[For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see Forum website.
Note, participants are assumed to be speaking on their own behalf, unless they state otherwise.]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 14 February 2005 16:41
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 104: Listening to women's voices in GMO decision-making

I'm Sophia Huyer, Senior Research Advisor with the Gender Advisory Board of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (GAB-UNCSTD). Recently the Gender Advisory Board convened two expert workshops to examine the gender dimensions of biotechnology research and development, in Pretoria and Islamabad, with funding from the Canadian International Development Research Centre (IDRC). The meetings were co-hosted by the University of Pretoria and the Pakistan National Commission on Biotechnology respectively. Discussions in Pretoria focused largely on the effects of GMOs on small farmers, of which women farmers make up the majority in Sub-Saharan Africa. Experts at both meetings agreed that although the issue hasn't been looked at closely, there are gender dimensions uniquely relevant to biotechnology R&D, especially in relation to agriculture and GMOs: women tend to grow different crops from men, and to date, men's crops have been targetted, with unknown results both for the crops women grow and concerning the repercussions for their livelihoods.

The expert workshops covered a wide range of issues around health, agriculture, environment and industry -- the report will be available soon at http://gab.wigsat.org. For the purposes of this conference, I will present some of the results of the discussions which pertain to the questions asked by the moderator, relating to whether or not rural people should be included in GMO decision making:

There was consensus at both meetings that governments should give high priority to involving rural people in GMO decision-making, particularly women. Women haven't always benefitted from past agricultural revolutions, which have tended to be focused on the crops men grow to the detriment of those grown by women, often for family subsistence. Women are responsible for 60-80% of the food production in the developing world and they tend to make up the majority of small farmers, but their concerns and interests have not been adequately incorporated in technology introduction. Women grow different crops than men for different purposes, and the introduction of these technologies has the potential to negatively affect the income-earning ability of women as well as their ability to feed their families. The introduction of agricultural technologies should recognise and take into account the agricultural production roles, knowledge and responsibilities of women, in addition to their decision-making power and ability to benefit from proceeds in the household and farm.

It is important to include rural people in all situations of GMO decision-making; and to make particular efforts to include women at all levels, from local to national and international.

In terms of working with rural people, the group emphasised that “we need new ways of interacting with farmers,” and biotechnology should be a tool to tailor innovations for farmers based on their socioeconomic context, resources, and concerns, and recognising their knowledge and needs. This involves giving them the information they need to make appropriate decisions and to make the connections between the links in the agricultural production chain. It also involves basing technology choice on farmers' interests, situation, access to resource and choice, which requires the engagement of women farmers and women’s groups as well as an understanding of local cultural and gender roles and patterns of knowledge.

GMO decision-making should also include the option of saying no. Use of "older" biotechnologies, or taking advantage of the properties of existing seed varieties should also be a part of the decision-making process.

When working with farmers on these questions, we need to ask whose knowledge is being privileged or prioritised, and whose knowledge is not recognised. This is relevant in terms of "expert" vs. local knowledge, as well as in terms of women's vs. men's knowledge -- experience has shown that women's knowledge tends not to be valued as highly as men's. For example, in many cases it is the women who possess the knowledge about plant and seed varieties and local environmental and agricultural conditions and processes, but they are not present at community decision-making sessions, or in the meetings with government and/or development officials.

For these reasons, particular efforts need to be made to ensure that women are present and active in local-level decision-making on whether and how to introduce GM crops to local farmers, using participatory extension techniques. This is an area where more research needs to be done: on how to recognise and work with gender relations and expectations in a community in a non-intrusive or destructive way, so that both men and women are comfortable with the results.

In addition to participatory methodologies of farmer consultation, adding women to extension teams can make women farmers feel more comfortable about stepping forward. This is particularly important in communities where it is not socially acceptable for women to talk to men outside of their family.

Non-formal science education programmes targetted at women in rural areas, disseminated through ICTs (information and communication technologies) such as radio and cyber centres, as well as books and short training courses, can in the longer-term enable women to participate in GMO decisions on their farm, in their community, and in the nation at large.

Thanks to the organisers for a very stimulating discussion.

Sophia Huyer
Senior Research Advisor
Gender Advisory Board, UNCSTD
204 Ventress Road
Brighton, Ontario K0K 1H0
Canada
Tel +1 905-355-5124
Fax +1 905-355-3229
shuyer (at) wigsat.org
http://GAB.wigsat.org
http://GSTGateway.wigsat.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 14 February 2005 16:42
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 105: Do as the developed world does

My name is Diogenes Infante, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Caracas; Venezuela. I have been working on genetic modification for the last 20 years, doing research in Venezuela (my country), Mexico, USA and France. My interest in genetic modification started in 1979, as a biology student when I found an article about the production of human interferon in a bacterium.

