuta, from Nigeria, who has just concluded a 3-years-PhD research programme in Moscow on the topic : "Markers of inheritable resistance to blast disease in rice callus culture''

Why is it that, especially in the last few years, agricultural products are becoming more and more unaffordable to most Nigerians? In the first place, nature did not cheat Nigeria on the availability of arable land - it is estimated that 82 million hectares out of Nigeria's total land area of about 91 million hectares are arable. Moreover, the agro-climatic conditions are suitable to provide the ever-increasing population of Nigeria with affordable agricultural products without necessarily depending on foreign imports. Presently, there are some talks about urban migration adversely affecting the agricultural activities of rural areas, but about 54% (more than 20 million people) of the labor force is still engaged in agriculture! This figure is significantly higher than in most developed countries that export food products. Where is the problem then? This is the question that worries most Nigerians. It worries them because agricultural products are first and foremost food products, without which it is simply impossible to survive. Insufficiency of these products or increase on their prices unfavorably affects the standard of living of the population. Currently, 75% of the income of most Nigerians is spent on food products alone.

According to available statistics (FAOSTAT Agriculture Data, 1999), the domestic production of some food crops (rice, millet, sorghum, groundnut, etc) in Nigeria has been expanding at a phenomenal rate since 1990. An example of a "success story" is rice production. About 2.5 million tons of paddy rice was harvested in 1990 on 1.2 million ha of land. The paddy rice harvest increased to 2.9 million tons in 1995 on an expanded area of 1.8 million ha. By 1998, the area under rice increased to about 2.1 million ha, from which over 3.3 million tons of paddy rice was harvested.

"This is a fantastic success story ", some might say, but I beg to differ. In 1998, as stated above, Nigeria devoted about 2.1 million hectares (ha) to produce about 3.3 million tons of rice. In that same year, the United States of America used just about 1.3 million ha to produce over 8 million tons of rice. Nigeria also beat Japan in the size of land under rice production in 1998 (Japan - 1.8 million ha, Nigeria - 2.1 million ha), but Japan produced almost 4 times more of rice (11.2 million tons) on its smaller area, than Nigeria. Success story indeed! A true success story in rice production is Egypt. In 1998, they devoted just about 0.6 million ha for rice production and produced around 4.5 million tons of paddy rice.

Why? You see, most farmers in Nigeria grow crops that are low yielding, that lack the capability of adequately resisting frequent attacks by insect, bacterial, fungal and viral pests, and that can not withstand severe drought and other abiotic stress conditions. It is now clear that the conventional crop improvement programs in the national agricultural research institutes of Nigeria need to be complemented with innovative biotechnology techniques.

THE BIOTECHNOLOGY METHODS FOR NIGERIA

Biotechnology is very important for Nigerian agriculture, not necessarily for the production of GM foods, but for enhancing research in the field of crop breeding, crop stress physiology, crop protection, to mention but a few.
Marker-assisted selection: for disease resistance will go a long way in accelerating the production of disease-resistant crop varieties. Microspore culture: is a useful tool for stabilization of promising lines in the first generation, instead of the laborious screenings over several generations in conventional breeding.
In vitro screening: could be exploited to create mutants that are resistant/tolerant to biotic/abiotic stress factors
Micropropagation: is also necessary for rapid multiplication of superior breeding lines or varieties. With the above biotech methods, the crop improvement programs in Nigeria will be greatly enhanced. However, Nigeria lacks enough specialists in plant biotechnology. In the agricultural research institute where I work in Nigeria, there is no biotechnology laboratory. The same with several others. The immediate major task, therefore, is the training of enough specialists in the field of plant biotechnology and creation of well-equipped modern biotechnology laboratories in the various national agricultural research institutes of Nigeria.

Danladi Dada Kuta
Crop Stress Physiologist, Plant tissue culturist
National Cereals Research Institute, Badeggi,
P.M.B.8, Bida, Niger State, Nigeria

Moscow contact address:
Moscow 117198, P.Box 95. e-mail: d.kuta.asp@agro.pfu.edu.ru

[Comment from the Moderator: A very clear message about the problems in the crop sector in Nigeria. The final comments of the message, concerning lack of resources, echo those made in the first 2 messages posted in the Conference, on 23 March.]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 4:37 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health

My Name is Werner Schenkel from Germany. I work as scientist at Technical University of Munich, Chair of Agronomy and Plantbreeding.

I would like to add some points to think about in response to Lorna Salzman´s comment about evolution [30 March].

She tries to prove that nothing good can come from cross-species breeding and this is a "blasphemous experiment which is totally unnecessary".

