Forum Conf 1 (biotech and crop sector)

[Excuse the delay in posting this message, plus the 2 subsequent ones. We received them last week on 3 and 4 April but our problems with the e-mail system prevented us sending them out until now.....Moderator]

This is from Konstantin Schestibratov, PhD in Biotechnology, Researcher at Artificial Climate Station "Biotron", Branch of Shemyakin and Ovchinnikov Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry RAS. E-mail schestibratov@mail.ru

I have followed with a big interest the discussions on this list since few days and read some of the emails. Here I will try to discuss simple question: Potential Reductions in Pesticide Use Through Genetically Enhanced Crops

The use of agricultural biotechnology to create crop varieties that are resistant to insects, diseases or herbicides is likely to result in dramatic reduction in the amount of pesticides used in agriculture These products offer farmers the opportunity to reduce the use of chemical pesticides, while maintaining, if not improving, yields and profitability

Herbicide resistant or tolerant crops are not new. Indeed, natural crop resistance or tolerance to certain herbicides is a prerequisite for herbicide-based weed control programs. Selective herbicides (i.e., those that affect only certain species or families of plants) allow farmers to control a wide range of weeds in a crop with little risk of injury to the crop. Recently, researchers have developed genetically enhanced crops with resistance to non-selective herbicides, such as Roundup and Liberty, that kill almost all plants upon which they are sprayed. Development of resistant varieties has now made it possible to use these herbicides in a growing crop. Previously non-selective herbicides could only be used when a crop was not growing in the field (e.g., before planting or after harvest) or the crop would also have been killed

Use of crops resistant to non-selective products offers growers the potential of reduced weed control costs through the use of fewer and less expensive herbicides. For example, some growers have indicated reduction in herbicide cost of $30 per acre, depending on their previous program

Moreover, in some cases transfer of resistance genes into the plant genome may increase resistence to diseases. For example, rs-afp2 is antibiotic-like protein from black radish and have antimicrobial and antifungal activity; thaumatinII protein is pathogenesis-related protein improving response of plant tissue to microbial or fungal attack. These genes have not any possible risk for the enviroment. I think that researchers should pay attention to this family of proteins

[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: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 9:48 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: interspecific hybrids, induced mutation and GMOs

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

This email to is to close the GMO debate (at least for myself) which has unfortunately dominated, since the opening, the discussions on this list. I want to recall some scientific things to think about.

Crossing the species, genera and sometimes family barriers is not only possible but it occurs (rarely, but it does) in nature or can easily be be done artificially (triticale is a hybrid between two genera with different genomic constitutions: Triticum and Secale). What do you think about protoplast fusion which also creates somatic hybrids impossible in nature?

Evolution has given raise to different species but many plant species have similar genetic constitutions (conserved gene sequences, conserved order of genes on the chromosomes, homologous conserved DNA segments..) as we are now discovering in comparative genomic studies (using tools such as genome mapping with molecular markers and other molecular biology techniques). The homology (or similarity) between the genomes of two different plant species from two different tribes can be as large as 93% (between rice and wheat, knowing that wheat do not intercross with rice, see for example paper of Paterson et al, 1995, Science Vol269: 1714- on comparative mapping) so will you consider a GM wheat with gene from rice as 'unnatural '? This traduces to me a simple and evident thing: the homogeneity and unity of living organisms which all derive from a single ancestor and are made of the same basic elements (AGTCU, methylated or not!) with the same genetic code.

Of course, GMOs constitue a new paradigm in the history of science and humanity and need special concerns and biosafety measures but I do not consider those Genetically Modified Organisms as 'Alien' things (nor do I consider induced mutated organisms as such), as long as the modification does not affect their integrity as living organisms (viability and reproduction ability). This, as you may understand excludes GMOs with terminator technology and some others.

For those interested in knowing more about the use of molecular markers in studying difference between species and hybrids, I recommand an excellent review article on 'Hybridization, introgression and linkage evolution"by Riesberg et al. Plant Molecular Biology, Vol 42, N° 1, January 2000.

I will end this email by giving useful information about the state of plant biotechnology in Tunisia; We have three major crops: wheat, potato, tomato (and olive trees) and our main problems are parasites (fungal and viral diseases, insects), drought and salt stresses and weeds which can cause large losses of production. We are dealing with these problems from different angles:
- agricutural practice: optimized use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides; IPR
- development of adapted cultivars with or without marker assisted selection or in vitro culture techniques;
- production of local GMOs; we already have our local transgenic potato resistant to PVY virus and ready for field tests; we are developing herbicide resistant durum wheat ..

Agricultural biotechnology for us is not a dream, it is a challenge we are to win; it is a matter of food security. Not all developing countries could afford this, but all should keep trying to stay in the biotechnology train as drivers and not as spectators, as active makers and not passive consumers.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 9:54 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Implementing biotechnologies in developing countries

I am Sunil Archak,Scientist,National Research Centre on DNA Fingerprinting, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, New Delhi, 110 012, INDIA sarchak@nbpgr.delhi.nic.in

In the Background Document for Conference 1, it was indicated that three major kinds of recently-developed biotechnologies could potentially be used for the crop sector in developing countries:

a) biotechnologies based on molecular markers,
b) genetically modified crops,
c) micropropagation.

It has been witnessed that utilisation of the biotechnological products have hurdles that go beyond cost-benefit ratio. Consider the Indian scenario:

Firstly, since such technologies have clear cut food-security connotations, political parties can play it to the village folk in whatever way they intend. Government organisations remain influenced by the political party in power. Unfortunately NGOs have an inclination to oppose anything to do with biotech. Thus, correct information hardly reaches the farmers. Second, like most countries, India has also seen the biotech era heralded under the aegis of Multi-National Corporations (MNCs). By the very nature of the farming community, large agrarian population and current socio-economic changes, this may become a tedious process. e.g. Bt-cotton was seen as an imposition by MNCs rather than as a future technological need.

I would like to bring to the notice of all the participants that the following things do matter in implementing biotechnologies (technology developed or transferred) especially in countries like India:

1. (New technology + existing crop) is better than (new technology + new crop).
2. It is better to start with genetic engineering of native genes, e.g. for over expression, rather than foreign genes, e.g. fish genes.
3. Biotechnology needs to be made a common word rather than an alien monster, by introducing biotech-based non-crop technologies in the target areas.
4. MNCs need to enter the market in collaboration with the public sector to avoid the capital tag to the technology.

Potential of any technology depends upon how well the non-technical factors are internalised.

In India, biotech experience is in infancy. Effect of extraneous factors on implementation of potential technologies in other countries will be interesting to discuss.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 10:39 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Conference Update of 7 May

Your May 7th posting, with its review of the first forum [i.e. the update of Conference 1 of the Forum...Moderator], was incomplete.

You did not include any of the dissenting or adversary views expressed by some participating scientists. Instead your report is badly distorted because you picked up only on those pro-Genetic Engineering views in your report.

This is not surprising given the provenance of this forum and its intent. I wish to register my strong protest against your bias and your report. Furthermore, your report and conclusions cannot be used to substantiate your pre-conceived views. You are obliged to present the spectrum of views expressed by participants, not limit yourself to those you agree with.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 10:41 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: MNCs and policy makers in developed countries

From Jose Olivares, Estacion Experimental del Zaidin, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Granada. Spain olivares@eez.csic.es

Regarding intellectual property rights (IPRs) and the power of multinational corporations (MNCs) [Factor a) in the conference Update of 7 May...Moderator], it is necessary to encourage those who are in charge of science policy in developed countries to support public science with the idea that applied results obtained could be transferred without expenses for developing countries. Now the spirit is the contrary: public money is given directly or indirectly to the MNCs. There is a clear example related to health: via Social Medical Services, governments in the developed countries pay pharmaceutical MNCs money that could be spent on public research. Instead of transferring results, another alternative is that developed countries do not transfer final products free of charge to developing countries, but rather transfer the technology and assistance to produce them.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 10:31 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Plea for precaution regarding GMOs

I agree with the sentiment expressed by Lorna Salzman [9 May] about presenting adequately the "dissenting" views which detract from the overly enthusiastic and insufficiently critical endorsement of genetic engineering by so many scientists, who should be the guardians of objectivity. Sure, gene technology is bright with promise, but also fraught with unknown but possibly very significant risks into the indefinite future. FAO as a publicly funded agency with global responsibilities is obliged to maintain a balanced perspective and not present the issues discussed in the forum in a preconceived construct. As a mainstream institution, it is obliged to remain objective and steer a course which does not overcommit to any one "paradigm."

