[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