My experience comparing the decision-making process in countries like France and USA, is that people with the highest level possible are involved in the decision-making process. That is what development means. In my opinion, the main difference between developed and undeveloped countries is the quality of the people taking the decisions. There are different ways concerned people are consulted, as must occur in democracy, but the final decision is taken by a panel of experts, especially in technical issues.

At least in my country I have faced this limitation in discussing the issues related to genetic modification, because the people in charge of the decisions lack the knowledge, especially in the Ministry for Environment, which is in charge after the Cartagena Protocol of the GMO issue. They do not care about agriculture.

In two other countries I have visited, Colombia and Argentina, the fact that they sow transgenics is due to the quality of the people in charge of analyzing and approving/refusing transgenic crops. The result is Colombia and Argentina export agricultural products and Venezuela imports 72% of the food, including transgenic soybean from Argentina and Brazil. Obviously the limitation of our agriculture is not only due to the lack of transgenics, but transgenics can be very useful to surmount the problems, as many experts from Africa pointed out during this conference.

To finish, I have followed this conference with attention, and disagreement, because the main topic of this conference is aimed to push my country to act in a different way than USA and France, which is to eliminate the panel of experts and let everybody participate in the decision process. Even if I found the discussion very useful, I disagree with the topic because the discussion wasn’t IF the local people should be involved, it was HOW to involve, asserting the involvement of the local people. “Muchas manos en la sopa ponen el caldo morado” we say (too many hands on the soup make it purple).

Dr. Diógenes Infante H.
Centro de Biotecnología
Instituto de Estudios Avanzados
http://www.idea.org.ve
e-mail: dinfante (at) idea.org.ve
Tel: 58-0212-903-5104
Fax:58-0212-903-5092
Cel:58-0416-632-9805

Apdo. 17606 Parque Central
Caracas 1015-A, Venezuela
Carretera Hoyo de la Puerta
Sartenejas, Caracas 1080
Venezuela

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 14 February 2005 16:43
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 106: Contribution from Nigeria

I am Olayinka Edema from Nigeria. I am a food/applied microbiologist and I teach the same at the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria.

I would like to make my contributions to some of the questions being addressed in this conference as follows:

For rural people to be effectively involved in the decision-making process regarding production, release or import of GMOs, governments must first of all bridge the wide gap of communication and get these people informed about what GMOs are all about. To be able to make any meaningful contribution, rural dwellers must understand the details of the whole idea as much as possible. The ways to go about this include:

1. Governments in developing countries should make funds available in appropriate quarters. I believe that governments in developing countries should make it top priority to involve the rural people in decision-making regarding GMOs and if its top priority, it should be budgeted for adequately to be effective.

2. Public participation opportunities can be extended to groups in rural communities who are more difficult to reach or who have less access to communication channels by carrying out extension services. Institutions of higher learning in developing countries can assist governments in this regard.

3. Regarding the best medium for rural people in developing countries to access quality information about GMOs: newspaper, radio or Internet may not work because of the poor educational background of the people in question. Direct one-on-one contact may be more effective as far as Nigeria is concerned.

4. There should be proper monitoring and follow-up of discussions with rural dwellers so that the government can get new information across and also collect feedback from the rural people in terms of questions, contributions or new developments.

5. As much information as possible should be given to the public and I do not think that any kind of information should be withheld from public. This would give them more confidence in the GMOs.

Regarding the question: Is public participation regarding GMOs in developing countries more important for some food and agriculture sectors than others? I’d like to say yes, because these sectors are very important in developing countries where starvation stares large numbers of the populations in the face.

Lastly, I wish to agree with Michel Ferry in Message 3 that consumers are as much or more concerned and should be involved in decision-making too.

Olayinka Edema PhD
Lecturer
University of Agriculture,
P.M.B. 2240, Abeokuta,
Nigeria
E-mail: moedemao (at) yahoo.co.uk
Tel: 08037119671

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 14 February 2005 16:46
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 107: How to best extend opportunities for participation to rural groups

This is Maria Protz again.

Regarding Question (6c) in the background document to the conference, on how to best extend opportunities for participation to rural groups, I agree with Tony Dunn (Message 64) that social scientists are needed in this effort. Vagner Augusto Benedito (Message 2) has pointed out that rural people are not all the same and hence, the approaches for involving them will also be different. He also outlined several different types of farmer groups that was very useful.

In the Caribbean, many other factors are also at play - race, class, age, gender, and religion - and need to be considered as the characteristics, and the 'knowledge, attitudes and practices' (KAPs) of each group will also likely be different. Although Tamala Tonga Kambikambi (Message 29) is concerned about how the criteria for selecting different rural groups will be determined, again - this is where social scientists and communication practitioners are key experts to involve. There are a variety of social science methods and PLA/PRA (Participatory Learning and Action / Participatory Rural Appraisal) tools to use for conducting diagnostic assessments and for getting at the different views of different groups quite straightforwardly.