Genetic engineering, specifically GMOs, the mixing of germplasm across biota's kingdoms raises the specter of an "Apprentice in the Sorcerer's Kitchen" nightmare of unintended and unpredictable consequences over the very long-term. Gene technology must be very prudently and deliberately pursued according to precautionary principles, principles themselves which remain to be properly formed. Millions of years of co-evolution are being circumvented. "Genetic engineering is like piloting a jet plane with a blindfold on." (Colbern et al. 1996). With GMOs, potential harmful effects are not just more difficult to predict but even more difficult to trace to their origins than is the case with radioactivity, hormone disrupting chemicals, or diseases like Mad Cow Disease. Released GMOs cannot be recalled. Of one thing we can be sure: there will a continuous series of "surprises" which will underline the need for precaution.

The genie is out of the bottle. What now Alladin? The stakes are high, regulations meager, and public understanding of the issues practically non-existent. Fora such as these help. Let's keep them open to reasonable debate and dissension. We will all benefit.

Walter I. Knausenberger, Ph.D. Senior Regional Environmental Advisor
USAID/REDSO/ESA
P.O. Box 30261
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel. (+254-2) 86 24 00/02, ext. 2267. Fax: (+254-2) 86 09 49
E-mail: wknausenberger@usaid.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 11:53 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Biotech and developing countries food security in world context

From Nikos Alexandratos,
Former Chief (retired), Global Perspective Studies Unit (ESDG), FAO, Rome
Nikos.Alexandratos@fao.org

I find the theme of this Email Conference very interesting but rather restricted, as it is limited to the pros and cons of biotechnology applications to food production in the developing countries. Perhaps a broadening of the theme to "biotechnology and the welfare (or food security) of the developing countries" would provide more opportunities for exploring the matter at hand.

The developing countries (excluding the net cereal exporters Argentina, Thailand and Vietnam) are currently net importers of about 130 million tons (mt) of cereals, up from 50 million tons in the mid-70s. Projections show that their import requirements will increase in the future, perhaps to 230 mt in 2015 and to 310 mt in 2030 (FAO-ESDG, Agriculture: Towards 2015/30, Interim Technical Report, April 2000). These imports are largely supplied by the main industrial exporters (North America, W. Europe, Australia) which have net exports of about 140 million tons and may be required to increase them to 220 mt in 2015 and 280 mt in 2030. Clearly the welfare and food security of the developing countries will continue to be affected in rather significant ways by the capability of the main exporters to continue, as in the past, to be ever-growing producers of exportable surpluses (sometimes also generating surpluses for food aid) at prices affordable by the low-income importing countries and by the low-income population groups within them, Do these exporters have the potential to increase their production to meet such requirements ? What is the role of modern biotech applications to their agriculture in ensuring that this potential will be developed compared with other options, particularly in the light of growing environmental concerns in these countries concerning adverse impacts of ever more intensive farming?

Any reactions to these ideas would be most welcome.

[Thanks to Niko Alexandratos fo these comments and statistics. As you all will be aware, the Forum hosts a series of e-mail conferences. The first 4 conferences relate to the appropriateness of recently-developed biotechnologies for food production and agriculture in developing countries in the crop, forestry, animal and fish sectors respectively. It has not been decided what the theme of the next conferences will be, but areas such as those mentioned above could be included. Before making the decision, Forum members will be asked for their input as to which subjects they think require consideration and debate most urgently....Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 5:23 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Biotech and developing countries food security in world context

It has been fairly well acknowledged during the course of this conference (particularly during the first six weeks) that GM-foods will not dramatically increase food production, if at all. It, at least, has been acknowledged by most that no proof has been offered to substantiate such claims or hopes. It is hoped, but not proven, that GM-foods and biotech in general will help maintain the gains realized from the use of chemically-driven agricultural methods.

Jeffrey Reel, USA
jeffreyreel@aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 8:42 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Biotech and developing countries food security in world context

I would like to strictly oppose the message of Jeffrey Reel from 15.May.

1) I would agree that "GM-foods will not dramatically increase food production" but the addition "if at all" is polemical and therefore does not support objective discussion.

2) "It is hoped, but not proven,": this is a good start if you try to make a statement of general truth (dogma), but is again polemic. Nobody can today prove what will happen in the future.

3) "GM-foods and biotech in general" I do not think that GM-foods should be used to agitate against biotech in general. A conference like this is the right place to stop generalisations but have a close look at different methods in biotech and evaluate their pro´s and con´s in different contexts.

4) "maintain the gains realized from the use of chemically-driven agricultural methods"

To my knowledge the gains in food production we achieved during the last hundred years are realized by breeding and chemicals in approximately equal amounts. (This can be easily checked if we grow old landraces with chemical fertiliser or new cultivars without.chemical fertiliser). This means breeding has a substantial contribution to today's food supply and security.

A lot of biotech methods (e.g. marker technology) are simply a promotion of traditional breeding with new tools (This may be arguable with GM-crops, but not with Marker Assisted Selection).

Breeding has proven it´s ability to dramatically increase food production in the past ! Therefore, a technique that enhances breeding has a very good prospect of increasing (not only maintaining) food production in a similar way, and I think this substantiates much more than vague hopes. Personally I am absolutely convinced, that biotech can help to increase and maintain food security in the world.

5) Finally I would ask to stick to one's own statements and not extend a statement to general by phrases like "It has been fairly well acknowledged" or "has been acknowledged by most". I believe the interested reader has the chance to read all contributions to this conference and get his own idea on what is "acknowledged" or not.

Werner Schenkel dipl.Ing.agr.
Technical University Munich Chair for Agronomy and Plantbreeding Alte Akademie
12 D 85350 Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany
Tel. xx49 8161 713749 Fax. xx49 8161 714419
schenkel@pollux.weihenstephan.de

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 8:48 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Biotech and developing countries food security in world context

Comments on Jeffrey Reel's messages [15 May]:

If farmers in the US and Argentina adopted fairly quickly the genetic modification (GM) innovations, it means that they saw clear cost advantages. This is saying that they could produce the same quantity at lower cost which eventually would find its way into lower prices for the consumer, hence good for food security of the poor, as these countries produce mostly for export. This is a clear advantage for food security as it creates some slack, which is useful if the growing demand will be pressing against production capacities in the main exporting countries in the future, leading to rising prices.

Another related aspect is that with growing environmental restrictions in developed countries, e.g. on pesticides, the risk exists that farmers will have to cut back on their use, and production (or production growth) could be negatively affected. If the GM crops can deliver the same output with less pesticides then the risk of cutbacks is accordingly reduced. But can they ?

In the end, I guess that in order to evaluate the significance of GM for production capacity in the main exporters and for food security, we need to form an idea of what such capacity would be without GM.

Nikos Alexandratos, FAO, Rome, Italy
Nikos.Alexandratos@fao.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 8:54 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Biotech and developing countries food security in world context

Computers took time to influence people and change the way of life. Genetic engineering (GE) will also take time. The challenge therefore is how to reduce the gestation period.

Increase in food production is not just increase in the tonnage. We can consider the following possibilities: two per cent increase in the specific amino acid content or incorporation of novel ingredient such as pro-vitamin A or iron or Zn (e.g. rice of Potrykus) Food security has a component of access to food. Increased farm income by increased oil content or starch content or enhanced keeping quality or reduced cost of cultivation by reduced number of sprays means increased capacity to buy food. (We may remind ourselves that the world has enough food for all, it is only that the food is not accessible to all).

