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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 29 March 2007 09:54
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 65: Conventional breeding vs. new tools for drought tolerance

This is Dr. S.K. Samanta, India.

The question of breeding crop plants for drought tolerance, the major issue, has raised many points and many views. However, in my opinion, message 62 (by Edo Lin) is very important: "For most of these crops, sources of enhanced drought tolerance have been identified and several varieties have been released for evaluation by researchers and farmers". I think this is the central point where we should concentrate.

Marker assisted selection (MAS) or horizontal gene transfer or molecular breeding are the latest tools of crop improvement and most promising without any doubt. Before these tools were available, the above quoted sentence clearly reveals that simply by selection even farmers have developed drought tolerant genotypes. It is true. BhutMuri, a local rice variety of the Bankura district in West Bengal, is an excellent example. This genotype has been used for improving drought tolerance in many other varieties by breeders. All of us know that enormous number of genotypes for any crop are available now, maybe within the breeder's country or abroad. Instead of going for such expensive tools and inviting problems of GM pro- and anti-lobby, why are people not considering simple screening of genotypes for the environment specific for such type? As a student of plant breeding and with long experience of handling and maintaining large numbers of genotypes of different crops, my experience says that screening large numbers of genotypes against the specific condition for which we want the genotype, is the best answer. It would be easiest in my understanding without running behind high-tech molecular breeding which is costly for developing countries. Evaluation of the existing diversity within the crop will definitely lead to achieving the goal without any failure.

Dr. S.K. Samanta
Joint Director of Research,
B.C. Krishi Vishwavidyalya (BCKV)
State Agriculture University
Kalyani 741235, Nadia,
West Bengal
India
91 33 25823948 (telefax)
91 9433022021 (Mobile)
drsamanta (at) gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 29 March 2007 11:06
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 66: Re: Alternatives to genetic modification in solving water scarcity

Greetings to all, and thanks to FAO for hosting the conference. To introduce myself, I am Shiney Varghese, a senior policy analyst (working on the global water crisis) with the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, based in Minneapolis, United States. I appreciate Message 56 from Friderike Oehler. This message has brought forth many concerns that arise in the context of biotechnology.

From the exchanges so far it is clear that participants recognize that dry land/ rain fed agriculture is an important sector to focus on, not only to help address water scarcity issues but also poverty. From my understanding of the world food and water situation, I agree with that position completely. It is clear that today's water crisis is caused by mismanagement and abuse of water rather than absolute scarcity. There are many ways of addressing the crisis, most important being looking at traditional low cost technologies of water conservation and combining it with modern low cost technologies for purification for domestic use. While biotechnology has been suggested by many as an option, that is not amongst the first 10 things, I would suggest, as policy options, but I will not go into that discussion here. Having said that, biotechnology is indeed a tool that humanity has developed and different techniques need to be assessed for its possible contributions/costs.

I recollect one of the participants speculating that one of the possible reasons for inadequate attention to dry land agriculture (when it comes to research and development) is because they are not as remunerative as the irrigated areas. This leads me to assume that many in the group are also in favour of public funded research on agricultural biotechnological tools that are relevant to dry land agriculture. [Janaki Krishna, in Message 3, wrote "Though there are institutes working on rainfed agriculture, globally the thrust [of biotechnologies research] on rainfed agriculture is not in relation to its share in agriculture probably because these areas are not as remunerative as the irrigated areas. Hence if we wish to cope with water scarcity in developing countries by using agricultural biotechnological tools, major attention should be given to dryland agriculture"...Moderator].

I also presume that many of the participants would agree that such knowledge should be in the public domain. (If we think of biotechnology as a market restricted technology then the discussion would take a different turn and I do not want to raise those issues in this conference).

Proceeding from this shared understanding, then, my question is related to the safety of biotechnology. Are there types of biotechnology that could be categorised as safe, and others that could be categorised as unsafe?

Can it be ensured that the result of a particular biotechnology can be contained within a generation of the crop? (to ensure that the modified organism does not spread 1. to other species (one of the greatest fears from the biodiversity point of view) and 2. to other generations of the same crop without any control by humans (though I am not sure this will be appreciated by the farmers, since this goes against the predominant practice among subsistence farming cultures of keeping the best part of the crop as seeds for future).

My concern with biotechnology and nanotechnology is that we are tampering with complex organisms, particles, and we may not be aware of what we as humanity is going to unleash. Hence my questions about 'safe' biotechnology . I look forward to hearing others' thoughts on this issue of safety, as the world seem to hurtle forward to technological solutions not only in the context of water crisis but also for enhancing the oil content or starch content of respective crops in the context of bio-fuels.

We need to be aware that most farmers who have the option of using the GMO seeds may use it if drought resistant varieties are available in the public domain or are available at affordable prices, when faced with the alternative of crop failure. (Currently they use it in situations where pirated seeds are available as in the case of Bt Cotton in India).