Once the needs, and KAPs, of different rural groups have been determined, extending opportunities for participation in the GMO debate thus sometimes means working on a one-by-one basis with key clusters. For example, in the Caribbean, soybeans are an important food source for both Seventh Day Adventists and Rastafarians. However, little of the demand for soybeans is supplied within the region. It is possible that much of the supply are GMOs - a sensitive fact that may likely not sit well with the religious beliefs of either of these two groups. Any discussion about GMOs will have to take these sensitivities into account.

For this reason, religious leaders and churches are important means for extending the discussion and debate on GMOs, as Yoel T. Mesghenna (Message 55) has already pointed out. Religious leaders can also help to lend credibility, trust and authority to the discussion.

But ultimately, extending participation requires a multi-disciplinary effort that will involve all of the relevant civil servants, NGOs, and sectors that work in the rural context. The importance of involving extension officers has already been mentioned (Hastings Zidana, Message 17) as has the contribution that teachers can make (Carole Keter, Message 34), but other field staff from other ministries can also play a role. For example, environmental health officers, nutrition officers, Bureau of Standards staff, health clinic staff, and others - will likely all have a role to play in the biosafety framework and are also quite likely to be regularly active in rural areas as well.

A multi-disciplinary approach to extension will also have to be well co-ordinated. Frontline field officers will all need appropriate training if they are to help facilitate the involvement of rural people. And they will also have to coordinate their own activities. In the Caribbean, for example, it is not uncommon for Bureau of Standard staff, nutrition officers, extension officers, and others to each request meetings with farmer groups on a regular monthly basis. That makes for a lot of meetings - often with the same rural audiences. Rural people are busy and therefore, it is important that all of the field staff who may play a role in the facilitation effort - share the duties and collaborate with one another.

Each ministry is also likely to have its own public awareness activities on a regular basis (be it radio announcements, cable TV programmes, newspaper pages, special speakers, fairs, exhibits, keynote speakers, special calendar events, and so on). If GMOs are to be discussed through all these means, care must be taken to avoid duplication and/or competition among the various agencies. It may be best for specific agencies to take the lead on a rotating basis.

It is also critical not to overlook the important role played by farm supply stores and their staff. In the Caribbean, these are often the main source of technical information for farmers. Farm stores and seed suppliers will also have a critical role to play in the distribution of GMO seeds - therefore, they too will need training to provide proper information and to encourage farmer involvement in the debate as it takes place.

Finally, again in the Caribbean - rum shops are very important venues at which rural men and youth at least, gather to discuss the most important issues of the day. Women gather more at church, clinics, schools and markets - all important venues for extension.

Maria Protz, Ph.D.
Development Communications Consultant
P.O. Box 291, St. Ann's Bay
Jamaica, West Indies
Phone: (876) 972-2352
Cell: (876) 878-5326
protz (at) mail.infochan.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 14 February 2005 16:48
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 108: Role of indigenous peoples

Regarding Question (6d) in the background document and the role of indigenous peoples: Yes, they definitely do need to be involved as they frequently still possess indigenous germplasm and practice traditional farming methods that might be most at risk with the introduction of GMOs. It may also be that they are more suspicious of biotechnology in general. And it may further be that the genetic agricultural resources that indigenous people manage might offer some of the most useful and exciting opportunities for improving non-indigenous crop production. Issues of intellectual property rights would be at play in this scenario.

It would also be important to ensure that the introduction of GMOs does not encroach or impede the traditional lifestyle of indigenous peoples or alter their heritage lands in any way and that they are involved in determining mechanisms for ensuring that this does not happen. Compensation issues will also emerge in the case of breaches and/or damages that might ensue.

Thus, one of the best ways for involving indigenous groups in decision-making about GMOs, might be to ensure that they serve a monitoring function. If GMOs are going to be introduced within a range where indigenous people still wish to practice traditional agriculture for example, then they should be involved in determining what is an appropriate buffer zone distance or parameter, for instance, and should also be involved in monitoring practices within that zone. Disposal of GMOs waste (through groundwater, for example) will also need to be regulated and controlled to ensure that it does not interfere with indigenous property.

Designing and developing a regulatory biosafety framework that incorporates the rights of indigenous people will require their involvement, and also their participation in compliance and enforcement measures.

Most organized indigenous groups have clearly identified leaders that represent them. They also have their own processes for discussion and decision-making - usually methods that involve wide debate by all members and which encourage consenus and build on their own social capital. These processes should be respected and adopted for the purposes of decision-making around GMOs as well.

Maria Protz, Ph.D.
Development Communications Consultant
P.O. Box 291, St. Ann's Bay
Jamaica, West Indies
Phone: (876) 972-2352
Cell: (876) 878-5326
protz (at) mail.infochan.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 14 February 2005 16:49
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 109: Views from Egypt

From Egypt, this is Kasem Zaki Ahmed, Professor of Genetics and Director of Minia Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture, Minia University, El-Minia, Egypt.