GE has three tasks cut out. One, to maintain the momentum of production heralded by "chemical agriculture". Two, to accelerate it in accordance with the increasing population size. Three, to correct the environment ruined by our own previous efforts. Internet brought the revolution in computer applications. Hopefully Jeffrey Reel's comments [15 May] buoy up people to extend the frontiers of GE applications.

Sunil Archak,
Scientist,
National Research Centre on DNA Fingerprinting,
National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources,
New Delhi, 110 012,
INDIA
sarchak@nbpgr.delhi.nic.in

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 12:00 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Biotech and developing countries food security in world context

I would like to respond to Jeffrey Reel's contribution [15 May].

I do not agree that during the course of this conference that it has been generally acknowledged that GM-foods will not increase production. Nor do I agree that no proof has been offered to substantiate these claims of hopes of increased food production of GM-foods.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 4:57 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Other biotechnologies for developing countries

There has not been much discussion about micropropagation, but this is one technology that is very useful to developing countries, provided that plants that are micropropagated are properly screened for tissue-borne diseases like viruses, otherwise micropropagation becomes an efficient method to spread diseases. Also, in my experience, labor and electricity comprise the major cost, hence micropropagation is profitable only when the planting material is traditionally expensive, e.g. banana, or a uniformly growing plant population is more profitable. Also, micropropagation allows us to better manage the planting regime. It is now being seen also as a tool to manage field diseases in bananas.

Unless simple sequence repeats (SSRs) and other DNA markers for desirable traits have been identified and the information is accessible to breeders in developing countries, at this stage it is still too expensive. Perhaps, this should be an area that CGIAR institutions should focus on: identifying DNA markers of desirable traits. Although I agree with an earlier observation that transferring the specific gene is a faster method to obtain the desirable variety. In fact, in a country with a rapidly expanding population like the Philippines and decreasing land area for agriculture, this is one reason for adopting GMOs.

Low-end biotechnology such as inoculants that can reduce inorganic fertilizer requirements and biocontrol agents reducing chemical pesticides have not been discussed much. We found some very effective inoculants and biocontrol agents but we have problems with technology dissemination. Apparently, producing these agents is not lucrative to be adopted by the private sector. However, government is too inefficient and most often lacks the capital to sustain production and dissemination. I wonder if someone out there has a solution to this and would be willing to share.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 5:01 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: what the scientific literature says about GM crops

I do not agree with Jeffrey Reel [15 May]. There is sufficient scientific literature to enable us in the developing countries to decide whether current biotechnologies would help us attain food security. The majority of Filipino farmers who witnessed the Bt corn trials wanted to adopt Bt corn for reasons similar to those given by American farmers who adopted the technology at a very fast rate (Carpenter & Gianessi. 1999; Fulton & Keyowski. 1999; Klotz-Ingram C, et al. 1999). These reasons are cost reductions in pest management, yield increases, improved risk management and insurance against pests, management time savings, reductions in equipment outlays associated with no-tillage production systems and land use efficiency gains from improved plant spacing ( Kalaitzandonakes, 1999) which indicate that GM crops can help attain food security.

As to feed and food safety, in a review of animal feeding trials of commercially available GMOs, no study has been found to indicate any adverse effect of eating GMOs by cattle, poultry, fish, rats and that the genetically modified variety is no different in composition from its parental isogenic line (Betz et al., 2000, NRC Report 2000, Brake & Vlachos. 1998, Conner 1994, Daenicke et al.,1999, Faust & Miller 1997, Faust & Dewitt. 1998, Faust, 1999, Fuchs et al., 1993, Halle et al., 1998, Hammond et al., 1996, Hammond & Fuchs, 1998, Harrison et al., 1996, Padgette et al., 1996, Rusell & Petersen. 1999, Sanders et al., 1998). There is even the added benefit that Bt corn contains lesser levels of mycotoxins (Munkvold et al., 1997, Munkvold et al., 1999, ) Genetic engineering can be used to remove allergenic proteins from crop plants (Tada et al., 1994)

More insect species and individuals are killed with chemical pesticides than what the Bt crop does (NRC Report 2000). On the other hand, while Professor Stotsky (Crecchio & Stotzky 1997, Koskella & Stotzky, 1997, Saxena, et al., 1999, Tapp et al.,1994, Tapp & Stotzky. 1995,1997, Venkateswerla & Stotzky, 1992) insists that his laboratory results indicate possible accumulation of the Bt toxin in the soil, field experiments with Bt plant material indicate otherwise ( Donegan et al.1995, Palm et al.1993, 1994, 1996). Bt toxin does not have adverse effect on unrelated non-target organisms (Dogan et al. 1996, Lozia, 1999, Savo-Poulou-Soultani & Milonas. 1999, Shieh et al., 1994, Sims, 1995, Yu, et al.,1997). These experiments, however, must be carried out in developing countries where the microbial populations and insect fauna are different. Gene transfers among relatives of certain crops have been observed and this must be considered when adopting a GMO (Boudry et al., 1994. Chandler & Ashikari. 1997). Also, natural recombination among certain viruses does happen ( Maiss et al.,1994, Tepfer et al., 1994, Yahiro, et al., 1994).

Patenting the genes does not mean that the major economic benefit accrues to the patent holder. As indicated by the studies of (Falck-Zepeda et al. 1999; Traxler & Falck-Zepeda 1999) the patent holder, consumers, the rest of the World, farmers and seed producers all benefit from the GM technology but it is the farmers who are the major beneficaries in the Bt and herbicide tolerance technologies. However, to be more cost-effective, we must adopt a strategic approach to crop biotechnology development (Halos, 1999, Maredia et al, 1999).

For complete citations, please e-mail me at halos@mozcom.com

Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D.
Senior Project Development Adviser,
Bureau of Agricultural Research and member, Secretary's Technical Advisory Group, Department of Agriculture,
Philippines
halos@mozcom.com
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 10:56 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Polarization of Biotech debate

[Thanks to Dr. Srinivasan for this good and clear message. Polarization of the debate on the subject of genetically modified (GM) food is often quite pronounced. For example, compare the messages of Saturnina Halos (17 May) and Jeffrey Reel (7 April). Both messages consider, inter alia, the subject of the environmental impact, food safety and society implications of GM crops. Both provide references from the literature, but the 2 authors come to very different conclusions....Moderator]

Perhaps the contents of this message [Dr. Halos, 17 May...Moderator] are fairly general but I believe that they are important in some ways! There is no need for any one on this forum to take a polarized view of biotechnology. I have been reading a recent issue of Biotechnology and Development Monitor (No. 41, March 2000) in which the editor mentioned the following, with which I fully agree. I could have provided a link to this note but this particular issue has not been put on the Web yet. Other issues of Monitor can be found at www.pscw.uva.nl/monitor/

Editorial excerpts:
"Making false promises that "biotechnology can save the world from hunger" completely ignores our understanding of poverty and the complex approaches to poverty reduction. Indeed eradicating hunger is not an inherent characteristic of biotechnology, and hunger is not simply the consequence of insufficient food. On the other hand, by saying "absolutely no to biotechnology", are we not letting private industries still dictate the technologies and that producers and consumers can only either reject or accept the products from private industries?".... The situation highlights a crisis not only for biotechnology but also for agricultural research in general, where the actors, such as private and public sector, consumers and farmers, remain compartmentalized in their views and consequent actions".

It is true that recent developments especially in relation to terminator gene technology have polarized people's views further. RAFI (Rural Advancement Foundation International) informs that in 1999, seven new Terminator patents were awarded to industry and public sector researchers, and at least one company, AstraZeneca, conducted field trials on genetic trait control technology (GURTs) in the UK. Beyond these seven, at least 43 patents have been issued for inducible gene control systems, or genetic trait control technology, and patent owners include virtually all of the Gene Giants or their subsidiaries: Aventis, Bayer, Dupont, Monsanto, Novartis, and Zeneca among others. (Please refer to RAFI background paper for more details, http://www.rafi.org).