This brings me to the most important concern I have: it needs to be ensured that 'the research and technologies promoted in the public domain' meets precautionary principles, become the responsibility of public research institutions and institutions concerned with global governance, such as FAO. (Precautionary principle has been most commonly understood as 'a moral and political principle', which states that "if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action"). The precautionary principle is most often applied in the context of the impact of human actions on the environment and human health, as both involve complex systems where the consequences of actions may be unpredictable. Thus when trying to address the water crisis through biotechnology I think it is important that precautionary principle is applied.

Shiney Varghese
Senior Policy Analyst,
Trade and Global Governance,
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP),
Minneapolis,
USA.
svarghese (at) iatp.org

[Note, as written in the Introduction of the Background Document, this conference is not just about GMOs and "discussions in this conference will not consider the issues of whether GMOs should or should not be used per se or the attributes, positive or negative, of GMOs themselves. Instead, the goal is to discuss the potential role that applications of biotechnology tools (including genetic modification) can play in helping developing countries cope with growing water scarcity". People wishing to take up the general issues of the safety of GMOs and/or application of the precautionary principle to GMOs, should contact Shiney Varghese directly...Moderator].

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 29 March 2007 11:13
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 67: Re: Alternatives to genetic modification in solving water scarcity

I am Glenn Ashton, independent researcher on environmental sustainability from Cape Town, South Africa, with a background in Geography.

I must commend the sensible comments made to this conference particularly those by S. Seshadri (Message 54), with his points made about practical water saving technologies, and also those posted by Hubert Dulieu (Message 63), Michel Ferry (Message 64) and others, highlighting both the shortcomings of genetic modification as juxtaposed to the urgency of the situation in conserving water whilst maximising production.

While breeding using advanced techniques (including marker assisted selection (MAS)) may offer some solutions, it seems that more readily affordable and available methods such as compost/ microbial teas, innoculants and the like should be shared as widely as possible between zones experiencing similar climatic challenges and having similar soil characteristics/shortcomings.

Like the more cautious commentators of this conference, I agree that concentrating on genetic modification is a questionable option offering limited immediate relevant technological solutions, that at the same time risks alienating scarce research resources that could be far more fruitfully applied. Moreover, the problems related to loss of heritage seed resources, patenting and intellectual property all outweigh any benefits that may accrue over the medium and long term.

It is clear that many of the problems of agricultural production faced emanate from an overt reliance on technical solutions, particularly those promoted during the time of the so-called green revolution that had unforeseen consequences such as pollution of groundwater, overuse of pesticides and high water use and that often resulted in serious impacts to soil microbial activity and other concomitant problems. Whilst technical solutions are useful, I must concur with Hubert Dulieu's (message 63) quote of Buffon about obeying natural systems. I would suggest that all agronomists endeavor to examine the work of Bill Mollison, the so called father of Permaculture, an agricultural production system that works in concert with natural systems and which is eminently flexible according to observed needs and resources.

I think the use of innoculants to increase the microbal activity of soil, enhancing the breakdown of cellulose and other plant wastes, while making nutrients available to plants is perhaps one of the most exciting possibilities offered by microbiology towards reducing drought impacts on plants, but this, like all natural solutions, cannot ever be analysed in isolation. Cover cropping, mulching and study of the mechanisms of how companion planting enhance both soil moisture retention and crop growth all offer possibilities for research.

I thank all of those who have contributed and the good offices of the UN for facilitating this most interesting exchange of ideas. I hope this exchange of ideas can evolve into open exchanges of simple, replicable technologies that can enhance food production and security for those most in need.

Glenn Ashton
Noordhoek
Cape Town
South Africa
ekogaia (at) iafrica.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 29 March 2007 11:29
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 68: The future in drought stress research

This is Arun K. Shanker, Senior Scientist (Plant Physiology) at the Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, India. As the conference is approaching its end, I would like to sum up as to what are my views on the future direction in this area of research.

There has been a lack of systems approach in developing strategies for evolving plants tolerant to water stress. This is mainly because adaptation to water stress is quite complex, involving interactions with unpredictable environment and hence developing strategies for evolving plants with stress tolerance requires a systems approach. More so because mechanisms accounting for genotypic differences in stress adaptation within a crop species are less thoroughly understood and lesser still their genetic basis.

A number of factors have contributed to this lack of understanding. Firstly, much of the pure research effort in the area of plant stress focuses either on comparisons between species or the response of a single genotype to stress treatments. Secondly, the predominance of an upstream focus in plant stress research has led to a greater emphasis on traits associated with survival under extreme stress than those associated with agronomic productivity under resource-limited conditions. Finally, a crop that experiences moisture deficit, for example, may simultaneously experience a number of additional stress factors that exacerbate drought stress, such as micronutrient deficiency associated with low transpiration rates, soil problems associated with dry land cultural practices such as salinity and soil compaction, as well as biotic stresses that are specific to dry soils such as nematodes and certain fungal pathogens.