First of all, in my opinion, it has been an excellent conference so far, with many insightful and informative contributions, from a wide range of different perspectives. However, we have to know that most of the developing countries are still far from complete application of democracy in most life affairs. Moreover, people in rural areas have often more limited access to information than their counterparts in urban areas, due to e.g. remoteness, higher illiteracy rates and poorer infrastructure. These kinds of factors similarly have a negative impact on the ability of rural people to access and influence policy-makers and the decision-making process. Although, the GMO well beneficial for developing countries more than developed countries, the vast majority of people in developing countries believe that the GMOs and their producers (big companies) may become a new colonization form. Moreover, GMOs are still facing concerns even with people of urban areas (in developed countries too).

With respect to the questions in Section 6 of the background document to be addressed during the conference, I have brief comments as follows (see numbers):

Question 6a) Governments should give HIGH priority to involving the rural people in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries (they are producers and customers).

6b) In production or importation situations, it is most important to include the rural people in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries.

6e) With higher illiteracy rates, I guess radio and TV are the best medium for rural people in developing countries to access quality information about GMOs, that will allow them to participate effectively in the decision-making process.

6f) Maybe lectures, document films and drama mechanisms can be used to ensure that relevant and reliable information/content is provided by the above media.

6h) Personal contact is the best medium for rural people in developing countries to provide their inputs, if requested, to the decision-making processes regarding GMOs.

6k) I guess, the GMO producer should pay the cost of involving the public in decision-making processes.

6m) Concerning requests for approval of individual GM products, all information should be for public disclosure.

6n) Regional and national public participation activities in developing countries are important regarding GMOs acceptance.

6o) Public participation regarding GMOs in developing countries is more important for some food and agriculture sectors, as follows (livestock > crop > agro-industry > forestry > aquaculture).

Kasem Zaki Ahmed, Ph. D. (Professor of Genetics)
Director of Minia Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (MCGEB),
Faculty of Agriculture,
Minia University,
El-Minia, ET-61517,
Egypt.
Tel (work): ++ 20 (86) 2 36 23 33
Mobile:++ 20 (12) 10 37 504
Fax (work):+ + 20 (86) 2 36 21 82
e-mail: ahmed.kz (at) link.net
http:www.kasemzaki.8k.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 14 February 2005 16:50
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 110: Re: The need for independent oversight of GMO introduction

This is Professor J Ralph Blanchfield, a professional food scientist with no links with the biotechnology industry or "TNCs", no axe to grind, and neither root-and-branch for GM nor root-and-branch against GM. A scientist should not be root-and-branch anything except for the methodology of science.

My position, which coincides with that of the Institute of Food Science and Technology in the UK and of the International Union of Food Science and Technology, is that "Food scientists and technologists can support the responsible introduction of GM techniques provided that issues of product safety, environmental concerns, information and ethics are satisfactorily addressed. Only in this way may the benefits that this technology can confer become available, not least to help feed the world's escalating population in the coming decades."

I do not recognise myself or any of my professional colleagues in the caricatures of "scientists" or the straw men about them that have been paraded by some participants. I certainly do not consider that only science should be taken into account, and I support the involvement of rural people and communities in developing countries, However, much confusion has been sown by failing to distinguish among the three parts of risk analysis.

Risk analysis (RA) consists of

1. Risk assessment, a task for scientists who are experts both in the topic and in the modern methodology of risk assessment. Risk assessment should take account of the likelihood of a risk occurring and its seriousness if it does occur, and should be applied not only to a potential course of action, but also to failure to take that action and to alternative courses of action. To say that this is a task for experts is not a matter of "elitism" or assumed "greater wisdom". If I require brain surgery, I want it to be done by someone with the necessary training, experience and skill, not by my neighbour who may be much wiser but lacks those attributes;

2. Risk communication, a multi-directional interchange of information among legislators, the risk assessors and the public (i.e.the rest of society), which should be an ongoing process; and

3. Risk management, for legislators to carry out on behalf of society in the light of 1 and 2.

The relationship involving these three activities in not a linear one but one of dynamic and ongoing interplay. It is involvement in the risk communication interchange where the participation of the rural people is valuable and essential. They have local "on the ground" knowledge of what are their needs and problems, and this is a crucial input to the eventual decision-making process. They do not need detailed scientific knowledge about GM (any more than we need to have detailed technical knowledge of the workings of the internal combustion engine in order to drive a car competently). Insofar as they participate, however, it must not be seen as a one-way process in which information is "imparted" to them" but a two-way process in which they are listened to, and the information that is imparted to them is to discuss how the various "tools" at the disposal of agriculture today (of which GM is just one) can be used (or research could be directed towards using) to help meet their needs. Who would/could oversee this? Nominally in each country it ought to be a government responsibility as representing society there, but I suspect few would regard that as a satisfactory answer. Perhaps FAO itself has demonstrated, by its promotion and conduct of this excellently planned and executed series of on-line discussions, that it is well-fitted to "hold the ring".

