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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 14 January 2005 17:25
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Opening of FAO e-mail conference on public participation in decision-making regarding GMOs

Dear Colleagues,

Welcome to the FAO e-mail conference entitled "Public participation in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries: How to effectively involve rural people" !!!!

You can send messages now (send them to biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org). Messages will be posted from Monday 17 January onwards while the last day for receiving messages for posting will be Sunday 13 February.

We hope that the conference will be interesting, constructive and beneficial and we encourage you to participate actively. We would like to briefly remind you of some of the main points about the running of the conference:

[Welcome everybody to this FAO e-mail conference on public participation in decision-making on GMOs in developing countries !!! The four weeks available for this conference will go very fast, so we encourage you to participate actively right from the beginning to get the maximum benefit from it. Participants are also reminded to briefly introduce themselves in their first message to the conference...Moderator]

I am Dr (Mrs) P S Janaki Krishna, working as ‘consultant’ in ‘Andhra Pradesh Netherlands Biotechnology Programme’ being implemented by the Biotechnology Unit of Institute of Public Enterprise, Hyderabad, India.

First of all, I would like to thank FAO for organizing this ‘e-conference’ on such an important topic - ‘Public participation in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries: How to effectively involve rural people”. I also thank the organizers for providing such an exhaustive ‘Background Document’, which is very useful in proceeding towards the conference. I feel the sub-theme of the conference –‘how to effectively involve rural people’- is more critical and important. I always enjoy participating in these conferences, which are informative and well moderated. My main objective in participating in the present conference is to share some of my thoughts with regard to public participation as we in our Programme follow an ‘interactive bottom up’ approach which is based on the principles of participation for executing the projects in biotechnology and to also gain some knowledge through this conference on how to reach the unreached and involve them in the events of decision making.

In many parts of rural India, as in many other countries, opportunities for people to learn about the world outside their village, or even to keep in touch with current events going in their own region, are often limited. They are not part of the formal communication networks that keep them up to date and in poor communities, newspapers, radios and television are scarce. In the same way, technologies and innovations like computers, television, video and cinema, which make city/town life seem attractive, are out of reach to the majority of people living in the remote countryside. In this regard, like ‘remote sensing’ ‘remote sourcing’ should also be given equal priority.

Against this backdrop, and on behalf of some of these unheard voices, I would like to participate in this conference. How to make these voices heard in decision-making on the introduction of new varieties of crops like GMOs (whose inherent make up is changed) into their farms in which they live, work, walk, talk, eat and sleep is the main challenge. I hope by the end of the conference we will certainly get some clues/leads on how to involve them in decision making with regard to implementation of these programmes.

Coming to the 15 questions that are provided as part of the ‘Background document’ to be addressed in this conference, I would like to comment on a set of five questions each time in order to be crisp and focused.

6.a) "What priority should governments give to involving the rural people in decision making regarding GMOs in developing countries?"

Governments should give top priority to involving rural people in decision-making. (This has been well acknowledged in the Rio Declaration – 1992). Once this decision is put into practice as a must the ‘ways and means’ by the respective nations and states would be worked out.

6.b) "In which situations is it most important to include the rural people in decision-making regarding the GMOs in developing countries?"

If the GMO that is to be introduced by any means affects the livelihoods of rural people, as a follower of participatory approaches in technology development, I feel it is advisable to involve rural people right from priority setting including selection of crops/varieties/traits/products for genetic modification. If not, they should at least be consulted during the decision making process at developing regulatory frameworks and approving for commercialization.

6.c) "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)?"

It is true that these groups are difficult to reach. However, door to door sample surveys, meetings with these groups, exposure visits by these groups to research farms, labs where these products are being developed, involving them as one of the stakeholders in public awareness camps on “Biotechnology and emerging issues”, public debates etc. would help and their opinions may be documented and shared during the decision making process. We in Andhra Pradesh Netherlands Biotechnology Programme involve rural people throughout project conceptualization and implementation stage and organize public awareness camps and public debates on these issues on a regular basis. Right and transparent communication with regard to GMOs should be given due importance in this exercise.

6.d) "Should specific considerations be given to involving indigenous communities in decision-making regarding GMOs? If so how can this be best achieved?"

It again depends on the GMO we are introducing. If it any way affects these communities they should be consulted during the decision making process. Also, one of the representatives from these communities should be nominated to the policy making body to take care of these issues.

6.e) "What is best medium (e.g. newspaper, radio, internet etc.) for rural people in developing countries to access quality information about GMOs, that will allow them to participate effectively in the decision making process?"

For rural people, radio and newspaper are best media to be reached. Television also to some extent can be used as one of the communication medium. I recently heard of ‘community radios’, which are serving as best medium to reach these people. Governments may give a serious thought for installation of the same in the villages. Besides we can think of involving them in answering questionnaires with regard to policy implementation, distribute pamphlets with regard to existing policies, brochures etc. show them the video films, skits depicting the ‘pros and cons’ of GMOs. However, any form of communication should be in the local language.

These are some of my opinions, which I would to like to state at this juncture. Thank You!

P S Janaki Krishna,
Consultant,
Biotechnology Unit, Institute of Public Enterprise,
Hyderabad - 500 007,
India
Email: jankrisp (at) yahoo.com
Phone: 040 - 27097018/27098148

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 17 January 2005 17:47
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 2: Rural people in developing world - Different profiles

I am Vagner Augusto Benedito, a Brazilian researcher from CENA/USP (the Center for Nuclear Energy in Agriculture/University of Sao Paulo), with a Ph.D. in plant sciences from Wageningen University (the Netherlands).

This conference is a great opportunity to debate how to include rural people from developing world in the current debate on issues where they are directly involved, trying to make them not only receptors of novel technologies or ready answers to their problems, but instead, integrating them in the decision-making process.

I would like to start the discussion reminding that rural people in developing world can have different profiles regarding education, economic situation, and power to interfere in political decisions.

Here in Brazil, we may situate rural people in several categories, including:

1) big farmers (producing mostly export and internal commodities), which are technified businessmen, have access to financing and can be organized to interfere actively in politics even at national levels;

2) big farmers who are less technified, but take advantage of large areas for production (even devastating forests for new agriculture frontiers) and can also interfere in political internal affairs;

3) medium farmers of a wide range of education and technification, whose interference power in political matters will depend on their own organization (as cooperatives or associations), but usually have their political influence in more local standards;

4) small/subsistence farmers, who are mostly lowly educated, poor, not organized people with no influence in the political scenario and their voices are only heard indirectly (when it is heard).

Of course, we have a gradation in these categories and exceptions (for example, small highly technified farmers, such as flower producers in Sao Paulo State).

One first big problem to involve rural people in the decision-making process is their capacity of organization. If they are organized at the national level (which in Brazil is largely difficult due to the country size), they can demand their needs or make their opinions listened to.

Another problem to be faced in this regard is about education. Low education is usually the rule among rural people in Brazil (and of course in the whole undeveloped world). In order to insert rural people in any decision-making process, it is necessary to think of giving them tools for their own judgement, and this is only achieved with education.

A third problem I see in this theme is leadership control. It is easier to lead a people without involving them, since it can generate long discussions and the process could run much more slowly. Real democracy is not easy to be implemented (even in the said democratic governments) and it is an exercise of achieving the most satisfying solution, which demands sometimes furious debates. Governments must give some room for listening to people's opinions, taking it seriously to try to achieve the best solution.

GMOs are a reality in many places of the world and much has been already said by political and scientific experts and so little has been listened from the farmers (excluding, of course, large-scale producers, which made a huge difference in releasing transgenic soybean in Brazil). My personal concern is about small-scale producers, which so far are rarely inquired about themes that make huge differences in their lives.

Dr. Vagner Augusto Benedito, Ph.D.
Plant Physiology and Molecular Biology
Plant Breeding Laboratory - LAMP
Center for Nuclear Energy in Agriculture
University of São Paulo
benedito (at) cena.usp.br
phone: +55-19-3429-4812
fax: +55-19-3429-4610

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 17 January 2005 17:48
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 3: Why involve the rural people on the issue of GMOs

This is from Michel Ferry, an agronomist interested by the problematic of the poor farmers livelihood improvement and the consequences of liberalism for the poor and the environment. I am following the debate on biotechnology and development with very much attention.

The question on how to involve the rural people on the issue of GMOs seems to me a bit strange. Before asking how, perhaps could it be interesting to ask why? Why give to this issue a special place in the issues regarding rural development? The question of how to involve the rural people on this issue is not specific. It belongs to the problematic of how to involve the rural people on any subject regarding their activities and their life. We know that it is a difficult task for many reasons. Because the rural people are difficult to reach, and if we are speaking of the poor local people, who should be the priority target of development actions it is still worse. Most of the rural people speak only their ethnic language. Most of them don´t know how to read or to write. We know that they are also not or badly represented. In these conditions, is it a priority and really serious and honest to pretend to look for the opinion of the rural people?

Everybody knows that the debate on GMOs is very complex and even educated people are not always capable of understanding it. How could we avoid that such a question would not be biased by the persons asking it? Once again, what are the objectives of the persons who say that they would like to know the rural people's opinion? Is there not some hypocrisy or hidden objective behind that research? In fact what are the questions that the persons would like to ask? I would be interested to know them? The push of the USA and their multinationals to obtain the agreement of the African countries for the introduction of GMO is strong and often indecent. National authorities have difficulty in resisting. To facilitate this agreement, is not one of the solutions to pretend that the rural people have been consulted?

Why the rural people? Are not the consumers as much or more concerned that them? Or is the idea just to inform the farmers that with the GMOs (I think that it is generally impossible to explain to them what they are) they will be able to eliminate easily the weeds or fight against pests without using pesticide. After that explanation it just remains to ask them if they agree with the GMOs. How to present them with the possibilities of risks: health, biodiversity, resistance, gene flow, patented seeds, GMO market, increasing competition of the wealthier farmers etc..? As some of these risks are complex, potential or on the medium and long term how to present them to give the farmers the information that will really allow them to make a choice?

Michel Ferry
Scientific Director
Research Station on Date Palm and Oasis Farming Systems
Apartado 996
03201 Elche
Spain
tel: 34.965421551
fax: 34.965423706
Email: m.ferry (at) wanadoo.es

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 17 January 2005 17:49
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 4: Why should the public be involved in the decision making processes regarding GMOs?

My name is Diogenes Infante. I am a researcher in plant biotechnology at the Institute for Advanced Studies (Instituto de Estudios Avanzados, IDEA) in Caracas, Venezuela. My fields of research include micropropagation, molecular markers and transgenics in tropical crops.

Regarding the matter of this conference, I want to point out:
Are the public involved in the decision making process of new drugs?
Are the public involved in the decision process of frequencies assigned for cell phones or TV broadcast?
Are the public involved in the decision making process for the approval of new chemicals for agriculture?
So, why should the public, rural or not, be involved in the decision making processes regarding GMOs?

In all the decision making process, specialists in the field should be involved. It is the people with the right knowledge, and tools, who take the decision about the benefits and side effects of new medicaments, or old ones. Example, this week Nimelsulide has been retired from pharmacies in Venezuela, an analgesic that is used in kids for fever and pains. I used it a lot with my younger son. But it has a side effect. If as a member of the public I was consulted about this drug, my opinion would be very favorable. I did not know about the side effect: increased levels of hepatitis.

On the other hand, GMOs are the safest technology developed by the mankind; I did not know any case of something wrong with GMOs. But GMOs has been the target of pseudo-ecologist organizations that make their living creating panic about GMOs. There is a demagogical campaign again GMOs, especially in Venezuela. In order to be effective, a demagogue needs uneducated public. So the only reason I found to involve the public in the decision making process for GMOs, is that they are the target of the demagogues anti GMOs.

Consequently, instead of promoting the public participation in the decision making process of GMOs, organizations like FAO should promote decision panels conformed by experts at the highest level. So, the conference desirable is : What kind of expertise is needed in a panel of expert for approval/refusal of GMOs?

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: 17 January 2005 17:50
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 5: Farmers perspective

I am an Australian farmer that has dedicated years to researching how GM crops will impact on farmer economics and have lobbied hard to be effectively involved in the decision making process. Although I am already actively involved in agripolitics at state and national level, I have never experienced a debate that is so controversial, so reliant on misleading information and so complex.

The key question for this forum is "how rural people can be effectively involved in the decision-making process" but it needs to be acknowledged that farmers are heavily targetted by those with vested interests and the unbiased information farmers and policy makers need in order to make decisions is not freely available.

A priority for any government to introduce any legislation in the application of biotechnology in the agricultural industry in any country should be to ensure these new novel crops do not jeopardise market opportunities or impose unreasonable costs or market risk on existing producers.

Farmers should be surveyed to gain an understanding of how they react to the specific details of how GM introduction will affect them. If decisions are going to negatively impact on farmers income or livelihood, governments must involve farmers in order to negotiate issues such as adequate compensation if imposing economic liabilities.

Unbiased information regarding actual yields and costs must be obtained to accurately calculate if growing GM crops will be financially beneficial or detrimental in both the short and long term. It has been reported that incentives have been used to promote the establishment of GM crops in underdeveloped countries but these expensive incentives are not sustainable. Crop management issues need to be resolved. For example, if considering the future option of GM pharmaceutical or industrial crops, there is clear evidence that consumers do not wish to be accidentally and unknowingly consuming a range of pharmaceuticals or industrial plastics in their cereals and yet it will be impossible for farmers to avoid contamination. If wreckless decisions are made, farmers could not only lose the ability to market non-GM food crops consumers prefer, but could lose the ability to market food crops at all.

Risk management needs to be carefully assessed and addressed. For example, as coexistence is promised to Australian farmers, the questions tailored to Australian farmers and policy makers would be:

1. Do you think the principle of responsibility for coexistence for GM crops with non-GM crops should be based on ; the GM grower to keep GM crops contained ; or for the non-GM grower to keep GM contamination out (as proposed under current protocols)?

2. Should trade definitions in the coexistence plans comply with law? (The ACCC and lawyers have confirmed that under the Trade Practices Act, in order to make a positive label claim of either "non-GM" or "GM-free" there must be NO trace of contamination present. However the committee that have prepared coexistence plans claim that contamination is impossible to control so will be accepted.)

3. Prior to accepting coexistence plans, should there be proof of widespread education and acceptance, that no sector of industry is faced with unmanageable problems and that no sector of industry is faced with additional costs and liabilities without approval from that sector of industry?

4. Do you expect non-GM farmers to sell crops mixed with GM canola if crops and stock return a lower price or meets market resistance (as proposed under current protocols)?

5. If non-GM farmers must guarantee no contamination on delivery (as per receival point delivery dockets), should they accept any GM contamination in the Non-GM canola seed they plant (The seed industry currently allows a tolerance of 0.5% GM contamination in non-GM seed)?

6. Do you support the retention of the right for non-GM farmers to replant their own seeds (this right is denied in the proposed coexistence plans)?

7. Should there be risk management to ensure detection of an unwanted trace of GM contamination does not trigger a deduction of a patent user fee from the non-GM growers income through end-point royalties?

8. If GM canola is introduced and contamination or loss of GM-free status causes economic loss to others, do you think farmers should be compensated?

9. Who do you think should be liable for any economic loss caused by GM contamination or loss of GM-free status: the non-GM grower (as proposed under current protocols); the GM grower; the owner of the patent (ie. Monsanto / Bayer Cropscience); and/or the government who approved GM release?

10. Would you support a strict GM liability regime in legislation to ensure farmers are protected from unfair liability under law?

Julie Newman
National Spokesperson
Network of Concerned Farmers www.non-gm-farmers.com
Newdegate, West Australia
Phone 08 98711562,
email: julie (at) non-gm-farmers.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 17 January 2005 17:51
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 6: What the rural people need to know

My name is Rafael Gómez Kosky from Cuba. I am working in plant biotechnology. I am a researcher and I work in genetic transformation in banana, plantain and papaya.

In my opinion, I think that the rural people need to know which are the advantages that the GMOs have that they will sow that has gone by different studies and that these doesn't represent any problem for the and her family and that GMOs will allow him to increase the yields without having to apply pesticides. Nevertheless it is necessary to create culture in people of the field on the GMOs so that they are in favor of the same ones. But it needs time and to teach to them.

Dr. Rafael Gomez Kosky
Director of Research
Instituto de Biotecnologia de las Plantas,
Universidad Central de Las Villas Carretera a Camajuani km 5.
Santa Clara.
Villa Clara.
Cuba
CP 54830.telef:53-42-281693/281257/281374
fax:53-42-281329
email:koskyrg (at) yahoo.es ; rgkosky (at) ibp.uclv.edu.cu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 17 January 2005 17:51
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 7: Hopes from the conference

[A message from a colleague in Ecuador. A rough English translation is provided, plus the original Spanish-language message...Moderator].

My name is Galo F. Jarrín T. and I am the national co-ordinator of the project for the Development of the national biosafery framework for Ecuador, a project which is carried out under UNEP-GEF (United Nations Environment Programme-Global Environment Facility) and the Ministry for the Environment of Ecuador.

I am very interested in participating in this e-mail conference on behalf of the project, presenting institutional, more than personal, opinions.

I hope, through this conference to get to know the experiences of individual and institutional parties related to biotechnology and biosafety at the international level to find inspiration for our activities, particularly on a subject as important as public participation in the area of GMOs.

(Mi nombre es Galo F. Jarrín T., soy el Coordinador Nacional del Proyecto: Desarrollo del Marco Nacional de Seguridad de la Biotecnología(Bioseguridad) para Ecuador, Proyecto que se ejecuta con el auspicio del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Ambiente(PNUMA), el Fondo Ambiental Mundial(FMAM) y el Ministerio del Ambiente de Ecuador(MAE).

Tengo mucho interés de participar en la conferencia representando a dicho Proyecto, por ende las opiniones que emita serán mas de tipo institucional (Proyecto de Bioseguridad) antes que personal.

Espero, a través de esta Conferencia conocer las experiencias de otros actores personales e institucionales relacionados a la Biotecnología y Bioseguridad a nivel internacional, para así nutrir con nuevos insumos nuestros esfuerzos particularmente en un tema tan importante como la Participación Pública en el tema de los OGMs.)

Galo F. Jarrin
National Project Coordinator
Development of the National Biosafety Framework Project
UNEP-GEF-Ministry of Environment of Ecuador
Quito
Ecuador
Tel: (593-2)2563423
Fax: (593-2) 2563422
Email: gjarrin (at) ambiente.gov.ec

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 17 January 2005 17:52
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 8: Public participation - African societies

I am Dr Mamadou Khouma, head of National Research Laboratory on Crop Production/ISRA, Senegal. I am a member of the National Committee on Biosafety who drafted proposal for a Biosafety law.

The question of public participation in GMOs debate is very important because democracy and good governance require participation of all stakeholders. The difficulty in African societies where literacy is weak is to make this participation effective. Apart from that, one needs to translate or adapt new scientific concepts in understandable words for common people. In Senegal we tried to make some booklet in local languages explaining GMOs and their applications and effects that can result from their extended use.

A big issue is how to make public participation representative of a diversity of opinion. I think that public participation must be organized if we want it to be representative. If not, we will have as many opinions as individuals. The trap is taking individual's opinion for people's one.

Dr Mamadou Khouma,
Head of National Research Laboratory on Crop Production
Institut sénégalais de recherches agricoles (ISRA)
BP 3120, Dakar,
Sénégal
mkhouma (at) isra.sn

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 17 January 2005 17:52
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 9: Prioritising rural people - Education - Radio

My name is Gwinyai Emmanuel Chibisa. I am a student, studying agriculture (animal science) in Zimbabwe.

I think the rural people should be given even first priority in decision making regarding GMOs. The main problem now is the ignorance in terms of knowing what GMOs are, their benefits and everything about them. Its sad that in countries like ours, the rural people only "know" or were (are) made to believe that GMOs are bad. There is so much ignorance. So, the first step is educating people. I believe the radio is the best medium availabe for quality information dissemination. The local languages have to be used. This will obviously enable greater public participation given the high illiteracy levels in the rural areas.

Gwinyai Emmanuel Chibisa,
Department of Animal Science
University of Zimbabwe
Box MP167
Mt. Pleasant
Harare
Zimbabwe
gcecko (at) yahoo.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 17 January 2005 17:53
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 10: Development of a national policy for biotechnology

My name is Edo Lin. I am an independent consultant and have worked extensively in the seed and biotech area.

The background document to this conference focuses the question of public participation in decision making on GMOs mainly in the narrow context of the development of regulatory frameworks and risk assessments. Developing (and developed) countries are under pressure of international agreements to adopt regulatory systems to facilitate trade in GMOs and Article 23 of the Cartagena Protocol requires public awareness, education and participation. At the same time, many developing countries have not yet developed a coherent national policy on the use of biotechnology for national food security and poverty alleviation. By signing up to international agreements, national autonomy has become limited and may compromise the outcomes of public debates and participation in decision making, leading to disillusionement in the consultative process.

In spite of the pressures to develop regulatory frameworks and product approval it seems to me that the development of a national policy for biotechnology based on public consensus and decision making is the priority.

Several case studies on a participatory priority setting approach toward national biotechnology programmes such as the citizen jury (developed in India) and the Interactive Bottom-Up approach (developed in several countries in cooperation with the Netherlands) involved key stakeholders and potential beneficiaries of biotechnology and provide examples of public decision making.

Edo Lin
309, rue de Bombon
77720 Breau
France
lin.edo (at) free.fr

My name is Patricia L Farnese and I teach Agricultural Law at the University of Saskatchewan, in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

I have been reading the comments of the fellow participants with interest. I have some comments I wish to share concerning what I have read so far.

First, we must be very careful not to assume that those who do not share our opinions are "uneducated" or that once "educated" they will change their views on the issue. For instance, there are many reasons, besides safety, that I am leery about the continued introduction of GMOs. Of particular concern is the movement of genetic resources out of the public domain and into private hands. In addition, the private control of GMO plant-genetic material is bordering a state of monopoly. No amount of information about the safety of GMOs will convince me that the monopolization of this sector is in the best interests of society.

I turn now to the bigger question of rural participation in decision-making regarding GMOs. Are they not citizens? True democracy requires that all citizens be engaged in the democratic process. Therefore, elected representatives have a duty to ensure that their actions are, in fact, representative of ALL voices. Citizens may not be involved in all government decisions, but that is because they CHOOSE not to be involved in issues of no concern to them. Democracy means, no matter what the reason, when citizens choose to become involved, they are entitled to participate in government and put any issue on the agenda. Democracy also means that citizens can regulate however they want, even if the motivations and results are irrational to the outsider. (Note: citizens often limit this right by signing treaties, constitutions, etc.) To date, only fundamental human rights and the sovereign rights of states exist in international law (outside of treaties) to limit the rights of citizens within a country to govern themselves. Corporations and GMOs do not have those rights, so in a true democracy, their interests in regulating GMOs would never replace the interests of the people.

So, my answer to the question of rural participation in decision-making regarding GMOs is that, without their voice, government regulation in the area is illegitimate.

I look forward to your comments.

Patricia L. Farnese, B.A., LL.B., LL.M.
Assistant Professor, College of Law
Senior Law Fellow, Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment
University of Saskatchewan
Canada
e-mail: plf472 (at) duke.usask.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 18 January 2005 12:07
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 12: Malawi

My name is Charles Mkula. I am the executive secretary of the Agri-Ecology Media, an all media practitioners organisation on agriculture and the environment.

I think this conference will help shape our organisations’ direction on the GMO issue which up to now is not well understood by the general public including our legislators.

I strongly believe it is important to give the public, especially the people in the village, quality information that will help them make informed choices as to the pros and cons of GMOs.

In my country there has not been adequate debate involving the rural masses on GMOs. The issue has largely been taken care of by technocrats without input from farmers. If anything it is more of the urban population consumers that got involved, however, in household level discussion of GMO foodstuffs found in superstores that are not even found in the rural areas.

On the other hand, the farmer was denied appropriate information on GM seeds.

Charles Mkula
Agri-Ecology Media
P/Bag 92
Blantyre
Lilongwe
MALAWI
Phone +265 8 339 200 / +265 9 202 409
E-mail hyphenmedia (at) earthdome.com / c_mkula (at) yahoo.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 18 January 2005 16:36
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 13: Re: Why should the public be involved...?

This is Edo Lin, independent consultant.

Both Diogenes Infante (Message 4, January 17) and Michel Ferry (Message 3, January 17) ask the question why the public (rural or not) should be involved in the decision making process regarding GMOs. I would like to indicate three different levels where decisions on GMOs are made and each of which have an impact on the livelihood of rural (and urban) people. These three levels are the international level (World Trade Organization, Convention on Biological Diversity, Codex etc), the national level (development of a national biotechnology strategy) and the local level (acceptance of GMOs for planting or consumption).

1. At the international level, many developing countries have signed up to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the related Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and are members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Having signed up to these international conventions, countries have rights and obligations when it comes to GMOs (or LMOs (living modified organisms)) both within the context of their own development of GMOs as within the context of trade in GMOs or food and feedstuffs containing or derived of GMOs.

As I mentioned in my earlier message (nr. 10, January 17) the obligations under these conventions may limit the scope of what national governments can do with the outcomes of national debates and public decision making. For instance, risk assessments based on sound and transparent science versus ethical and social concerns or the precautionary principle.

Apart from a number of very vocal demonstrations against globalisation, I don't think that many poor people have been consulted in the decision making process on whether to join or not.

2. At the national level, countries will need to design a national policy for the development of biotechnology (not only for green but also for industrial and medical applications) which should include, inter alia, the role of biotechnology and GMOs within the framework of poverty alleviation and food security, appropriate biosafety regulations and risk assessments, intellectual property rights and money to be spent on biotech research in the long term.

At this stage very few developing countries have developed national biotechnology strategies although many are working with the help of UNEP/GEF (United Nations Environment Programme/Global Environment Facility) on the establishment of biosafety regulations.

At the national level, there is a need for all stakeholders and especially rural people to get involved in the discussion and decision making as the outcomes of a national biotechnology strategy will directly affect their livelihoods. For example, in Egypt several GM crops are reaching commercialisation. These include some of the main export earners such as rice, bananas, potatoes and cotton. In Egypt, 60% or more of these products are produced by small-scale farmers. The introduction of GM crops may have considerable impact on export of these commodities to, for instance, the European Community (EU) where none of these GM crops have yet been approved for food or feed. Another example is the increasing likelihood that food aid will at least partially consist of GMOs. In 2002 several Southern African countries refused shipments of GM maize sent as emergency food aid because of environmental and human health concerns. Although the GM maize was eventually allowed in (after milling) this was not the result of a reasoned debate or public decision making.

3. At the local level, biotechnology including GM crops still hold promise for increased food security and poverty alleviation. Informed choices (including the choice for alternatives to GMOs!) will have to be made and priorities set at the local level. In many developing countries there is no predominant production system, like for instance in the United States Mid West, but fields are mixed or intercropped, are close to neighbouring fields, seed saving and exchange between farmers is frequent etc. The introduction of GMOs will therefore not only affect individual farmers but whole communities. Individual and collective prioritizing and decision making is therefore a must.

Janaki Krishna (Message 1, January 17) gave the example of Andra Pradesh where an interactive bottom-up approach has been pioneered and has shown that also at village and community level, rural people understand complex issues and are able to prioritize. I hope that she will be so kind as to expand more on the actual process and outcomes during this conference.

Edo Lin
309, rue de Bombon
77720 Breau
France
lin.edo (at) free.fr

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 18 January 2005 16:43
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 14: Contribution from West Bengal

This is from Prof. S.K.T. Nasar, retired Director of Research, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, West Bengal, and former Chairman, Department of Genetics, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, and Miss Reshma Nasar, Fishery Extension Officer, Government of West Bengal, India. We are attached with awareness and programme implementation on agriculture including GMOs among rural communities for several years.

Firstly, public comprehension on GM crops/organisms is either superficial or missing. As a result, public participation in decisions on GMOs is largely the echo of the information ‘conveyed’ by lobbyists. These pressure groups take opposite and, at times, fundamentally extreme views. The casualties are the real issues and facts about GMOs. Public participation, unless based on informed decision-making, will only complicate the process.

Secondly, we agree with Janaki Krishna (Message 1, January 17) that in many parts of rural India, opportunities for people to be taught about current events outside their village around the world are limited due to inadequate communication system. Deprived communities have little time for, or access to, library, television, radio and print media. Likewise, computer, internet, video and cinema are yet to be used by the majority in the remote countryside.

Thirdly, in a democratic system, political and community leaders organise the masses in favour or against issues of public importance. Fortunately, in India the legislatures and the governments at the center and the states have taken well-informed stance. GMOs have been legislated upon through r-DNA Guidelines (operative), the Biological Diversity Act, the Plant Variety Protection and Farmers’ Rights Act (in process) and the modified Patent Act (under active and immediate consideration).

Fourthly and finally, there is a resolute suspicion not so much about the beauty, science, relevance and potential of GMOs as for its factual or perceived ‘politics of exploitation’. Unscrupulous GMO-developers surreptitiously thrust Bt-cotton in India leading to damning rhetoric followed by government disapproval, and then approval. Few influential, but inclined researchers undertook trials without due endorsement. The message penetrated public mind as persistent suspicion about GMOs. Deep-seated suspicion makes it difficult to organise an unbiased and a rational view of the matter for a meaningful participation of the public in decision-making.