In view of the above developments, it is important that regional and international organizations have special responsibility to examine implications of both technical (e.g. terminator technology) and legal (patenting and plant variety protection) restrictions of these technologies for both survival of farmers and food security in developing countries. For example, the CGIAR is spending nearly US$ 24 million annually on biotechnology, and part of this amount may be allocated to studies on how such restrictions in biotechnology sector can be circumvented for the benefit of farmers in developing countries. In fact, it is not unrealistic to imagine the development of technologies that can nullify the effects of terminator technology if and when it is commercialized. In most developing countries, there is also a genuine fear that small scale, resource poor farmers may be quickly out-competed by other farmers who can invest in patented biotech varieties. Therefore, mechanisms to deliver biotech products directly to small farmers must be devised and strengthened.

I believe that most of the modern tools of biotechnology are still appropriate for tackling many problems in developing countries. However, the products derived from biotechnology so far have not been directly relevant to the needs of small farmers in developing countries, as the developers of such products rarely thought about them (barring a few cases such as "Golden Rice")! Any comments?

Ancha Srinivasan, Ph.D.
Senior Researcher, Regional Science Institute
4-13, Kita 24 Nishi 2, Kita-ku, Sapporo 001-0024 JAPAN
Tel: +81-11-717-6660 Fax: +81-11-757-3610

E-mail: ancha@vtt.co.jp or ancha_s@yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 9:48 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Polarization of Biotech debate

[Thanks to Glenn Ashton for this and his subsequent message. NB: because of e-mail problems that arose earlier this month, this Conference will be extended an extra week until Friday May 26, so messages received up to and including the 26th May can be posted. You have thus one more week to convey your views/experiences on the theme of the conference to the participants (over 300 people joined), before the conference ends and they each go their separate ways !! ........Moderator]

Whilst many of the posts have reflected the polarity of the debate between advocates of biotechnology and those espousing caution, it is refreshing to see some meeting of minds. Dogmatism and polemic do little for the debate from either side but instead we should concentrate on the common ground.

Further, polarisation is (perhaps inadvertently) encouraged by the corporate sector; the following quote regards medical research but is equally applicable to any scientific data; "All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defence against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector," (THE LANCET, April 2000).

[We tried to trace the exact authorship/reference for this quote, looking at the four April editions on the Lancet website ( http://www.thelancet.com/ ), but we could not find it. Can Glenn provide us with this ?.....Moderator]

It must also be questioned if those involved in biotechnology, either academically or in the field, can be viewed as objective. Opinion is by its nature subjective and can be clouded by vested interests, be they personal or communal. Whilst scientists and academics utilise references ad nauseam, it must be asked if these references are unbiased and the background to the references must be borne in mind. Peer reviewed, published reports often give contradictory messages when compared side by side. Thus, use of peer reviewed reports unfortunately cannot always be seen as being objective.

Glenn Ashton.
Green Party of South Africa;
specialist spokesperson on genetic engineering and biotechnology.
ekogaia@iafrica.com
ekogaia@bigfoot.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 9:53 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Southern perspective on the debate

I shall attempt to comment on the application of biotechnology to developing nations. Whilst southern nations are poor in resources needed to apply the knowledge gained from these new discoveries, there is pressure from the corporate sector to introduce many crops identical to those used in the developed world. This is questionable, as irrelevant technology has regularly failed due to differing circumstances encountered in the south.

Many questions have not sufficiently been answered, or in many cases even asked, about the ability of southern nations to cope with negative consequences that may result from their use. Further, those promoting these crops do not accept downstream risks. The risk instead devolves to those least able to afford it, the users (farmers, retailers and consumers in South Africa).

Thus until such crops are developed that offer quantifiable and statistically significant long term benefits (as established by independent review) such as drought resistance or salt tolerance, the use of potentially disruptive crops should be avoided by following a conservative approach. Genetically engineered (GE) crops, being developed in the first world, should be trailed there exclusively to limit the impact on the south, which cannot afford further unnecessary risks.

The use of micropropagation is a more suitable technology for the south than GE crops. Many centres in Africa and elsewhere have developed good techniques for this technology, notably South Africa where it has been used to multiply endemic species that are difficult to propagate by usual means. On the other hand it would be short sighted to use micropropagation on crops which have GE traits; my previous statements on this subject apply.

Instead land races that have desirable traits should be selected and propagated. Further, it is also crucial that National (state) seed banks of endemic species or local land races should be given absolute ownership of the resource thus discouraging bio-piracy through nefarious actions. The sale of certain national seed banks in Africa to corporate interests should be viewed with great concern. On the other hand the success of the Neem patent appeal holds hope for the south.

It is my view that GE should be treated as a completely separate branch of biotechnology that has different, increased and unquantifiable risks due to its novelty and newness and thus it should be treated with utmost caution by the south. As far as molecular markers are concerned, these may be of some use in the field of biotechnology but present use has been problematic and it seems that developing countries would do well to concentrate their limited resources toward better understood and less complex technologies. [Would it be possible to give some more details on why their 'present use has been problematic' ? .....Moderator]

It has been stated in the conference that those expending large amounts of resources in developing new technologies should expect a return for this expenditure. I believe this is a deficient position and we must remember the input of generations of agriculturists in maintaining and improving local crops. Also the nature of business (and capitalism) is that developer bears the risk and nobody owes a return to those have taken that risk. To deny this is to perpetuate the colonial heritage and the continuing inequalities witnessed between north and south.

Glenn Ashton.
Green Party of South Africa;
specialist spokesperson on genetic engineering and biotechnology.
ekogaia@iafrica.com
ekogaia@bigfoot.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 12:04 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Polarization of Biotech debate

I would like to react to Glenn Ashton's contribution to the debate and in particular to the last paragraph

Whereas scientists involved in Biotechnology will eventually have to face regulatory reviews in order to have the fruits of their work approved, opponents of Biotechnology are not answerable to anybody. Yes, scientists use references to their studies, citing existing literature or other studies which are open to scrutiny by anybody willing to review their work.

What about the opponents of Biotechnlogy ? In a recent piece, widely circulated over the Internet, I found the following statements : "It is very obvious that ......", "it is a scientifically establised fact that ......", "it is a fact recognized by all experts that ....." shamelessly being touted without any reference at all.

Yes, peer reviewed reports do contradict each other sometimes and that is the beauty of living in a democratic society. Unfortunately, the Puztai report on which so much of the opposition is based, was not peer reviewed.

Edo Lin, France
lin.edo@free.fr

[The quote regarding medical research in Glenn Ashton's message of 19 May was a press release from the lancet based on an article published on 8 April, 2000 entitled Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study in the Lancet 355; 1253-1259 by E.K. Ong and S.A. Glantz. Thanks to Glenn for the reference...Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 1:34 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Polarization of Biotech debate

Mr. Lin [19 May] exhibits the very bias that we would like to transcend. He writes: "...scientists involved in Biotechnology will eventually have to face regulatory reviews in order to have the fruits of their work approved..." These scientists will also have to face regulatory reviews to have the fruits of their labor rejected -- as well as approved.

"...opponents of biotechnology are not answerable to anybody." They are answerable to what they feel to be their personal health, the health of their families, surrounding communities and the world at large. Mr. Lin is implying a renegade-type attitude on the part of opponents. Most early opponents to biotech -- as applied to food (distinct from medical applications) -- feel that it requires a great degree of caution. They make distinctions among those who are restricted to the pure research (and who are, by the very nature of that work, both in favor of and dependent upon its success), to the policymakers, corporate incentives, politics and the like. It is a terribly confusing and complex issue.

The verdict is still out in terms of the efficacy and dangers of biotech as applied to foods. There are many preliminary studies, and they are just that -- preliminary. Such studies will waffle between the inherent dangers and benefits for YEARS, as studies CONTINUE to do with far less complex issues (the benefits of fiber in the diet, low-salt vs. high-salt intake, etc.). A conclusive study one year can easily become unstrung the next. We witness this time and time again with ALL research.

The very assumptions upon which researchers are basing their work is open to question -- questions that most researchers reject outright and which render any "dialogue" on the subject highly volatile. I have tried to introduce non-scientific ideas into this forum which the moderater has refused time and again, so I am unable to flesh out and substantiate to you what I have written above -- effectively, I have been rendered mute, which I believe is a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the guidelines.