The thing that rural communities do not need is misinformation or disinformation fed to them by vested interests at either extreme ends of the GM/anti-GM spectrum. For such activist groups to claim to actively educate rural consumers and producers is akin to the fox claiming to guard the henhouse -- just as it would be if Monsanto made a similar claim.

Prof J Ralph Blanchfield, MBE
Food Science, Food Technology and Food Law Consultant
Chair, External Affairs and Past President, IFST
President Elect, International Academy of Food Science and Technology
Member of IUFoST Governing Council
Chair, IUFoST/FAO Database Task Force
Personal Web address www.jralphb.co.uk
e-mail: jralphb (at) easynet.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 14 February 2005 16:51
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 111: GMOs - The rural people of Nigeria

I am Dr O.U. Ezeronye, Professor and Head of Department of Microbiology, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, Umuahia, Nigeria.

I have been following very keenly the discussions of this FAO conference though unable to make any contributions until this very last day of the conference. According to the background document, the issue to be addressed is on "how the rural people in developing countries can be effectively involved in the decision-making process regarding production, release or import of GMOs".

As a scientist and intellectual, I think it is imperative to involve the rural people. But as a Nigerian I think the major handicap here is the politicians and their ability to mislead the gullibly ignorant illiterate rural people. In our context, we have dispersed uneducated rural communities who can easily accept new ideas if properly enlightened. So to get them involved a lot of public enlightenment needs to be done via the scientists and biotechnology experts, researchers, environmental experts, lawyers and others not the politicians. This means that a lot of efforts need to be put in to empower this group to over-ride the political class and reach this people. A world body like the FAO, UN etc. must come in to help.

1. Question (6a), Concerning the level of priority that governments should give to involving the rural people in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries: An informed government should give full support and priority to get the rural people involved in policies that will concern them as end users. Our experience here is that we have an uninformed political class who are not able to concretize solutions to our problems.

Dr O.U. Ezeronye,
Professor and Head of Department of Microbiology,
Michael Okpara University of Agriculture,
Umudike,
Umuahia
Nigeria
ezeronyeob (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 14 February 2005 16:51
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 112: Effective risk communication

A few last minute thoughts - Maria Protz again.

Regarding Question (6g) in the background document, about what are the most appropriate approaches to respond to the information needs of rural people.

The background document identified several guiding principles for effective risk communication, which have been little touched on in the debate thus far but I think it is important to elaborate on them further [As mentioned in Section 3 of the background document, Points 1-8 below are principles for effective risk communication identified by a joint FAO/WHO expert consultation held in 1998 on the application of risk communication to food standards and safety matters - see Chapter 3 of the meeting report http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/x1271e/x1271e00.htm ...Moderator].

1. Know the audience

KAP (Knowledge, Attitude and Practice) survey's are critical and cannot be over-emphasized as Cleofe S. Torres (Message 38) pointed out, particularly in this instance when there is so much mistrust and suspicion. Far too many assumptions are often made about what rural people know and don't know, do and don't do, believe and do not believe. KAPs are the only way to also get an understanding for the differences among rural people so that effective communication strategies and participation approaches can be designed. KAPs can reveal not only people's attitudes and beliefs surrounding GMOs - beliefs that will need to be addressed in any strategy - but will also identify gaps in knowledge so that strategies can be focused and targeted. They can also reveal the best ways to get messages to people, places to meet them, their media preferences, and so on - all critical base data for addressing most of the questions being posed in this discussion. Hence, social scientists are critical here.

2. Involve the scientific experts

This is critical to ensure that facts are correct and knowledge is sound. But also to ensure transparency. The problem with raising awareness about GMOs is, as the old adage says, that a "little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." Without a whole picture, a little bit of knowledge can generate more fear and distrust. This is partly what has happened in so many instances. This is also why communicating GMOs and Biosafety has to be done with the utmost care. Once out, thoughts, attitudes and concepts can be set in stone and will be difficult to refute later on.

3. Establish expertise in communication

Scientific technical information needs to be translated into simple, easy to understand terminology as Cleofe S. Torres (Message 38) has noted - but pitched to the specific focus and gaps in knowledge that the KAP survey will reveal. Messages and materials need to be pre-tested with specific key groups representative of the rural audiences. This is the expertise of communication professionals - not scientists.

4. Be a credible source of information

This is also critical. It is important that unbiased, apolitical credible mouthpieces are used to convey any public media messages. Another important step for ensuring credibility and transparency is to establish multi-agency advisory groups to present the information. Credible sources will vary from culture to culture, local context and rural audience to rural audience. Churches and/or religious leaders may play a key role here.