It is crucial for the public to be well informed about GMOs. Most groups in rural communities, including women, subsistence farmers and village leaders have low capacity to undertake risks and are not easy to reach. Our awareness programmes in a participatory mode with Local Self Governments, Farmers’ Co-Operatives, and Farmers’ Groups that are well organised and active in the state of West Bengal were successful.

Empowering rural communities for decision making on GMOs is possible with two strategies in tandem: to make them aware about full and unbiased facts in terms of their own socio-economy and language followed by their tiered participation in the decision making process. It must be borne in mind that only an honest approach can succeed and that GMOs shall be blocked if seen as a means of exploitation.

The theme of this conference looks at the issue on a ‘global problem, local solution’ basis. This mind set has to be modified in the present context. GMO is a global public good. New Biology has an enormous future with fascinating and mind-boggling future. Its denial at the local level has negative global implication that must be addressed.

We propose that an independent international mechanism, preferably coordinated by FAO, should be organised to monitor without bias and to scientifically assess the impact of GMOs on local socio-economy and environment, and to make over the information to national systems. The national governments should take up massive-scale educational and awareness programmes in participation with local self governments, schools, other educational institutions, NGOs and farmers’ organisations. Each national government should publicise white papers especially for the political, scientific and community leaders. Rural communities should be encouraged to take informed decisions on GMOs communicated to national law makers for policy choice and implementation. This simply worded action plan will obviously entail huge cost and skilled manpower. National governments of developing countries should be drawn in to participate. Unless concerted efforts are made now, the entire idea of ‘'Public participation in decision-making regarding GMO’s in developing countries: How to effectively involve rural people” will remain yet another rhetoric.

S.K.T. Nasar & Reshma Nasar
Kolkata,
West bengal,
India
sktnasar (at) hotmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 19 January 2005 13:21
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 15: Re: Why should the public be involved...?

I am Shanthu Shantharam, an international consultant on biotech affairs and management.

There is no question and there is no doubt that public participation must be facilitated to implement agricultural biotechnology in all countries. Public includes rural people. Now what does it mean by public participation? How to go about it? Does the public really care? Or is that some self-appointed interlocutors make loud noises on behalf of the "public" and therefore, we all need to worry about it? What is the credibility of these interlocutors for articulating the "public" views? I bet most of the public don't even understand or know what is it that all this squabbling about in biotechnology!

As far as I can see, biotechnology involves three distinct but contiguous phases. Laboratory R&D, field testing for efficacy and safety and commercialization. I am a votary of assessing social and economic impacts of any technology that will be made available to the public, but wonder how useful it will be for untrained and uninformed (science and technology wise) public to provide for public participation in research and technology development. They will not be able to make any useful contribution. It makes no difference whether they are rural or urban public or they are educated or not. They have to have expert knowledge in the subject to make useful contributions. Safety analysis and decision making can only be done by the experts but one can ask for public comments. My experience in the United States by allowing public input on regulatory decision making has been that they have not be very useful. In fact, public is not really interested unless there has been a media expose on the topic momentarily.

Public input may be critical at the commercialization stage to gauge their perception. Social and economic assessments must also be made available to the public. Public must be informed and must be allowed to provide input.

Even now, public opinion is not sought for developing pharmaceuticals and drugs, introducing new varieties of plants and animals and new chemical insecticides and pesticides and many other endeavors. The same rural farmers have not objected to them and what is so special about GMOs that they would do so now unless some interlocutor might provoke them as it is going on now. My experience with developing country farmers is that if you show clear economic benefit with the use of technology and it is easy to use or adopt, they will give it a try. If it proves to be what it said it will do, they will adopt it, otherwise, they won't. Stealth Bt-cotton in India is the best example of this instance. Then, you cannot keep it away from them.

Seeking general public input is really not going to serve any purpose as there would not be any. But, by stratifying the public into focus groups and surveying them for their perceptions and opinions on a continuous basis will be valuable in developing both public policy on biotechnology and to the industries to direct their inventions to meet the felt needs of the public (rural included).

Shanthu Shantharam,
Biologistics International,
Ellicott City,
Maryland,
USA
e-mail: sshantharam (at) biologistics.us

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 19 January 2005 13:25
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 16: Re: Why involve the rural people on the issue of GMOs

I am Sylvia Kosalko. I develop educational workshops on nutritional issues in the USA.

I believe education should be the first step in any new proposed change. However, I believe Michel Ferry (Message 3, January 17) to have hit the nail squarely on the head with this one. Before we begin to educate the rural people on GMOs, we must first ask ourselves why. Why are we involved in this issue of entire cultures food dependency? Do any of us have the right to make a decision as important as this for another culture, or for that matter, even one human being? Perhaps, before this question of how to introduce the GMOs into their world is considered, they should be consulted to see if they even want the interference in their countries. Who benefits the most from the introduction of these organisms. Is it not the multi-national corporations who have a vested interest in assuring a new market for their product? Perhaps the world of academia has an interest also as millions of dollars of research monies are being funneled to their biotech projects from these corporations, in addition to the intellectual standing in their communities. In order for these under developed countries to fully understand the complexities of this issue, it would take an enormous mass educational undertaking that would encompass all individuals involved, from those of an understanding age to older adults. It would necessitate a multi-media approach such as the well-developed countries have, in addition to a more intimate approach such as a basic door-to-door, one individual at a time, education project. It would or should involve reaching the masses at their elementary levels. You can realize the magnitude and the expense of such an undertaking. This would take many years in order to allow the rural class to fairly decide such an important cultural change. Let us not deceive ourselves into thinking that there is not more at stake here. Once you change a society's basic food culture, you change the rest of their society. As Patricia Farnese (Message 11, January 18) so succinctly stated, they have the right to be democratically involved in this process, in their language, and in their time frame. To do anything less is not morally, ethically or legally, correct.

Sylvia Kosalko,
Good 4 You Nutrition
P.O. Box 372
Black Lick,
Pennsylvania 15716
United States
skosalko (at) verizon.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 19 January 2005 13:28
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 17: Extension system

My name is Hastings Zidana, I am a fisheries researcher in Fish Breeding and Genetics section at Malawi National Aquaculture Centre, Zomba, Malawi.

In the case of my country Malawi, if you want to involve the rural people in decision making regarding GMOs, the best way will be to use the structures which have already been laid down by the Ministry of Agriculture. These are community sections called extension planning area (EPA'S), which are used as a platform to give information of new technologies in agriculture for my country. Each extension area has got staff of field-specific expertise e.g. veterinary, fisheries, health, crops and animal health. The staff houses are strategically located right away in the villages and they are part of the rural community.

How is Malawi affected by GMO products? This is through aid like the GMO maize and through imports which have GMO ingredients in it.

As we can see from the webpage on "Biotechnology Policy Documents of FAO Members", as of April 2004 only 12 country documents have been finalised. It means many countries, Malawi included, need to have some regulations on GMO e.g. National Policy on GMO. It is during such times that the rural people need to be involved. However, for the rural people to have a full participation in a specialised field like GMO, they need to be well informed on what is involved. [The reference here is to a webpage (http://www.fao.org/biotech/country.asp) of the FAO Biotechnology website which aims to bring together on-line biotechnology policy documents from FAO members. The majority of documents there are national policy documents, but regional (within country) documents are also included. When last updated in April 2004, it had links to biotechnology policy documents from Australia, Canada, Chile, Finland, India, Ireland, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden, as well as the European Community. If there are any missing or new documents, please contact biotech-website@fao.org with the details...Moderator].

Firstly the extension staff, who are going to coordinate the involvement of the rural people should understand what subject they are dealing with. The government and private sector should make an effort so that these extension staff are well informed on GMO issues before they are going to coordinate. They should be able to understand both the scientific and ethical issues involved. These extension staff acts like guiders to the rural people and the rural people have got more trust in the information given by the extension staff in their area than any other stranger e.g. a government staff member from a research institution coming to give a lecture on GMOs, the same lecture given by the local extension staff. The rural people will listen more to their extension staff than the government researcher. This is why there is a need to invest more in these extension workers. Another advantage is that these extension workers are staying in the villages with the rural people and they work on a day to day basis with these rural people, so its easy for these extension workers to give information regarding GMOs to rural people than other government officials, who can only come once to the village to give this information.

After the extension workers are well informed on GMOs, then they can hold meetings with the rural people to disseminate the information on GMOs. The extension workers will be able to identify those who are able to synthesis the information based on their meetings and these type of rural people should be the ones to represent their areas in the National forums which are discussing issues on GMOs like formulation of National policy.

Many countries have got different extension system set ups and it may be difficult to generalise how to effectively involve the rural people through a structure like the extension system. Hence this scenario is based on the Malawi extension system.

It is high time for the GMO information to start to reach the rural people. This is because a scenario I have explained above is based on planned circumstances, like you want to formulate a National Policy. What about in a situation like, the other one whereby Malawi would like to recieve aid of GM maize. You do not have enough time to consult the rural people whether the country should receive this aid or not.

With the dwindling resources towards extension activities and new policies like privatisation of extension services, the system is suffering heavy loss of staff nad capital resources, but important issues like GMOs are coming up and the debates are increasing day by day. There is need for a combined effort to reach the rural people on this issue. Donor countries should invest more as well, to enable these extension messages reach the rural people.

The response is based on my experience working with the rural Malawian communities for some years.

Hastings Zidana
National Taiwan Ocean University,
Department of Aquaculture,
202, Pei-Ning Road,
Keelung City,
Taiwan.
MP: + 886 0925956484
hzidana2004 (at) yahoo.co.uk
http://buncoalumni.tripod.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 19 January 2005 13:32
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 18: Questions 6f - 6j in the Background Document

I am Janaki Krishna from India, again.

The conference is turning out to be interesting. I feel that we have crossed the stage of ‘why to involve rural people in decision making with regard to GMOs’. Now the question is on ‘how to effectively involve them’, otherwise we would be making rounds in the conference on 'WHY'.

From the messages I came to know that some participants are curious to know about Andhra Pradesh Netherlands Biotechnology Programme. It is an innovative Dutch-funded Programme working towards improvement of quality of life of resource poor through development of agricultural biotechnologies. The Programme is being implemented by the Biotechnology Unit, Institute of Public Enterprise, Hyderabad, India. The process at every stage involves various stakeholders in the technology development i.e. right from priority setting to technology development, refinement, adaptation and evaluation. For details, I request interested participants to kindly visit the website http://www.apnlbp.org wherein the details on the objectives, approach, organizational structure and projects funded are provided. As of now, the website is quite functional.

I agree with the views of Edo Lin (Message 10 (January 17) and 13 (January 18)), Mamadou Khouma (Message 8, January 17), S K T Nasar and Reshma Nasar (Message 14, January 18) and Patricia Farnese (Message 11, January 18) wherein lot of insights were provided. Especially the message from Julie Newman (nr. 5, January 17), wherein she suggested that fundamentally market interests of farmers are important with regard to introduction of GMOs is very much appropriate.

With regard to my views on the set of other five questions in Section 6 of the Background Document:

6f) "Which mechanisms can be used to ensure that relevant and reliable information/content is provided by the above media".

While providing information on new technologies like recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology, the source of information has to be well scrutinized and validated by the concerned persons and editors responsible for publishing or telecasting. In this regard, media can also be sensitized on the ‘pros and cons of GMOs’ by involving them in debates, scientific conferences relating to GMOs, not just for the purpose of publicity but involving them as one of the stakeholders.

6g) "What are the main information and communication needs of the rural people related to GMOs? How can local capacity building be built to respond to these needs? What are the most appropriate approaches to respond to these needs?"

Through interesting public awareness campaigns on GMOs in the villages organized by neutral agencies who have credibility in dealing with the issues of rural people. All the stakeholders in this new technology may be involved in providing information with regard to GMOs in these campaigns. There should be a common communication centre in each village to inform and also to have feedback on these issues as part of other common issues. The local governments and civil society organizations are more responsible in providing right information about the potential benefits/risks of GMOs. As part of capacity building, some of the peoples representatives who can act as service providers/spokespersons may be sensitized through orientation programmes on GMOs. Establishing community radios, distributing pamphlets in local languages on GMOs informing about the myths and realities of GMOs are important in making the rural people knowledgeable about these technologies.

6h) "What is the best medium for rural people in developing countries to provide their inputs, if requested, to the decision making processes regarding GMOs?"

First, they should be sensitized about the merits and demerits about the GMOs. After awareness creation, they might be engaged in decision making either by involving them in answering questionnaires, voting, or inviting them to the formal communication channels like radio, television etc. to provide their views in order to facilitate decision making.

6i) "How should local languages of the rural people be dealt with in a public participation exercise?"

Either by organizing the meetings in local language or by engaging true translators. Preferably, the background information should be provided in local language.

6j) "Who can best represent the interests of the rural people in stakeholder discussions?"

The local representatives who have credibility in the villages and nominated by the people in the village for this purpose can best represent in stakeholder discussions. Also, credible large civil society organizations who have network at the village, state and national level and do not have one-sided pre-conceived notions about the GMOs are best suited. However, these representatives should really do some home work with regard to sensitizing the rural people on these issues and obtaining their views and flout consensus opinion while they represent on behalf of these people.

P S Janaki Krishna,
Consultant,
Biotechnology Unit, Institute of Public Enterprise,
Hyderabad - 500 007,
India
Email: jankrisp (at) yahoo.com
Phone: 040 - 27097018/27098148

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 19 January 2005 17:41
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 19: Re: Why should the public be involved...?

I am Alice Muchugi from the Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Kenyatta University, Kenya. I am fortunate to come from an African country where the issue of biotechnology has been received quite soberly and have produced a transgenic sweet potato in collaboration with international organizations.

I have been going through the various contributions being posted to this conference with a lot of interest and it looks like this 'great monster called GMOs --as the lobbyists would say' will always generate a lot of heat in any given forum. In my opinion, I agree with Diogenes Infante (Message 4, January 17) that what the developing countries need is strong institutional framework of experts (all inclusive - biotechnologists, legal, policy makers etc.) to ensure proper checks and balances of the introductions of the GMOs. It is indeed difficult to say that the rural (read as common man!) will have much say on the GMOs. In developing countries like ours it is the people's representatives (the members of parliament) who are involved with the decision making and, though representing people, we do know that their decisions are not always for the people.

I also feel that signing up to the various treaties and conventions may limit the scope of what national governments can do with the outcomes of national debates and public decision making as other authors have suggested. [See Edo Lin's messages 10 (January 17) and 13 (January 18)...Moderator]. It would therefore make sense if these governments have strong bodies of experts that can argue out issues on GMOs.

For the rural people what really matters are the final products. As for crops, they would like to farm them as easily and productively as possible and therefore, given a choice, they would opt for the GMOs, until the anti-GMOs lobbyists strike with their alarmist remarks. As a lecturer in biotechnology I have a chance of sharing information on GMOs with lay persons and what I find interesting is how easy it is to accept GMO once you tell them of the positives (in the context of poverty and food security). The concern should therefore be on how the technology is taken up by the rural folks considering there setback such as issues on seed availability and species diversity which the GMO promoters may not reveal to them. So it is my hope from this conference that FAO, the World Bank and others will see the need for strong institutions comprising experts to conceptualize the issue of GMOs within the framework of poverty alleviation and food security, biosafety regulations and risk assessments, intellectual property rights and foster biotech research as well. In this way a good decision will be made which will benefit the rural people.

Alice Muchugi
Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology,
Kenyatta University,
Kenya
a.muchugi (at) cgiar.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 19 January 2005 17:41
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 20: Aarhus Convention

My name is Maria Julia Oliva and I work for the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) in Geneva. My comments refer to the relevance and importance of international instruments relating to public participation and GMOs, particularly the Aarhus Convention.

As explained by the background document to the conference, decisions on GMOs are expressly excluded from the binding requirements on public participation set out in the Aarhus Convention, which provides they will only apply to decisions on whether to permit the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment "to the extent feasible and appropriate". This weak provision resulted from a lack of agreement on the issue between the Parties during the negotiation of the Convention. Nevertheless, as also mentioned, there are guidelines on access to information with respect to GMOs and a working group on GMOs.

The non-binding Guidelines are to be monitored and a report made to the Second Meeting of the Parties, which will be held in May 2005, on their usefulness. The Secretariat has recently been mandated to develop and circulate a questionnaire to delegations for their comments. Comments were to be provided prior to 15 January 2005.

The Working Group on GMOs has met several times to develop and discuss various options for a legally binding approach in the field of GMOs. The last meeting, held on 18-20 October 2004, featured significant debate, with clear divisions apparent between EECCA countries (the countries of Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia) and environmental NGOs on one hand, and the European Union (EU) and industry and biotechnology associations on the other. EECCA countries and environmental NGOs supported options that would make public participation on decisions regarding GMOs mandatory and which set out precise requirements on the nature of the public's participation. Netherlands, on behalf of the EU, appeared to favor a non-binding, broad option that would allow countries considerable latitude domestically when choosing how public participation should be provided for (industry and biotechnology associations present also supported a non-binding, broad approach). Indeed, of real concern was that a new proposal put forth by the EU would be even weaker than the current non-binding approach of Article 6(11), limiting coverage to decisions on GMOs regarding deliberate release and placing on the market and including a broad exception for "confidential information". Although several amendments were proposed during the working group, the EU requested that its two options be referred to the Parties in their original form. The EU also requested that a "zero option", i.e. the option of making no amendment to the Convention, be maintained.

Many participants considered the EU was thus attempting to lessen the Aarhus Convention's role in ensuring public participation in the field of GMOs. In addition, although Parties had agreed that the Aarhus Convention provides "the most appropriate international framework for further developing access to information, public participation and access to justice in the field of GMOs," the EU requested that the wording "an appropriate framework", rather than "the most appropriate framework", be used. Furthermore, the first of the EU's new proposals was stated to be without prejudice to requirements developed under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The Biosafety Protocol does contain important public participation provisions. However, as the Cartagena Protocol focuses specifically on the transboundary movement of GMOs, it is of a more limited application than the Aarhus Convention. The Protocol is also yet to be implemented. It is thus considered important for the public participation requirements under the Aarhus Convention to be developed as fully as possible.

Maria Julia Oliva
Director - Project on Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development
Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
15 rue des Savoises
1205 - Geneva, Switzerland
(41-22) 789-0738
joliva (at) ciel.org

[The full text of the Aarhus Convention (i.e. the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters) is available in Arabic, Bulgarian, Chinese, Czech, Dutch, English, French, Georgian, German, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Spanish, Slovak and Ukrainian at http://www.unece.org/env/pp/treatytext.htm...Moderator].

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 19 January 2005 17:41
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 21: Re: Why should the public be involved...?

I'm DJOULDE DARMAN Roger, Food Scientist, Researcher at the Institute of Agricultural Developement (IRAD), Maroua, Cameroon.

I want to focus my reflection on the same area as Diogenes Infante (Message 4, January 17) and Michel Ferry (Message 3, January 17) who asked the question why the public (rural or not) should be involved in the decision making process regarding GMOs. Instead of coming back to all pertinent arguments which were given previously to illustrate their opinion, I would like to share with you a practical situation we face regarding this!

I’m from a Sudano-Sahelian zone where drought is mostly caused by pests and insects which destroy every year hectares of crops especially cereals (like sorghum) and leading to long standing “food insecurity”. We faced this situation in 1970 and the local authorities asked researchers to do something. After a lot of studies the researchers managed to introduce a new variety of Sorghum which was resistant to these pests and insects. They just modified the genome responsible for production of cyanogenetic glycoside (dihurin) one of the natural defence system of sorghum against pests and insects. However, the new variety of sorghum became toxic for humans as the amount of cyanide release seems too high to be metabolised by the human body. This lead to the emergence of some new diseases related to cyanide toxicity (cretinism, neuropathies…etc).

The local authorities suspected a link between this variety and the appearance of the diseases. They decided that it was ethical to inform the population. This lead to a panic and the population destroyed all of their stocks and they don’t want any more new technologies and new variety!!!. But today we have a solution for this because in a recent study we showed that fermentation of this sorghum decreases significantly the amount of cyanogens. This means the population can consume the new variety of sorghum after processing (fermentation). But, because they were informed prematurely that the variety caused their diseases, they lost confidence in the new technologies. Because of this, we are in a situation where we have spent a lot of money and energy, and the solution is available but there is no means to introduce the technology anymore and help them.

I think, if they were not informed, this would not have been the case and the problem of food insecurity in this area, at least partially, would have been solved.

So the question remains, "do we need to inform populations about those complex subjects that the majority of our rural population do not understand?". Even our government (in developing countries) signed a lot of conventions related to GMOs, sometimes it seems it’s just to do like the neighbour or to conserve their friendship with developed countries. I think these decisions do not address the real needs of the livelihood of rural populations.

Lastly, I don’t quite agree with Edo Lin (Message 13, January 18) who indicated that "at the national level, there is a need for all stakeholders and especially rural people to get involved in the discussion and decision making" as they don’t even know what GMOs are. If it’s possible to introduce GMOs which have been authorized by scientists and international or national authorities, this seems enough and there is no need to inform the population.

DJOULDE DARMAN Roger
Krijkslaan 250/441
B-9000 Gent Belgium
Tel:003293312796(Fix) 0032477236041(Mobile)
djouldedarman (at) yahoo.fr

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 20 January 2005 14:30
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 22: Extension service // Plain language movement

This is Patricia Farnese from Canada again.

I have read all your comments with great interest and I am enjoying the dialogue. I agree with the comment made by Hastings Zidana (Message 17, January 19) that extension agents have a critical role to play in providing balanced, unbiased information about GMOs to the rural people. In Canada, we have seen a significant reduction in the number of government extension agents. Most farmers rely on representatives of their seed and chemical dealers who have a big presence in rural areas. In fact, this kind of "extension" work provides summer employment to a significant number of University students studying Agriculture. Are other countries seeing the same dramatic shift of extension services from the public to private sphere like Canada? The implications of that shift warrant some attention, but may be a topic better left to another discussion. [This topic can obviously be given further attention in this e-mail conference, provided it is discussed in the context of its implications etc. for the involvement of rural people in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries...Moderator].

In addition, I just want to say something about the comments that lay people do not have the capacity to understand the scientific information surrounding GMOs. If that is in fact the case, I really believe it is the scientist's duty to make her research findings accessible to the general public. This is particularly true if her research occurs in public universities or is at all funded by public sources. I am a lawyer, and for the last number of years, there has been a "plain language" movement in my field. There has been a concerted effort to make our discourse accessible to lay people, so they are not excluded from fully participating in the legal system because of an inability to understand the language. I believe scientists will need to be asked to do the same, if public participation in science-based decision making is ever going to be achieved.

Patricia L. Farnese, B.A., LL.B., LL.M.
Assistant Professor, College of Law
Senior Law Fellow, Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment
University of Saskatchewan
Canada
e-mail: plf472 (at) duke.usask.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 20 January 2005 14:31
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 23: Enjoying the discussion

I am a peasant farmer in Bangladesh. I have 2 acres of land for homestead full of biodiversity. The land is the main source of housing, fuel wood, fruits. I grow vegetables within the homestead and the piece of land adjacent to the homestead. Normally, I try to grow mixed and year round vegetables. So that I have a continuous support of vegetables for family and friends. Sometime I sell the products of course. Also a large part of family's nutrient comes from uncultivated vegetables those still are abundant. I have a multipurpose pond. It provides local fish for 8 months. Rest four months, I grow rice there. I have two cows and few chickens. During the boro season (November-February), I grow rice on other’s field on share cropping basis. Of course I have some off-farm income. So that I can send children to school.

I don’t know too much about GMO or LMO. But in the meantime I have started to enjoy the lively discussion. Hope to enrich my wisdom on agriculture and the latest technological commodities.

Zakir Hossain
Krisok
Krisoker Saar (Farmers' Voice)
East Sujankathi
Goila
Agailjhara
Barisal
Bangladesh
Cell: 0189004503
Email: krisokersaar1 (at) fastmail.fm
Website: www.farmersvoice.nav.to

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 20 January 2005 14:31
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 24: Factual information essential

From Julie Newman, an Australian farmer:

This conference has been excellent in exposing what the real issues are in the involvement of farmers and the public in decision making processes. There is a common thread by participants involved in research that there is a need for quality information but the intention appears to only give the quality information that is needed in order to support the introduction of GM crops rather than quality unbiased information that gives farmers and decision makers the information they need.

Governments should stand firm and gain the quality unbiased factual information needed, then assist in distribution of this quality information prior to calling for public input. For example, we have a situation where, globally, farmers are informed that the main benefit for GM crops is yield improvement (even up to 300%) but there is no scientific reason why these current GM crops would produce higher yields or feed the hungry better than non-GM crops. These GM crops are produced by adding specific gene constructs to existing non-GM varieties to either give herbicide tolerance (which can also be achieved through non-GM methods) or pesticide tolerance (the plant produces its own pesticide rather than requiring chemical application). Any yield benefit can and is being achieved with non-GM plant breeding or by alternative weed management, but GM crops will encourage corporate investment into plant breeding which could have the potential of producing higher yielding varieties.

It is essential that any information that is used to influence decision makers in the preparation of an information document must be accurate, if not, there must be serious penalties incorporated within legislation to enforce this. When accurate information is distributed, then is the time to call for consultation from the now well informed industry representatives who have received feedback from the people they represent on the specific issues relevant to their sector that will be affected by any government decision. If accurate information is distributed, there would be far less polarisation in the GM debate and the information gained from public consultation could then be of genuine use to the governments concerned.

Julie Newman
National Spokesperson
Network of Concerned Farmers
www.non-gm-farmers.com
Newdegate, West Australia
Australia
08 98711562
julie (at) non-gm-farmers.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 20 January 2005 14:32
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 25: Re: Why should the public be involved...?

This is from John Hodges, an author and consultant in Austria, retired. Formerly at FAO Rome, responsible for Animal Breeding and Genetic Resources. Earlier Professor of Animal Genetics at University of British Columbia, Canada.

I respond to the questions posed by our colleague Diogenes Infante from Venezuela (Message 4, January 17) who says that decisions on GMOs should be made only by specialists. He says that the public are not involved in decisions over the use of new Drugs etc. Why should they decide about GMOs?

The answer is that the medical patient can choose not to use a medical drug after hearing from the doctor or reading about the possible side-effects. Each person can make a choice after evaluating the benefit and risk.

Food is different. No-one can opt out of eating. If GM food is everywhere in the food chain - the choice has gone. Thus approval by specialists takes away the democratic right for an individual to choose not to eat GM food. Removing the right to choose is contrary to Market Economy Capitalism which is based upon the principle that the market decides. By contrast, specialists involved in deciding on the use of GM food are often employed by a seller of GM food and seeds. Market Economy Capitalism is also based upon the principle that the person who takes the decisions bears the risk - and does not pass it to others.

John Hodges,
Lofererfeld 16,
A-5730 Mittersill,
Austria.
e-mail: hodgesjohn (at) compuserve.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 20 January 2005 14:33
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 26: Contribution from New Zealand

This is from Zelka Vallings, of Northland, New Zealand. My husband and I are horticulturists, farming in the northern part of New Zealand (NZ).

Since a problematic and inappropriately contained GE field trial (involving GE tamarillos) occured in our region, and other botched GE field trials like King Salmon (GE salmon) have had to be shut down in NZ, we have become involved with other farmers, foresters and orchardists in attempting to ensure that the needs of rural communities/primary producers are respected, that proper notification and consultation takes place, that good science (with input from independent scientists not indentured to the industry) not flawed science by those with a vested interest primarily interested in short term profit)/best practice is followed and that those who wish to be involved with GE field trials and releases in NZ are fully accountable and finacially liable in the event of any unintended or unforeseen adverse impacts (on our unique biodiversity, biosecurity, existing primary producers- conventional, integrated pest management (IPM) and organic, and key markets).

Unfortunately, there is a lack of consultation with rural people/primary producers/farmers (despite the fact that their livelihoods may be adversely affected) and central government has failed to adequately address important issues like liability, compensation, risk management and so forth.

One of the key questions in this conference is "how rural people can be effectively involved in the decision-making process" but in our view (as rural people who are in the business of sustainably producing safe, clean food of the highest quality and who are very conversant with the issues) farmers are targeted by those with vested interests and the unbiased information farmers and policy makers need in order to make decisions is not freely available.

We agree with Julie Newman (Message 5, January 17) that "A priority for any government to introduce any legislation in the application of biotechnology in the agricultural industry in any country should be to ensure these new novel crops do not jeopardise market opportunities or impose unreasonable costs or market risk on existing producers. Farmers should be surveyed to gain an understanding of how they react to the specific details of how GM introduction will affect them. If decisions are going to negatively impact on farmers income or livelihood, governments must involve farmers in order to negotiate issues such as adequate compensation if imposing economic liabilities."

Multinationals should not be allowed to prevent farmers from saving their own seeds. We share the concerns of others regarding the movement of genetic resources out of the public domain and into private hands.