Jeffrey Reel, USA
jeffreyreel@aol.com

[Are there participants from developing countries who would like to comment on the impact of this polarization (of the debate on GM crops) on their country or on policymaking in the crop sector in their country ? ...Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 2:03 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Land fragmentation vs GMOs

First I would like to commend the FAO for such a facinating, informative and yet very important debate. Most interesting because it is taking place over the internet.

Then I would like to concur with Dr. Saturnina C. Halos [17 May. Subject: other biotechnologies for developing countries] who rightfully pointed out that one reason to adopt GMOs in developing countries would be the rapid increase in population with the rapid decrease in land area. In Uganda, for example, land fragmentation due to increasing population is increasingly threatening food security and even the environment (deforestation, poor agricultural practices which lead to soil erosion etc.). Each family lives a subsistence life whereby it grows its own food on their plot. Then when the boys grow up, family land is distributed so that each can set up his own home, leading to smaller and smaller homesteads. This fragmentation, coupled with increasing pests and diseases, is a major factor in reducing food and income security in the third world. Leading to famine and other poverty-related problems.

Current breeding activities (conventional crossing and selection), especially for banana (as an example), are likely to take many years to develop cultivars which are acceptable and worthwhile. Consider also that third world governments do not have the money to finance such activities. GMOs engineered to resist pests and diseases while yielding higher would go a long way in alleviating such problems, at least in the mean time.

Andrew Kiggundu,
Plant Breeder, Uganda National Banana Research Programme, Kawanda
Agricultural Research Institute, P. O. Box 7065, Kampala, Uganda.
Email (andrew@kari.go.ug) currently while on research visit to ICIPE: akiggundu@icipe.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: 22 May 2000 11:59
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Polarization of Biotech debate

[Polarization of the debate on GM crops is a real element in any discussion on modern-day crop production. For the theme of this conference ('how appropriate are currently available biotechnologies in the crop sector for food production and agriculture in developing countries'), it would be especially interesting to discuss the impact of this polarization on developing countries and policymaking in these countries.

Below, we post a message that considers not just polarization of the debate on GM crops, but polarization of the debate in this conference and in paragraphs 6 and 8 directly considers FAO's role (pro or contra) regarding GM food. Although it is not directly relevant to the theme of the conference, we will in this exceptional case post the message. To see why FAO established this Forum, we recommend that one reads the Objectives, Background and Practicalities of the Forum (which people got in the Welcome Text on joining the Forum - also available on the Forum website http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ). FAO has also published a Statement on Biotechnology http://www.fao.org/biotech/stat.asp . The statement is not cast in stone - it could change as the state of knowledge on biotechnology improves. The issues being raised in the current debate about biotechnology are such that FAO considers it appropriate to provide a platform for all shades of opinion on the subject to be expressed. This is provided for in our constitution - to provide a forum for discussion on issues of relevance to the sustainability of food, agriculture, forestry and fisheries production. Safeguards for biosafety (including food safety), biodiversity and the environment are high on the FAO agenda. We take no sides in the discussions of the conferences in the Forum and we would modestly hope that, by providing a platform for people with different views to express themselves and to openly discuss their opinions, it might contribute to a reduction in polarization of the debate about biotechnology. We appreciated the sentiments expressed by Glenn Ashton, 19 May, who said 'Whilst many of the posts have reflected the polarity of the debate between advocates of biotechnology and those espousing caution, it is refreshing to see some meeting of minds. Dogmatism and polemic do little for the debate from either side but instead we should concentrate on the common ground.'...Moderator]

It might be profitable to find out just what caused the"polarization" on this forum about biotechnology.

My opinion is that this debate was doomed to such polarization because we are all "in the middle of the stream" regarding biotechnology, i.e. the technology has already been implemented and we are only now belatedly being asked to inquire into its potential hazards and handicaps. The time for a proper inquiry is or should be PRIOR to implementation, so that problems can be avoided rather than having to be solved later. And we all know that deferred "solutions" are the worst of all possible worlds, since they will necessarily involve some inconvenience to some parties, particularly those with a financial stake.

Of course this same belated process is routinely used, because, first, scientists are funded by those with a financial stake (that stake can be corporate jobs or money, or government grants, or just peer group standing and jobs), and rarely if ever are most scientists up front about the uncertainties of their work, the gaps in knowledge, and the potential hazards or lack of evidence about benefits. Those with any kind of stake will minimize these at best, ignore them, or intentionally put a postive spin on their work such as "feeding the hungry people of the world".

This is exactly what is happening with biotechnology, in particular with the genetic engineering (GE) of plants, animals and food crops. To expect anything but acrimony and huge gaps of trust and mutual confidence, as well as attributions of ignorance or bad faith to opponents, would be naive in the extreme.

Nonetheless, it seems clear that the burden of proof must rest in all cases on the scientists to demonstrate efficacy as well as lack of harm. If their work has not come up with such evidence, then it is incumbent on them to admit this, not to stonewall, vilify their opponents, or dismiss the concerns of consumers and citizens. Citizens have the right, indeed obligation, to demand such evidence. Consumers have the right to know what they are eating and to refuse to do so if they are not happy. It is not they but the SCIENTISTS who must demonstrate lack of harm.

So the FAO forum is in a sense an exercise in futility. Were FAO itself at the beginning of the debate rather than in mid-stream, perhaps one could have confidence that its forums were truly seeking unbiased evidence and opinion, and that their policies might conceivably be influenced by evidence or the lack of it. Sadly this is not the case. We all know full well that the FAO is committed to promoting the distribution and development of genetically modified foods, that it has not conducted any impartial studies itself, that it is not interested in the accumulating evidence of potential adverse effects, and that it is supporting full speed ahead on the distribution of GE foods to the third world, in the hope that the impoverished third world will swallow the food and the propaganda whole, thus creating a demand for moe of the first world corporate products and ultimately dependency on tightly controlled corporate entities for their food supply.

One participant [Edo Lin, 19 May] decried the fact that GE opponents are "not answerable to anybody" as scientists are. This statement is meaningless and irrelevant because GE opponents are not actually DOING anything but asking questions and demanding proof. Citizens who get up at public meetings, call in to radio shows, write their congressmen, and otherwise seek information are not accountable to anyone but themselves. They are involved in a search for information and answers. They are not employed by, getting a salary from or otherwise connected to an organization that is promoting a product from which they will derive a financial benefit. As citizens they have a right to be heard without their motives being suspected. But, as I say, attacking the motives of one's opponents is the last refuge of scoundrels, who have no substantiation for their own beliefs and must therefore attack others.

Why the FAO initiated these forums is not known. Perhaps they want to use the pro-GE arguments presented by self-interested scientists on the forum to demonstrate that they have "consulted" with experts and found support for their position. If so, they should be put on notice that there were as many dissenting scientists on this forum as concurring ones, and that such a forum can and should never be regarded as a substitute for open democratic discourse and citizen decision-making. If and when pro-GE scientists will support these processes, letting the chips fall where they may, then and only then can such a forum be taken seriously.

Lorna Salzman
Brooklyn NY, USA
(Genetic engineering project director for the Earth Society Foundation, NYC)
718-522-0253; 631-653-3387
lsalzman@aba.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 12:01 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Southern perspective on the debate

Glenn Ashton [19 May] is quite right to say that: "the nature of business (and capitalism) is that developer bears the risk and nobody owes a return to those have taken that risk." Conversely, if one wants something done in the future, it helps to offer a reward for it. Business will only invest where it expects to make a profit. For the South to grow richer, it needs to encourage private investment, including investment in the new technologies that are enriching the North (though whether GM can yet be considered one of these is perhaps doubtful). One may argue that no-one is owed a return for what was done in the past: but without the hope of such a return what will be done in the future ?