The functional basis of water stress tolerance has been explained from both mechanistic and energetic perspectives. The mechanistic viewpoint has largely emerged from studies focusing on plant model systems, in which similarities between cellular responses to stress have been explained in terms of the shared effects of stress treatments on cellular water potential. This common effect has frequently been cited to explain associations found among cold, drought, and salinity stress responses in Arabidopsis and other plant species. The energetic viewpoint has attempted to account for cross-tolerance mechanisms more broadly in terms of the common effect that different stress conditions have on energy allocation. In stressful environments, organisms must free energetic resources that enable mechanisms promoting tolerance and survival. Many mechanisms are likely to be stress-specific, but metabolic shifts that re-allocate energy to these stress-specific mechanisms represent a general response that may occur under many types of adverse conditions. The mechanistic and energetic perspectives suggest the existence of stress resistance mechanisms that confer tolerance to a wide range of adverse conditions. Evidence in support of such mechanisms has been obtained at both the quantitative genetic and molecular levels.

The host of genomics tools has provided a wealth of data and, already, a better understanding of the changes in cellular metabolism that are induced by abiotic stresses, but fewer results have been forthcoming with respect to the functioning of the whole plant. The conversion of the many data points into understanding is still incomplete. Integration and filtering of data and confirmation by independent means in combination with advanced bioinformatics tools will alleviate this deficit. An understanding of plants as a system of interacting functions will emerge, but a more immediate problem seems to be finding applications for all this knowledge. Searching for and recording quantitative traits has the advantage of an unbiased approach.

Also, one important lesson from comparative, functional genomics studies is the recognition by molecular means of enormous adaptive functional diversity in many characters, including stress tolerance. 'Allele mining', as it may be termed, can focus on close relatives of the established models for which sufficient genomic resources are available. Such strategies appear possible with several species combinations, and should provide a way to harness the existing evolutionary adaptive diversity to develop stress-protected crops in which growth and yield are less compromised by abiotic stresses. The search for stress-tolerance alleles that retain growth and yield and the provision of the knowledge to breeding programs present the real challenge for plant genomics. A comprehensive screening of metabolites during drought stress will advance our fundamental understanding of major metabolic pathways and provide direction for future metabolic engineering for drought-stress tolerance in crop plants.

In the end, the value of any genes or pathways for drought tolerance in crop plants can only be judged by evidence of solid field performance. Approaches with proteomics will be necessary to clarify the structural predictions of genome sequence information and to assess the protein modifications and protein–ligand interactions that are relevant to stress tolerant phenotypes. Ultimately, the functional determination of all genes that participate in stress adaptation or tolerance reactions are expected to provide an integrated understanding of the biochemical and physiological basis of stress responses in plants. Armed with such information from established models, it will be possible to rationally manipulate and optimize tolerance traits for improved crop productivity well into the twenty-first century.

Dr. Arun K. Shanker
Senior Scientist (Plant Physiology)
Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA)
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR),
Santoshnagar, Hyderabad - 500 059
India
CELL PHONE 919441857375
website: http://www.geocities.com/arunshank
e-mail: arunshank (at) gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 29 March 2007 12:55
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 69: Re: A landscape perspective required with traditional methods

I am Dr IC Okoli from the Dept of Animal Science, Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria. I research animal production and health issues in the tropics. This is my second contribution to this ongoing e-mail conference.

I wish to again support the views of EM Muralidharan (Message 60) and the thoughts put forth in Messages 54 (by S. Seshadri) and 56 (by Friderike Oehler). I have always advocated that the logical strategy to use in tackling most agricultural and environmental issues in developing countries is to target proven traditional biotechnologies which are usually nature mimicking. In many instances, including the current issue of water conservation methods, there is the need to thoroughly understand the methods already developed by indigenous peoples rather than put the major share of the strategies on modern biotechnology and expect miracles to happen.

In south eastern Nigeria that receives up to 2500mm of rain yearly and has only 4 months of dry season, most communities located far from natural streams sustain their water needs during the dry periods through simple indigenous technologies. This is usually centered on harvesting enough rain run-offs in wells or surface dishes. I feel that the biotech need for most of such people will be to improve ease of harvesting, the quality of the water and to increase the volume.

In northern Nigeria, for example, most streams dry up during the 7 months of dry season. An improved method similar to that done in the south, especially to meet the needs of the livestock pastoralists, will be of benefit to this important sector.

Dr IC Okoli
Dept Of Animal Science,
Federal University of Technology,
Owerri,
Nigeria.
dr_charleso (at) yahoo.com