It is important that farmers/rural communities are not only surveyed and that proper consultation takes place, but that action is taken to ensure farming families and primary producers are protected and that a strong committment is made to truly sustainable primary production (both in forestry and food production).

It is critical that we have: Protection of basic human rights/control of our own genetic material

Considering some of the questions in Section 6 of the background document to the conference:

6d) "Should specific considerations be given to involving indigenous communities in decision-making regarding GMOs? If so, how can this best be achieved?"

YES. Consulatation is best achieved with (in NZ) representatives of the Maori people chosen by the Maori. Consultation also must take place with TE WAKA KAI ORA-national Maori farming organisation, with a strong focus on sustainable primary production/organics.

6i) "How should local languages of the rural people be dealt with in a public participation exercise?"

In New Zealand, that means bilingual materials (in English and Maori)

6j) "Who can best represent the interests of the rural people in stakeholder discussions?

Democratically elected representatives of farming groups (like RURAL WOMEN NZ), foresters etc and local communities - i.e. ratepayers associations, community groups.

Zelka Vallings,
Northland,
New Zealand
arboreus (at) ihug.co.nz

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 20 January 2005 17:08
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 27: Re: Why should the public be involved...?

Regarding Message 13 (January 18) of Edo Lin: Unfortunately, I think that the obligation to accept the import of GMOs if no "scientific" arguments are presented against it is not a question of international regulation but of political issue and scientists honesty and ethic. According to me, the need to involve the public (when we know how irrealistic it is to imagine that the public could understand all the issues involved - issues on which control the scientists themself, except the biotechnologists of course, disagree) is based on the fear to avoid what has occured in Europe. To maintain that there really is a way of involving the farmers in this complex question is not a neutral position.

There is a very strong push from the United States and their biotech corporation to introduce GMO in Africa offcially for the help of the poor farmers in Africa. This is a huge hypocrisy when in the same time because of the USA cotton dumping policy they are "killing" the small farmers in the same countries. Clearly, USA do not want anything more that imposing the GMO in as many countries as possible to be able to sell their GMOs without difficulty abroad.

Regarding scientists honesty, we know that the debate on GMOs is complex and that in fact the assessment at least on the short term of the validity of the GMOs need a complex and long study. In most cases, the results of these studies are not known or even the studies have not started yet. When the scientists are sufficiently honest to recognize that situation (and their ignorance), they request a moratorium.

That is why I consider it not sound and a bit hypocritical to ask the question about how to inform the farmers when unbiased and rigorous information (on the ecological, health and economical possible consequences of an GMO introduction and on the evidence that this GMO has really more advantage that other solution) is not yet available. One big concern for me is the huge risk that GMOs, because they will generally be much more beneficial (in the short term at least: the ecological consequences of Roundup Ready soya monocrop grown in Argentina start to be discovered. Too late?) to the big farms, will participate to the degradation of the small farmers.

Regarding Message 15 (January 19) of Shanthu Shantharam: this is a very nice point of view if the scientific debate regarding the risk concerning the GMOs was closed. In the present situation, is it a scientific and responsible approach to leave to the farmers and the consumers the role of guinea-pig in addition without informing them? Furthermore, they will not be able to evaluate all the consequences of the introduction of a new technique but the consequences that interest them and also in a short term approach. For example, the farmers are not able and it is not their role to evaluate on the medium term the environmental and health consequences of the use of the GMOs.

Michel Ferry
Scientific Director
Research Station on Date Palm and Oasis Farming Systems
Apartado 996
03201 Elche
Spain
tel: 34.965421551
fax: 34.965423706
Email: m.ferry (at) wanadoo.es

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 20 January 2005 17:08
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 28: Re: Why should the public be involved...?

This is Shanthu Shantharam, again.

So far, so good! It is becoming clear that everyone wants to be properly informed about GMOs and biotechnology and be allowed to participate in decision making. Who can argue against a reasonable democratic practice? There are so many words and phrases being used and that needs to be clarified. Public participation, public input, public comment, public right to know, and public decision making. I guess except for public decision making, everything else can be reasonably accommodated. But, still decision making must be left to a small group of decision makers (they could be specialist or regulators or administrators). Otherwise, only chaos will reign. In any democratic set up, it is only fair to provide for a mechanism that will facilitate information flow.

Just look at all other fields of endeavor in all democratic societies, one does not go for public referendum for every issue. What lies at the root of all this controversy is lack of proper and responsible governance in many countries. By building trustworthy, reliable and responsible institutions, can the citizenry expect proper decisions for the welfare of the people.

In my opinion, this controversy about GMOs is not biosafety, but mostly about political ideology and value systems. It so happens that GMOs manufactured by capitalistic multinationals have come in handy for those who oppose globalization and privatization. If one looks at the safety issues dispassionately and objectively, there is sufficient scientific evidence to show that GMOs are safe as any other variety of crops that have been introduced in the last one hundred years. If one chooses to ignore that evidence and bring in all sorts of political, metaphysical and ideological reasons to bear, we can all be arguing and debating until we are blue in our faces and the problem will not be resolved. But, let this E-forum churn on and let us all see how the issues get ferreted out.

Dr. Shanthu Shantharam
Biologistics International, LLC
9800 Old Willow Way
Ellicott City, MD 21042
United States
sshantharam (at) biologistics.us

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 20 January 2005 17:09
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 29: From Zambia

My name is Tamala Tonga Kambikambi and I am an agronomist with the University of Zambia - hence from Zambia, a country that needs no introductions in the GMO debate.

I am glad to join this discussion and gratified that so far there are a number of people who are expressing some of my favoured opinions. I particularly strongly agree with Diogenes Infante (Message 4, January 17). Indeed, there are lot of things where public participation is not sought but rather expert panels are organized to deal with them and then a refined product is passed on to the intended recipients [with appropriate oversight mechanisms]. I do believe that is the way to go.

Besides, a number of other discussants have said the rural folk would need to be educated for them to effectively participate! That will considerably increase the final cost of the product to be put on the market (if at all the product would get to the market since most debates in this part of the world do tend to go on and on!). In which case, who benefits apart from those who are in the business of carrying on debates?

Further, it has been said that the rural people are not a homogenous group, so how is the selection going to be done and who is to set up the criterion? All these are complications that I believe will just deter progress while the needy are further confused instead of being helped.

A good illustration is what happened in Zambia in 2002 when a 'national consultation' on whether the country should accept GM maize food aid was organized by government and adverts were placed in the national daily newspaper inviting all concerned citizens to come and give their say. Firstly, the government organized a background paper which was in line with the presidential pronouncement - that GMOs were bad. The misinformation that was in that gathering was unbelievable! Scientists who had knowledge of the subject were booed and threatened while politicians with no knowledge of the topic whatsoever were given prominence.

With such an experience, I would be very sad to see a repeat of such a scene - which is probably what most of these meetings on public participation would end up being like. In fact, since that meeting, some prominent scientists in the nation are being given a wide berth when there are any discussions on GMOs because they have contrary views to what should be the national view.

Tamala Tonga Kambikambi
Crop Science Department
School of Agricultural Sciences
University of Zambia
Great East Road campus
P. O. Box 32379
Lusaka, ZAMBIA
Telefax: 260-1-295655
Mobile: 260-96-437532
tkambikambi (at) agric.unza.zm

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 21 January 2005 14:40
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 30: Farmer participation - Cuba/Guatemala/Mexico

We have collaborated on a field study interviewing small-scale farmers in Mexico, Cuba and Guatemala about their practices, knowledge and values concerning transgenes and genetically engineered (GE) maize. We are:
Dr. D Soleri, Research Scientist in the Environmental Studies Program and the Department of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA;
Dr. DA Cleveland, Associate Professor in the Environmental Studies Program, U of California, Santa Barbara, USA;
Ing. M.Sc. F Aragón C, Senior Research Scientist, Genetic Resources, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP), Oaxaca, Mexico;
Ing. M.Sc. MR Fuentes L, Principal Research Scientist, Maize Program, Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología Agrícolas (ICTA), Guatemala City, Guatemala;
Dr. H Ríos L, National Coordinator of Participatory Plant Breeding, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Agrícolas (INCA), La Habana, Cuba.

Discussion of GE crops is polarized and while GE crop proponents and opponents often speak for farmers, farmers’ own voices are seldom heard. We wanted to investigate and document farmer practices, knowledge and opinions relevant to GE maize, and develop an example of a tool that could be used to quickly and inexpensively include farming communities directly in discussions and policies regarding GE that would affect them. Specific factors motivating our research and relevant to the topic of this conference are:

We completed interviews with over 300 households in TBAS in Cuba, Guatemala and Mexico in October 2004. We are now analyzing the data, but want to share some preliminary findings with this conference:

It seems to us that clarity in distinguishing empirically testable assertions and values statements (that cannot be tested) by farmers, scientists, economists, consumers and others is essential for balanced and representative decision-making that includes both empirical data and values. Ignoring farmers’ (or consumers’) knowledge and values is not only undemocratic, as mentioned by an earlier posting to this conference [e.g. Message 11...Moderator], it is also inefficient in terms of time and resources, as we have learned from past plant breeding efforts for TBAS. This seems an unwise approach to take for GE, particularly when the needs are so great and the investments being made in that technology so large.

Ultimately, farmers’ knowledge and values brought into the discussion through research like ours, or in other ways, will need to be evaluated as part of a larger analysis that includes benefits as well as costs of currently available GE crop varieties, compared with the benefits and costs of conventional modern varieties, farmers’ traditional local varieties, as well as with alternatives (transgenic local varieties, ‘organic’ varieties, etc). This means that if the goal is improving the welfare of farmers in traditionally-based agricultural systems, often among the poorest people in the population, the question of how the money spent on GE crops could otherwise be used is also very relevant. Such an inclusive and balanced analysis is the only way to ensure that the needs of TBAS farmers and communities will be met effectively, and that farmers will have access to potential benefits and be able to protect themselves from potential harm of GE crop varieties.

Daniela Soleri
Environmental Studies Program and Department of Geography
University of California, Santa Barbara
2309 Girvetz Hall
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
USA
tel: 805/893.7502
fax:805/893.8686
soleri (at) es.ucsb.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 21 January 2005 17:54
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 31: The main information needs of the rural people related to GMOs

Thank you for hosting the conference. Open discussion is valuable. My husband and I now farm over 10,000ha in Australia and run a large seed cleaning factory (and previously a contract crop spraying business) and I would like to comment on 2 more questions in Section 6 of the background document as GM crops and farmer rights is an area I have given priority to for many years.

Regarding question 6g), "What are the main information and communication needs of the rural people related to GMOs? How can local capacity be built to respond to these needs? What are the most appropriate approaches to respond to these needs?":

The main information needs of the rural people related to GMOs is liability as sustainability is dependent on fair allocation of liability. Governments need legal advice in order to consider a strict liability legislation to balance between farmers rights and corporate obligations as there is certainly a tradeoff for accepting corporate investment to plant breeding. While it is essential that farmers maintain long term sustainability, it is a legislated priority for corporate companies to maximise returns to their shareholders which has led to little consideration for the adverse impact caused by global exploitation of resources. Governments must investigate the liability issue thoroughly to determine who is legally liable for adverse impacts (economic, health or environmental) caused by the introduction of GM crops.

For example, it is not difficult to understand the rapid adoption of a soybean monoculture in Argentina when the corporate gift incentives of large machinery, seed, chemical and technical advise are used. However, if a third world country followed in the footsteps of Argentina by adopting a glyphosate resistant patented monoculture, who will be liable for supporting the displaced farmers and farm workers? Who will be liable if aerial spraying of glyphosate affects the ability for farmers such as Zakir Hossain from Bangladesh (Message 23, January 20) to grow their own food and remain sustainable? Who will be liable if there is a total monoculture crop failure (lack of diversity in potato crop varieties caused the Irish famine)? Will farmers be able to return to status quo if patented crops become economically unviable due to increased costs and a build up of resistances? Will farmers have access to free legal advice if seeking compensation?

As health testing is reliant on the companies concerned (e.g. Monsanto) and testing appears to be short term tests designed to assess any decline in market value for stock fed GM rather than assessing for human health, who would be liable if the health concerns from reputable scientists such as Puztai are realised? Will liability rest with the company concerned or will they deflect that liability claiming the government did not adopt a sufficiently stringent assessment regulatory process? Is it possible to recall a GM product from the food chain and who will be liable for recall of the GM product if required? For farmers, who will be liable if there is undisputable confirmation of serious health problems and there is instant global rejection for any trace of GM in food crops?

Public education and consultation is essential to establish if those expected to be liable for the implications understand the consequences and agree or disagree with that obligation.

Regarding question 6m), "Concerning requests for approval of individual GM products, what kind of information should it be possible to withhold from public disclosure?":

No information should be witheld from public disclosure as it is essential that all details are revealed in order to have transparent and reliable decision making based on facts, not promises.

Julie Newman
National Spokesperson
Network of Concerned Farmers
www.non-gm-farmers.com
Newdegate, West Australia
Australia
08 98711562
julie (at) non-gm-farmers.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 21 January 2005 18:01
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 32: Weakness of local people to influence

This is from Galo F. Jarrin, Ecuador, again.

I want to stress something about the involvement of the rural people on the issue of GMOs. In our country and probably in others of Latin America, the local people are very weak (or receptive) to the influence of many people or organizations with any specific criteria about some themes, in this case the GMOs. Despite the lack of a proper and objective information, the rural people use to support sometimes radical positions like a whole moratorium for GMOs, without the possibility to participate and expose their arguments in public forums, just only the instructions to say NO.

Probably, here we can identify a lack of the goverments, academic sector etc. to reach the rural sector with correct information about GMOs. Frequently, this attitude turn into an obstacle in the process of considering the opinions of civil society.

We would like to hear something about how to solve and work with this kind of radical positions, that usually involve the rural sector, in my country one of them, the indian people.

Galo F. Jarrin
National Project Coordinator
Development of the National Biosafety Framework Project
UNEP-GEF-Ministry of Environment of Ecuador
Quito
Ecuador
Tel: (593-2)2563423
Fax: (593-2) 2563422
Email: gjarrin (at) ambiente.gov.ec

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 24 January 2005 14:03
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 33: Information flow and impediments to skilling

Several statements on involving rural people in GMO policy refer to getting the "correct" or "objective" information to them. But what is correct or objective information is actually a complex problem that requires a lot more study. Here is one example from my own work (me being Glenn Stone of Anthropology and Environmental Studies, Washington Univ., St. Louis, United States).

I study cotton farmers in India, with an ethnographic focus in Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh. This was the scene of a rash of suicides by cotton farmers in 1998: several hundred farmers drank pesticides. This was just as India's first GM crop trials were starting -- Bt cotton -- and both the biotech industry (Monsanto) and their opponents (like Vandana Shiva) claimed the suicides supported their case. [Bt crops, e.g. Bt cotton, are GM crops producing Crystal (Cry) proteins of the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). These proteins from Bt are toxins that kill insects feeding on the plant by binding to and creating pores in their midgut membranes...Moderator].

The first Bt cotton was released in 2002: Monsanto's construct in Mahyco's hybrids. In 2004 another company's Bt hybrid was released, and more are forthcoming (all the same event).

My aim is to look at the agricultural system synthetically, as much as a social system as an ecological and economic one. The economists’ studies of effects of Bt cottons in developing countries are important, but are also very restricted in scope. So, for instance, I am focusing on the partly social process of "skilling" -- farmers learning how a technology works and integrating it into farm management strategy. Such skill can't be measured like the "indigenous knowledge" that has been measured in many studies (e.g., analyzing cultural consensus on species names). It’s not so much static knowledge as it is an ability to execute an agricultural performance (a point from Paul Richards). [Referring to Paul Richards, 1989. Agriculture as Performance. In Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. Robert Chambers, Arnold Pacey, and Lori Ann Thrupp, eds. Pp. 39-51. London: Intermediate Technology Public. More details in the weblink further down this message...Moderator].

These cotton cultivators had some serious problems in skilling before Bt. There is a long and incessantly changing list of hybrids, weak regulation allowing the sale of deficient seeds, a wide range of pests that fluctuate chaotically (and, of course, develop resistance to insecticides), an ever-changing list of insecticides, and ulterior motives in the advice given by input vendors. Farmers have had widespread problems in "skilling" for years, and many have developed the treacherous habit of trying a new cotton seed every year.

But Bt cotton has brought, along with limited agronomic benefits for some farmers, new problems in information flow and new impediments to skilling. For instance, farmers have received conflicting information on spraying (no spraying, spray only for sucking insects, spray only for Spodoptera, spray normally after 90 days) and on refuges (refuges are a barrier to bollworms, refuges are meant to concentrate bollworms for easy spraying, refuges are meant to show the effects of Bt, refuges are a government requirement that can't be questioned, refuges are unnecessary). They have been told they shouldn't plant Bt because it would make the bollworms stronger (this being a slightly garbled take on developing Bt resistance), and also that they should plant Bt quickly before the bollworms develop resistance. Company officials have given assurances that new Cry genes can be introduced if resistance appears -- which would just start the whole skilling process over again. Thus, in exchange for limited protection against 2 of the dozen cotton pests, Bt cotton has exacerbated breakdown of the social process of skilling (for details see http://artsci.wustl.edu/%7Eanthro/research/StoneHumanOrg2004.pdf).

Such considerations are important, I think my assessment is "correct" and "objective" (I am certainly not generally opposed to GMOs for developing countries -- e.g., I am optimistic about virus-resistant cassava being trialed in Kenya). This is one of many larger issues that should be put on the table if we want to discuss involvement of rural people, and an issue that rural folks are unlikely to raise on their own.

Glenn Davis Stone
Prof. of Anthropology and Environmental Studies
Washington Univsity
St. Louis, MO 63130
U.S.A.
stone (at) wustl.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 24 January 2005 14:04
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 34: Kenyan contribution

My name is Carol Keter and I am a development writer from Kenya.

It may be a good idea that FAO and other development agencies are thinking about ways to involve the farmers in developing countries in decision-making concerning GMOs but this does not mean it will be easy. Some developing countries have rejected GMOs altogether while the rest are not really sure what to make of it.

Some of the suspicions and mistrust concerning GMO has to do with the fact that the general population feels that the scientific world has failed to explain fully the disadvantages of GMOs both to our health and the environment, which are inarguably normal concerns. Others the scientists have been too enthusiastic of the breakthroughs and do not care to look for the dark side; and of course there are the huge profits that seed developers will reap.

Before we can consider how to involve this rural population, have we considered if they need GMOs? How will GMOs change their lives; eliminate hunger, poverty? We need to think twice. Using the example of African farmers who were impoverished when cash-crop (read western consumed crops with the prices set in the west) farming was given priority over farming indigenous crops that fed them. At the same time, local diets changed and research and development into the indigenous crops stopped and even in some cases there are no seed banks anymore of some of these crops.

It is a fact that many development initiatives in the developing world fail because the local population fail to "own" them and as soon as the donor moves they collapse. It is also true that if rural populations are to be involved in decision making then they have to have some control over the project (own it) otherwise why should they contribute. Question: How do we make them own the project and be part of it? Remember that in most countries the rural populations are not as emancipated as those who live in the cities and depend a lot on what the government says to them.

And then we have to avoid of course making them poorer like in the case outlined above. Question: Who owns the technology and how can it be made more affordable to countries? So that the 2-hectare farmer in Koriema, Kenya can afford the seeds! True technology is expensive but ….

Another aspect to consider: Many argue that GMOs will be the solution to Africa’s hunger but no, hunger in Africa has not only been caused by pests, low producing species, but in part by corruption and mismanagement. Will GMOs wipe these out? I doubt. The same could still happen with GMOs. And interesting, one of the GMOs players has already proved itself notorious in its business; bribery allegations in Indonesia and in Canada suing a farmer over cross contamination.

As to how rural people can contribute to the decision-making, I will use the example of Kenya where we use local authorities that organize meetings (barazas) where usually government information is passed and local issues are discussed. The other most important group is the women’s groups (and women make up 80% of rural farmer population and more involved in feeding the family: very important!).

The radio and television are important tools and ownership of radios is (in case of Kenya) at a good level. And do not forget the teachers. Most teach in the rural areas and are more receptive to new information, are opinion shapers in their communities and are farmers too themselves (very important).

Carol Keter
P.O Box 1901-0200
City Square
Nairobi
Kenya
e-mail: cketer (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 24 January 2005 14:06
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 35: Challenge of goverments in involving rural citizens

This is from Siaya district, Western Kenya. My name is Mallowa Sally Obura, an MSc. student at Egerton University in Kenya, currently in the field carrying out my research work.

I agree with Michel Ferry [Messages 3 and 27...Moderator] that it is important to address the issue of why the rural people need to be involved, achieving this is certainly going to be very difficult and expensive. We need to be convinced that they are actually involved to justify the expense. Most goverments consider it a priority to involve their citizens in decision making and the citizens always include the rural people. However, it is rarely directly but through representatives.

In Kenya, we are currently in the process of reviewing our constitution. To do this we used a local woman's name "Wanjiku" to imply that the common mwananchi (citizen) needed to be involved in this important process. Delegates were picked from all over the country to represent their people in this process. It turned out that the delegates were probably the most educated/exposed members of the communities that they represented. When they went for the review process did they really represent the view of Wanjiku ?

When the goverment will begin to address the issue of GMOs and involve the indigenous communities it will again face the challenge of who to train and whether this person will really be in a position to reach the rural people and whether, when he has been used, it will be possible to say that the rural people have been reached and can now be involved in this process?

Initially, it is the specialists who understand the situation, who should really be involved in making the decision on behalf of their fellow citizens. The rural people should only be brought in at the local level where they need to accept the GMOs for planting as they do for any other crop.

I am really enjoying the discussion and the different views being expressed which are quite challenging and relevant. Thank you.

Mallowa Sally Obura
P.O. Box 276,
Sidindi,
40605.
Kenya
email: mallowa (at) yahoo.com
Mobile 254722221582

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 24 January 2005 14:06
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 36: Costs // International legal instruments

I am Janaki Krishna from India again.

It is heartening to note the farmers’ participation in this conference. Also, it is interesting to go through the discussion when people come out with frank opinions in open forums like this. The conference reiterates the importance of public participation and extension systems in dealing with issues of GMOs.

Here are some of my views with regard to following questions in Section 6 of the background document. [For those who have recently joined the conference, the background document is available at http://www.fao.org/biotech/C12doc.htm. It can also be retrieved by e-mail by Forum members sending an e-mail to mailserv@mailserv.fao.org with the following one-line message:
send listlog/biotech-l.dec2004 ...Moderator].

It involves some money, if not very expensive when compared to the cost involved in developing these products. National and international funding agencies dealing with biotechnologies and emerging issues may bear these expenses as ultimately these facilitate decision making at policy level. Towards this, the funding agencies may engage appropriate organizations.

The three international legal instruments mentioned in the background document are very important while dealing with public participation and they are relevant in the international context. However, some nations still do not have any legal frameworks in dealing with these issues at their respective countries. As some participants expressed, [e.g. Edo Lin, Messages 10 and 13...Moderator], what freedom do these nations have in formulating their guidelines in the matrix of these already existing international agreements?

Moreover, implementation/enforcement of these laws is again a big issue. In India, though the legislation with regard to GMOs is very stringent, reports state that the illegal GM crop area grown under Bt cotton is larger when compared to the legally grown cropped area under Bt cotton (Nature Biotechnology, Vol.22, No.11, November 2004). In such situations, how responsible are these legal instruments. I feel the enforcement of law is as important as providing legal framework. The penalties for violating these laws look very minimal against the interests in pushing the technology.

P S Janaki Krishna,
Consultant,
Biotechnology Unit, Institute of Public Enterprise,
Hyderabad - 500 007,
India
Email: jankrisp (at) yahoo.com
Phone: 040 - 27097018/27098148

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 24 January 2005 14:07
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 37: Provide sound information // Extension // Simple language

I am Olusanya Olutogun, a lecturer in Animal Breeding and Genetics in the Department of Animal Science in the Faculty of Agriculture and at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria. I am also the Coordinator of a non-governmental organization, the BIOGROW, a biotechnology and biosafety awareness growth for West and Central Africa whose major activity is the dissemination of sound scientific information on biotechnology and biosafety to the generality of the people of Nigeria and perhaps the West and Central Africa sub region. I was also a member of the Drafting Committee on Nigeria Biosafety Guidelines for the Government of Nigeria.

Firstly, I would like to congratulate the FAO and all the people connected with this globalization effort at sharing information with all the people of the world and in particular the developing countries on the crucial issue of GMOs.

My contribution has to do with providing some insights into some of the issues raised in the background document on the conference. On the issue of involving the rural people and the general public in decision making regarding GMOs, the first step is to provide sound information on the subject for sound judgment on the merits and demerits of GMOs. People must be told unequivocally that there is perhaps nothing that is risk free. But ignorance is the greatest enemy of mankind. This can begin by using all available information dissemination tools within a country and the government of such country must be serious about this task. All strata of the society can thus be informed using appropriate medium for each category of audience - the consumers, the rural farmers, the politicians, the media people,the primary, secondary and tertiary students within the country. The scare-mongers must never be permitted to feed the public spurious information without a challenge on the truth of the matter of GMOs. These scare mongers are already doing incalculable damage to this novel discovery in developing countries. It must be stopped by providing credible and true information to the people. It is an arduous job but it can be done.

The rural farmers should be included in decision making at the stage of deployment or release of GMO crops and livestock into the environment after proper briefings through the extension agents already available in some developing countries. The NGOs and other civil society organizations should be involved in the task.

Finally the quality of this debate must continue as most contributors are able to share their experiences and perceptions with all. There is so much to learn from each other.

I had written the above, when I read Message 22 from Patricia Farnese about the extension agents. I agree in toto that it is erroneous that the rural farmers cannot comprehend the science of GMOs if you employ the right and proper language to convey your ideas. We scientists use esoteric language in our work to keep out the layman and protect our profession but there is nothing wrong with employing simple language to convey our ideas and principles. In actual fact greatest lies only in simplicity. So it is possible to understand the science of biotechnology if the message is delivered in simple language that the layman can understand.

Olusanya Olutogun, Ph.D
Department of Animal Science
University of Ibadan
Ibadan,
Nigeria
o.olutogun (at) mail.ui.edu.ng
o.olutogun (at) mdssolution.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 24 January 2005 14:08
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 38: Thoughts from the perspective of a development communicator

I am Cleofe S. Torres, associate professor at the Department of Science Communication, College of Development Communication, University of the Philippines, Los Banos. I handle a graduate course on environmental communication, which includes among others a topic on risk communication about GMOs. I also advise graduate students conducting research on communicating biotech. I have participated in some extension activities involving communication of biotech to its various stakeholders.

I just came in after a week's field work and was indeed overwhelmed by the variety of insightful opinions about why the public should be involved in decision making concerning GMOs. Based on the questions posted for discussion, I wish to also share my thoughts from the perspective of a development communicator.

By all means and at all cost, this should be done. If GMOs are to viewed as means towards achieving human development, then the humans or rural people that they would eventually affect deserve to know everything possible about such technology and make the final decision for themselves. We take the view that all developments should be rights-based and it is every human being's basic right to determine what they think is best for them.

But, as communicators, our role is to insure that they come up with informed or educated decision about GMOs. We need to proactively provide the information in a manner that is clearly understandable to them so that their decisions do not lead to self- or societal- destruction.

This is where the role of science communicators come in. In collaboration with the scientists, communicators need to transform the technical jargons and complex processes about GMOs into laymanized or popularized versions which the rural public can understand. Popularization itself is a science and art that requires learning of certain communication, education, sociological, and psychological principles. And perhaps the lack of active participation of science communicators has contributed somehow to the problem that afflicts the communication of GMOs to the rural public.

Strategic communication requires an understanding of who the stakeholders are (in terms of socio-demography and psychography) and determining their level of knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) concerning GMOs. Only when we know these can we develop the content and treatment of messages most relevant and suited to them. This would help us avoid the "hit-and-miss" approach in communicating.

But, communicating basically follows the principles of learning. We should give the information in a graduated manner (from the basics to the more complex ones), giving time for our rural people to digest and process knowledge. Giving more than what the people can absorb at one time will only lead to "choking' or information overload.

We should understand that since the scientific knowledge foundation of rural people is relatively low, then the process of learning may also take a while. But surely, they are capable of learning.

It is a basic communication principle that "there is no single best medium" even for the rural people. A complementation of media and channels is always more effective. However, as mentioned earlier, a baseline of where the rural people are in the KAP continuum should guide us on the proper media complementation. As a rule of thumb, we use more of the mass media (radio for rural people) and less of the interpersonal (face-to-face) communication when the rural people have yet to gain awareness and knowledge about GMOs. But as they move toward "liking" and eventually "accepting" the applications of GMOs, we reverse the combination - more interpersonal and less of the mass media.

Participation now goes down to the interpersonal level and would require more of the interpersonal approaches (meetings, dialogues, forum). This may be complemented by other communication materials such as radio, posters or community billboards. But because most of the rural poor are inclined more to the "talking culture" (as compared to the reading culture), then face-to-face mode always proves to be more effective tools for participation, though an inefficient one in terms of cost.