Tim Roberts twr@compuserve.com
Bracknell, UK

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 12:02 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Land fragmentation vs. GMOs

Firstly, I would like to thank Glenn Ashton for his very good contribution (19 May No.2)

I share his concerns about using GM crops developed for developed countries, but he also shows that there is some potential in biotech to help developing countries. I also share his opinion that the limited resources of developing countries shall be concentrated on methods that give the best return. I think these are often the conventional methods of agronomy and breeding.

Secondly, in this regard, I would like to comment on the contribution of Andrew Kiggundu (19 May

). 1. I am afraid if a country does not have the money to support a consistent conventional breeding programme it should not spend any money on GMOs. Any molecular techniques MUST be based on a sound conventional breeding programme, otherwise success is very questionable ! [Werner Schenkel has previously given more background and details on this subject on 12 April...Moderator]

2. It is true that biotechnology can be faster than conventional breeding, but only if it is well established for a crop and if there is very much money and manpower allocated to it (e.g. molecular markers).

3. The problems described by Andrew Kiggundu seem to me typical problems which cannot be best solved by biotechnology (poor agricultural practices which lead to soil erosion). I believe that a good agricultural extension service is much more of need and will give better return for the investment.

4. Production of GMOs is still very, very expensive. It gives only a good return (to companies) if the cultivar is widely used. The extensive use of only one (or few) cultivars is only possible in a strongly mechanised (industrialised) agriculture. For a agriculture in small plots, I think it is better to have cultivars that are well-adapted to each microclimate (e.g. in Germany there are many different barley cultivars. The best performing cultivar often changes within only a few 100 km range)

To my view the question of appropiateness splits up into questions.

1. Has a technology the potential to solve a problem ? Here I would answer a clear "Yes"!

2. Does the technology give the best return for the investment ? Unfortunately, here I would say "No" for many developing countries, due to a lacking basis.

This raises another question: Shall developing countries not use biotechnology because they do not have the funds for it ? I think no !! This would mean again, that a new technology is exploited only by the developed countries but the developing world cannot benefit from it. I think it is a absolute must for the developing world to make this technology available to the developed world. This must be a process of cooperation which allows the development of products (cultivars, methods) adapted to the local needs. I think the CGIAR centers have done this mostly exemplary. Therefore it is scandalous that the German government has reduced the funding for CGIAR by almost 50%. I desperately hope no other countries will follow this example and appeal to our Government to change this decision immediately

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 714419
schenkel@pollux.weihenstephan.de

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 12:04 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: south vs. north regarding biotechnology

Consider the following fundamental differences between the north (used to represent genetic engineering (GE) technology rich/generating countries) and the south (those countries where the technological advancements in agriculture are essential for future survival):

1. Proportion of the peasants' community

The north has a minority of farmers however with greater access to information and they possess a voice. The south has the majority of the population depending on agriculture for their livelihood. But their opinion is never significant.

2. Choice of consumers

Consumers in the north can choose between GM and organic food. Hence their opposition, if exists, is against the ethics and the environmental impacts of the technology. In the south, in case of many countries, origin of food is inconsequential. Availability of food is more of a concern than of choice. If any doubts and anxiety exist, they arise out of fear of failure of any new and expensive technologies. For instance, if Bt-cotton performs par excellence in India (one of the most trying conditions for a plant protection scientist), the GE will be a welcome technology. The need far outweighs the concerns that exist about the new technology. Since the majority of the population is farmers, producers and consumers are the same group. "You eat what you grow"

3. Plant genetic resources and the type of Biotechnologies

The number of crops and allied plant populations seen in the south are very large. Any technology that can be applied across genera and species would be a great success. Thus, one particular gene construct accepted in a particular crop safe for consumption can be easily used for at least a dozen more crops (transformation technology is another issue). Salinity tolerance gene, for instance, is looked at with great expectation in various parts of India affected by excessive fertilizer use. The source of genes can also be, more often than not, the wild and weedy relatives of crops themselves. On the contrary, research and development of the north, with limited number of crops, has to look for more genes (often foreign) rather than more crops.

Summary:

In India, the interplay of socio-economic factors, the need of the growing population and the availability of genetic resources have convinced most of the agricultural scientists about the need, efficacy and the suitability of modern biotechnologies to meet the food demand quantitatively and qualitatively. Opposition based on scientific apprehensions has been the hallmark of democratic society. This is required to eliminate the bandwagon symptoms and make everyone see both sides of the coin. The green revolution has taught India the pros and cons of implementation of technological advancements and prudence in the management of development-environment relations. Except for few NGOs funded externally, India is embarking on its GM-trip steadily and smoothly. (add to this Andrew Kiggundu's remarks [19 May]. Land fragmentation, reduced supply of water, weather vagaries have always made "embodied technology" the most suitable technology for developing countries. GE just supplies that ).

[Note, Werner Schenkel on 22 May had an opposing conclusion about the situation described by Andrew Kiggundu....Moderator]

Sunil Archak
Scientist
National Research Centre on DNA Fingerprinting
National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources
New Delhi
110 012
INDIA
sarchak@nbpgr.delhi.nic.in

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 12:04 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Biotechnology in Pakistan

This is Iftikhar Ahmad Khan, Professor of Plant Breeding and Genetics and Director, Centre of Agricultural Biochemistry and Biotechnology (CABB), University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. piak@brain.net.pk

Unfortunately I joined Conference 1 late (2nd May, 2000) and could not take part in discussions of March and April. However, I have downloaded the stuff and am going through that. I have noted interesting controversies in the views about the appropriateness of currently available biotechnologies in the crop sector for food production and agriculture in developing countries.

In Pakistan, we are just at the begining of developing facilities in this area. We have quite an established research system in agricultural crops using conventional breeding techniques and I do not find any reason for not adopting novel techniques as tools to help our already established system. But, to depend totally on such techniques without any basic infrastructure available is not advisable. In a country like Pakistan where the availability of funds for Research and Development is already a problem, importing sophisticated lab equipment and even chemicals from the other countries and then to put our whole system on such acquired and imported technologies will be a disaster. Presently, whenever any of our hi-technology instruments/equipment goes out of order, we are stuck and have to wait for some technician from the concerned company - which is a time and money consuming practice. The situation is similar with importing the chemicals.

As regards Bt-crops, some companies like Monsanto are trying to introduce seed of Bt-crops (cotton) in Pakistan. I do not agree with this type of introduction and supplying the seed directly to the farmers for general cultivation. This may create many agricultural problems in future. We have quite a satisfactory history and outcome of our conventional research system in crop improvement and, particularly in cotton production, we have a brilliant record except a very few debacles. By making such introductions (Bt-crops), it is not advisable to sabotage our already established breeding system and to depend on multinational companies for seed of a very important crop of the country. Yes, when our research system improves and is well equipped with expertise and facilities in biotechnology we should try to transform our local varieties /strains by incorporating such genes.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 11:57 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Polarization of Biotech debate - II

[First, there was a slight error (now rectified) with the FAO server on Monday 22 May, which resulted in 10 lines being truncated from the 2nd paragraph of the Moderator's comments on the message by Lorna Salzman. This paragraph is thus reproduced in its entirety below. (p.s. we THOUGHT we had rectified this error earlier today. Apologies for sending the paragraph earlier, again without the 10 lines.)

Second, there are 3 days left of the conference, and we welcome any last thoughts/views/conclusions that you might have on the theme of the conference.....Moderator]

This is provided for in our constitution - to provide a forum for discussion on issues of relevance to the sustainability of food, agriculture, forestry and fisheries production. Safeguards for biosafety (including food safety), biodiversity and the environment are high on the FAO agenda. We take no sides in the discussions of the conferences in the Forum and we would modestly hope that, by providing a platform for people with different views to express themselves and to openly discuss their opinions, it might contribute to a reduction in polarization of the debate about biotechnology. We appreciated the sentiments expressed by Glenn Ashton, 19 May, who said 'Whilst many of the posts have reflected the polarity of the debate between advocates of biotechnology and those espousing caution, it is refreshing to see some meeting of minds. Dogmatism and polemic do little for the debate from either side but instead we should concentrate on the common ground.'...Moderator

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 9:07 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Regional suitability of biotechnologies

[Thanks to Ancha Srinivasan for another good message of direct relevance to the conference theme...Moderator]

As very few posts have addressed the last question posed by the Forum administrators [Whether some biotechnologies are more (or less) suited to certain regions in the developing world than others], I will try to make a few observations and I would appreciate any comments.