Wheat feeds the world !!! It is a hexaploid species combining three different genomes and evolved from spontaneous crossing of at least three species. Canola (Brassica napus) is the third most important oilcrop after soybean and cotton. It is a amphiploid bastard of Brassica campestris and Brassica oleracea combining genomes of both species. The evolution of potato most probably involved crosses of different solanum species.

Soybean is the most important oilcrop world-wide but no direct wild progenitor is known. None of the crops we are living on is able to survive natural selection (evolution) if not cultivated by man.

What is fit to effectively produce food for mankind must not necessarily be fit to evolve in nature and vice versa.

We will have to accept that a population of 6 billion people is not a result of natural balance. Simply giving "nature" its way is no option if we are not accepting to lose a lot of this population in a very unpleasant way (starvation and epidemics).

Werner Schenkel dipl.Ing.agr.
Technical University Munich
Chair for Agronomy and Plantbreeding
Alte Akademie 12
D 85350 Freising-Weihenstephan
Tel. xx49 8161 713749
Fax. xx49 8161 714511
schenkel@pollux.weihenstephan.de

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 4:45 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: GMO's and the developing countries

This is from Edo Lin. I have worked many years in Africa on seed projects for FAO and I am currently working for a French seed company on biotechnology issues.
lin.edo@free.fr

The current conference runs the risk of becoming sterile. It started promising with some good contributions which addressed the theme of the conference and now I think we need to re-focus our contributions to this topic and forget ideological discussions about the course of evolution or the benefits of organic food.

Most resource poor people in the developing world live in the rural areas and depend on food staples both as their source of income (either as farmers or as farm labourers) and as their main source of nutrition. Poverty reduction in the developing countries is directly linked to increases in production of food staples. Increased output per unit of land leads to increased labour productivity and income (Lipton, 1999). During the "Green revolution", between the years 1965 and 1985, yield of food staples (corn, wheat and rice) increased dramatically and equally dramatic falls in poverty were recorded, especially in SE Asia. Since 1985, the spectacular improvement in yields of food staples has slowed down due to various factors, like response of disease and insect vectors, genetic improvement ceilings, scarcity of water resources etc. GM crops can contribute to kickstart the second wave of the "Green Revolution" as it has the potential for improving yields, deal with renewed insect and disease pressure and could address water resource issues by developing more drought tolerant crops.

The theme of this conference is - whether the available biotechnologies are appropriate -.

To answer this question we should distinguish between available technology and available products from this technology. The available biotechnology tools are without doubt appropriate for the developing countries and are already widely used in several countries. Molecular biology has given us tools to speed up breeding of crops by using markers, micro-propagation is widely used to produce disease free stocks of bananas and other plants, etc etc.The development of nutritionally enhanced rice by recombinant DNA techniques has already been mentioned. In the near future the development of genomics will allow for the rapid screening of thousands of genes in crop plants to establish their usefulness. It is essential to realise that Biotechnology is more than the introduction of bacterial genes into crop plants. The fact that these tools are at the moment mostly used to improve corn for chickens rather than corn for humans (i.e. food staples) is related to the fact that the tools are developed and patented by private enterprises rather that public institutions. Where the first "Green Revolution" was based on science in the public domain, the second green revolution will depend on (a) a complete rethink about the role of public research and research funding and (b) on incentives to the private industry to make tools available.

The second part of the question is, whether the current products from available Biotechnology are appropriate. The current products from available biotechnology are input trait oriented, herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. Whether these are appropriate in the developing countries is a very complex issue and depends much on country or region specifics. As stated above, poverty reduction is dependent on farm related income. Herbicide tolerance would eliminate the use of labour for weeding and thus lower earning potentials and poverty reduction in many instances. However, in all developing countries there are also growing segments of commercial farmers who could benefit from herbicide tolerant crops in situations where labour is scarce.

Insect resistance is a win -win both in small and large scale farming in the developing world. In Africa, in corn, it is treat or don't eat. Busseola fusca (the african corn borer) and other insect pests are so destructive and attack the plants at such an early stage that chemical treatment (often done by hand by children and women without any protection) is essential for the survival of the crop. Bt corn could make a tremendous contribution to food security while eliminating some of the hazards associated with chemical treatment.

Please read Lipton (1999) at
http://www.worldbank.org/html/cgiar/publications/crawford/lipton.pdf

[Comment from Moderator: Some interesting points made very clearly here: especially regarding the separation of available biotechnology tools and available biotechnology products and the role of private interprises versus public institutions.]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 8:53 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 9:13 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 9:23 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: pest res. to Bt / GM and human health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeffrey Reel
jeffreyreel@aol.com
USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shawn McGuire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edo Lin, France
lin.edo@free.fr

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