It is but fair that the proponents of GMOs bear the cost of participation. After all, they are the ones "selling" an innovation. The public would have also given their share in terms of the opportunity cost they give up participating in the decision process.

A study done by Dr. Napoleon Juanillo (2002) for the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) could give us good insights about communication for GMOs. In his study on Public Understanding, Perceptions, and Attitudes Towards Agricultural Biotechnology (in Indonesia and the Philippines), he found that stakeholders exhibit dismal information-seeking behavior. This can be due to the following factors: they do not know where to go for information, the mass media does not adequately cover it, people do not talk much about biotechnology because it is too complex, and the issue has not yet reached a level of salience that can motivate people to seek additional information. [The reference here is presumably to a series of 5 country monographs (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam) produced through a collaborative study by communication researchers from ISAAA and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA, on "The social and cultural dimensions of agricultural biotechnology in Southeast Asia: Public understanding, perceptions, and attitudes towards biotechnology" - http://www.isaaa.org/kc/Publications/htm/articles/survey.htm ...Moderator].

We will be conducting a follow up study on the same issue this this year - two years after GMOs have actually been applied in the countries- and find out if change has occurred.

Cleofe S. Torres
Associate Professor
College of Development Communication
UP Los Banos
College, Laguna,
Philippines
Email Address : docle_2003 (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 24 January 2005 14:09
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 39: The rural people need information, education

My name is Jackson Sitengu, a senior journalist, working as a Subeditor with the Zambia Daily Mail, a national newspaper here in Zambia. I am also a member of the Biotechnology Outreach Society of Zambia. I have written a few newspaper articles on biotechnology and I am interested in developments in the sector.

The need and importance of involving the public, especially rural people, on issues of biotechnology can never be overemphasized. The public are the end users of biotechnology products. If there are any side effects coming with the consumption of some products, it is the public that will suffer them. The participation of rural communities is also crucial. Most of these people are heavily reliant on agriculture as their mainstay. It follows, therefore, that any attempts at radical changes in the industry should involve them and needs their consent. However, the process of involving rural people is a painstaking one, especially for developing countries, that should be done over a long period of time. A number of things have to be taken into account.

The first and most important is that of information flow to these people. Governments should develop effective communication systems that fully involve rural people. These will ensure that they are kept in contact with what is happening and gives them a forum for discussion of issues that affect them, including that of GMOs.

The other thing that Governments must do is to provide education to rural people. This can be done through the promotion of education in the affected areas and ensuring that pertinent issues are included in the curriculum. This will provide them with the means to understand the issues that affect them and make decisions that best suit their needs. Without education, they will go with the wind and follow the opinions of their informants rather than making their own decisions.

The other thing governments can do to enhance the participation of the public, especially rural people, is to work with already established rural organisations such as agricultural coorporatives. Leaders of these groupings should be educated on biotechnology through seminars and workshops and their decisions later on taken to represent the communities from whence they come.

However, the cost of involving rural people may turn out to be too immense if the process has to be done properly. This is more of a question in developing countries where resources are always limited. It may follow that developing countries should look at more urgent needs than spending money on national seminars and workshops at the expense of other pressing issues like debt repayment, health and education just to get the decisions of the public.

In conclusion, The involvement of the public is crucial but should not be done hurriedly. Governments should start laying the foundation slowly through the promotion of education, developing effective mass media and developing working rural structures.

Jackson Sitengu (Mr)
Zambia Daily Mail
Box 31421
Lusaka 10101
Zambia
sitengu (at) yahoo.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 25 January 2005 13:49
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 40: Involved vs. consulted // Educating the public

I am Diógenes Infante, from Instituto de Estudios Avanzados (IDEA), Caracas, Venezuela.

Regarding the public participation in the decision making process, Edo Lin (Message 10, January 17) cited Article 23 of the Cartagena Protocol. In this article it is stated that the public should be consulted in the decision making process. Involved and consulted is quite different. Consultation must occur in any democratic society for important decisions. Nor it is stated that countries are able to refuse GMOs. [The text of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is available, in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish, at http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety/protocol.asp . Article 23 concerns "Public Awareness and Participation" and states
"1. The Parties shall:
(a) Promote and facilitate public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms in relation to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health. In doing so, the Parties shall cooperate, as appropriate, with other States and international bodies;
(b) Endeavour to ensure that public awareness and education encompass access to information on living modified organisms identified in accordance with this Protocol that may be imported.
2. The Parties shall, in accordance with their respective laws and regulations, consult the public in the decision-making process regarding living modified organisms and shall make the results of such decisions available to the public, while respecting confidential information in accordance with Article 21.
3. Each Party shall endeavour to inform its public about the means of public access to the Biosafety Clearing-House."...Moderator].

I want to insist that the decision about GMOs has to be taken for people with the right expertise, in order to address all the concerns about. I want to point out that all the experts in biotechnology, especially from Africa, agree with this point. When you need to feed your population and the resources are scarce, GMOs are the prime choice, because the problem can be addressed with a very specific approach. Unfortunately, when you have something that can solve the problem, there is a wall of bureaucrats impeding the solution to be available, mainly because they are the target of anti-GMOs campaign.

On the other hand, the concerns about GMOs are completely speculative, in my opinion as a scientist working on the field for many years. For those concerned about biodiversity and GMOs, I want to cite a work during her doctoral training of one of IDEA scientist, Carolina Celis. She studied the effect of transgenic crops in a center of biodiversity (potato and Peru) and demonstrated that : .."there is no harm to many non-target organisms" and "Thus, scientific progress is possible without compromise to the precautionary principle". This work can be found in: Celis et al., Nature Vol. 432, Nov 11, 2004: 222-225.

Finally, I partially agree with Patricia L. Farnese, (Message 22, January 20) when she said "I really believe it is the scientist's duty to make her research findings accessible to the general public", partially because research is sometimes complicated to explain. However, to address this point we at IDEA published a book to educate the public (High School students) about the benefits of biotechnology (¡Que buena IDEA!, Biotecnologia para los más jóvenes) (How good IDEA!, biotechnology for younger people). Information about this book, available only in Spanish, can be found in our Web site (http://www.idea.org). Believe it or not this book has been the target of anti GMOs activist in Venezuela, asking for its retreat. A second book about biodiversity is in the press.

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: 25 January 2005 13:50
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 41: Rural farmers - good barometers for the usefulness of a policy regarding release of GM crops

This is Mallowa Sally Obura from Egerton University, Kenya, again.

The issues raised by Carol Keter (Message 34) about the usefulness of the crops to the African farmer are very relevant. The issue of whether or not GMO crops will be beneficial to the rural farmer and whether they should even be involved in the policy making at that level is important.

When the GMOs get to the farmers level they will serve as a good barometers as to whether the GMO crop is useful or not, and at this point their involvement in the policy making is necessary and valid. Is this a crop that should be released or not? Is it useful or not?

In western Kenya, Uganda Tanzania and several other countries in East and Central Africa, there has recently been a big problem with cassava mosaic disease (CMD) in the cassava crop, which is a key food security crop in the region. One of the key measures in the mitigation of the disease has been the multiplication and distribution of CMD-resistant varieties. It is interesting to note that at the peak of the pandemic in areas where the local material that was susceptible to the disease succumbed, the rural farmers readily accepted the material. In cassava growing areas of Busia and Teso [in Kenya...Moderator], farmers out of their own initiative went out of their way to get this material. In areas where the pandemic was still not a problem, the farmers did not persist in growing the crops until there was a problem and they needed it. The issues related to adoption had more to do than just the CMD resistance. Currently, in post pandemic areas where the disease pressure is much lower, the farmers have again gone back to planting their own local susceptible varieties. The issues involved in the adoption of these varieties are complex, and farmers are the best measure for such a test. So, if there was a mechanism whereby the farmers could be asked to choose whether they wanted a new variety or their same old variety but transformed for resistance to this disease (e.g. the virus resistant cassava mentioned by Glenn Stone being trialed out in Kenya, Message 33). I feel that their acceptability of the crop would be a good measure and the use of GE to improve the crop would probably have added to the integrated pest management (IPM) strategy, not only for cassava but for many farmer-preferred crops. And the best measure for whether this was useful would be the adoption by the farmers because, even with non-GM crops, adoption is not always guaranteed especially where the farmers were not first involved in the production and selection.

Mallowa Sally Obura
P.O.Box 276,
Sidindi,
40605.
Kenya
email: mallowa (at) yahoo.com
Mobile 254722221582

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 25 January 2005 13:50
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 42: Involving the rural public - Bahamas

My name is Bridget Hogg. I am a chemistry/biochemistry lecturer at The College of The Bahamas, in the Commonwealth of The Bahamas. I am also currently participating in ongoing national discussions on how the Bahamas will proceed in the GMOs issue.

As was indicated by others, I agree that it is important that all stakeholders, particularily the rural population, be involved. In my country, agriculture takes a back seat to our tourism industry. Our proximity to the USA makes it particularly important that we examine our approach to GMOs. Our visitors are likely to be accustomed to particular varieties already. Thus there is the challenge - do we offer them more of the same or attempt to give them a unique island low-GMO experience?

In some of our discussions, concerns have been expressed that the basic genetic materials are being harvested from the developing world, modified in the developed world, then sold at a profit back to the developing world. The country that provides the original material ends up losing control of its environmental heritage as cheaper GMOs compete with local materials, ultimately forcing the country to rely on GMO exports (and using up valuable hard currency). There is also the issue of losing genetic diversity as large international companies promote one or two selected varieties over others.

As regards who should pay, if we were discussing informing the public about a new brand of luxury car, the answer would be obvious......the seller pays to promote its product. However with GMOs, governments must contend with public fears, lack of interest, GMO seller profit margins, public safety and environmental factors. The financial burden must be shared. However, the greatest part must be borne by those who wish to promote the GMOs.

The process of involving the public must be at several levels and must answer, at the very least, six basic questions:
1. What are GMOs?
2. What are the advantages of GMOs over non GMOs?
3. What are the disadvantages of GMOs over non GMOs?
4. Who owns the genetic materials and/ or shares in the profit ?
5. Who will pay for any negative effects that develop as a result of introduction of GMOs into the nation diets?(The producer, the wholesaler, the retailer, the local government, an international organization)
6. Who will oversee/monitor safety issues with GMOs?

The approach must take the issues to the people, in plain language, without fanfare or opinion.......they must be encouraged to participate and contribute. Also, they must be LISTENED to. Too often, I think, communities are asked to share opinions but they are not really paid attention to, and their concerns may even be totally ignored.

Bridget Hogg
The College of The Bahamas
Bahamas
adelphi (at) batelnet.bs

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 26 January 2005 09:47
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 43: Re: Why should the public be involved...?

This is John Nishio, I'm an Adjunct Research Professor at Chico State in California, USA.

I have enjoyed reading the contributions. Some of what I say will be repetitive, and for that I apologize.

The premise of the forum is how to involve the stakeholders, and an apparent side issue, how much involvement there should be, has arisen. Imagine what would happen if there were a forum addressing the question, "How do we teach creationism in public, rural schools?".

It is an old argument, but it is the phenotype about which we should be concerned. Breeders and growers have been making decisions about desired traits for thousands of years. Such decisions were made without the input of the masses (except maybe when the masses were all farmers). Issues of commerce are important, but they should not be confused with recombinant technology.

In a democratic society, science, medicine, law, education, and the like, in many ways, exist as beneficent dictatorships, with some group of representatives being the collective "dictator"--the notion of the military, political, and industrial elite (Power Elite, CW Mills) aside. While it is wonderful to believe in a true democracy, do we really expect to involve 6 billion people in decisions of the sort being discussed (for those who don't believe children are impacted by the issue, and that their opinions don't count, you may subtract the number of children from the 6 billion).

A truly democratic society should expect its citizens to be educated about issues about which they will be voting. How can we speak of a true democracy when so many are disenfranchised and uneducated? Educating the masses is worthy, but requires political will and money. Does anyone dream of the day when even the educated are willing to share their wealth? Weren't we all told that an education will allow us to be prosperous? What happens when all are "educated"? Will citizens of the global democracy have to pass a test to vote? Until the time occurs when we really have a true democracy, it may be safer to depend on our so-called experts.

Therefore, educating political representatives and their staffs seems like a good thing to do immediately. Involving and educating stakeholders IS important, but depending on them to understand all the issues, including the technical details, so that they can make educated decisions is not presently possible.

Do rural people and growers presently understand the role that ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS), methyl methanesulfonate (MMS), gamma-radiation, colchicines, and NO2 have played in the development of plant releases they are presently growing? Do they appreciate the risks that such releases developed with "classical" breeding technology might pose?

Side bar. In my biochemistry laboratory class, we were doing recombinant work, before the first IBM computers were being sold! Recombinant proteins have been injected directly into humans for more than 20 years. We consider the first IBM personal computer introduced in late 1981 as old technology, should we continue to call recombinant technology "new"?

Thanks for organizing the forum.

John N. Nishio
Biocompatible Plant Research Institute
College of Natural Sciences
California State University
Chico, CA   95929--0555
United States
Phone:  530.898.4589
Fax: 530.898.4363
e-mail:  jnishio (at) csuchico.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 26 January 2005 09:52
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 44: Re: Rural farmers - good barometers for the usefulness...

I want to react vigorously to Message 41 of Mallowa Sally Obura. What she proposes is in the field of health the equivalent of leaving sick persons to test new medicines. If they adopt them, it means that they work, according to Mallowa´s argument. This view is a bit short. We know that, in the medium or long term, a medicine can be a disaster because secondary effects have created biggest health problem (look at the recent scandal of the Vioxx and the Food and Drug Administration in the United States) or because their efficiency has disappeared and definitive resistances have appeared (look at the serious issue of many antibiotics). It is true for the health sector but also in industrial agriculture (dramatic effects of intensive nitrogen fertilization or of the use of such or such herbicide or pesticide in general). Another point must be added to that criticism of using the farmers as guinea-pig of innovation. For a poor small farmer, a bad harvest as a consequence of bad innovation could mean a serious disaster, hunger and irreversible dramatic impoverishment.

Michel Ferry
Scientific Director
Research Station on Date Palm and Oasis Farming Systems
Apartado 996
03201 Elche
Spain
tel: 34.965421551
fax: 34.965423706
Email: m.ferry (at) wanadoo.es

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 26 January 2005 14:15
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 45: The consultation process

I am Ashok Seth, a concerned citizen with background in genetics, plant breeding and agronomy, as well as international development. I work as an independent consultant.

First of all, I would like to thank all those who have contributed interesting and thought provoking comments to this important debate. Since I am joining the discussion somewhat late, some thoughts expressed below may already have been said before, for which I apologise.

It seems to me that majority of the people accept the importance and the need for consultation with farming communities before introduction of GMOs. I would add that it is also important to develop national (and, if possible, regional and international) concensus on this subject before pressurising every country to follow the path being charted out by the multinational corporations. The key issues to my mind are: how to do this and what should be the scope and coverage of the consultation process?

The fact that farmers in many countries are uneducated or illiterate is no excuse for not consulting them and taking them into full confidence before introducing new technologies. Farmers are very good judges of the value of a new technology. In fact, they should also be directly involved in helping to target research to their priority needs.

However, it will be unreasonable to expect farming communities to visualise or anticipate national, regional or global consequences of a new ('bad') technology. This is the role for those directly involved in the discovery, development, regulation and dissemination of such innovations. Clearly, capacity to generate relevant information, free flow of unbiased and independent information between interested parties and presentation of this information in a 'user friendly' manner to those likely to be using or be effected by new technologies is all part of an 'informed' consultation process.

Unfortunately, with increasing privatisation of science it is not always possible for the developing countries to obtain unbiased information. The long-term solution to this problem is for global public scientific institutions to be proactive in sharing relevant information and in helping to strengthen national research, extension and regulatory systems to generate needed information locally. This would enable national institutions to provide sound advice to decision makers and organise consultations with farming communities and other interested parties, including the civil society, appropriate to local needs.

Ashok Seth
ARD Consultants Ltd
98 Whitedown Lane
Alton
Hampshire, UK GU34 1QR
AKSth1 (at) aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 26 January 2005 15:01
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 46: Sceptical towards public participation regarding GMOs

This is from Sonia Blaney. I am a nutritionist following the debate on GM food since three years. I spent many years in Africa, trying to implement a democratic and participative process in development projects and I was thinking that occured to some extent in my own country. Back in Canada, when I first heard about the GM food and how they were introduced in the North America market, I was very disappointed and started to improve my knowledge on that topic.

I am sceptical toward the public participation in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries. This aspect should be debated in a transparent and democratic process in countries where the democracy is not always, and unfortunately rarely, present. Moreover, this process should have been implemented and promoted in developed countries in a better way in the past. Thus, my main question related to this process is on "How can we implement a public participation in this decision making process when it was never or scarcely done in the developed and "officially" democratic countries". In my country, the GMOs just landed on my table without my consent and approval!!!

There is no need to expand on the fact that the impact of GMOs on human health is still unknown. In a paper on the "Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the US: The first eight years" (Charles M. Benbrook, BioTech InfoNet, Technical paper No. 6, November 2003), an important finding is that "there is now clear evidence that the average pounds of herbicides applied per acre planted to herbicide tolerant varieties have increased compared to the first few years of adoption". Moreover, "today’s GE crops have modestly increased the overall volume of pesticides applied in the production of corn, soybeans and cotton". Do we still need the GM food and what will be the long term impact on the environment? There is also this very annoying "push" for GMOs which could be the magic bullet to save the poor and hungry people living on our planet! Do we feel guilty? No need again to mention that a better distribution of our precious resources is first indispensable although no government is pushing for that...since there is no money at the end in their pockets!

Is this debate really appropriate? At the end of the day, GMOs will likely land on the people's table living in the developing countries as it was the case for developed countries! Actually, we do not involve enough people in health and nutrition projects implemented in developing countries. So, I wonder how better we will do with the public participation in GMOs decision-making process.

Sonia Blaney, M.Sc.
Ph.D. candidate
Nutritionist
Laval University
Quebec,
Canada
soniablaney (at) hotmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 26 January 2005 15:10
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 47: Re: Why should the public be involved...?

This is S.K.T. Nasar and Reshma Nasar, again. This refers to John Nishio's message (no. 43).

Public participation in decision making on GMOs has to be tiered through the various politico-administrative layers of a democratic system. An informed decision is essential. The science and technology of GMOs are not the point of concern in the present context. No one questions the beauty, relevance, expanse and the potential of New Biology. We agree with John Nishio to this extent.

The socio-economics of GMOs is a matter of utmost importance to the end users. Moreover, unlike previous human generations, the farming community of the developing countries is more knowledgeable and wiser by recent experiences in the pursuit of new technologies adopted at their own risk. The seller of a technology, say electronics, medicines, nuclear devices etc., has to conform to the demand of end users. What is, then, the problem with GMOs or recombinant-DNA products?

It needs to be appreciated that ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS)-induced mutations is not the same as transgenic products. Unpatented GM crops with the genomic background of local and established cultivars are likely to be adopted. There is another issue. Even if it is OK that a transgene is patentable, it is difficult to agree that the transgenome should be patentable when the entire back ground genome is 'our' property.

S.K.T. Nasar and Reshma Nasar
Kolkata,
West bengal,
India
sktnasar (at) hotmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 26 January 2005 16:12
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 48: The challenge of creating awareness // Democracy // Providing unbiased-objective information

I am Shanthu Shantharam, again.

I have noticed that almost all commentaries in the past one week on the subject are going round and round about the importance of rural public participation in decision making on GMOs. So, it seems everybody desires and agrees that somehow rural public must be involved. But, no one seems to know how to go about it. It is too complex.

The crux of the problem is that the public in general is largely unaware of biotechnology and GMOs and lacks sufficient knowledge to make any meaningful contribution to the decision making process. The challenge is how to create that much needed awareness so that everyone who wants to participate can participate. I think one can devise some utilitarian mechanism(s) through which knowledgeable public can contribute or have a say. But, no matter whatever what you do, I bet someone will cry foul. That is the nature of democracy. The real danger is all of us can be easily tied down by this discussion to no end. There is fear of technology paralysis here.

Democracy can guarantee an opportunity, but cannot guarantee that everyone's input will be included in that decision making. It simply cannot. The decision as to whose opinions are valid and would help safe and useful technology transfer must once again be left to knowledgeable experts. That same democracy must also guarantee that the public have an option whether they want to adopt or accept the technology and that is necessarily an individual choice.

In the development of science and technology, only facts and evidence rule, not "majority" opinion or feelings. Opinions and feelings can and must be respected with an option to exercise individual or a like minded group of people to decide for themselves whether they want to accept it or not.

On the question of providing unbiased and objective information about science and technology, the whole area has been muddied and sullied in the past decade of highly polarized debate on biotechnology. It continues even to this day and will for some more time to come. The whole agricultural biotech debate is vitiated. Nobody trusts anybody. It seems anyone who has had an opinion on the "B" word is somehow either bought or paid for by the industry or having sold his or her soul and everybody's integrity has been impugned. Otherwise, he is on the mindless Luddites. The sorry state of the affair is that the entire scientific enterprise in the field of biotechnology has now been painted with a slander brush and their whole edifice has been called to question. For example, for so many people who do not like biotechnology (for whatever reason) peer reviewed science is suspect and many of them reject it out of hand.

I am not convinced that anyone can provide so-called objective and impartial information on biotechnology today. Time has come for all to lower their queering pitch and start listening to the other and not just hear. ["Queering the pitch" means spoiling the chances or success...Moderator]. After all, GMOs have come to this pass only because people are throwing missiles at each other. If there was not this polarization, probably there would not have been an FAO E-forum like this one. There are no soft options for this problem.

Dr. Shanthu Shantharam
Biologistics International, LLC
9800 Old Willow Way
Ellicott City, MD 21042
United States
sshantharam (at) biologistics.us

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 27 January 2005 10:33
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 49: Leave it to the experts // Getting the public to decide

This is from John Hodges, again. I have two points.

Some contributors to the discussion advocate leaving decisions of GM foods to the experts because they have the knowledge. That is a naive view because the experts do not agree. Here are three positions taken by experts.

First, there are experts who are convinced that GM seeds and food have been adequately tested, carry no risk and bring benefits to the food chain. Many of them are employed by or close to the business organizations producing and selling these products. Other experts also holding this view are more independent in their employment but are dependent upon the test data provided by the companies producing and testing the GM seeds and foods. Second, there are other experts who are cautious. They examine the available data and consider that the short-term testing procedures are inadequate, risks remain and alleged benefits are not clear. Third, there are other experts who cite data showing harmful effects to the environment and to humans eating GM foods. An example is Starlink corn which was withdrawn by the US government after general release because some consumers suffered allergic reactions.

Conclusion: Leaving the decisions to the experts does not provide an acceptable answer because they are not agreed. Experts are not able, at this point, to make wise, informed and prudent decisions on behalf of all humanity.

Even if all farmers and all consumers in developing could be so well educated that they made informed decisions - it would still be a split vote. Is the decision on what everyone eats to be based upon a majority vote? What about democratic freedom of choice for those who do not want to eat GM foods? Food is different from drugs. Individuals can opt out of using medical drugs. If the general food chain carries GM products - no-one can opt out. That remains a major factor in democratic decision-making about food.

In my view, the alleged benefits of GM seeds and foods for all stakeholders need to be demonstrated consistently before any blanket decisions are made to introduce GM seeds and food to developing countries - either by experts or by everyone.

John Hodges,
Lofererfeld 16,
A-5730 Mittersill,
Austria.
e-mail: hodgesjohn (at) compuserve.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 27 January 2005 10:34
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 50: Information for farmers should be relevant to farming

Australian farmer, Julie Newman again.

There is a common thread in this conference that is very representative of the debate globally.

On one end of the scale we have scientists that genuinely love the excitement and creativity that recombinant DNA techniques have introduced. There is opportunity in this pioneering stage to gain international recognition for new work and the patent opportunities for corporate investors give the scientific community the opportunity of reaping financial reward for their efforts. Scientists want to share this excitement and appear to have genuine puzzlement at why people are concerned. On the other end of the scale we have concerned consumers who do not want the product for a range of reasons.

The problem is that the discussion is about farmers who are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Farmers main priority is to make a living and to continue farming in a sustainable manner without being negatively impacted by government decisions. Can governments guarantee this? If not, how can they manage these risks? How can they communicate the issue in order to gain feedback from farmers?

Scientists and governments must understand that the information farmers need is not to excite them about the technical details of transgenics. This is a waste of time and money as farmers do not want to be bombarded with information that is irrelevent to farming and it has little impact apart from wasting money and time. The many lectures I have attended appear to be a genuine attempt to confuse the issue by branding all biotechnology together and even going so far as to try to attack existing competitive non-GM varieties (eg. triazine tolerant canola / mutagenesis) and most farmers leave feeling understandably confused and numb to the debate (which appears to be the intention). These anaesthetic lectures have avoided the issues relevent to farmers and concentrated on the issues applicable to scientists.

Farmers generally only need information relevant to their farming practice as they are no more interested in the technical details of science than scientists are interested in the technical details of farming. Will the GM variety be better than existing varieties? Farmers need evidence of locally grown independent (unbiased) trial data with an independent and trustworthy agronomist giving opinion as to why there was a difference. For example, the yield increase could be due to better chemical control, not due to the variety concerned, and the agronomist can therefore recommend alternative options.

Farmers need details of full costs involved with GM crops. Costs must not be calculated on the introductory offer but need to be calculated on GM growing experience using comparisons with the jump in costs after introduction. For example, in US, the Roundup Ready soybeans user fee was minimal on launching but has now escalated from US$9.65 per 50 lb bag in 2004 to US $13.65 per bag in 2005. Coupled with the falling commodity prices, this could well make growing GM soybeans quite unprofitable without subsidies. Patent versus plant breeder rights needs to be explained in simple comparitive statements but the key issue of concern is that farmers can not replant their own seeds and farmers become contract growers of a product owned by someone else. How far this is taken will be dependent on contractual agreements and these contracts will need to be explained to uneducated farmers before expecting all farmers to understand what they are signing for. From this information, a GM/non-GM alternative gross margin comparison can be calculated and farmers can decide if this is an option worth considering. If it is then, as previously discussed in more detail, of critical importance is markets, segregation, sustainability and, most importantly, liability.

As a farmer I would like to reiterate my advice to governments and scientists that if you want to communicate this issue to farmers, give them accurate practical information farmers need that is relevent to their farm practices and sustainability. Don't concentrate on trying to give farmers scientific information that has little or no relevence to their livelihoods.

Julie Newman
National Spokesperson
Network of Concerned Farmers
P.O. Box 6
Newdegate, 6355
West Australia
Australia
www.non-gm-farmers.com
julie (at) non-gm-farmers.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 27 January 2005 16:46
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 51: Guiding questions - Malawi

This is Hastings Zidana again, from the Malawi National Aquaculture Centre, a researcher in fish breeding and genetics. To answer some of the guiding questions from Section 6 of the background document in relation to my country's situation.

a) "What priority should governments give to involving the rural people in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries?"

The rural people should be given priority whenever the decision would like to be made regarding GMOs, e.g. introducing new GM crop varieties. All situations like regulation setting, the way government involves rural people's decisions when other national regulations would like to be put in force, the same should happen with GMOs.

b) "In which situations is it most important to include the rural people in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries?"

All situations should be given equal opportunity for rural people participation. However, this may not be practical in disaster situations, this is why it is good to mitigate such stuations.

c) "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)?"

I will come back to my earlier posting (Message 17, January 19) that the extension system is a good bullet which can penetrate into those more difficult to reach. However, this system needs more capital to operate. At the moment, the extension system is being privatised. It is the duty of these private extension sytems to disseminate such information to the rural masses.

d) "Should specific considerations be given to involving indigenous communities in decision-making regarding GMOs? If so, how can this best be achieved?"

Yes, issues like strengthening the extension system need to be given special consideration when you want to use this system to disseminate information. This can be done through human resource capacity building by giving enough training of communication skills and scientific skills involved in GMOs.

e) "What is the best medium (e.g. newspaper, radio, Internet etc.) for rural people in developing countries to access quality information about GMOs, that will allow them to participate effectively in the decision-making process?"

Not the best, but the most used media out of the examples given is the radio. The rural people do not have Internet and they hardly buy newspapers.

f) "Which mechanisms can be used to ensure that relevant and reliable information/content is provided by the above media?"

The people in the know how e.g. extension service staff develop the messages and give them to the radio stations so that they can broadcast the messages at a given time.

h) "What is the best medium for rural people in developing countries to provide their inputs, if requested, to the decision-making processes regarding GMOs?"

The member of parliament in the area should be able to take the decision of the rural people to the parliament where country decisions are made. If the regulation is to be made by the Government then the extension staff should carry the message to the responsible ministry or government department.

i) "How should local languages of the rural people be dealt with in a public participation exercise?"

The messages carried to the rural people should be translated into local languages so that the rural people should be able to understand and have full participation.

j) "Who can best represent the interests of the rural people in stakeholder discussions?"

The government staff or private sector involved in dissemination of the information.

k) "Involving the public in decision-making processes can be costly. Who should pay?"

The government should be responsible for its citizens. It is up to the government to look for funds to manage the programs. However, the developing country governments have very tight programs. Usually programs like these are participated with the help of the developed countries through development projects.