Biotechnology research and development for addressing the needs of developing countries should obviously vary according to the biophysical, agro-ecological and socio-economic settings and constraints (lack of budget, skilled human resources, etc.). However, in most cases this does not happen, unfortunately: perhaps because of bias(?) associated with previous training of developing country researchers in developed countries, or because of high probability for getting funds from organizations in developed countries. Issues of great importance to developing countries have often received little attention by researchers in even developing countries. It is also true that some worthy proposals on native or relatively unknown (unknown in the developed countries) crops have often been rejected for funding.

Moreover, there is too much duplication of efforts on similar topics at various organizations, and most of these projects are often supported by the same or similar organizations in the developed countries. Even within a country such as India, there have been cases where many researchers tend to approach the problem in exactly the same manner without taking regional needs and priorities into consideration. This also leads to dilution of research effort in many cases. Many biotechnology scientists in developing countries (this applies equally to scientists in developed countries!) often lack field exposure and are reluctant to spend any time in the field to know more about local problems. Because of the long gestation period between project identification and product delivery of most biotechnology projects, people often forget to keep the end-users' interest. The aim should therefore be to combine projects that can benefit farmers in the short run with those that will be useful in the long run.

Since the population in developing countries is expected to increase by at least 90 million per year during the next 2 decades, there is definitely a need to increase productivity by whatever means possible, including biotechnology (considering that it is only one of the several approaches). I believe that in the high potential productivity zones, as in South Central China or North West India, there are two major tasks: To develop biotechnologies that will help in maintaining the high productivity already achieved (maintenance research) and to develop technologies that can raise yield ceilings (strategic research). As an example for strategic research, I wish to quote the example of a recent success story, in which researchers (from USA and Japan) attempted to genetically modify rice to mimic the C4 plants using three genes from maize. However, there is no need for conducting such strategic research in all rice-growing areas of developing countries.

Research on transgenic crops, in my opinion, should be confined to areas, where they are most likely to succed. For example, Bt cotton technology developed in USA was mainly for large-scale cotton farming systems. Bt varieties perform well only in areas with irrigation, and with plastic mulching. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that those varieties were unsuccessful in unfavorable cotton areas such as Hebei province in China. In regions with low productivity, such as in Deccan Plateau in India, Southwest China, Northeast China, and parts of Africa, and in areas with crops that have not received much attention by researchers in the developed countries, the emphasis should be on the generation of low-risk and low-cost biotechnologies such as micropropagation rather than genetic engineering (e.g., tissue culture for henequen production in Yucatan Province, Mexico; tissue culture in Banana, Kenya; tissue culture for neem, custard apple, aonla and medicinal plants in Andhra Pradesh, India;). I heard that the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) is now compiling a book on success stories of low-cost biotechnologies relevant to developing countries. FAO and other organizations must encourage similar initiatives. International organizations should also support capacity-building efforts in low-cost biotechnologies in such areas, rather than allocating resources to transgenic technologies. In all projects to be supported in these areas, a case-by-case evaluation is necessary to determine whether the needs of the resource-poor target group can be promoted by biotechnology methods and whether the farmers will ultimately be able to afford products developed from such research.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 2:47 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Polarization of Biotech debate

I thank those who have commented on my posts, both directly and indirectly. I wish to clear up two misunderstandings.

One is that genetic modification (GM) technology can solve all of the problems being experienced in the third world such as land fragmentation, water shortage, vitamin deficiency and climate problems. GE is not presently, and in all likelihood will not in the future be, a panacea. It is misleading to portray it as such and those that continue to do so (mainly the commercial interests) serve only to deepen divisions. We cannot rely on GM to solve problems that are usually the result of poor policy, planning and political input. There may be a place for biotechnology to solve various aspects of various problems. As I stated before, it would be shortsighted to attempt to apply these "solutions" without having extensive proof that they are not merely short-term corrections, which may only exacerbate long-term problems. We must be extremely cautious not to replace one poor policy with another.

The second is that we have to make solutions to problems "profitable". This is a narrow capitalist-paradigm based philosophical view. Whilst capitalism may seem to work fairly well for most of those contributing to this conference and for the north, the point of this conference is to look at the suitability of biotech to developing or southern nations. It is important that we move away from this profitability bias, as it is narrow and limiting. Solutions such as integrated farming, micro-propogation and other systems should be pursued by other means than the commercial system. If we rely on capitalism, Africa will never rid itself of bilharzia, Malaria and other endemic diseases; it is not profitable. Desertification is encouraged by intensive agriculture, so more is not necessarily better. Life vs profit is at the centre of the globalisation debate and must be considered in this one.

Instead we need a system that draws on global organisations (for e.g. the UN, which itself needs a serious re-evaluation of its funding and structure, especially with the reluctance of a capitalist US and EU leadership to contribute meaningfully to reduction of the impact of their policies) working in concert with local role players, be they governmental or NGOs. The vagaries of the capitalist system negatively affect southern nations and people. Solutions to these problems are pivotal in order to arrive at meaningful long-term solutions to present global inequalities.

Biotechnology may offer solutions to certain of our problems but we cannot misplace our hope on a system that, in most cases, results in unknown and unquantified risks (or benefits) to people and the biosphere.

Finally to respond to Edo Lin who unfortunately seems to see any attempt to broaden the discussion from the narrow confines of Cartesianism as an attack on science. He seems mired in dualism. The points of view are not only for and against, there are many shades besides. Further, I can cite examples of leading scientists touting the success of GE technology whilst references and studies have either not been published, peer reviewed or even attempted (e.g. Makatini Flats [a region of the KwaZulu-Natal province in southeastern South Africa....Moderator] bollguard cotton trials cited as huge success at the BIOY2K Conference (and in other fora) ).

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I have heard these same scientists saying "I have heard that there were many more insects around in this area than where chemicals were used," in order to promote GE crops. Where is the scientific process in that and where is the level playing field ? This nonsense serves only to encourage the polarisation to which I originally referred.

Glenn Ashton.
Green Party of South Africa;
specialist spokesperson on genetic engineering and biotechnology
ekogaia@iafrica.com ekogaia@bigfoot.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 3:52 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Appropriate biotechnologies: a view from Ethiopia

[Thanks to Dr. Selassie for this very clear and comprehensive message...Moderator]

I have been closely following the debate on the application of biotechnology in agriculture with great interest.

The question is not whether biotechnology as a whole is useful to agriculture or not. It is crystal clear that molecular techniques can be employed to speed up the breeding process and micropropagation techniques could be employed to rejuvenate and multiply important agricultural crops (especially root crops) as well as indigenous trees. But the use of GM crops is controversial, not least from the point of cost. In principle there is nothing wrong in the use of genetically modified (GM) crops. But it must be done after a serious risk assessment (environmental and health risk) and cost benefit analysis.

Myself, I am not convinced with the relative advantages of GM crops in comparison with conventionally improved or even local varieties, although I am not against their use as long as satisfactory risk assessment is conducted before release. It is true that GM crops may have shown comparative advantage in large mechanized farms in North America or Argentina. But that hardly justifies the use of GM crops by small scale farmers, who live in marginal areas of the developing countries.

One feels dismayed when some people advocate, using the prevalence of hunger in developing countries, the use of GM crops. They see GM crops as a panacea to world hunger. They believe that the use of GM crops can alleviate poverty and insure food security (see letters posted by Edo Lin and Niko Alexandratos) [The message referred to are presumably those of 30 March (Edo Lin) and 15 and 16 May (Nikos Alexandratos)..Moderator]. All these assumptions emanate either from not understanding the real causes of food insecurity and poverty in the world and the complex agricultural systems in developing countries, or from intentional desire to promote the case of the multinational companies such as Monsanto or Novartis (who claim to solve food problems of the world by commercializing GM crops).