5. Share responsibility

The background document mentions the multiple players in the process - but farmers also have a role to play in ensuring that GMOs are introduced safely. They need to be involved in the decision-making about what level of responsibility that will entail. And again, a coordinated effort among several of the front-line field officers who are in most direct contact with rural people (nutrition officers, health officers, extension officers, bureau of standard officers, etc.) will ensure that the responsibility is shared.

6. Differentiate between science and value judgement

Present the 'facts'. Julie Newman (Message 50) made the plea for accurate practical information. Essentially, communication and public involvement about GMOs must answer the same standard questions of who, what, where, when, why and how? What is a GMO? What is biosafety? What is a biosafety framework? What will be required of me as a farmer? What will I have to do differently on my farm if I adopt GMOs? What type of contractual arrangement will I need to sign? What will happen if I don't introduce GMOs properly? Who will I buy GMO supplies from? Who will monitor the practices I adopt? And so forth. Bridget Hogg (Message 42) commenced some of these points that need to be covered. Working through the specific questions to ask is the starting point for developing messages and for beginning dialogue.

7. Assure transparency

This can only be done through transparent multi-stakeholder advisory groups and regulatory boards that include farmer representatives. Transparency also demands that information is paced and that people have a chance to digest the new information in manageable chunks. For example, in the Caribbean generally, but also in rural areas, people do not know what GMOs actually are - there is confusion among the words "biosafety' and biodiversity for instance. People first need to become biosafety literate before they can fully participate in the debate and make the harder decisions regarding policy, adopting, regulation, etc. Communication, participation and decision-making need to be done in managed stages in order to be fully participatory and transparent.

8. Put the risk in perspective

This is critical and the only way to give rural people something concrete to chew on and consider. Several contributors have mentioned various 'cases' where GMOs have been introduced and a case study approach can be very useful for comparison purposes. Suggested examples of case studies - Roundup Ready soya monocrop (Michael Ferry, Message 27); Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh, India (Glenn Stone, Message 33); Starlink Corn (John Hodges, Message 49). Case studies can help to illustrate risk scenarios more easily.

9. Post-release monitoring - rural people will have to play a role here - on their own farmers and in monitoring one another. But skill levels, changed behaviours and practices will also have to be monitored. For example, even reading labels is likely to be a 'new skill' that will have to be adopted by both farmers (as producers) in selecting GMO planting material, and as consumers. Again, if a thorough KAP survey is done at the beginning - baseline data will allow for concrete evaluation and monitoring at a later date in all areas of knowledge, attitudes and practices.

Maria Protz, Ph.D.
Development Communications Consultant
P.O. Box 291, St. Ann's Bay
Jamaica, West Indies
Phone: (876) 972-2352
Cell: (876) 878-5326
protz (at) mail.infochan.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 14 February 2005 16:52
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 113: Media approaches

Some additional thoughts - Media Approaches.

Use a multi-pronged communication approach - Information and communication technologies (ICTs), mass media - but also one-on-one visits, drama, traditional media.

Drama is good because it can help to ease or disperse some of the emotional intensity surrounding GMOs and can use humour to dispel the tense issues. Dramatic vignettes can also deal with the 'fear and suspicion' issues in ways that are non-threatening and perhaps even humorous.

In the Caribbean, larger farmers are already very savvy with respect to ICTs and conduct their own research on the web. They would have no problem contributing to e-forum debates, website discussion and other electronic mechanisms for garnering feedback on GMOs.

But smaller farmers, and those who are less literate, still prefer one-on-one visits from their extension officers or as part of farmer group discussions. Given the seriousness of the GMO debate, these type of discussions will also need to be continued and even intensified.

If this is done together with a multi-media strategy - that includes simple, factual printed materials (fact sheets, brochures), telephone hot lines, radio and T.V. spot announcements, farm fair exhibits, and so on - then wide participation and discussion can be achieved.

Thank you for an excellent conference.

Maria Protz, Ph.D.
Development Communications Consultant
P.O. Box 291, St. Ann's Bay
Jamaica, West Indies
Phone: (876) 972-2352
Cell: (876) 878-5326
protz (at) mail.infochan.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 14 February 2005 16:53
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 114: Re: Choice, information and representation, yes...

From Jorge Mayer, Golden Rice Project Manager, Freiburg, Germany.

C.R. Bhatia (Message 92) touches on a very delicate point, related to sociocultural beliefs and superstition. These aspects are leading much of the GM discussion in the developed world, so it isn’t hard to imagine how much more complicated it is in environments where primary school level education prevails.

Referring to Michel Ferry (Message 93), I must say that I find nothing respectable in flatly rejecting a technology without reasonable grounds which I’m sure is not what he’s saying there. Interviews in Europe have also shown that a high percentage of the population believes that there is no DNA in their food (and other barbarities). These are the same people who vote against the introduction of GMOs. The argument by many that there is not enough information around — not brought up in this conference — is totally wrong, the problem is simply that science programmes on TV have a very low viewer rate when compared to soccer games (let’s not speak about books). I was very pleased to see already about five years ago that my kids were getting excellent information about genetic engineering in high school in Australia. As with many other technologies, younger generations become familiarised with new technologies early on, so their arguments are based on knowledge rather than pure perception (knowledge-based perception is fine).