Hastings Zidana
National Taiwan Ocean University,
Department of Aquaculture,
202, Pei-Ning Road,
Keelung City,
Taiwan.
MP: + 886 0925956484
hzidana2004 (at) yahoo.co.uk
http://buncoalumni.tripod.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 27 January 2005 16:53
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 52: Ideas for risk communication

I am a faculty member in a US food science department with an extension-research appointment and have been working in risk communication research for about ten years, focusing on consumer perceptions of new food technologies.

I have observed that nearly everyone responding to this topic falls into a 'for' or 'against' stance about 'biotechnology' and speaks of risks or benefits, which are usually identified as such based on one's personal position. (It is very hard for anyone who has followed this debate to be neutral.) I would like to suggest considering the use of a public policy framework which builds on the ideas outlined nicely by Cleofe Torres (Message 38, January 24). In such a framework, the issue needs to be clearly defined and then viable solutions need to be outlined. Each of these solutions than has impacts. In the discussion to date, one of the issues surfacing is whether 'farmers or consumers' should be involved in setting policy. The two solutions being proposed are yes and no with various reasons.

In risk communication, impacts of a technology's use or non-use are presented as consequences. The reader or listener has the option or assignment of determining if the consequences are risks or benefits in their own mind. Risks and benefits are almost always biased by ones location in the hierarchy or food chain so a risk to one person is a benefit to another. In addition, it is important to point out which consequences are 'hypotheses' and which represent real data. For instance, the hypothesis that use of GE varieties would lead to more pesticide use has been validated to some extent by C. Benbrook's report, although there is disagreement about this too. Another responsibility of a risk communication is to present a variety of viewpoints about an issue solution. Debates imply winners and losers and black and white issues. I certainly don't hear this in the comments so far and personally feel that compromise will be the name of the game regardless of the strength of our feelings about this issue.

It seems to me the group must resolve the issue of whether to involve 'consumers or farmers' in policy decisions before it can move to how to do this. May we consider the consequences of a) involving this segment of society, and b) not involving them? Putting on my qualitative research hat, I feel that there are threads emerging in this conversation that fall under either scenario. If we decide to involve them then we move onto how.

I personally vote to involve them. As to how, radio and social groups have been suggested as channels with extension as facilitators. There were more suggestions in the dialogue too. The channels may vary by location. Then the issue for the 'public' to consider becomes primary. Usually people get most interested in something concrete and personal. It will come down to the type of GE or biotechnology application put on the plate for consideration. This is likely to vary from country to country and even region to region within a country. However, the ground rules for presenting the issue could be similar.

Please take my suggestions/comments as just that. I have no personal experience working in developing nations. My experience is within the US with rural populations.

J. Lynne Brown
Associate Professor, Food Science
Penn State University
205 A Borland
University Park, PA 16802
United States
814-863-3973,
email f9a (at) psu.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 28 January 2005 10:20
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 53: Extension: Transfer of Technology and participatory models

This is from Anthony Dunn. I am an Extension academic and farmer in southern NSW, Australia. Sounds like a strange combination, you may say, but both careers are relevant to this conference.

My farming experience in the debate has been with canola. In 30 years of farming have adopted some innovations that I wished I had not, but GM canola is the first I have seen where even if I don't adopt it, I will still be affected by those who do. In the developing agriculture extension literature, I know about many innovations that either did not work or caused problems.

In the extension world there are (simplistically) two models of social change, Transfer of Technology (ToT) and participatory (e.g. Farmer-First, F-F). In the developed world, we learnt about F-F from the developing world where it was realised that some technologies either didn't work, and/or had deleterious longer term effects for farmers and/or the environment.

Previous contributors have pointed out that bio-technologies ('innovations' in extension-speak) cannot be judged desirable (or not) by scientists alone. For a start, change is a social process - province of the extension profession and underpinned by social science. About 30 years ago, extension researchers discovered that the diffusion and adoption change model had serious difficulties - namely it did not predict or explain non-adoption or the negative consequences of change - namely unintended consequences (bio-physical, ecological and social) to individuals and the environment.

Developing agriculture societies showed western scientists that 'their' technology exports were only one type of knowledge; the other was local (indigenous) knowledge which should be sought first and blended with outside knowledge. This is the basis of participatory approaches (F-F is one model) which now holds prominence alongside ToT.

There are problems, however, with participatory approaches. For a start, it takes much social training to understand and use them - despite the vast literature and well known proponents. Many extension people are trained first in the bio-physical aspects of agriculture and maybe post graduate training in social sciences or extension later. Some never make the transition; sales and marketing are more appropriate role labels.

So, even though ToT is the preferred mode of operation for most agricultural extension workers, a change of approach (e.g. to F-F) has been accepted. ToT does not work with environmental problems - an example being community consultation used to improve the problem of river degradation and declining irrigation resources. However, another problem for participatory (consultation) approaches is that the community has begun to mistrust them - some farmers call it 'insult-ation'!

While I advocate participatory approaches, it must be realised that each situation needs a tailored methodology so that people can learn before they change (or not change!). A typology of participatory methodologies was developed by Andrea Cornwell (Cornwell 1995, cited in Race and Buchy 1999) shows a continuum from tokenism to empowerment. [Race and Buchy, 1999 is available at http://www.csu.edu.au/research/crsr/ruralsoc/vol9no2.pdf . The A. Cornwall 1995 reference is entitled "Towards participatory practice: PRA and the participatory process". In: de Koning, K. (ed.) Participation and Health. Zed Books, London...Moderator].

For major changes - especially those with uncertain consequences - such as the adoption of GM crops, a democratic approach is advocated, but expertise and committed extension workers will be needed.

Anthony Dunn
Senior Lecturer in Extension,
School of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences
Charles Sturt University
Locked Bag 588
Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, 2678
Australia
e-mail: adunn (at) csu.edu.au

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 28 January 2005 10:40
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 54: Organizing regional groups // Representing rural populations

I am Bridget Hogg, College Lecturer, from the College of the Bahamas, again.

This discussion is proving interesting and informative. My contribution here addresses two of the discussion questions in the background document (6n. and 6j. respectively):

1. Could the information sharing/discussion be organized on a regional basis rather than national ?

If countries were prepared to work as regional units, money and other scarce resources could be conserved. Newsletters, email campaigns, regional meetings and productions (videos for public awareness) could be jointly produced. In the Caribbean region, for example, there is heavy reliance on North American imports. Thus, we have common food and livestock suppliers, and GMOs concerns. Since individual countries lack economies of scale, we could speak with a greater voice as an economic, strategic planning and policy making block.

There are already existing regional groups such as Caricom, The University of The West Indies, for example that provide interaction amongst several countries. [CARICOM is the Caribbean Community and Common Market - http://www.caricom.org/ ...Moderator].

2. Who is best to represent the rural people ?

Who knows the rural people better than the rural people? Who should represent them ? They should represent themselves. Every society, no matter how "primitive" or "advanced" (undeveloped or developed ??) has some form of social structure featuring leadership functions. These societal leaders already have the attention and concerns of their fellow citizens. They speak the language and understand the culture. They are in a position to interact with other communities and to represent themselves in the national forum. It is up to those outside these communities who wish to initiate GMO discussions to seek out these persons and make information available to them in an unbiased format, in a language and format that they can appreciate and present/discuss with their own community members.

On a general note: It is important to note that even as these discussions ensue, companies such as Monsanto continue to grow in their influence, swallowing up smaller companies or gaining majority control. I worry that one day soon the question of GMO or non-GMO will not even exist. Megacorporations may take the possibility of choice out of the hands of the rural and urban populations. As was mentioned previously, we in the smaller nations are largely subject to what our suppliers offer. If the only affordable, available food and feed is GMO-based, then there is no choice. Whether GMOs are good for us, bad for us or a mixed bag will be irrelevant.

Bridget Hogg
The College of The Bahamas
Bahamas
adelphi (at) batelnet.bs

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 28 January 2005 12:59
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 55: Why and how to involve the rural people: Eritrea

I would like to express my appreciation for FAO for organising this discussion forum on GMOs and Rural people participation in Decision making. I am Yoel Mesghenna from Eritrea. I have worked for some years at the Ministry of Agriculture in Eritrea (on research), and am a plant breeder by profession (M.Sc in plant breeding and agricultural science) and worked as a plant breeder for about three years and on different variety evaluation for another three years before in Eritrea.

After all, my small country may not be able to enjoy such advanced technology in the near future but it is still difficult to stay free of GMOs when there is not much biosafety regulations and practices, almost unhindered movement of life materials with neighboring countries and too much food is coming every year as food aid. I have read some of the participant's messages. I enjoyed the discussion and the different ideas brought up here. I am happy to see that most of the participants think that the rural people should definitely be involved on the issue of GMOs.

One thing that should be noted is that clear and unhindered information should be transfered to rural people in the way they can understand! We should be able to use their "words" to do this. We don't need to scare them with endless unimaginable ideas but we need also to tell them that GMO is just another latest technology that will only work together with their cooperation and it is not a miracle! If we cannot make rural people understand the merits of GMOs then it is almost impossible to make any step forward. Maybe, depending on their circumstances, some areas may still feel that they have still too much "technologies" and systems on their surroundings that they should first make use of. Let them know and let them talk!

Let me give one example from my country. There was one initiative a few years ago by the name integrated farming system, where the small farms of individuals were cultivated together by using tractors, fertilizers, herbicides, harvesters etc. This project led to increases in yield in some areas and not in others, depending on the potential of the land and the rainfall. But at the end of the harvest, farmers were asked to repay the expenses. In the following years, farmers started to pull back from the project and I heard some farmers call this integrated farming - integrated cost. Some of these farmers preferred to get less yield with less input than a little higher yield with higher expense. Of course, it is understandable that the government also cannot provide all the technologies for free. But the government should have made it clear from the beginning that only those people who are willing to pay this "extra expense" get involved! One thing some of these farmers regret about this system is that long time traditionally developed terraces between and within their farms were destroyed for the sake of intensive cultivation and it is costing them time and money to regain it.

So let the rural people know all the OPPORTUNITIES, COSTS, RISKS of GMOs. Let them get as much information as possibly they can understand and let them have a say. If we cannot make them understand "all" about GMOs or if we don't want to tell them just because we feel it is too complicated, then the time they find out (for sure they will), there is a risk that these people will be suspicious of our motivations and start to pull back (unfortunately for GMOs this opportunity may not be there). So they will end up in hanging in the middle and keep on resisting implementation of not only the GMOs but also other development initiatives.

How do we make them understand GMOs ? Well as long as we consider them as partners there is always a means. Definitely, multi-disciplinary experts need to have discussions with the rural people to get an idea on different perspectives. But at the beginning we may need to make use of the existing social and administrative structures of the given society. For example in my country the elder people, religious leaders are very much influencial to the rural people, and when it comes to formal organizations there are extension agents, contact farmers, community leaders, etc. Make effective use of these people to transfer our HONEST AND CLEAR information. Of course, there is also the media, like radios (e.g. in my country "education by radio for the elderly program" in two to three languages which the rural people enjoy very much). These, of course, will make it easier for rural people to understand the message than a biotechnologist or a breeder going directly to the area and trying to talk to “every rural individual.

Yoel T. Mesghenna
Eritrea
e-mail: Mty1973 (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 28 January 2005 17:05
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 56: Public GM debates can take different forms

This is Edo Lin, independent consultant.

The process of public consultation and decision making can vary from country to country and may be a reflection of the political environment and the level of openness in a given society. Most of the GM debates have been reported from Europe and it is maybe interesting to give some examples of how it was done in different countries.

In Germany, the debate involved 30 stakeholder organisations at national level. The participants appointed a Steering Committee and the debates/workshops were moderated by an independent consultant. In Switzerland, it included 28 lay persons (randomly selected) and 17 experts and interest groups. The process used is called a Consensus Conference and is aimed at social learning. The UK had probably the largest effort to include citizens in the debate with 675 meetings taking place at national, sub-national and local (village) level. This was followed by an e-mail conference during which 1200 contributions were made. In total, 20.000 people were involved in this UK exercise.

These examples illustrate the different forms public debates about biotechnology can take. In Germany it is quite common to consult national organisations of stakeholders and no individual citizens took part. At the other end of the scale, in the UK, citizens were actively engaged in the discussions, especially at the local level.

In all three cases, the questions addressed turned around the following themes:
- possible costs and benefits of the technology
- consumer choice
- health issues
- environmental issues
- ethical issues
- implications for developing countries

It is difficult to find the outcomes of the different debates. The UK debate is well documented and the final report can be accessed at www.gmnation.org.uk. In the German and Swiss cases, the debate was reported in the respective parliaments and can therefore be considered as informative to the legislative process.

Little is reported on changes in attitude towards the technology and none of the debates were efforts towards public decision making. A general observation is that these debates bring different stakeholders together, sometimes for the first time and that they facilitate the continuation of the discussion.

The cases above illustrate that depending on the country and its culture of public participation, different debates can be structured.

Edo Lin
309, rue de Bombon
77720 Breau
France
tel and fax: +33 164387844
e-mail: lin.edo (at) free.fr

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 29 January 2005 12:42
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 57: Do we have a legitimate convenor at the country level?

This is from Ricardo Ramirez. I am involved in research and teaching in extension, capacity building and communication.

The root of the debate about public involvement has to do with whether we have a legitimate convenor at the country level where a debate could take place. Governments in many countries have yielded to the influence of the biotechnology industry and have lost their independent, public interest role. Many universities have fallen into the same predicament. We need national and regional fora to do what FAO has started through this e-forum on a global scale. We need a convenor that can ask the question: "Who needs GMOs?" and in doing so not be seen as having a vested interest. The science is never going to be conclusive, the challenge is a process that is deemed to be fair where the different parties can negotiate policies and regulations to move forward in the public interest. I would be keen to hear about experiences with legitimate convenors that stimulate a sincere exploration at a country or regional level.

Ricardo Ramírez, PhD
Assistant Professor
School of Environmental Design and Rural Development
Landscape Architecture Building #104
University of Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2C9
Canada
Tel. +1 (519) 824-4120 x 53986
Fax 767-1686
Email: rramirez (at) uoguelph.ca
http://www.uoguelph.ca/sedrd/RES/

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 29 January 2005 12:49
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 58: Questions 6.m - 6.o in the Background Document

I am Janaki Krishna from India again.

I agree with the views expressed by Anthony Dunn (Message 53) and Yoel T. Mughenna (Message 55). It is true that the participatory processes have some limitations in practice. However, if followed religiously this alternative model of technology development has an edge in adopting new technologies at farmers level.

Here are some of my views for the last set of questions in the background document.

6.m). "Concerning requests for approval of individual GM products, what kind of information should it be possible to withhold from public disclosure?"

The entire dossier with regard to GMO may not be made available for the general public to elicit their viewpoints, as it is difficult to understand the genetic language. (Also, I observed that some information would not be disclosed even in the full dossiers, which the company/developer thinks as confidential and would be submitted only if necessary. I really do not understand why this information cannot be provided as part of dossier and how the concerned authorities take a final decision without going through such important data along with other data which may be essential for taking a transparent decision). In a simple understandable manner an abstract of the dossier may be made available for the public for their comments (giving some deadline) either through circulating over sample population (representing all stakeholders) or making it available online etc. etc. before taking final decision.

6.n). "Can certain public participation activities be organised on a regional basis in developing countries instead of at the national level?"

Yes, and it is always advisable to do these kind of exercises at regional level and to have consensus at the national level.

6.o). "Is the public participation regarding GMOs in developing countries more important for some food and agriculture sectors (crop, forestry, livestock, aquaculture and agro-industry) than others?"

Yes, especially when they are endemic to their regions and are the staple food and commercial crops in their regions and have the chance of affecting the biodiversity and marketability.

P S Janaki Krishna,
Consultant,
Biotechnology Unit, Institute of Public Enterprise,
Hyderabad - 500 007,
India
Email: jankrisp (at) yahoo.com
Phone: 040 - 27097018/27098148

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 29 January 2005 12:58
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 59: Why public participation?

My name is Joanna Goven, and I am a lecturer and researcher at the University of Canterbury (New Zealand) and the New Zealand Institute of Gene Ecology. I have been following the discussion with great interest.

I am struck by the fact that the guiding questions for the discussion focus on how and when public participation should happen. Not surprisingly, therefore, the discussion itself has largely focused on these as well as whether the public should be involved at all. However, implicit in the answers to these questions is the answer to another unasked question: Why involve the (rural) public in decision-making regarding GMOs? (I suppose I am disagreeing with Janaki Krishna (Message 18), as I don't think it has yet been properly addressed). This in turn is linked to another question: What kind of issue is the GMO issue?

I would guess that those who advocate leaving the decision-making to the "experts" see the GMO issue strictly as the science that underlies the production of GMOs. This is also implied in much of the discussion of how to enable the public to "understand" GMOs, as well as by those who appear to see the major question as: how do we persuade the (rural) population to accept GMOs? This implies the "we" already know the "right" answer about GMOs.

But if you assume that you already know the right answer with regard to GMOs, there is no point in public participation; what you are looking for is public persuasion. You are not going to learn from rural people or grant them decision-making power. In this situation, participation tends to be a sham, a mere legitimation exercise.

However, from other postings it has become clear that the GMO issue is not simply about the science of producing GMOs (and, in any case, as Michael Ferry and others point out, the scientific research itself is contested and controversial--no clear "right" answer has emerged among the independent science community). It is a much larger and more complex issue involving, for example, questions of sustainable skilling processes (as discussed by Glenn Stone, Message 33), liability, resource allocation (if this is about improving the welfare of people in developing countries, couldn't these resources be spent in better ways?), changes in the distribution of power (between biotech companies and farmers, small and big farmers, etc.), privatisation of genetic resources, and impact on seed saving and exchange, among others.

The conflicts within the GMO working group of the Aarhus Convention, reported by Maria Julia Oliva (Message 20), also point to non-science aspects of the GMO issue. The resistance on the part of some developed countries to subjecting release of GMOs to the same requirements for public participation and public access to information as other environmental decisions is itself relevant to the acceptance or non-acceptance of GMOs. If GMOs come with heightened secrecy, decreased transparency, and reduced access to decision-making for the public, then that itself is part of "the GMO issue" and should inform public debate and participation.

The research reported by Daniela Soleri (Message 30) indicates that, in fact, it is impossible for the "experts" to have the "right" answers with regard to GMOs because their impacts depend crucially on local conditions, knowledge, values, and practices. This indicates that one important purpose of public participation is to enable those responsible for the final decision to learn about these things from the public.

I look forward to the continuing discussion.

Joanna Goven,
School of Political Science and Communications,
University of Canterbury,
Private Bag 4800,
Christchurch,
New Zealand
joanna.goven (at) canterbury.ac.nz

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 31 January 2005 16:04
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 60: How should the public be involved?

Hello again! I am Cleofe s. Torres, an associate professor of development communication at the University of the Philippines Los Baños.

After having gone through several discussions on why and how should the public be involved in decision-making on GMOs, I wish to share my ideas again, as an academician, that is.

The prevailing opinion so far on the issue is for the public to be involved. But the more tricky question on "how" to do it has been touched only by some.

A few went to the extreme of making it appear impossible to reach out to millions or billions and inform them of GMOs - the opportunities, costs, and risks involved. I would say that this is where the role of development communicators should become more prominent. Participation as a form of communication is a science and an art. It has certain principles that can guide us on "what should we share, with whom, with what expected behavior outcome, through what channels, and at what cost."

Information on GMOs, no matter how technical or scientific, can be "processed" or popularized so that they become more understandable/comprehensible to the various sectors in the public. We teach what we call science communication where we share principles on how scientific messages may be made accurate, brief, but clear through various popularization techniques (the science and art of defining through analogies, use of examples, visuals and humanizing to name a few so that technical jargon can be made more understandable). Of course, the basic rule is to know our stakeholders. We cannot lump all those concerned together into a "faceless public" lest we run into addressing a non-existent figure. You may say that these all sound too academic, but this is what education is all about - the provision of handles that have been proven to work effectively most of the time. After all, we get our wisdom from time-tested experiences. Hence, there is a need for those who will involve the public in GMOs decision making to be equipped with these knowledge and skills. Not everybody of course can be a popular science communicator.

Not because we have all the media around us means that we will just use them. We need to know when best to use them. Communication after all also involves a systematic way of doing things.

Also, there are various levels and methods of participation that should enable us to address this issue more systematically. Regardless of the communities or sectors involved, participation by representation still remains as the basic workable management tool for large scale involvement. Again, people can be taught how to maximize this representation. This is the reason why specific sectors of the public (such as the farmers) have to be organized. To interprete participation as letting everyone just say his piece at anytime will just lead to chaos. As mentioned by Ricardo Ramirez (Message 57), there should be a legitimate convenor of this democratic exercise at various levels (national, regional. local).

Again, the bottom line is that participation and access to information affecting one's life is a basic human right. I think that it is a crime to deprive the affected ones of this right just because they may not be able to comprehend the jargon of science. As public servants and science communicators, we owe it to them to educate them on the basics and complexities of GMOs. If at the end of the day, and despite our efforts to share what is due them, they still opted for self destruction, then so be it. Freedom of choice is something we cannot deprive others of. At least, we have allowed them to determine their fate and learn from its consequences. We just hope things are not yet too late, and they can still recover. To embrace error is still a worthy cause.

Cleofe S. Torres
Associate Professor
College of Development Communication
UP Los Baños College,
Laguna
Philippines
email:docle_2003 (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 31 January 2005 16:05
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 61: Re: Kenyan contribution

This is Dr. Prashant Joshi, a research scientist, involved in research, training and extension activities in Maharashtra and presently working in a National Agricultural Technology Project (NATP) project in tribal belt of Maharashtra.

As Carol Keter (Message 34) writes "It may be a good idea that FAO and other development agencies are thinking about ways to involve the farmers in developing countries in decision-making concerning GMOs". I agree with this comment. It is a good idea but things are very tough indeed. Some developing countries accepted and some of them rejected the idea of GMOs. India is a land of diversity, varied socio-economic culture, topography. Rural people have small holdings, no irrigation traditionally involved in farming as a source of life and depends on orthodox farming lot of painstaking efforts from government agencies, universities, NGOs etc. Most of the farmers cannot afford to follow recommendations given by universities because of economic status, then how can they think of GMOs. We have to think and consider the other side of coin before taking any decision.

I personally think that political will is necessary to counteract the problem arises because every year lot of funds allocation provision is kept and practically it is useless. Still the scenario is not changed - poor farmers are still poor and owners of seed companies are richer day by day. It is a good idea to involve the farmers in decision making but their role should be well defined and what are their prospects also should be very clear to them. Audio-visual publications are good source to involved in decision making.

Dr. Prashant Joshi,
Research associate,
Srs (oilseeds),
Dr.PDKV Agriculture University
Akola, Maharashtra,
India
Phone:91 724 2258467(O)
91 724 2458959(R)
psjoshi_175 (at) yahoo.co.in

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 31 January 2005 16:06
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 62: Listen to the voices of the rural people

This is Paul N. Okello of Swiss Management Academy International, Rome, Italy. Here is my viewpoint on the on-going discussion:

Our brothers and sisters in the countryside form an equally vital part of the whole equation of any major issue of national importance. Many economies ride on their often unappreciated efforts and courage in the mists of enormous challenges. Therefore, the whole equation will never be complete without the contribution of the rural people. Any attempts to shortchange them will result in a situation of imbalance. That is not an advisable condition to journey on with.

As regards the weighty issue of GMOs, it would be suicidal not to involve the rural people. But the intimidating question is how they may be effectively involved in the decision-making process regarding production, release or import of GMOs.

Simply put, the only way out is to listen to their voices. The voices of the rural people in the developing countries must be heard in the decision-making processes of any given nature of GMOs. It is unfortunate that often people with vested personal interest hide behind expert’s opinion to influence and/or manipulate the rural people to accept views not necessarily their own. As such, the voices of the rural people get strangled and their involvement ceases to be effective. But even before giving them the opportunity to express their views, no assumptions should be made and hence they should, and must, be made to fully comprehend what GMOs are all about. For it is only then that they will make meaningful and valuable contributions to the decision making process.

Paul Nyawanda Okello,
Swiss Management Academy International,
Via Pomarico 9-00178.
Rome.
Italy
e-mail:nyawash (at) yahoo.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 31 January 2005 16:06
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 63: Contribution from Iran

I am Atefeh Fooladi Moghaddam. I work for the Ministry of Health in Iran. As a part of my duty, I am involved in risk communication. Recently we are faced with GMOs (Bt rice) and the decision which be made about these new foods.

I thank FAO because of this informative conference. I have been tracking all the messages and I have realized everybody sees a part of this huge matter and so all are true. Those who agree with people's participation are true because this is people's right to know what they plant and sell and eat and how their products will affect their environment and lives, but communication has always been a complex matter. Scientists understand the scientific language of each other, but they are poorly able to talk in the people's language. Some good points were mentioned before (such as extension system) and I don't want to take up your time repeating them. Later I will address the main question of this conference, but there is something I want to say: Those who believe why people should be involved are true too!! I agree with Sylvia Kosalko (Message 16, January 19) concerning this question: "Who benefits the most from the introduction of these organisms"? I would like to ask some questions: Who should inform the people ? (Of course, the organisations and academia which are involved in these matters) and which decision should people make regarding GMOs?

If we suppose they were well informed about the pros and cons of this new technology, their decision would be yes or no. They would accept the new technology or deny it. So what if they deny it? Of course, the information providers don't like this, they spend lots of money and would like to make profit. Let me explain more: I attended a workshop about GMOs last week. We (the Food and Drug Division staffs) were invited to ABRII (Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran). All we heard were the benefits of this new technology (although we were aware of disadvantages) so I want to say if the information is to be given by these organisations, it has to be biased. So what choice will remain for the people? When I asked them whether they were going to participate rural people, they was wondering what decision people could make.

I am trying to believe in the reality of public participation at developed world and then maybe we can come to agreement about developing world.

Atefeh Fooladi Moghaddam
Secretariat of Applied Research
Food and Drug Division
Ministry of Health and Medical Education
Building#3
Enghelab Ave, Fakhre Razi Ave,
Iran
Tel:+98216954438
Fax:+98216417252
Email:foodinfo (at) hbi.ir
fooladi_50 (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 31 January 2005 16:07
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 64: GMO adoption as a multi-disciplinary concern

From Tony Dunn,again.

First of all let me add my warm thanks to FAO for sponsoring this debate. It reminds me of my first experience of list discussions probably about 10 years ago on 'sustainability' - moderated by Bob (?) Hart!

Ricardo Ramirez (Message 57), Janaki Krishna (Message 58) and Joanna Gaven (Message 59) all make points that impinge on my plea for a more participatory approach to GMO adoption.

What struck me was Ricardo's question 'who needs GMOs?' It's a good start, but the answers obviously depend on who answers them. Like many technologies and issues, there is no simple or black and white answer like there appeared to be 50 years ago. Then we assumed that all science and technology were good and should be adopted. In extension theory there was the notion of 'adoption lag' which commonly meant that farmers and extension people were blamed for slowing down progress and exacerbating research wastage.

With the realisation that adoption was a complex process - both psychologically (change in the person) and sociologically (change in society). Broadly speaking, improved theories AND practices including Farming Systems Research, Rapid Rural Appraisal led to participatory learning and action. Most of the progress came from social science and social practitioners and emerged from experience and thinking in the developing (south) countries and fed back to the developed (north) countries! The reverse to the hard science progress - Neils Roling called it 'technology propelled agriculture'. Anyone who want a primer on how all this happened should read: Roling, N.,1988, Extension Science: Information systems in agricultural development, Melbourne, Cambridge.

Back to the question of 'who' legitimises adoption? In the old days (post World War 2), adoption failed because farmers rejected what they saw as 'worthless' (to them) innovations. Nevertheless, some innovations turned 'bad' over time and were discontinued by farmers. Every farmer has a view on adoptions they wished they hadn't made, and most would have worries about some which they are now locked into which they wish they could give up (e.g. 'some' chemicals, and some intensive monocultures). Jules Pretty has a useful analysis of farming systems - one socially and environmentally soft ('sustainable') and the other intensive and risky ('modernist')- see Pretty, JN 1995, Regenerating agriculture: Policies, and practice for sustainability, London, Earthscan.

So what's so different about GMOs that we haven't experienced in the last 50 years? I've often been asked this by my biotech positive colleagues, and I admit my answers were stilted! As a farmer who felt he had a small part in pioneering rapeseed (now canola) as a crop, I felt confronted by a technology I couldn't fully understand. Furthermore, I felt that once released GM canola could not be discontinued. Even if I chose not to adopt, I would be affected; the marketing problems were significant. I mistrusted corporate interests - especially multi-nationals! Such problems, I felt must be even greater for farmers in the south.