To suggest that the use of GM crops can solve the problems of food security is naive and an over simplification of the problem (see Niko Alexandratos's latest contribution). Overproduction of maize and soybeans in Argentina or the USA and their cheap export will not solve hunger and poverty problems in other developing countries. We all know that there has been overproduction (surplus) in the developed countries before the introduction of GM crops. There was hunger and poverty in many developing countries then and they still continue to exist, because the unfair trade relations continue. It is a question of fair trade and justice, which is the real cause!! This is the fact one has to face.

The problem of population pressure, land fragmentation, soil fertility degradation etc. can neither be solved by using GM crops. Let me ask a genuine question. Are these problems the result of lack of reliable crops or lack of appropriate agricultural practices, good infrastructure (basic research, extension services, communication, market access, etc and development policies ? I leave the answer to the reader. Andrew Kiggundu from Uganda [19 May] wrote: " third world governments do not have the money to finance such activities (conventional breeding research I presume)". If they do not have the capacity to finance basic research, how can one expect them to have a capacity to embark on genetic modification of crops? Or how can they build the capacity to assess or monitor GM crops (if one assumes that ready-made GM crops can directly be imported to developing countries) if they cannot finance conventional agricultural research ?

I believe that the capacity of developing countries in terms of finance and knowledge base is different. For poor countries like Uganda and Ethiopia, it may be better to rationally use the scarce resources available on more conventional, but appropriate technologies than advocating the use of GM crops (without having the scientific basis and regulatory mechanisms to assess and monitor the impact of the GM crops on the environment and human health), because the cost of acquiring the GM crops and the subsequent follow up will not be less than the use of non modified crops. Another issue is that nobody is quite sure that the GM crops will yield better than conventionally improved or local varieties without external inputs.

Let me share research findings we got from a limited experiment. We are engaged in on-farm conservation of farmers' varieties (landraces). We asked/encouraged our partner farmers to follow good agronomic practices (water and soil conservation, use of organic fertilizers, appropriate soil preparations, on time sowing, on time weeding, on time harvesting etc.). We compared the yield of the farmers' varieties with that of improved varieties (grown with chemical fertilizers). There was a slight increase in yield of the improved varieties. But when the cost of the improved varieties, fertilizers and other inputs was considered, there was no significant advantage in the use of the improved varieties. In fact, the use of chemical fertilizers is harmful to soil biota and soil fertility at the end. The use of narrow genetic-base, improved varieties also leads to genetic erosion. I will not be surprized if the GM crops show the same result.

In order to opt for the use of GM crops there must be a clearly visible comparative advantage over other crops. The high productivity and relatively low operational cost (if the cost is low at all) of GM crops from large mechanized farms in Argentina and the USA can not be simply extrapolated to be the same in highly fragmented land holding and traditional farming systems, which dominate in developing countries. Here the solution to maximize agricultural production is not to use GM crops, but to intensify the system using local resources. Therefore, It is very important that developing countries adopt and develop biotechnology based on their priorities and capacities.

To oppose biotechnology in general is baseless. Biotechnology is going to stay with us, but we must cautiously select the techniques that are most relevant to our situations and priorities (I have marker assisted selection/screening and micropropagation techniques in mind). Finally I would like to commend Werner Schenkel [e.g. messages of 4 April and 12 April ...Moderator] for his contributions. His advice is well taken.

Haile Selassie Yibrah (Ph.D.)
Institute of Biodiversity Conservation (IBCR)
P.O.Box 30726
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
mebio@telecom.net.et

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 4:17 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Appropriate biotechnologies: a view from Ethiopia

I have read Dr. Selassi's comments [25 May] with interest and agree with much of what he says. I have a question on the micropropagation techniques, however. If, by the word 'micropropagation', you mean tissue culture, I would like to make you aware that in the discussions here it has been stated by different sources, among them EPA toxicologists, that tissue culture may cause important mutations and other changes in the plants - a number of which even after several generations are still present. I therefore am not sure that tissue culture is a good path to take in plant breeding.

Wytze de Lange
Biofood consultancy
Amsterdam
the Netherlands
geno@zap.a2000.nl

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 5:00 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: do not dismiss biotechnology

The International Laboratory for Tropical Agricultural Biotechnology (ILTAB) remains absolutely convinced that agricultural biotechnology has an essential role to play in the Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs).

The challenges facing the LDCs are daunting. Agricultural production must be doubled in the coming decades to meet nutritional needs and economic security for rapidly increasing populations and urbanisation within the developing nations. Biotechnology cannot answer this dilemma on its own but can be an important contributing factor in elevating crop yields and adding nutritional and economic value to agricultural products. To judge or dismiss the appropriateness of agricultural biotechnology to the LDCs solely on the basis of existing products such as herbicide resistant and Bt transgenic crops would be tragically narrowminded and premature. These first generation of transgenic crops were developed by scientists in the North specifically for release within the economic realities of the industrialised countries. They were never intended to address developing country requirements. Nevertheless, enthusiastic adoption of transgenic maize and soybean by farmers in countries such as Argentina and China show that they can be of significant relevance in some developing country scenarios.

Whether through mapping technologies, genetic transformation or micropropagation, or a combination of all three, we believe that biotechnology is in essence most appropriate to the LDC situation. This is because it can deliver improved germplasm for incorporation into conventional breeding programmes or, in other cases, for direct use by farmers. Unlike the Green Revolution, the improved performance need not be tied to agrochemical inputs because biotic and abiotic resistant traits and enhanced quality can be engineered into the plants genome by marker assisted breeding and/or genetic transformation. Recent reports are clearly demonstrating how biotechnology, when targeted at developing country crops, can indeed produce products with exciting and relevant potential. Some examples include a 30% yield increase in rice yields due to incorporation of enzymes from the photosynthetic pathway of maize, significantly increased phosphorus uptake in transgenic plants expressing a bacterial gene, nutritionally enhanced "golden" rice and bacterial resistance transferred directly by genetic engineering from wild rice to Chinese breeding and cultivated rice varieties. Discovery and isolation of a single gene from Arabidopsis which as a transgene can confer dwarfism in rice also promises great hope for elevated yields in the orphan crops like sorghum and millet. To dismiss these important advances and the benefits they, and future advances, could bring to the world's poorest people would be folly considering the scale of the requirement for crop yield improvement in the LDCs.

All such research and development will be irrelevant unless biotechnology is integrated more fully into crop improvement programmes in the LDCs. To achieve this will require the willingness of the public and private sectors within the industrialised countries to work in harness with policy makers, scientists, breeders, extension workers and farmers in the developing countries. intellectual property rights (IPR) issues are certainly a concern and must be resolved either at the individual level or through international agreements. The multinationals could be influential in this area by coming forward to offer relevant technologies within their portfolios for use in LDC food crops that do not constitute a market for the foreseeable future.

The large number of food and cash crops grown in the LDCs and the vast array of yield constraints which must be addressed constitute a challenge on a scale never before contemplated. Nevertheless, the lives of more that 80% of the world's people depend on these production systems. We have the resources and the technologies, both traditional and modern, to tackle these challenges. We should not dismiss any tool that can help.

Dr. C.M. Fauquet
Dr. N.J. Taylor

International Laboratory for Tropical Agricultural Biotechnology (ILTAB)
Donald Danforth Plant Science Center
University of Missouri St Louis
Center for Molecular Electronic
8001 Natural Bridge Road
St Louis, MO 63121-4499
USA
Tel: 1 (314) 516 4581
Fax: 1 (314) 516-4582

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org . The last day for receiving messages is 26 May For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2000 7:35 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: End of Conference 1

Following the last message posted at 17.00 Friday evening, no further messages were received on the 26th May, so the conference is officially closed.

To those who participated, a very sincere thanks for devoting your time to writing the messages.

To all those who registered for the conference, we hope it has been of benefit and of value to you and we hope you will register for other conferences in the future - the conference on the forestry sector is still ongoing and the conference on the livestock sector should begin in roughly 2 weeks time.

Sincerely

Moderator, Conference 1

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