Dr Jorge E. Mayer
Golden Rice Project Manager
Center for Applied Biosciences
University of Freiburg
Stefan Meier Str 8
D-79104 Freiburg,
Germany
jorge.mayer (at) zab.uni-freiburg.de
Ph +49 (761) 203 5022
Fax +49 (761) 203 5021
http://www.zab.uni-freiburg.de

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 14 February 2005 16:53
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 115: Why such a hurry?

I am Birgit Müller, a social anthropologist working with the Centre National de la Recherche Scientific in Paris, France. I did research on peasant and State relationships in Nicaragua and on farmers and biotechnology in the cereal plains in Canada.

I would like to react to two points made by Gabriel Mbassa (Messages 98 and 101) and others throughout this conference: 1) If there would be no doubt about the safety and about the motives behind introducing GMOs there would be no need even to involve the people. 2) Consulting people to give their opinion on GMOs does not mean that they can effectively decide or even influence decisions on the "production, release or import of GMOs".

1.) Why such a hurry? Most of the comments in this conference about the safety of GMOs depart from the example of already existing, either herbicide resistant or Bt-producing, GMOs. We are however only at the beginning of what plant geneticists euphorically call the biotech revolution and there are thousands of patents granted or pending for new GMOs. Because there are patents on these GMOs, there is an urgency to exploit them as rapidly as possible. The biotechnology corporations push for lower external quality control and for the acceptance of the principle of substantial equivalence with conventional varieties to escape lengthy impact assessments. At the same time, biologists, agrologists and environmental scientists are becoming increasingly aware of the complexity of biological systems and insist on the need of taking the time to evaluate GMOs in the different environments. It is this culture of urgency that arises out of the strife for profit that does not allow scientists to properly evaluate the technologies invented. It is absurd that while scientists are not given the time to evaluate and to distinguish useful GMOs from useless and dangerous ones, rural people should decide.

2.) To request rural people to give an informed opinion on GMOs means to appeal to their common sense and practical knowledge. The farmers of the cereal plains of Canada very largely rejected the introduction of GM glyphosate resistant wheat which had been developed by Monsanto in cooperation and co-financing with the Canadian Ministry of Agriculture with the argument that they would not have any cheap chemical to combat the volunteer wheat plants of the next generation. But to make this opinion heard it required a strong coalition of farmers organisations with environmental groups, the organisation of GM wheat websites and the support of the Canadian wheat board that, based on market analysis, showed that GM wheat would have been rejected by most of Canada's customers. Monsanto ultimately held back its application for the authorisation of GM wheat, but the cost in terms of time and money invested to get critical opinions listened to was enormous. This is an example from a technologically highly developed country where access to electronic media is generalised, roads are paved and air traffic is common. Canada prides itself to be a democratic country. The illiterate farmers confronted with highly corrupt governments and without the means of communication have shown an amazing capacity all over the world to make their opinion heard nevertheless, but their practical knowledge and their suspicion of GMOs has been undervalued by scientists, biotechnology promotors (including in this conference) and often ignored by their governments.

To sum up, this conference has been very interesting for the very select public with access to the internet that has had the information that this conference was actually taking place. We should not lure ourselves into thinking that this has been already an exercise in democratic participation. If this exercise should go on, the next theme for a FAO electronic conference on biotechnology should be: how can citizens in developed and developing countries make their governments that may be democratic or authoritarian and that are always under pressure from large bio-science corporations, adopt strict liability laws concerning the development, distribution and production of GMOs.

Birgit Müller
LAIOS-CNRS
Maison des Sciences de l'homme
54, bd. Raspail
75006 Paris
Tel. +331 49542199
Fax. +331 49542190
bmuller (at) msh-paris.fr

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 14 February 2005 16:54
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 116: Why public participation // Citizen panels

My apologies for joining this interesting and thoughtful debate only at the end. My name is Regina Birner, I am an agricultural economist at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), which co-organized the African Policy Dialogues on Biotechnology mentioned by Edo Lin (Message 68).

I would especially like to comment on the first question in the background document to the conference: "6a) What priority should governments give to involving the rural people in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries?":

This question is related to the "why participation?" issue, which has been controversially discussed during the conference. My view is that consulting different stakeholders is essential to make good decisions on an issue that is as controversial as GM crops, even if elected policy-makers usually remain the legitimate body to finally make decisions on GMOs or to delegate these decisions to regulatory bodies (In the European Union, this is described as giving people "a voice, not a vote"). Decisions on GM crops involve value judgments, and - as has been pointed out by several participants - there is no scientific consensus on the risks involved in GMOs and on their socio-economic and environmental costs and benefits in the long run. Therefore, it is useful if decision-makers are aware of the views and opinions of different groups of society, and of the extent to which there is consensus or disagreement on the different questions involved (biosafety, food safety, trade issues, role of multi-national companies, etc.).