On the other hand, we'd all survived the green revolution, hadn't we? So what was so different about what Gordon Conway calls 'the doubly green revolution'? (See Conway, G, 1997, The doubly green revolution: Food for all in the 21st century, Ithaca, Comstock). To answer this from an academic stance, I turned to the literature and theory. For a start, I felt that the debate was dominated by the hard sciences - mainly bio-physical, mainly biology and agronomy. But what of the social sciences, extension, ecology and systems science? There was and is ample literature from all these disciplines - well published AND practised! The field of disciplines is widening, e.g. ethics and theology also having an input; for instance, Reiss, MJ & Straughan, R, 1996, Improving nature: The science and ethics of genetic engineering, Cambridge. However, in the debate the non bio-physical sciences were not heard. Worse than this it's reported that detractors of the technologies were being suppressed - even victimised.

My main point is that adoption has always been a multi-disciplinary concern; extension thinking and practice have been advanced by experience from developing countries - often where the unintended negative consequences of western technology have been observed. Thus the debate about adoption of biotech including GMOs has not used this knowledge. One reason is that extension has been an add-on discipline - one that the hard sciences use after their technologies have been developed; it should be (along with farmer participation, ethics and social sciences) included in the research at the beginning. Another reason is that an industrialised industry (agriculture is certainly in this category in developed countries) is always likely to be technology driven - even marketing researchers complain that they are not consulted early enough in R&D! As an extension academic I have been used to pushing may way into hard science research; I usually begin by pointing out that there'd be no agriculture without people! And even in industrialised agriculture farms are largely family owned and operated.

Tony Dunn
Senior Lecturer in Extension
School of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
Charles Sturt University
Australia
e-mail: adunn (at) csu.edu.au

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 31 January 2005 16:07
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 65: The rural people should be involved

This is Gwinyai E. Chibisa again.

Of course, genetic modification is an esoteric process, but it is disheartening to note that some participants are taking this as a basis for excluding rural people in decision-making. It is in the rural areas [in which more than 85% of the poor in Sub-Saharan Africa reside, (Randolph et al., 2001)] where there are real productivity and food security challenges for science and technology. Genetic modification can improve the situation (despite it`s significant gestation period before its impact is realised). Given the fact that genetic modification affects and can address specific needs of rural farmers, the rural people should be involved in the decision-making process regarding GMOs.

These rural people need to be educated about GMOs. Obviously, there is a cost to everything, including not involving them in the decision-making process. Honestly, how can regulatory mechanisms inspire public confidence with reference to benefit-risk assessment of GMOs, if people remain ignorant and are out of the decision-making process? Who and what will these people believe? Won`t ignorance make them be misled by these big companies who just want to make a killing?

Therefore, a concerted effort towards a public literacy compaign regarding GMOs is required. As for the costs (question 6.k in the background document), government can contribute through public funds and the private sector (NGOs, farmer organisations, etc) should also be involved.

Gwinyai Emmanuel Chibisa,
Department of Animal Science
University of Zimbabwe
Box MP167
Mt. Pleasant
Harare
Zimbabwe
gcecko (at) yahoo.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 31 January 2005 16:08
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 66: Channels and decision-making / Experts and democracy / Messengers and the message

This is from Jorge Mayer (Biochemist and IP Expert), Golden Rice Project Manager, Campus Technologies Freiburg, Germany.

I will hardly be able to add any new insights to this conference, having seen excellent and above all, very pragmatic points of view by many participants. I believe that any proposition coming from this conference must be practicable. Life on the farm has been in constant flow since man’s involvement with agriculture but it always has been hands-on. If you ask a farmer whether she wants a GMO, she will come back with the question, does it have a higher yield, will I earn more at the end of the day, will I need to invest less in inputs, will the use of toxic pesticides be reduced, how will the new crop affect the soil, and other similarly practical questions.

While talking to farmers in Colombia I was surprised about them asking when they would finally get to use transgenic crops. They had obviously heard about the advantages of transgenic crops and they wanted to have more detail about the practicalities, how would their lives change, if at all. In Colombia, the government has listened to the farmers and has introduced a practicable legislation that makes it possible to register transgenics without unnecessary burdens.

In a number of cases already, farmers have decided with their feet when it came to the adoption of GMOs—see the soya bean case in Brazil—and having heard of the advantages of GM varieties they have opted for illegality or have exerted pressure upon their governments to introduce them legally.

One maxim at the decision-making level must be to avoid the introduction of unpleasant, unwieldy practices. In my own experience, even if you menace field workers with being fired, many will not put on protective gear when spraying pesticides in the tropics. Analogously, it would not be enforceable to produce a toxic substance in an edible crop and ask small farmers to take care that nobody around steals and eats them.

In developed countries there are enough technically qualified people to fill administrative/regulatory posts. It is important to strive toward an improvement in the numbers of technically versed people in developing countries. These are the people who will carry a main load of the responsibility to make decisions in the best interest of consumers and producers alike. Purely political administrators many times ignore the feedback from their constituency. What is required are experts that can translate science back and forth, up and downstream. We must listen to the feedback we get from farmers in order to develop improved crops that address the problems encountered in the field without creating new problems. This interaction does not have anything to do with GMOs in particular.

The trend for “politically correct” grassroots involvement is, in my view, the result of anti-GMO activism seeking to block the process of adoption by creating the chaos that is inherent in a decision carried by millions. I’d rather see pc read as practically conscious. Every theretical act of democracy must be brought down to earth. Democracy, as it is exercised today, is not about involving the people at every decision step possible, it is rather about letting the people choose their representatives. If these transgress the confidence deposited in them, their re-election is up for grabs.

I am a biochemist myself, but I wouldn’t see any need being asked every time a new medicine is introduced into the market. I trust the regulatory structures and the experts who have worked on its development. Of course, I read about the secondary effects and recommendations of use, and I know that there are mechanisms to take pharmaceuticals that have been shown to be dangerous out of the market.

Many argue that GMOs are only about producing huge profits for the multinationals. If it has got to this point it is mainly a consequence of very effective fear-mongering among the population by opponents of the technology. This has led to such an escalation of costs attached to regulatory requirements that most public research and developments in this area have been delayed by many years.

C) Messengers and the message

1. Who is to interact with the farmers

In many countries, information about agrichemicals and land management is provided by the experts of the companies who sell the products. There is an inherent danger of a conflict of interest here, but companies are under the scrutiny of the state and also of competing companies. It is generally recognised by the large companies nowadays that false statements do not pay in the long term, which is the most important thing for a company to maintain its market share or improve it. Good information and training opportunities are some of the services these companies offer to capture clients. The information materials companies provide are controllable.

Extension work falls under the jurisdiction of government offices, but more often than not in many developing countries these lack the funds to achieve the necessary penetration. There is a good opportunity here to establish alliances between governments and companies—and I don’t mean one preferred company—to maintain a high level of quality and openness in the information provided to farmers.

In the specific case of GMOs, the party most interested in establishing a long term relationship with the farmer is the seed producer. It will not be easy to conceal the fact that other farmers are obtaining better results with different varieties or whether there is no market for the crop the farmer is growing.

As to the concern that small farmers might be used as guinea pigs to test GMOs, there is no reason to assert such a thing. It has been mainly large farmers who have been experimenting with transgenics for a substantial number of years, and it is the population and farm animals of developed countries who have been eating those products, providing the best possible safety certificate you could attach to the technology as such. Don’t 160+ million hectares dedicated to transgenic crops tell us something about what farmers think about the technology and how the communication channels among them work?

What is my choice to eat produce from old landraces? Did farmers ask my parents when they, more and more, adopted hybrid maize over the years? Does anybody complain that hybrid seed have an additional cost attached to them? We must not forget that a few years down the road, when GM technology will be taken at face value, i.e. an efficient way of introducing individual traits into crops, there will also be publicly available transgenic varieties that farmers can use and multiply at their discretion.

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: 31 January 2005 16:09
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 67: Re: Why public participation?

Joanna Goven (Message 59) writes: "...what you are looking for is public persuasion. You are not going to learn from rural people or grant them decision-making power. In this situation, participation tends to be a sham, a mere legitimation exercise". I think that her analysis is at the core of this conference. FAO forum organizers would like that we exchange on how to involve farmers when a preliminary question remains to be addressed: Do we dispose of a basic un-biased and clear information for a neutral and non-oriented involvement of the farmers? Only the people who answer yes to that question are interested in asking how. The problem is that, according to me, the people who answer yes have not a neutral position. When they are defending their own job, it is clear that it is difficult for them to have a neutral position (they are at the same time judge and party) and not to transmit a biased message. For those who are not directly involved in this technology but are convinced of the interest of the GMOs, the risk is that they want to involve the farmers to get their approval, not of course to have them participating to a scientific debate for which they are not prepared.

Michel Ferry
Scientific Director
Research Station on Date Palm and Oasis Farming Systems
Apartado 996
03201 Elche
Spain
tel: 34.965421551
fax: 34.965423706
Email: m.ferry (at) wanadoo.es

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 31 January 2005 16:09
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 68: Regional organisation of the debates

This is Edo Lin, independent consultant.

I would like to refer to the issue raised by Bridget Hogg (Message 54) about regional organisation.

The African Policy Dialogues on Biotechnology (APDB) is a joint initiative from NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa's Development) and IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institite). Although it does not address the rural population directly, the initiative is aimed at national and regional consensus. Rural populations will at a certain stage need to be consulted.

The expected outputs of the dialogue are:

These expected outputs were confirmed in a Statement of Committment in September 2004. Background and a number of relevant documents can be found on the website www.ifpri.org/africadialogue/

Edo Lin
309, rue de Bombon
77720 Breau
France
tel and fax: +33 164387844
e-mail: lin.edo (at) free.fr

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 01 February 2005 17:40
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 69: Public participation - vast power asymmetries

This is Karl Beitel. I'm the policy analyst with The Institute for Food and Development Policy, and have been following the discussion with great interest.

Regarding the issue of public participation, I believe that Joanna Goven (Message 59) and Prashant Joshi (Message 61) touch key issues. What needs further elaboration is the underlying realities of private market power and corporate business strategies driving the development and dissemination of GMOs. The question of how to insure meaningful participation by the rural poor in discussing the benefits and drawbacks of GMOs cannot be abstracted from vast power asymmetries that characterize global and regional food systems - in particular, small growers lack of access to land, cultural appropriate and scale-relevant infrastructure and technology, and market opportunities on fair terms. The manner in which GE technologies are developed reinforces these inequalities - techniques are selected on the basis of their promise to extend private proprietary control over seed markets and expand market shares for proprietary herbicides; these technologies are then "presented" to the poor as the means of insuring higher yields, with discussion limited to the virtues, or lack thereof, of their further application/dissemination. To the extend these techniques are adopted prior to an extended and informed public debate (as is the case in fact today), the effect is to spur further consolidation of multinational control over the global food supply chain. This in turn tends to impose a pre-emptive closure on the parameters of debate, given the restricted choices available to poor rural farmers and Southern governments that lack independent research and development capacity.

Choice - real democracy - always implies the existence of a meaningful alternative and access to economic resources that support farmer's ability to exercise choice in a meaningful manner. This is the crux of the issue. In the absence of shifts in the balance of power, even the most well-intended dialogue will tend to reinforce such inequities and will fail, once again, to eliminate hunger. The Green Revolution is a stunning example of this fact - introduction of better technologies, absent meaningful land reform and redistribution of income, did not eliminate poverty or hunger, and in fact worsened the level of social polarization within the rural sectors of most developing countries.

The typical - and reasonable - response of scientists to such objections is that they can't change social realities, but they can help produce better technologies that might offer real benefits to the poor. What this ignores, however, is the fact that GMOs are driving a heretofore unimaginable extension of corporate property rights over the basic substance of life. It strains credibility to assert that meaningful democratic participation in shaping crucial issues of public policy will be possible once this process is complete. I think that biologists working in this domain have a unique social obligation to insure that these techniques remain within the public domain, and are not developed as the private property of corporations. Only then will it be possible to consider how to structure meaningful participation by poor rural farmers (amongst others) in debating the relative merits and drawbacks of GE seeds. And even then, significant problems will persist in communicating the social realities of the rural poor to scientists, and insuring that the cutting edge frontiers of scientific research are developed in a manner that is relevant to the real problems and constraints confronting farmers.

Karl Beitel, PhD
The Institute for Food and Development Policy
398 60th Street, Oakland, CA 94608
United States
Tel: 510-654-4400 Fax: 510-654-4551
kbeitel (at) foodfirst.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 01 February 2005 17:41
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 70: Grassroots involvement extension methodologies

From Tony Dunn.

I am not sure what Jorge Mayer (Message 66) means when he writes "The trend for “politically correct” grassroots involvement is, in my view, the result of anti-GMO activism seeking to block the process of adoption by creating the chaos that is inherent in a decision carried by millions".

If by ‘grassroots involvement’ he means Farming Systems Research, Sondeo, Rapid Rural Appraisal, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and the whole range of extension and participatory research methods are just a politically correct social movement to ‘block the process of adoption’ of GMOs, then I disagree with him. In this context, I would recommend the excellent FAO publication: Collinson M (ed), 2000, A history of Farming Systems Research. FAO and CABI Publishing and the work done at the International Potato Center (CIP) on farmer-back-to-farmer – work done by Rhoades and Booth. Their paper also had an interesting and relevant sub title for this debate; ‘…a model for generating acceptable agricultural technology’ !

The literature and the experience of these methodologies has emerged over 30 years – well before GMOs were developed and it’s there for all to read and understand. I have alluded to seminal references in previous mails, and argued that GMO release is also a question for the social sciences, extension and other disciplines such as applied ethics. I would like to say that in Australia, the grassroots involvement extension methodologies acquired from the sources quoted and our own Landcare movement (also grassroots) are the driving forces for research and social change in complex problems such as land and water degradation. Aren’t we talking about a similar situation with GMOs?

Tony Dunn
Senior Lecturer in Extension
School of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
Charles Sturt University
Australia
e-mail: adunn (at) csu.edu.au

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 02 February 2005 15:52
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 71: The important role of the consumer movement - Consumers International

My name is David Cuming and I represent Consumers International.

Consumers International, a federation of 250 consumers organisations in 115 countries, with regional offices in Africa, Asia and Latin America, has grave concerns with the decision-making process regarding GMOs. Therefore we welcome the opportunity to discuss how this process can best serve the needs and interests of rural people in the developing world.

We have noted a dearth of consultation of consumers in almost all countries - despite strong consumer resistance to the introduction of GM crops and foodstuffs as measured by opinion polls and consumer behaviour. The wishes of governments, small producers and consumers are disregarded by the biotech industry which seems to have decided what is best for people without taking their views into account.

From our point of view it is important to keep in mind the fundamental rights of consumers, four of which are particularly applicable to the debate surrounding GMOs.

1. The right to a healthy and sustainable environment: The protection of present and future generations from potential environmental hazards can best be achieved by respect for the precautionary principle.
2. The right to be informed: Consumers need the facts to make informed choices. The absence of adequate labelling infringes this consumer right.
3. The right to safety: Consumers must be protected against products, production processes and services that are hazardous to their health.
4. The right to choose: Consumers should be able to select from a range of products in accordance with their beliefs and preferences.

Even if rural consumers are not aware of these rights, their governments must take them into account when making important decisions on genetically engineered agriculture and food aid.

Several contributors have emphasised the need for a network to reach out to rural people. The consumer movement is a vast network which spans the globe and plays such a role. Consumer organisations in the developing world are particularly active on food issues, most notably food safety, food security and genetic engineering. They serve an important role in informing and educating of rural people on the stakes involved in GM agriculture and act as a counterpoint to a biotech industry which extols the virtues of biotechnology, without educating people as to the disadvantages and dangers.

In recent years, consumer organisations have been active educating rural consumers and producers with respect to:
* the dangers of genetic engineering to biodiversity
* the nefarious impact of the patenting of seeds and the concomitant corporate control of the food chain
* the dangers of GM contamination to export markets and centres of origin
* the failures of GM agriculture, such as the empirical evidence of increased herbicide use
* Consumer rights with respect to non-GM food aid.

Finally, at the heart of the debate surrounding genetic engineering is the issue of consumer choice. Accordingly, consumer organisations in the developing and developed world have emphasised the need for labelling of products containing transgenes in order to safeguard consumer choice.

The efforts of the consumer movement to inform and educate rural producers and consumers constitute a veritable David versus Goliath-like battle. However poorly resourced, consumer organisations in the developing world have nonetheless taken up this challenge to promote sustainable agriculture and ensure consumer choice. They are an important resource for the development of genuine public participation regarding GMOs in the developing world. Their efforts should be encouraged.

David Cuming
Campaigns Manager - Biotechnology
Consumers International
24 Highbury Crescent
London N5 1RX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7 226 6663 ext. 213
Fax: +44 20 7 354 0607
dcuming (at) consint.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 02 February 2005 16:12
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 72: Capacity building using a science based approach

Thank you to FAO for providing the facilities and moderator, and to the previous participants for this very interesting conference. My name is Anne Bridges and until recently I worked in the area of Food Quality and Safety with an international food manufacturer, I am currently an independent consultant.

While many of the contributions refer to the commodity feed crops like soy and corn, I think it is important to note that many developing countries have excellent research and development programs working on biotech crops that are most relevant to the local agricultural needs (FAO database lists many of these) of that country. In addition, the importation of grains and cereal derivatives from agricultural exporting countries is a reality today and will not cease in the foreseeable future, whether it is part of trade or food aid. There are also examples where food aid programs within a country would be impossible without using the GM crops presently in cultivation e.g. in soy milk in Argentina. [The FAO database referred to above is presumably FAO-BioDeC (http://www.fao.org/biotech/inventory_admin/dep/default.asp), which provides information on crop biotechnology products/techniques in use or in the pipeline in developing and transition countries. In addition to genetic modification, it also covers microbial products for agriculture (biofertilisers, microbial agents for biocontrol etc.), applied cell biology techniques (micropropagation, anther/pollen culture, embryo rescue etc.), molecular marker techniques and DNA and immuno-diagnostic techniques...Moderator].

Today there is no scientific “peer reviewed” publication that shows that the GM traits in cultivation today cause any new elevated health risks (accepting as we have done for centuries, that all foods and drugs carry some potential element of risk). There are however, many reports by scientific national academies that show there are no increased risks.

I agree that we can’t ignore the imported crops, but I do think that the challenge of rural participation can be achieved most effectively when the crops that are relevant in a particular area are discussed. Use the most relevant “local experience” and treat each case as it stands and not attempt to impose “generic education programs”.

Over the last five years, I have participated in many science-based training programs and workshops in the “nominated” developing countries for and with scientists and government personal working to understand the challenges of identifying and measuring GM traits in grain and food products. Regulations without a means to test or verify identity may be politically accepted, but they only serve to add significant costs to the food supply and frustrate the users when they have no scientific risk basis. In fact, labeling regulations have the potential to increase risk to marginal consumers due to higher costs and therefore reduced levels of nutrition.

Education of rural communities should be a priority, and needs to focus on the true “local” risks. All developing countries have scientific and technical personnel who are well able to separate the most important issues for their country. Allergen risks for people in developing countries are not likely to be different from those to people in developed countries, but the environmental situation might be very different. For example, the local typography or climate in Columbia may be very different to that in the North American midwest or other source country. Resources could then be best directed to test and evaluate the differences, rather than on dealing with “imported claims of risks and benefits”. The focus of education and discussion on the “different factors” also recognizes the value and credibility of the existing food regulatory agencies in a specific country or region.

Anne Bridges Ph.D.
Anne Bridges and Associates LLC
708 North First St
Minneapolis, MN 55401
United States
annebridges001 (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 03 February 2005 10:10
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 73: Public participation - Fiji

I am Ruci Dakunimata, Senior Consumer Officer-Research at the Consumer Council of Fiji.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank FAO for introducing this conference which allows those accessible to such technology to participate. Fiji lies at the heart of the South Pacific between longitudes 175 and 178 west and latitudes 15 and 22 south. This is roughly directly north of New Zealand and north east of Sydney, Australia. The country is made up of approximately 330 islands which are distributed over 1.3 million square kilometres of ocean. Only 16% of the country’s land mass is suitable for intensive agriculture and they are found mainly along coastal plains, river deltas and valleys. 54% of the country's population still lives in rural areas.

The subject of GMO is new to Fiji and the local consumers. The Consumer Council of Fiji, being the only consumer organisation in the country, had been raising the issue in 2000 and 2003 in its Consumer Rights Day celebrations and activities. We still feel that there is yet more awareness programs needed on GMOs. Given the country's scattered islands, it is difficult to reach out to these outer and remote islands in terms of visits. However, our radio programs had been used to relay the message across to them.

The Government's Ministry of Agriculture had set up a division on GMO which would look into the GMO issue. However, involving the public would be more meaningful as we try to follow a more participatory approach. That is, the rural people to participate and be part of the decision making as far as GMO is concerned. They are the vulnerable groups and it is very important for them to be informed about GMO. Most of the goods flooding the Fiji market now are imported goods and we find labelling to be a problem in most of these goods. The consumers are accessible to these goods. So who knows the make up of these goods and ingredients used? This is where the involvement of all stakeholders at all levels is crucial, and more importantly, involving the public.

Ruci Dakunimata
Senior Consumer Officer-Research
Consumer Council of Fiji
Private Mail Bag
Suva
Tel:(679)300 792
Fax:(679)3300115
e-mail: consumer (at) connect.com.fj

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 03 February 2005 10:21
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 74: Information, transparency and on an ethical basis

My name is Sezifredo Paz and I represent Brazilian Consumers Institute Defense (IDEC).

IDEC is a consumers association and has noted, in Brazil, all the consumers concerns described by David Cuming (Message 71). We support the Consumers International's position and would like to add others aspects about the issue.

In Brazil, the biotech industries and some governmental actors make an information campaign on the rural people (producers), usually using misleading information about GMOs advantages. Our organization has noted that rural people are not aware of the dimensions and the consequences of the dependence if they adopt GMOs (royalties, contracts), not even enviromental risks, health risks and others aspects. Therefore, for us, the development of public participation regarding GMOs in the developing world must be developed under correct information, transparency and on an ethical basis.

In respect to the health safety of GMOs, the decision-making process regarding GMOs is not reliable for the public opinion. For example, IDEC has noted little governmental interest in the aplication of the Codex Alimentarius FAO/WHO principles and guidelines for risk analysis and for safety assesment of foods derived of GMOs. [As noted in Section 4 of the background document to this conference, at its 26th session, held in Rome in summer 2003, the Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted guidelines that lay out broad general principles intended to make the analysis and management of risks related to GM foods uniform across Codex's members (169 member countries). Considering risk communication, the "Principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology" state: "Effective risk communication is essential at all phases of risk assessment and risk management. It is an interactive process involving all interested parties, including government, industry, academia, media and consumers. Risk communication should include transparent safety assessment and risk management decision-making processes. These processes should be fully documented at all stages and open to public scrutiny, whilst respecting legitimate concerns to safeguard the confidentiality of commercial and industrial information. In particular, reports prepared on the safety assessments and other aspects of the decision-making process should be made available to all interested parties. Effective risk communication should include responsive consultation processes. Consultation processes should be interactive. The views of all interested parties should be sought and relevant food safety and nutritional issues that are raised during consultation should be addressed during the risk analysis process" (http://www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/risk_biotech_taskforce_en.stm) ...Moderator]

Sezifredo Paz
Executive Coordinator
Instituto de Defesa do Consumidor (IDEC)
Rua Dr. Costa Júnior, 356
05002-000
Sao Paulo - SP
Brazil
Tel +55 11 38624266
sezi (at) idec.org.br

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 03 February 2005 10:29
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 75: Re: Capacity building using a science based approach

Anne Bridges (Message 72) states "Today there is no scientific "peer reviewed" publication that shows that the GM traits in cultivation today cause any new elevated health risks (accepting as we have done for centuries, that all foods and drugs carry some potential element of risk). There are however, many reports by scientific national academies that show there are no increased risks."

Anne could you please give reference to those many reports - I've been searching and asking for this very information from the biotech companies themselves to no avail. In particular any peer reviewed data in relation to canola, canola meal and canola oil.

My name is Helen Chambers. I farm in central Victoria, Australia with my husband and his parents. We have 3 small children. I have followed this international debate on GMOs for the past 2 years and must say I'm disappointed with the way our governments and farming organisations in this country have followed the lead of the biotech companies without and/or little regard of farmer or consumer choice.

My questioning of the science and the ensuing peer reviewed research and safety testing puts me in the 'anti-GM brigade' and very often shunned particularly in forums run by governments and our farming organisation using those very words of Anne - talk about the absence of evidence. It is my opinion that if the biotech companies used their Public Relations dollars more constructively by actually carrying out the peer-reviewed long-term health safety testing in the first place and allowed full transparency - consumers would not be so mistrustful of the GM product. We farmers need to remember that the consumer is king and we need to grow what they demand!

As for improved nutrition in these GMO foodstuffs - where's the scientific evidence of this? True nutrition required for human survival and sustainability comes from the soil - a healthy, well balanced and mineralised soil. Humans are part of that biological cycle and perfecting and understanding that cycle, I believe, is where the future sciences should be directing their attention not playing around with transgenics willy-nilly and exposing humankind to the end results without the long-term impacts being researched and peer reviewed.

Helen Chambers
Farmer, Mother and Consumer
Marong,
Victoria,
Australia
email: lyndale.park (at) bigpond.com

[As this conference is devoted to the subject of public participation in decision-making regarding GMOs for food and agriculture in developing countries, considering in particular how rural people can be effectively involved in the decision-making process, this thread on the health risks and/or improved nutrition of GM products is now cut...Moderator].

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 03 February 2005 10:42
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 76: Pertinent points on this subject

This is from Jeffrey A. McNeely, Chief Scientist at IUCN (The World Conservation Union) headquarters in Switzerland.

I have greatly enjoyed this email conference, and thanks to FAO for convening it. I would like to add my views on the subject of public participation in decision-making regarding GMOs for food and agriculture in developing countries. The following points seem especially pertinent:

1. The developing countries often seem to be under very considerable pressure from those with an interest either for or against GMOs, often making it difficult for them to determine which policy is most beneficial to their country. The pro or con arguments often are based on idealogical issues rather than scientific ones.

2. It is well recognised that the problem of hunger in developing countries is especially one of food distribution rather than simply food production. Technologies that enhance production without dealing with the distribution issue are unlikely to have the desired impact on hunger. The 800 million or so people going hungry are not given many opportunities to influence decision-making on agricultural policy, and it seems unlikely that they would be involved in decisions about GMOs. This is not to argue against such consultation, but simply to make the observation that the rural poor most in need of better agricultural support are usually the last to be consulted.

3. One argument that has received insufficient exposure in this conference is indirect consultation in terms of consumer behaviour. That is, farmers who find that a new crop or technology is an improvement over their present crop or technology are likely to adopt it. Farmers are practical, and their decisions about such matters are often directly relevant to their survival, or at least prosperity. If they see the prospect of a better livelihood, then they are likely to change their behaviour. And of course, informed decisions are better than decisions based on only partial information. The rapid acceptance by farmers of some persistent organic pesticides provide an excellent example of where perception was based on insufficient information, much less consultation.

4. The key factor is to provide objective information from a credible source (or multiple sources), in languages that are relevant to the local people. With the improvement in communications technology, this should not be an overwhelming task for a government agricultural agency. It needs to be recognised, however, that government sources will also be augmented by the private sector agro industries promoting GMOs and non-governmental organisations who are arguing against GMOs. A government agency is probably the most appropriate intermediary and likely to be trusted by the local people, when that agency has proven its credibility over time.

5. If quality information is provided, then involving the public in decision-making is unlikely to involve additional costs. They will make their own decisions on the basis of the information they have received.

Jeffrey A. McNeely
Chief Scientist
IUCN-The World Conservation Union
rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland
Switzerland
E-mail: jam (at) iucn.org
Tel.: +41 22 999 0284
Fax: +41 22 999 0025

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 03 February 2005 15:20
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 77: Re: Pertinent points on this subject

This is Javier M. Claparols, Director of the the Ecological Society of the Philippines, a member of the IUCN-World Conservation Union. My friend Jeff McNeely (Message 76) should have mentioned that the IUCN in it's last World Conservation Congress held in Bangkok on November 2004 passed a Policy Resolution on a Moratorium on Further Release of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

Javier M. Claparols
Director
Ecological Society of the Philippines
53 Tamarind Road, Forbes Park
Makati City 1200
Philippines
Tel: 63 2 6339626
Fax: 63 2 6317357
Email: jmc1 (at) mozcom.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 04 February 2005 10:13
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 78: Experiences from the UK

I am Derek Burke, living in Cambridge UK, now retired from my last position as a University Vice Chancellor. I have followed this debate with interest, since this issue has been active here.

Helen Chambers (Message 75) asks (in response to a comment by Anne Bridges, Message 72) what evidence is there about the safety of GM foods and I refer her to two exhaustive reports produced by the UK Government at http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/ . The introduction states: "Government has been promoting a national dialogue on genetic modification (GM) issues. One part of this was a review of the science of GM, led by Sir David King (the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser) working with Professor Howard Dalton (the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), with independent advice from the Food Standards Agency. This 'GM Science Review' has now concluded its work".

This e-mail conference has identified the need to consult consumers in a balanced way, still a major difficulty in the UK. I was chairman of the Government’s Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes from 1989 to 1997, and it was our responsibility to advise Ministers about the safety of all novel foods, including those derived by genetic modification. I was not allowed to have any connection to any food company and all members of the Committee had to declare any such interest annually. The Committee was made up of experts plus a consumer representative and an ethical adviser, in order to bring societal and ethical views to bear on the advice we were giving. We published an Annual Report, held an annual press conference, and I was available to radio, TV and press at all times. This procedure worked well until GM soya came to Europe when public confidence in Ministerial decisions, already damaged by the BSE affair, coupled with a vigorous campaign run by several newspapers and the failure of Monsanto to offer consumer choice persuaded the public that GM soya was unsafe to eat. The Advisory Committee has continued to experiment with ways of establishing public confidence, meeting in public, publishing its minutes on the web immediately after the meeting, and adding a second consumer representative, but consumer concerns continue.

A further experiment, initiated five years ago, was the formation of the Agricultural and Environmental Biotechnology Commission, chaired by a lawyer, made up of scientists, drawn from both universities and businesses, together with four senior members of anti-GM NGOs. This group has produced a number of reports, available on the web, but little agreement was reached, and the Government has very recently decided to discontinue this Commission. My view is that since the anti-GM NGOs have a non-negotiable position, placing them on a committee which was intended to work by consensus effectively gave them a veto on decisions, and it is unsurprising that agreement could not be reached. So the Government is now looking for other ways of trying to assess the true state of public opinion, influenced as it is by claim and counterclaim, and in a situation where the safety of GM foods comes about number 25 on the list of public concerns.

So in summary, we in the UK have been unable to find a mechanism which leads to conclusions satisfactory to companies, scientists and NGOs. The public has become confused and I think rather bored by the whole debate, and my judgement is that GM foods will slowly enter the British market, as and when they offer a consumer advantage since the evidence from the United States is that GM soya can be eaten safely. But we have not solved the public acceptance issue.

Professor Derek Burke
13, Pretoria Road
Cambridge CB4 1HD
United Kingdom
Tel/Fax 01223 301159
dcb27 (at) cam.ac.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 04 February 2005 10:24
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 79: Re: Pertinent points on this subject

This is from David Steane, a retired FAO officer in Animal Production and Animal Genetic Resources, now living in Thailand.

I am enjoying this conference and, once again, congratulate FAO on providing the opportunity for debate on a crucial issue. Much of the debate addresses how information should be transferred but, from reading submissions and experience, it is clear that there is very little good information on GMOs despite some vague assertions to the contrary. The issues are not simply with food safety but also with the growing of crops. Very few countries have carried out comprehensive trials of sufficient replicates to allow even a reasonable statistical view to be taken on the affects of growing GM crops. The UK (Royal Society) has reported some trials with very interesting results showing the necessity for careful study of each GM crop in the environments relevant to that country. For most countries, the situation is that there is no proper scientifically relevant information on which they can base a long-term decision taking into account all aspects of agricultural production.

My original comment on the pressures has just been well made by Javier Claparols (Message 77) who added some points to those of Jeffrey McNeely (Message 76). The issue of who should provide information and to whom is well addressed by Jeffrey McNeely but his proviso regarding government agencies "when that agency has proven its credibility over time" is absolutely crucial - particularly given the recent experiences with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and with Avian Influenza in SE Asia. [Point 4 of Jeffrey McNeely's message was "The key factor is to provide objective information from a credible source (or multiple sources), in languages that are relevant to the local people. With the improvement in communications technology, this should not be an overwhelming task for a government agricultural agency. It needs to be recognised, however, that government sources will also be augmented by the private sector agro industries promoting GMOs and non-governmental organisations who are arguing against GMOs. A government agency is probably the most appropriate intermediary and likely to be trusted by the local people, when that agency has proven its credibility over time"...Moderator].

The question of who pays is also difficult but not beyond solution. Field trails to study the effects and on a scale which can allow reliable statistical analysis should be shared by the interested parties - government on behalf of its agricultural community and its own self interest and by the GM companies who wish their crop to be considered for use in that country. They, after all, will benefit from the years of protection they are given by patents unless their crop is shown to create too much harm relative to the benefits - in which case the company should not benefit other than having a good scientific evaluation of its product (and at a subsidised cost!). [Question 6.k in the background document about "who pays" was however about participation i.e. "Involving the public in decision-making processes can be costly. Who should pay?"...Moderator].

David Steane,
99 Moo 7 Baan Rong Dua, Thakwang,
SARAPHI, Chiang Mai 50140,
Thailand.
Tel/fax (66) 53 42 99 18
desteane (at) loxinfo.co.th

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 04 February 2005 11:53
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 80: 'Knowledge is power' and 'power is knowledge'

I picked up a text on action research this afternoon when I was meeting with another supervisor and 'our' Post Grad student. The book fell open at a chapter by Andrea Cornwall who is well known in the Farmer-First/bottom-up extension circles. I was struck by 2 headings which may be relevant to this debate 'knowledge is power' and 'power is knowledge'. I intend reading this chapter as I am sure it will have a bearing on if and how farmers inputs to deciding on GMO release happens. Action Research is about what changes, not what the scientific facts may or may not be. After all the facts do change with the people and what use is made of them.

Anthony Dunn
School of Agriculture
Charles Sturt University
Locked Bag 588
Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, 2678
Australia
e-mail: adunn (at) csu.edu.au

[Work by Andrea Cornwall was referred to previously in Message 53. The farmer first extension model emphasises the important role that farmers have to play in research and extension from the bottom up (e.g. Foster et al, 1995, http://www.joe.org/joe/1995august/a1.html). Action research is a family of research methodologies which pursue action and research outcomes at the same time, having therefore some components which resemble consultancy or change agency, and some which resemble field research. (e.g. Dick, 2000, http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/guide.html ...Moderator].

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 06 February 2005 12:58
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 81: Who pays for the public involvement in decision-making

This is David Steane again.

Regarding 'who pays' at the level of public involvement in decision making: Once sound evidence is available (as discussed already), then further discussion will depend to some extent on the results. Given that an assessment of benefits and costs (not simply direct economic costs) is required, then again this should be part of the whole process and the government and involved companies should pay along with whoever else is directly involved in the planning, operating and scientific evaluation and reporting of results (this is part of the costs of the trials!). Once comprehensive, scientific information is available it makes the whole process much simpler. The methods of communication will depend on the country and its culture etc. but published data which can then be put into simple terminology makes it easier to do.

David Steane,
99 Moo 7 Baan Rong Dua, Thakwang,
SARAPHI, Chiang Mai 50140,
Thailand.
Tel/fax (66) 53 42 99 18
desteane (at) loxinfo.co.th

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 06 February 2005 13:16
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 82: How far should the rural public be involved

I am Yoel T Mesghenna again.

I just noted the interesting topic from message 43 (by John Nishio) about how far the public should be involved. I think it is how far the puplic is involved that has made the computer and recombinant technology to be old and new. Maybe there is no need to tell a rural farmer how a gene is transferred in the lab. What they want to know is how applicable and sustainable this technology is to their condition (seeing from biophysical apects, social and ethical issues etc ); what advantages will they get; Can they always go back to their own technology (e.g. their traditional non-GM crop) whenever the GMOs did not work for them or if they "did not like them" (like in the computerized world someone still can use hard copies or, in in case of drugs, communities are still using their own traditional medicines whenever they feel like or cannot afford to buy modern medicine..matter of individual choice!); What risks (to their ecology, health and other socio economic aspects) are involved and who will take care of such risks; are they compatible with their ethical laws?; Who will subsidize the technology in case they are not affordable (at least in their first implementation but also in maintaining or providing them like GMO seeds) by the rural people etc. Rural People need to know about this and not about its complex scientific background.

After doing this we will have different responses with regard to the acceptance of GMOs: Either directly adopted, modified in the way we use (e.g. rural people may want to have such technology on their non-edible crops but not on the others or farmers may want to grow them in separate areas...); or the rural people may want to continue with other technologies already available to them.

As long as clear, simple and understandable information on biotech and/or GMOs are not shared and discussed with the rural people the issue will always remain "NEW". And new implies a technology that has still to be adopted!

How many of the rural people are to be involved? Well I don't see why some of the comments are suggesting that the rural population is too large and it is a difficult process to involve them. GMOs is not the only issue that needs participation. Many other technologies and development programs have been tried, implemented together with public participation and there is enough experience on that - how many people and when, who and how are involved from the rural people. For instance, depending on the available and suitable system in that given area, the involvement may start with model farmers, community leaders or representatives, target farmers whatever we may call them and, depending on time and resources, the education, discussion and involvement will be expanded. Of course once it starts, the farmer to farmer information transfer will also be there. The difference of GMOs from other development initiatives is that the general public in developing countries has much less common knowledge and needs quite a lot of information ahead.

At the end, for me, rural people involvement does not necessary will mean a vote of "Yes" or "No" for GMOs. Otherwise it will require as to do a kind of referendum and get every individuals view, which simply is not practical. However the rural peoples involvement will enable us to understand the attitude/position and concerns of our rural public towards GMOs and see how to deal with it :- to go ahead with GMOs, try to adopt it with some modifications (for e.g. which crops?) or pull back from GMOs for that matter. This still means the rural people are involved in the decision making!

Yoel T Mesghenna
Eritrea
E.mail: Mty1973 (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 07 February 2005 10:10
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 83: Re: Who pays for the public involvement in decision-making

[Thanks to Craig Harris for the message below. I would like to remind you that we are now entering the last week of this 4-week long e-mail conference and that the final day for receiving messages for posting in the conference is Sunday 13 February. In this last week, we especially encourage those of you who have not already done so to contribute to this exchange on "Public participation in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries: How to effectively involve rural people", by addressing any of 15 questions listed in Section 6 of the background document and/or commenting on some of the many excellent messages that have already been posted in the conference...Moderator].

This is Craig Harris, a sociologist at Michigan State University, United States. I study the processes of social discourse that lead to beliefs and attitudes about biotechnology, and to public and private decisions about policies and programs concerning biotechnology.

It seems to me that the line of thinking in this thread assumes that it is possible through science to approach one correct answer, i.e., one fairly consensual estimate of the impacts, fairly unitary agreement on the costs and benefits of those impacts, and concurrence on the likelihood of those impacts. With this assumption, as David Steane (Message 81) says, published data and results can be put into simple terminology and distributed to the public.

I think this line of thinking is flawed for three reasons.

First, if we accept the "one correct answer" assumption, this is still only the beginning of public involvement in decision making. Each actor will still use her/his values and interests to calculate whether s/he is for or against the proposed biotechnology. These clashes of values and interests may still be highly contentious and rancorous, so public involvement will still need to be managed.

Second, I do not see much basis for the "one correct answer" assumption. It seems to me that, at all levels of scientific quality, the literature is still replete with widely divergent estimates of the impacts of various biotechnologies, their costs and benefits, and their probabilities. I think this is at least partly because these significant aspects of biotechnology are highly contextual, and thus difficult to estimate with laboratory studies or limited field trials.

Third, while it might be possible to reach some consensus on these scientific aspects, it is not clear that the scientists would have asked all the questions that public social decision makers want answered. That would suggest that, if one wants to try to achieve a scientific consensus, that science should itself be produced through a discursive or dialogic process involving public social decision makers. Some of the questions posed by social decision makers may be context specific; others may have to do with the comparison of biotechnology with alternative agricultural technologies for accomplishing the stated goals.

Craig K Harris
Department of Sociology
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station
Ntional Food Safety and Toxicology Center
Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards
Michigan State University
United States
Craig.Harris (at) ssc.msu.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 07 February 2005 17:17
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 84: Public involvement should not be aimed for a Yes/No answer

Thank you FAO for hosting this excellent conference with such diverse global expertise, it is very interesting and relevent.

Jorge E. Mayer (Message 66) has confidence in the regulatory process, promotes alliances between governments and companies and has confidence that information about agrichemicals and land management provided by the "experts" of the companies who sell the products is reliable. As a farmer I have serious concerns regarding the level of alliances between governments and companies as it appears to influence outcomes, have little trust in most countries regulatory process because it is reliant on such a narrow definition of health and environment and can certainly prove the promotional hype of GM does not accurately reflect reality.

Generally, governments are limited to inadequate assessment of health and environment when considering GM crops (hence Federal approval in Australia). However, Australian state governments are charged with authority over land use and can assess economic and market concerns including industry preparedness (hence States imposing moratoriums). I would recommend this inclusion in any legislation in order to address the issues more completely but some form of accountability needs to be integrated to ensure alliances between companies and governments does not influence outcomes.

Seeking a Yes/No answer on GM crops is too simplistic yet an unmanaged "Yes" is a desired outcome of the biotech industry. As mentioned by Atefeh Fooladi Moghaddam (Message 63) "If we suppose they were well informed about the pros and cons of this new technology, their decision would be yes or no. They would accept the new technology or deny it." and as pointed out by Prashant Joshi (Message 61) "Some developing countries accepted and some of them rejected the idea of GMOs." If preparing legislation, any public involvement should not be aimed for a Yes/No answer as the answer is obviously dependent on who you ask. Those with a vested interest in GM crops are understandably going to be on the supportive side of GM crops and those that will be impacted negatively by GM crops (consumers or farmers wishing to avoid GM foods or crops) will be opposed to its introduction. The majority of the public will be between these polarised views dependent on who they have relied on for information. Therefore public participation based on a Yes/No answer will be totally irrelevent and is nothing more than a spot poll to see who has distributed information the best.

We can learn from the mistakes that have occurred to date in the decision making process and public participation attempts. As mentioned by Joanna Goven (Message 59) many postings indicate a desire to persuade the rural population to accept GMOs which is a "mere legitimation exercise" and while this is the intention of those pushing GM crops, I agree it is irresponsible. Edo Lin (Message 56) explained the public participation in debates in 3 European counties, where the UK debate involved 20,000 people, yet "...none of the debates were efforts towards public decision making." This expensive exercise could have been aimed at a more practical approach of managing the problems identified. Health concerns were identified yet there appeared to be no resolution to find what health testing would be necessary to allay consumer fears. Contamination was identified as an issue yet there appeared to be no attempt at resolving the issues regarding contamination problems and associated fair coexistence protocols. To introduce a GM crop and to expect non-GM farmers to accept liability for economic loss associated with contamination with a product they do not want, needs to be reversed and the risks managed. If EU succumb to the US pressure under WTO, will they have resolved these critical issues in time? While Germany is prepared with a strict liability regime, how will other member states manage?

As mentioned by J. Lynne Brown (Message 52): "Risks and benefits are almost always biased by ones location in the hierarchy or food chain so a risk to one person is a benefit to another." While the GM industry will gain significantly from contamination because it will remove the competition from non-GM commodities, farmers and consumers will lose and accordingly government must intervene to address this imbalance.

Legislation must be based on accurate identification of risk and preparation of required risk management. To avoid being misled by the hefty promotional campaign, it is also essential to investigate how accurate the benefit claims are and if these benefits can be achieved by alternative means. Information relevent to adequate assessment must not be withheld for any reason. Before even calling for public involvement, this information should be investigated by contacting the relevent industries that can help with this information. In Australia, I have found the information required to investigate these issues thoroughly is not available and in many cases information required is claimed to be "commercial in confidence". Further intense investigation has revealed that the information withheld reveals the inadequacies of the GM crops which explains the reluctance to share this information. Information regarding performance and costs is the practical information farmers need and must be revealed.

Public involvement should then be asked to guage if the prepared risk management is considered adequate to address the risks involved and the information gained will assist the farming community to make unbiased decisions regarding growing the crop. This method of information collection and distribution will be a far cheaper option as it will involve far less confusion and avoid irreversible confusion and controversy.

Julie Newman
National Spokesperson
Network of Concerned Farmers
Newdegate 6355
West Australia
Australia
Phone 08 98711562
www.non-gm-farmers.com
julie at non-gm-farmers.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 08 February 2005 14:19
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 85: The Cartagena Protocol and public participation

This is Edo Lin, independent consultant.

Several contributors to this conference have suggested that it is the big multinationals that drive the biotechnology agenda in developing countries. Although it is certainly true that multinational companies have a vested interest (and not to forget the influence of donor countries and agencies), I think it might be useful to mention the legitimate desire expressed by developing countries to have access to biotechnology by referring to Article 16 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) which states (inter alia) that "Each Contracting Party, recognizing that technology includes biotechnology, and that both access to and transfer of technology among Contracting Parties are essential elements for the attainment of the objectives of this Convention, undertakes...". The CBD has now been ratified by 187 countries. (for the full text of the Convention see http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp).

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is an outcome of the CBD and, as already discussed in the background document to the conference and in several messages, it obliges the Contracting Parties to create public awareness etc. The UK Institute for Development Studies (IDS) reviewed in 2002 the Public Participation and the Cartagena Protocol in 16 countries representing a variety of different political cultures, regulatory structures and social attitudes towards technology and participation. The full report or the case studies can be downloaded at http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/env/biotech/pubsNBFs.html. One of the conclusions of the review is that promoting, consultation, participation and awareness raising requires taking into account the unique characteristics of each particular country's political, social and economic environment. These contextual factors will ultimately determine what is possible, realistic and desirable. This in particular means that it is vital to avoid the common mistake that particular policy models that appear to work well in one context may easily be imported or adopted in another setting. [The abstract of the report, by Glover, D. Keeley, J. Newell, P., McGee, R. et al., states "This commissioned report presents the findings of a review of the experience of different countries in fulfilling their obligations, under Article 23 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, to promote and facilitate public awareness and participation in the design and implementation of their national biosafety regulatory frameworks. The main part of the report discusses lessons to be learned from previous experience of involving the public in development policy, drawing on examples from 'poverty reduction strategy processes' and processes to elaborate 'national strategies for sustainable development'. Part 2 of the report presents short case studies from sixteen countries, including both developed and developing countries and parties and non-parties to the Biosafety Protocol. The countries discussed are Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Estonia, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Namibia, New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom, the United States and Zimbabwe"...Moderator].

Edo Lin
309 rue de Bombon
77720 Breau
France
e-mail: lin.edo (at) free.fr

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 08 February 2005 14:29
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 86: Views from Cuba

I am Ms Luis Plácido Ortega Izquierdo, head of projects in Augusto Cesar Sandino Cooperative in La Habana, Cuba. It is a cooperative of agricultural producers (190) growing mainly vegetables (8000 ton. a year) in over 700 ha. In our plans of development we are studying a large group of strategies which includes GM crops.

Unfortunately the amount of messages in growing into such a large number that it is getting very difficult to follow all of them. I think Michael Ferry and Sylvia Kosalko touched the most sensible points. In my opinion, politics and decision making should remain in goverments hands in each country, as far as they were appointed for this job by their voters. For this, of course, they should be capable of receiving the most accurate expert evaluation, and at the same time coordinating national strategies with global or international approaches. It absolutely does not mean that people, including farmers, should not be involved. I consider that people involvment requires in the first place an adequate education and an appropriate system of information (includes all possible ways, up to face-to-face if required) regarding the goverment decisions (and it not only refers to GMOs) and the criteria for it. Them the people, farmers or not, through their organizations could evaluate and judge how effectively their apointed have taken into acount their needs.

Luis Plácido Ortega Izquierdo Ms, MBA
Augusto Cesar Cooperative
Carretera La Salud, Km. 3 1/2.
San Antonio de los Baños.
La Habana,
Cuba.
email: cpaacsandino (at) sih.cu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 09 February 2005 14:30
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 87: Relevant and reliable information

Good Day to everyone that has participated in this conference. It is encouraging to see the variety and intensity of input. Thanks for the joint efforts. I am Bridget Hogg, Chemistry Lecturer at The College of The Bahamas.

I wish to speak about question 6.f in the background document: "Which mechanisms can be used to ensure that relevant and reliable information/content is provided by the above media?"

It is easy to "scare" the public or lull them into a "sense of security". It is so much more difficult to "inform and educate". I believe that the way to ensure that the content delivered is relevant and reliable is to make sure that the formal and informal media are provided with data that is unbiased, consistent and relevant. This can be done if there are national/regional bodies set up to prepare FACT SHEETS, that are just that, rather than opinion discussions. The fact sheets could also contain questions for discussion and for data gathering e.g. What do you (Rural citizen) know about GMOs, What are your current concerns about your farming/food purchasing/ etc practices ? What assistance, if any, do you need in improving your agricultural products / nutritional intake? etc. In this way, people would share a common knowledge base and have this base as a starting point for discussion of GMOs as relates to their individual and community situations. This would serve to define the terms and the issue.

Who should pay for distribution of information ? The GMO producers, local and national government and non governmental agencies should all contribute to the costs. Newspapers, TV, videotapes, websites, community leaders are all potential sources of information.

Bridget Hogg
The College of The Bahamas
Bahamas
adelphi (at) batelnet.bs

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 09 February 2005 15:37
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 88: Choice, information and representation, yes, but focus on the right issues

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

I am worried that some messages in this conference have expressed deep mistrust in governments and scientists, and used that as a reason to involve the rural population in decision making processes far removed from their expertise. Errors and abuses are committed everywhere, the more so in incipient democracies, no doubt about that. Yet, the consequence cannot be to take over the reins in every decision of everyday life (in my message (number 66) I already mentioned pharmaceuticals or novel foodstuff as examples); this level of involvement amounts to anarchy.

Having confidence in democratic structures does not mean absence of involvement. Appropriate representation at all levels must guarantee the working of control mechanisms, e.g. having peer-reviewed scientific opinions, morally and politically balanced decision making, and expert feedback in all these processes (farmers will be probably involved here). Decisions made by those who represent us at different levels must be transparent, and those who make them must be accountable for their deeds. If a level of control is missing, there must be mechanisms to establish that missing control point. Once those mechanisms are in place, there is no need for the general public to be involved in the minutia pertaining to that area.

In my former message, I have tried to avoid discussing topics that were handled in preceding conferences, like the equivalence of GMOs and their non GMO counterparts. This conference seems to take off from the premise that field performance of a trait generated through genetic manipulation is a priori different from one generated by other means—like introgression from the wild or mutagenesis; hence this conference is asking for the general public to judge the technology as such. [The aim of this conference, as with the other 11 that have been hosted so far, is to take one particular subject relevant to agricultural biotechnology in developing countries and provide a neutral platform for a moderated exchange of views/experiences on the subject. The subject of public participation in decision-making regarding GMOs is one receiving increasing attention by policy makers in recent years, where e.g. many developing country governments have recently adopted international agreements/guidelines with specific provisions regarding public awareness and participation. In this context, the hosting of an e-mail conference on this subject seemed timely and appropriate...Moderator].

Farmers can adopt or reject new varieties, GMO or non GMO. They can choose to use a new herbicide or not. A decision will be made based on economic and management considerations, not on how the gene was introduced. If a farmer will be made liable for “contaminating” the neighbour’s fields with its GM crop, then s|he may decide that the situation is unmanageable and therefore the variety will not be adopted. Such a decision would not have anything to do with the fact that it was a GM crop.

Without any doubt, I support the notion that farmers should have a choice — competition amongst companies as well as availability of public varieties — and plenty of information. They also deserve that strict adherence to international standards is observed by their respective countries in respect of handling and registration of agrichemicals, phytosanitary regulations, distribution channels, etc.

I would like to remind some participants that this conference is about farmers in developing countries. In my own experience, if a kid from a small farm finishes high school, s|he will usually leave the farm for a better paid job in a city. We have a moral responsibility to make sure that the information that reaches farmers is correct to the best of our knowledge. At the same time, we must consider our level of expectation if we want to let them vote on every new farm product, because that is the level of consequence we should derive from this conference. If we’re asking for small farmers in developing country to decide whether they want GMOs or not, we must let them decide on every innovation we’d like to introduce into their farms. I would like to make this one point clear to the participants: I don’t want to disempower the farmers, I only want you to focus on the right issues. Most people have already made up their minds in respect of GMOs. If you think that GMOs are dangerous by virtue of the technology applied, then make sure that they are rejected already at the highest levels, don’t wait until they reach the fields. If, on the contrary, you believe that the trait is what counts, then again, meet the registration decisions at the official level and let the farmers decide on the usefulness of the trait.

By allowing everyone to have their say, sound projects can be delayed and sometimes even made impossible. In this way, opponents of the technology can achieve their goal by the tactic of 'divide et impera' (divide and rule).

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: 09 February 2005 16:53
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 89: Indigenous people

This is Edo Lin, independent consultant.

Question 6d of the conference background paper addresses the question of indigenous people (i.e. "Should specific considerations be given to involving indigenous communities in decision-making regarding GMOs? If so, how can this best be achieved?").

The International decade of the world's indigenous people (1994-2004) has just ended and a draft UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous people will hopefully be finalised soon. In Article 30 of this draft, indigenous people have the right to determine and develop priorities for the development or use of their lands, territories and other resources. Chapter 26 of Article 21 (Rio Earth Summit) states, inter alia, that arrangements shall be made for indigenous people to participate in national formulation of policies, laws and programmes related to resource management and development that may affect them. There are many other International fora which have expressed the rights of indigenous people regarding the ownership, management and use of their natural resources and the right to consultation prior to, during and after, development activities are implemented.

I think that it therefore clear that indigenous people should also be consulted in matter of biotechnology and biosafety. This is especially important when you take into account that there are several kinds of knowledge needed in the debate and that traditional or indigenous knowledge can make an important contribution.

How to involve indigenous people in the debate is another question which needs addressing. Indigenous people are often marginalised in society and law. On 17-19 January of this year, the Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (SPFII) organised an expert workshop on "Methodologies regarding free, prior and informed consent and indigenous people". The workshop proceedings are not yet available but could give a better insight into the question of how we can facilitate the full participation of indigenous people.

Edo Lin
309, rue de Bombon
77720 Breau
France
e-mail: lin.edo(at)free.fr

[- Official documents relating to the draft United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples can be found at http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/groups/groups-02.htm.
- At the UN Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, participating countries signed three agreements not binding in international law (Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration, Statement of Forest Principles) and two legally binding conventions (Framework Convention on Climate Change, Convention on Biological Diversity). Chapter 26 of Article 21 is available at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21chapter26.htm
- The draft agenda of the meeting referred to in the final paragraph is available at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/panels/freeprior_training.htm ...Moderator].

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 09 February 2005 17:39
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 90: Modelling the farmer making adoption decisions in a social vacuum

This is Glenn Stone, again.

Jorge Mayer (Message 88) writes "Farmers can adopt or reject new varieties, GMO or non GMO. They can choose to use a new herbicide or not. A decision will be made based on economic and management considerations, not on how the gene was introduced. If a farmer..". This greatly oversimplifies the factors affecting adoption, especially in developing countries.

Farmers adopt partly for cultural reasons. A good recent example appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 102(3), 2005: "Maize diversity and ethnolinguistic diversity in Chiapas, Mexico" by Perales, Benz and Brush. It shows that ethnolinguistic groups plant their own landraces of maize that aren't necessarily the best adapted to their area.

I am studying adoption of cotton types in Andhra Pradesh (both GM and conventional) and finding strong local preferences that have little or no agronomic basis. The local favorites have more to do with social processes. (There is a group of anthropologists, led by Boyd and Richerson, who have written about some of these processes.)

Farmers tend to rely increasingly on social processes (e.g. emulation, or seeking out others' interpretations of agricultural phenomena) as information becomes more variable and outcomes less predictable. In Andhra Pradesh, there is a much stronger pattern of local "noneconomic" favorites in cotton production -- where all the variables are highly variable and results unpredictable -- than in rice or gram production.

So you can't model the farmer as making adoption decisions in a social vacuum based on adequate agro-economic information. You have to look more synthetically at the system. If you're interested in GMOs, you can't simply ask how the Bt affects bollworms, you have to ask the broader question of how the introduction of GM crops affects the farmers' information environment. The more the technology and all the hoopla surrounding it increases the variability and unpredictability of agricultural information, the more farmers will rely on social processes rather than individual environmental assessments.

Glenn Davis Stone
Prof. of Anthropology and Environmental Studies
Washington University
St. Louis, MO 63130
U.S.A.
stone (at) wustl.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 10 February 2005 10:36
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 91: Questions 6a to 6f: Fiji

I am Permal Deo and work as a Lecturer at the University of South Pacific, Laucala Campus, Fiji Islands. I teach Food Science courses which include sections on GM foods. I must admit that the resource material provided before the session is very comprehensive and to me as an academic it is a good reference material.

I understand that Ruci Dakunimata (Message 73) did highlight Fiji (developing country) status in respect to GM foods and its concerns are still based on advocating (media and workshops) public. However, there is no concerns raised on the growers or farmers. Moreover, interest in this area has promoted the University to take a research project to address the continuing problem of Dalo (rootcrop) disease which is currently costing farmers a lot. This project will be undertaken in collaboration with Australian Universities.

Giving priorities at all levels of decision making will bring more incentives for the rural farmers. Involving these vulnerable people wil raise incentives among themselves and hence their role under a wider scope of biotechnology. One might object to that, since most of the rural farmers are uneducated (certainly applicable to developing countries), however we should not forget that they have the skills hence translating information into laymans terms and into vernacular will create more healthy inputs at all levels.

I certainly feel that while introducing a variety of crop or choosing the varieties that might best suit an area. These rural farmers will have ample knowledge on the crops they grow (cultivating).