Special efforts to elicit the views of the rural people, especially small-holders and poor consumers, are justified because they are usually less able to organize themselves and voice their interests and views. There is the danger that only lobby groups of the GM industry, international environmental NGOs and donor organizations get the ear of the decision-makers. I think that the state or international donors should bear the costs of it (question 6k).

Another important reason for public participation is the creation of awareness and transparency. This may help to fight against efforts of the GM industry to use corruption in order to get through the regulatory process (Monsanto was fined in January 2005 because Monsanto Co. affiliates made more than $700,000 in illicit payments to Indonesian government officials between 1997 and 2002 in Indonesia, see http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/story/FF9A2B7143FB9C7186256F82001D1855).

Question 6c), "How can public participation opportunities be extended to groups in rural communities who are more difficult to reach or who have less access to communication channels (e.g., women, subsistence farmers)?", is related to the first question and particularly challenging. One approach that has been used in Europe, especially in Nordic countries, is to use "citizen panels" composed of lay persons. The panel first receives comprehensive information from different groups of experts, and then deliberates on contested issues. In this process, the panel is able to consult with experts as the panel feels necessary. While this approach is not representative in a statistical sense, the European experience has shown that it is low-cost that does elicit valuable information on citizens' views and judgements. Experimenting with this approach in developing countries appears justified, and perhaps FAO can take a lead on this.

Finally, I would like to mention that together with Gabriela Alcaraz, I reviewed the experience of public participation and stakeholder consultation in some European countries to derive insights for developing countries (compare Edo Lin's Message 56). The paper is available at http://www.ifpri.org/africadialogue/pdf/policydialoguespaper.pdf.

Many thanks to John and FAO for organizing this very important and insightful conference.

Regina Birner
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
Development Strategy and Governance Division (DSGD)
2033 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1002
USA
e-mail: r.birner (at) cgiar.org
http://www.ifpri.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 14 February 2005 17:02
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: End of FAO conference on public participation in decision-making regarding GMOs

Dear Colleagues,

The last message (number 116), from Regina Birner, has been posted so Conference 12 of the FAO Biotechnology Forum, entitled "Public participation in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries: How to effectively involve rural people", is now officially closed.

FAO established this Biotechnology Forum in 2000 with the aim of providing quality balanced information on agricultural biotechnology in developing countries and to make a neutral platform available for people to exchange views and experiences on this subject. We hope that you found this conference informative, interesting and of value. All the messages posted will remain on the Forum website, in daily and monthly webpages, for people to read in the future, at http://www.fao.org/biotech/logs/c12logs.htm. We strongly encourage you, as Forum Members, to widely disseminate information from this conference so that the voices of the people that participated in the conference can be heard. As is standard practice with conferences in this Forum, we will also prepare a Summary Document in the future to provide a summary of the main issues discussed during the conference, based on the messages posted and circulate it widely.

For your interest, we can provide some figures about participation in the conference. It ran for four weeks, from Monday 17 January to 13 February 2005, and a total of 508 people subscribed. Of the 508 people, 70 (i.e. 14%) submitted at least one message. The messages came literally from all corners of the world - with 24 of the 70 messages (i.e. 21%) from people living in Europe; 23 (20%) from Africa, 20 (17%) from North America, 17 (15%) from Latin America and the Caribbean and 16 messages each (14%) from people living in Asia and Oceania. The messages came from people living in 35 different countries, the greatest numbers coming from the United States, Australia, India, France, Canada, Jamaica, Spain, Kenya, Philippines and the United Kingdom respectively. A total of 58 messages (i.e. 50%) each were posted from participants living in developing and developed countries.

This conference was a success due to the active participation of the 70 people who sat down and invested their time and effort in sharing their views and experiences with the conference on the many diverse issues involved in the "how, what and why" regarding participation of the public in decision-making regarding GMOs. To each one of you, our very special thanks.

Before signing off, I would like to remind you that the next e-mail conference (number 13) of this Forum will take place later in the year and will be dedicated to the theme of "The role of biotechnology for the characterisation and conservation of crop, forestry, animal and fishery genetic resources". As part of the build up to this e-mail conference, a workshop with the same title is being co-organised by the FAO Working Group on Biotechnology on 5-7 March 2005 in Turin, Italy. The deadline for registration has been extended to 25 February and there is place for 50 more registrations. The full programme and workshop details are available at http://www.fobiotech.org/FAO_2005.htm. Contact mail@fobiotech.org for more information.

John

John Ruane, PhD
FAO Working Group on Biotechnology,
FAO website http://www.fao.org
Forum website http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp
FAO Biotechnology website http://www.fao.org/biotech/index.asp
Biotech-Admin@fao.org