Reaching to remote areas could be difficult due to geographical location and moreover if there are a number of small islands. However, use of community workers has proven to be a great success in relation to health information or agriculture. The same principles could be used where community advisors could be used. These advisors are regarded higher within the community and the locals will definitely feel comfortable working with this groups.

Involving rural community at all levels is important rather than targeting specific groups. However, special attention or special needs could be addressed when needed.

Further to Ruci Dakunimata's message (nr. 73), radio has proven to be a great success in advocating information. In Fiji, radio programmes are in the 3 main languages (English, Hindi and Fijian). In addition, special programmes are also aired especially in areas of agriculture and health related diseases. The programme of agricuture could be made a prime target since most rurual community workers use this.

Use of vernacular languages through the means of radio would be most appropriate. In addition, the community advisors would be another means since they would speak the same dialect of the farmers concerned.

Permal Deo, MAIFST, MIFST
Department of Biology
School of Pure and Applied Sciences
The University of the South Pacific
Laucala Campus, Fiji Islands
Ph: +679 3212567; 3212296 ; 3212415
Fax : + 679 3315601; Mobile: 9935533
Email: Deo_P (at) usp.ac.fj

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 10 February 2005 11:25
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 92: Leave the decisions on biosafety to the experts and national regulatory bodies

I am Dr. C.R. Bhatia (India), plant geneticist and breeder with over forty years involvement in genetic improvement of crops using hybridization, mutations, tissue culture and recombinant DNA (genetic engineering) methods. I have retired from field and bench research but continue international and national consultancy in agricultural biotechnology.

In general, all types of farmers, rich or poor, with large or small holdings, would like to have the freedom to choose the crop cultivars to grow. They will grow the cultivar/hybrid that enhances productivity, value, and in the end the net monetary return through reduced production cost, pesticide applications and labor. They will willingly pay higher cost of the seed for planting when convinced that the net returns would be higher. Only uncertainties of the growing season – drought or excess rain, and lack of cash to purchase seed, fertilizers and pesticides influences the investment decisions of farmers based on their own experience and estimation of risk–return. The farmers should always have the freedom to choose unless they opt for contractual farming.

How to arrive at the right choice? Even illiterate farmers in developing countries know very well what traits they would like in their crops – insect resistance, disease resistance, early maturity etc. However, they do not know what makes one cultivar resistant and the other highly susceptible and how resistant cultivars are developed. I wonder how anyone, including professional science communicators can explain genetic engineering to illiterate farmers who have no idea what is a cell, chromosome, or gene. I used to teach basic biology to engineering graduates, and believe me a majority would not know for certain how the sex of the child is determined, and the X and Y chromosomes. The ignorance is widespread even in literate population of the developed countries. Results of a survey in USA revealed that about 45% of the respondents were not aware that there are genes in the non GE crops. They carried the notion that the GE crops have the genes, and they would not like to eat genes. Farmers understand, and can differentiate between two resistant cultivars, but not the process – hybridization or genetic engineering - used for developing them. How can the possible environmental concerns of the gene conferring resistance transferred using GE versus that of another gene incorporated by hybridization be explained to the farmers?

The responses depend on the way the information is given, and the questions are framed. If it is told that the GE cultivar has been developed by the intrusion of the scientists (devils) in the God’s creation, the majority would say – NO; this should not be permitted at any cost. On the other hand, when they have experienced that a particular GE cultivar is not attacked by the insect pest, and is advantageous for them, they will go and plant it even if it is against the law as was the case of illicit Bt cotton in part of India.

Hence, to my mind the right approach should be to leave the decisions on biosafety to the experts, and the national regulatory bodies, as is followed in health care, foods and beverages, consumer goods and most other products. Does the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) obtain the opinion of the diabetics before approving recombinant human insulin in any country? No, to the best of my knowledge. After the approval, follow the participatory approach, organize demonstrations, and explain all the terms and conditions – high cost of seed, need to grow refugia etc. associated with the GE crop in a transparent manner.

Dr. C. R. Bhatia
Postal: 17 Rohini, Plot no. 29-30, Sector 9-A, Vashi,
New Bombay – 400 703,
India
e-mail: neil (at) bom7.vsnl.net.in

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 10 February 2005 11:26
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 93: Re: Choice, information and representation, yes, but focus on the right issues

It seems that Jorge Mayer (Message 88) forgets that the farmers are also consumers and forgets than in some countries the majority of the consumers do not want to eat GMOs. The reasons for this mistrust are various and as respectable as any other alimentation choice. One of these reasons can perfectly be the technical origin of the GMOs. Some people do not eat pork meat, some other have complicated alimentation rules, other prefer to eat organic products. All these choices are respectable and Jorge Mayer is wrong when he claims that denegating the GMOs for its technical origin is not also a respectable reason. There is nothing more cultural and more essential than food. In fact, most of the people that refuse the GMOs advance much more various and complex reasons, into which I don't want to enter here - other FAO conferences have been organized for this purpose.

This conference is on the involvement of the farmers. Clearly, as myself and others have already underlined here, the question of the content of unbiased information remains to be solved before asking how to involve the farmers. One of these pieces of information, for example, is to state that most of the European consumers refuse to eat GMOs products. Their rejection has not appeared in the USA because until now only less than half of Americans (48%) were aware that such products are currently for sale in supermarkets, and less than a third (31%) believed they had personally consumed GM foods (the Food Policy Institute, 2004). If some GMOs have been authorized in Europe recently, it is only because the USA have established a very strong push. This information of the non acceptance by the majority of the European consumers is important to communicate to the farmers of the South not only because it could make them think about the introduction of these type of plants in their consumption but because it can have direct consequences on their difficulty to export their products if they are GMOs.

Michel Ferry
Scientific Director
Research Station on Date Palm and Oasis Farming Systems
Apartado 996
03201 Elche
Spain
tel: 34.965421551
fax: 34.965423706
Email: m.ferry (at) wanadoo.es

[The report referred to in the final paragraph is Hallman, W. K., Hebden, W. C., Cuite, C. L., Aquino, H. L., and Lang, J. T.. 2004. Americans and GM Food: Knowledge, Opinion and Interest in 2004. (Publication number RR-1104-007). New Brunswick, New Jersey; Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey http://www.foodpolicyinstitute.org/docs/reports/NationalStudy2004.pdf ...Moderator].

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 10 February 2005 11:27
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 94: Re: Choice, information and representation, yes, but focus on the right issues

This is Tracey McCowen from Canada. I am an independent bioethics consultant and a third generation farmer.

I would like to respond to Jorge Mayer's message 88. Although I like Dr. Mayer's point of empowering the farmer, I fear from experience that choice will not lead to farmer empowerment. I will use an anecdotal example to explain. Southern Ontario, where I live and farm, has a very high ratio of farmers growing Bt corn; well over sixty percent of corn acreage has been planted to Bt-corn in recent years. In 2003, strong winds and cool nights in September caused a tremendous amount of lodging. Everybody thought that the damage was ubiquitous, in time, though, it became apparent that it was over-whelmingly the Bt-corn that lodged, certainly some varieties of Bt-corn were stronger than others, but Bt-corn did not stand as well as non-Bt varieties. At the "farm Breakfast" the following February, we were told that the Bt varieties had not been bred for stalk strength, (that is what our seed distributor told us anyway.) The point is that the farmers had to cover the cost of a poor harvest. Small farmers, like farmers in developing countries, tend not to have crop insurance. With commodity prices at an all time low level, this leaves very little margin for bad harvests, or other calamities, such as BSE.

As a bioethicist I also have the unique position in conducting research. In an ongoing survey study of farmers growing Bt-corn in Ontario, I had the opportunity to ask farmers if, given the poor harvests, they would stop using the more expensive Bt technology. A number of farmers responded that they didn't feel that they had a choice since the seed companies were no longer producing non-Bt varieties suitable for their area. To be sure, this was not the majority response, but it points to the question of farmer choice raised by Jorge Mayer. Farmer "choice" is not such a straight forward option.

With regards to peer reviewed research; it takes a long time to collect data, and it is almost impossible to get funding; we are funded by a very small internal university grant.

Thank you for these informative conferences.

Tracey McCowen M.Be.
Kingswood Farm
1314 King-Vaughan Rd
Maple, ON L6A 2A5
Canada
tmccowen (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 10 February 2005 11:28
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 95: Re: Choice, information and representation, yes, but focus on the right issues

Jorge Mayer (Message 88) explained well the common views of the scientists involved in producing GM crops and these views are understandable. However, it needs to be understood that farmers can not have the choice to accept or reject the GM varieties simply because their choice to grow GM will impact negatively on other farmers. Contamination will happen, markets are rejecting GM crops and non-GM farmers will be negatively impacted accordingly. This is why government intervention is necessary to assess and manage the economic risk and ensure industry preparedness is adequate to manage the issues.

As farmers we received legal advice from our Federal government regarding liability issues and it is clear that the liability for contamination rests with the non-GM farmer for economic loss associated with another farmer growing GM crops. This is because of signed contractual agreements claiming a "non-GM" status for contaminated grain that is not considered "non-GM". Although the non-GM farmer could sue his neighbour for recompense (highly unlikely to happen in a third world country) the case would be very difficult to prove... which neighbour? were they negligent ? did they follow the crop management plan prepared by the company (which we already know will not address the problem) ? etc. See http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1520. Just as governments will not promote the artistic sector by allowing them to vandalise property with graffitti, governments can not promote the research and development sector to the detriment of the agricultural sector by allowing the conventional crops produced by the farming sector to be contaminated with a GM product that markets are rejecting. As discussed, the key issue with GM crops that needs to be addressed is liability because the associated liability for the economic loss associated with contamination should not rest with those farmers that choose not to grow GM crops. It is not anarchy, it is fair risk management that must be addressed by governments and must be addressed prior to any GM crops being introduced. How governments address this problem is the challenge.

Julie Newman
Network of Concerned Farmers
www.non-gm-farmers.com
P.O. Box 6
Newdegate, 6355
West Australia
Australia
Ph 08 98711562
Fax 08 98711584
email julie (at) non-gm-farmers.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 10 February 2005 11:29
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 96: Re: Modelling the farmer making adoption decisions in a social vacuum

From Tony Dunn:

Re Glenn Stone's contribution (Message 90) on 'social factors' in adoption:

I strongly agree with you Glenn. What you say is apt - in fact so much human behaviour is socially driven - even determined, and yet do I detect some Margaret Thatcherisms in the scientific debate we are having, namely ...there is no such thing as society...!

Anthony Dunn
School of Agriculture
Charles Sturt University
Locked Bag 588
Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, 2678
Australia
e-mail: adunn (at) csu.edu.au

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 11 February 2005 09:51
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 97: Contribution from Madagascar

This is from Xavier Rakotonjanahary, a plant breeder using mostly conventional methods (hybridization, mutation) for many years and I am currently working on rice and legumes in a national research center. My country, Madagascar, is economically agricultural-based and rice is the main crop. I have been following the debate with much attention as GM plants are becoming more and more important, not only in industrial crops but also in food crops. Many things have been said and maybe, I will probably repeat what was said. I thank the participants who have been giving their comments and the organizers for this interesting conference.

The involvement of rural people in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries is not an easy task as it embraces many aspects from education to seed and food markets and agro-technical concerns. Regarding specific questions in Section 6 of the background document:

Question 6a: The priority governments should give to involving the rural people in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries is education, information, public awareness and promotion of GMO. A pre-requisite for that is governments and public officers are convinced that GMO are definitely better than non GMO.

Question 6b: The most important situations in which the rural people in decision-making regarding GMOs would be included are that GMO are efficient for improving the income and livelihood of rural people.

Question 6c: The public participation opportunities are 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) in the traditional ways: this is mainly exchange from farmer to farmer and from farmer organizations.

Question 6d: Specific considerations which should be given to involving indigenous communities in decision-making regarding GMOs are the cost of GMO. Usually, new technologies are expensive that poor farmers cannot afford; so, this could be achieved at least for the first step of spreading GMO by providing GMO quality seeds at a reasonable price.

Question 6f: The mechanisms which could be used to ensure that relevant and reliable information/content is provided by the above media are field demonstrations, and/or at least video projections in order to familiarize the rural people with GMO.

Question 6g: The main information and communication needs of the rural people related to GMOs are a simple, but complete and unbiased information. To respond to these needs, farmer organizations are needed. Of course, most appropriate approaches are information, field demonstration and GMO seed promotion. Field demonstration will show technical advantages over traditional varieties (herbicide resistance, pest resistance, etc,...). Local languages will be more appropriate.

I would like to add that GMO could be distinguished as GM crops (or animals) and the GM foods (derived from living organisms). Whereas for the former, risks are contamination of non-GM crops in the surrounding fields and seed dependance on big companies, for the latter, risks of toxicity and allergenicity were propagated by anti-GMO groups. Personnally, I am convinced that in the future, science will wipe out these drawbacks. However, I would like to finish by raising some questions, which maybe are beyond the scope of this conference. What is exactly the reality about toxicity and allergenicity ? If it is true, is there progress in reducing allergenicity/toxicity of GM foods? How costly are the GM seeds compared to conventional seeds? About rice, I understand that there are two GMO varieties: the Bt and the Golden rice. How is the extension of cultivated area under these varieties ? What may be needed to improve the GM rice varieties ?...[No GM rice varieties have been commercially released to date. Participants wishing to respond to Xavier's points/questions raised in this paragraph are asked to reply to him personally and not to the conference...Moderator].

Xavier Rakotonjanahary
Plant breeder
National Center of Applied Research for Rural Development
BP 1690, Antananarivo 101
Madagascar
e-mail: r.xavier (at) simicro.mg
Tel: 261 20 22 602 38

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 11 February 2005 11:28
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 98: GMOs and decision-making in Africa

I am Gabriel Mbassa, a Professor of veterinary anatomy and cell biology, researcher on biotechnological control of a cattle disease East Coast Fever, and production of other biotechnology product, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.

First, I thank FAO for organizing this e-conference on “Public participation in decision-making regarding GMOs in developing countries: How to effectively involve rural people" (and on other themes in the past).

Before coming to specific theme questions, I would like to discuss some factual issues related to development, uses, decisions, marketing and acceptance of GMOs. Why GMOs for only developing countries, why not developed countries? Edo Lin (Message 13) says that none of the GM crops have been approved for food or feed in EU. The theme of the conference gives an impression that a decision has already been made, that there are GMO producers seeking for markets in developing countries. This is obviously not suprising, from the events we see in our developing countries. This leads us to another question: who is the beneficiary of GMOs, the producers or the people in the developing countries? Obviously, the former are the beneficiaries, a market problem for a GMO producer is turned into a problem of deemed client, particularly the weak developing countries. But a good product markets itself. It does not need to formulate an agenda to force people to use it. It does also not need the World Bank or FAO to decide on who to use it. The theme of the conference shows also that FAO is extremely far away from reality of peasants in Africa (other developing countries may be different). African peasants are powerless, information-less, starving, and in abject poverty living on less than 20 USA cents a day. Africa has not moved an economic development inch. In fact, majority of people are worse off today than 1990’s, but there has developed a post-colonial institution of corruption and robbery; a community of highly corrupt people who are non-farmers, non-producers but are major recipients of so called donor aid which they consume in urban areas in allowances and fuel, together with donors themselves. [Section 2 of the background document to the conference gives a brief overview of the current status regarding GMOs in the crop, forestry, livestock, fisheries and agro-industry sectors. It indicates e.g. that "Estimates for 2003 indicate that the United States, Argentina, Canada, Brazil and China accounted for 63, 21, 6, 4 and 4% respectively of the global transgenic acreage, and that GM soybean, maize, cotton and canola comprised 61, 23, 11 and 5% respectively of the 68 million hectares" and that "The commercial release of GM trees has been reported only in China (ca. 1.4 million poplar trees in 2002)"...Moderator].

Rural communities in development countries are different from country to country. In Africa, rural people have no food, water, no roads or any other infrastructure, medical care and their priority is to find food and water for that day. So how do you tell people in such harsh living to decide on GMOs, which they don’t know what they are?

There are only a few “researchers” in Africa (most countries) who know about GMO; the public rural or urban does not know and does not seek to know for very basic reasons, poverty and lack of education. Food production in rural Africa is done by the same poor peasants for years and years in their struggle for survival on their own. Even if you give them free of charge super-GMOs they have no appropriate land system and the means to produce. No formal systems are available to facilitate production by rural people. In fact they struggle even to keep a small piece of land, otherwise it would be taken by officials and fake officials.

The governments are tightly gripped by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank under force to sell companies, guarantee tax free mineral exploration for direct transportation to the West. The African educated people employed at miniature salaries, and the business population survive by manipulating donor funds, government contracts and government money collected from taxes under laws that are strict for poor people only. The educated, employed, business groups have no interest in knowing what GMOs are and don’t care whether a decision is reached for or against use or distribution of any GMO. To impart any success in African development, including GMO, African countries have to be brought to a level of education and governance that cares for the people. Colonially set governing systems that care for a few individuals must be dismantled, groups of selfish people colluding with foreigners/donors to rob resources while pretending to help the poor people must be eradicated. These are the first steps to bring dignity and prosperity to the people of Africa.

I wish also to give comments on who holds decisions in most of African countries. In the perceived poor countries of Africa, decisions on all matters or are not entirely national, including therefore GMO. The national level decision advanced by Edo Lin (Message 13) is only a theoretical process. The key players on everything are IMF and World Bank or the West. African governments are only told to sign. It then follows that public participation or what we call involving rural people on decision making is just pretence or hypocrisy. Yes we can ask the rural people some questions, then so what? If they decide against a certain GMO will their decision be honored? No, the World Bank will overrule, FAO will overrule, the producers will lobby or bribe the World Bank and government so that they sell whatever GMO product they pretend to have developed including fake GMO.

Gabriel Mbassa
Department of Veterinary Anatomy,
Sokoine University of Agriculture,
Morogoro,
Tanzania
mbassa (at) suanet.ac.tz

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 11 February 2005 11:34
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 99: Rural people must be consulted and given the right information

I am Antonio M. Claparols, president of the Ecological Society of the Philippines.

I would like to thank FAO for the debate and trust that it would result to a better world.

Having heard many arguments, I agree that rural peoples/farmers must be consulted and given the right information. The farmers are smart people - they know their farms, soils, the weather patterns best. They have been doing it for centuries. With reference to how rural folks can get involved in the decision process: It is very hard as they are not given proper and accurate information as well as they are pushed against the wall making them unable to participate in the decision making process properly. The information and transparency must be given to them for them to properly participate.

Antonio M. Claparols
President
Ecological Society of the Philippines
53 Tamarind Rd.
Forbes Park, Makati City
Philippines
fax-63-2-6317357
jamc (at) mozcom.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 11 February 2005 12:38
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 100: The need for independent oversight of GMO introduction

I am Glenn Ashton, a founder member of SAFeAGE – the South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering - networking a widely representative group of civil society groups, from faith based, to unions, NGOs and scientists, who demand a ban on GMOs until such a time as the necessity, desirability and safety of GMOs has been transparently demonstrated. SAFeAGE is biggest national network of GM sceptics on the continent. The views expressed are my own.

It is worth noting that even in free and democratic nations like South Africa that GMOs have been forced upon the populace, urban and rural, with no consultation or biosafety monitoring whatsoever, all against strong national democratic opposition.

I remain somewhat nonplussed by the sharp divide between proponents and those who are not necessarily opposed but who express concerns - not just about the relevance of the technology but about how GMOs are proposed to be evaluated, decided upon and then, if accepted as relevant, how they are to be delivered and monitored.

I am concerned to see many scientists – who often have a stake in the technology – standing upon the pulpit of science and insisting that only science based issues can be considered, while ignoring relevant and well-founded counterarguments. Worse, the blind rejection of economic, social, biosafety or cultural concerns as irrelevant is arrogant, racist and cynical.

There appears to be an inherent sense of elitism amongst GMO proponents. It is presumptuous to consider that scientists or the educated elite possesses superior levels of wisdom than less educated members of the general population. It is even more presumptuous to assume that the smoke and mirrors of ‘sound science’ can trump human and societal values. It is unacceptable in 2005 to maintain such positions or to suggest that people who do not understand genetics are incapable of gaining a good grasp of the agronomic, economic, social and practical consequences of GMOs.

Some of the most important contributions in this conference have emanated from social scientists and ethicists who have provided precisely the sort of analysis needed to properly unpack this technology for its intended recipients.

How do we inform rural people about the technology? Firstly those imparting the knowledge should not be stakeholders, such as TNCs (transnational corporations). Secondly, informants should work with relevant members of local communities through train-the-trainers programmes, imbizos (information sharing sessions) and through open debate. [A South African imbizo is traditionally “a gathering called by a traditional leader” but also “a meeting or workshop” http://www.safrica.info/what_happening/news/features/saoxford.htm ...Moderator].

We cannot allow, as in South Africa, the pursuit of public-private-partnerships between state and corporate interests in a perverse attempt to redress extension shortcomings. Major GMO TNCs are shamelessly working with and through front companies, producing newsletters supplying highly biased material, running training programmes for emerging farmers, all the while promoting their interests.

There are also cases of TNC working with state agrarian reform programmes, supplying a full range of government subsidised inputs that apparently includes herbicide resistant seed and chemicals, coupled to their ‘extension services’. Thus hopelessly skewed information is imparted to unsophisticated remote rural farmers who have never before seen an extension officer. There is no independent oversight, nor are baseline or comparative data produced or shared in many of these cases. Product promotion and producer dependence is the primary aim of such programmes.

It would be far more relevant for local/regional evaluation projects to be run, using direct methods of comparison of various agricultural technologies, each supplied with matching resource levels. Proper datasets must be agreed upon and supplied by independent agronomists in order to ascertain valid parameters, suitable to local needs and environments.

Local farmer participation will ensure that only those technologies that are relevant and sustainable to local needs are adapted. Rural farmers must be led by practical example, not by the nose.

Glenn Ashton
Director
Ekogaia Foundation
P. O. Box 222
Noordhoek 7979
Cape Town
South Africa
phone 27 (0) 21 7890 1751
ekogaia (at) iafrica.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 11 February 2005 12:50
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 101: bottom-top or top-bottom approach

I am Gabriel Mbassa, again.

It is not difficult to involve rural and urban people in any decision at all. All rural and urban people can be reached by visit, house to house. Any genuine mechanism to involve them to decide can be made, for to reach a decision, provided there is a genuine GMO product and the will of responsible people. There should be a clear proof that people are mobilized to decide on a genuine GM material not on a matter that carries a hidden motive to exploit or rob them, as normally happens in developing countries, Africa in particular. If there is any doubt on composition, on safety, on qualification, or motive of introducing any GMO there is no need even to involve the people. It should be rejected at international level to save the countries where laws and control is overrun by World Bank and IMF or irrelevant international organs.

In this case any GMO must provide all information. There should not be confidential information at all. The confidential information is the disease.

Is there real bottom-top approach or top-bottom approach? Generally there is no real bottom-top approach in any system and any community. People move from the top to the bottom to tell the bottom people what to do in order be seen by the donor as bottom-top decision. But any representative selected or appointed invited to a seminar, workshop, conference, meeting by the project donor, paid for allowances, transport accommodation and meals speaks in favour of the donor, not the people. In addition to this, the proceedings are written by project staff with words and conclusions, decisions, recommendations framed by project staff, designed to please the donor to continue to give funds. The whole system is top-bottom, with middle agent operating and manipulating top and bottom groups.

People have to be brought to a level of development, human freedom and economic freedom to choose what they want. At the moment it is premature to web poor people on advanced matters intended to benefit developed countries.

Gabriel Mbassa
Department of Veterinary Anatomy,
Sokoine University of Agriculture,
Morogoro,
Tanzania
mbassa (at) suanet.ac.tz

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 11 February 2005 16:08
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 102: Re: The need for independent oversight of GMO introduction

Me again, John Nishio.

I am concerned by recent postings about the integrity of science and scientists during the present conference. In Message 100, Glenn Ashton writes: "I am concerned to see many scientists - who often have a stake in the technology - standing upon the pulpit of science and insisting that only science based issues can be considered, while ignoring relevant and well-founded counterarguments. Worse, the blind rejection of economic, social, biosafety or cultural concerns as irrelevant is arrogant, racist and cynical."

One could say, "And vice versa." To wit, "I am concerned to see many Anti-RMO proponents - who often have a stake in the organic food industry - standing upon the pulpit of sustainability and the environment and insisting that only socio-economic and health based issues can be considered, while ignoring relevant and well-founded counterarguments. Worse, the blind rejection of science as irrelevant is arrogant, racist and cynical."

From Message 100: "There appears to be an inherent sense of elitism amongst GMO proponents. It is presumptuous to consider that scientists or the educated elite possesses [sic] superior levels of wisdom than less educated members of the general population. It is even more presumptuous to assume that the smoke and mirrors of 'sound science' can trump human and societal values. It is unacceptable in 2005 to maintain such positions or to suggest that people who do not understand genetics are incapable of gaining a good grasp of the agronomic, economic, social and practical consequences of GMOs."

Recently in the fall 2004 election in Butte County California, an anti-GE initiative was soundly defeated by the voters. The folks leading the "pro-GE" cause were the producers and ranchers. Anti-GE funds came from San Francisco and Idaho, but the pro-GE people raised almost all their funds locally. NO funds from any of the players such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, etc. contributed. The local farmers were very effective in their efforts to defeat the Anti-GE initiative here. The producers in Butte County, California, who understand the “agronomic, economic, social, and practical consequences of GMO’s” might take offense to being called “elitist”.

[This thread is now cut - participants wishing to continue it can contact the message authors personally. On another issue, John Nishio also points out that a statement by Gabriel Mbassa in Message 98 is incorrect i.e. "Edo Lin (Message 13) says that none of the GM crops have been approved for food or feed in EU". The website of the European Commission states "Until 18 April 2004, GM food was regulated as novel food, and food derived from eighteen GM events have been approved so far (essentially maize and soy derivatives, oilseed rape oil and cottonseed oil). There was no specific legislation covering GM feed, but nine GM events (five maize varieties, three rape varieties and one soy variety) have been approved under the EU environmental legislation so far, and these approvals include the use as or in feedingstuffs". More details can be found on that website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/food/biotechnology/authorisation/index_en.htm) ...Moderator].

John N. Nishio
Biocompatible Plant Research Institute
College of Natural Sciences
California State University
United States
Chico, CA 95929--0555
Phone: 530.898.4589
Fax: 530.898.4363
JNishio (at) csuchico.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: 11 February 2005 17:34
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 103: Involving rural people at household/farm or national level

My apologies for coming in at the back end of the discussion. I’m Maria Protz, a development communications consultant based in Jamaica. I recently had the privilege of providing some modest technical advice to support the Government of Grenada’s process of public involvement in biosafety (as part of the support provided through FAO’s Biosafety Capacity Building initiative). My thoughts are set within this specific Caribbean context.

I’ve been very impressed with the geographical range of the comments and the diversity of experience represented - farmers, scientists, lawyers, academics, anthropologists, activists, communicators, bioethics specialists, consumer affairs specialists and would like to thank FAO and congratulate them for hosting this conference.

I have found the dialogue extremely interesting and highly indicative of the challenges that do in fact face ‘public participation’ in general about GMOs. It is a highly emotive and complex subject, but its urgency makes it imperative to find concrete ways of focusing and ensuring that healthy dialogue does in fact take place.

My attention is first drawn back to the specific task we were asked to address in the Background Document: "...discussion in the conference will not consider the issues of whether GMOs...should or should not be used or the attributes, positive or negative, of GMOS themselves, but instead how the rural people in developing countries can be effectively involved in the decision-making process regarding production, release or import of GMOs".

So as a confirmed practitioner, I wish to offer a few reflections on what has been said, and to humbly offer some practical contributions to the questions we were asked to address in Section 6 of the Background Document:

At the first level (i.e. (1) above), the answer is obviously yes - as several persons have noted, but it is also true to say here that scientists and biotechnology experts, researchers, environmental experts, lawyers and other experts should be equally involved and that they may have much more of the upfront loading work to do in the process, as the experts. Do farmers need to understand detailed scientific information about genetic structure, specific laboratory techniques, all the nitty gritty details and ‘hard science’ behind GMOs and so forth - no, probably not. But they do need to be involved in confirming or rejecting certain legislative and regulatory structures for a number of reasons I’d like to soon mention in addressing Question (6b).

At the second rural or farm household level (i.e. (2) above) - the answer is obviously also yes, that rural people should be involved as the primary stakeholders, but here the technocrats will have little use. Farming by performance (a la Richards)- as well as science - is how the farm family ultimately makes the decisions. However, these farm-level decisions will be influenced or constrained by those at the first order, higher legislative and regulatory level, so it is important that rural people are involved at that level as well.

Several situations or ‘issues’ are critical for feedback of rural people in the GMO debate. Those at the household or farm level are perhaps most obvious because they affect rural people most directly:

In short - there are several orders of decision-making that are involved - not just one question that needs to be answered 'yes' or 'no' as other commentators have noted. These are just a few of the practical issues that need to be addressed with farmer input and which justify their involvement in decision-making.

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 16:41
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