05.12.2000

Hunger is due to the fact that people do not have money to buy food. This is a social problem, dependent on how society is organised. Reducing inequality of income distribution or establishing some sort of minimum income for every human being would help, but these have little to do with technology (bio- or otherwise).

But then, what's wrong with trying to produce cheaper food? Surely enough, the smarter manage to reap most of the benefit, but price eventually goes down for the consumer. Over the years, more people are eating poultry meat in this country because of its lowering price, in turn partly due to better technologies. This is a good thing in spite of the fact that some technologies are not appropriate, for a number of reasons. So, in spite of the Roundup transgenic soya or the patenting of Mexican Indian yellow beans by a commercial company, other biotechnologies may be useful. Here they invented injecting water in the broilers at the supermarket (is that a biotechnology?) but still that does not deter from the cheaper production cost. In animal breeding (the field I work in), artificial insemination has been used for 50 years and now we have embryo transfer/manipulation, semen sexing and possibly cloning, which will allow much more rapid genetic change, enabling us to produce cheaper food. Still there is a lot of misleading propaganda and threats to biodiversity from genetic erosion, and most of the profit from new genotypes would initially go to companies.

I believe most of the discussions in this conference boil down to the old problem of technology requiring ethical applications, but I found most enlightening the examples and issues put forward.

Fernando E. Madalena
Departamento de Zootecnia
Escola de Veterinária
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
Postal address: Cx.P. 567, 30123-970 Belo Horizonte-MG, Brazil
Phone: 55-31-499-2180 Fax: 55-31-499-2168
e-mail: fermadal@dedalus.lcc.ufmg.br

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 9:01 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Inventory of Biotechnology for Eastern and Central Africa

In response to Michel Ferry's posting [4 December, regarding genetically modified sweet potatoes in Kenya...Moderator], I would like to draw the attention of the members of this conference to a recent report produced by the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project (ABSP), based at Michigan State University. The report contains an 'inventory' of transgenic crops applicable to the Eastern and Central Africa region. While not exhaustive, the inventory lists transgenic crops that are potentially available for field testing or commercial release within the next 2-5 years.

This document was primarily prepared for the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA) in order to provide that organization with some of the background information required to enable them to develop their strategy for biotechnology research in the Eastern and Central Africa region. Our hope is that an additional outcome of this report will be to demonstrate the potential benefits, in the short and longer term, of agricultural biotechnology to food security and agricultural development in Africa.

We have included many currently available commercial products in the inventory as some of these may have immediate applicability in the region. However, the report clearly shows that the tools of biotechnology are now being applied to traditional food security crops in public sector institutions in both the developed and developing world, and a considerable research effort is being targeted to constraints that severely limit production of food security crops. Perhaps none of these projects have the instant 'glamour' (or the research budget!) of golden rice, but many of them have the potential to make significant impacts on food security.

The report is now available for download in .pdf format from the ABSP website at http://www.iia.msu.edu/absp/inventory1.html If you have any problems with downloading the report please let us know and we can send it to you in another form.

ABSP invites your comments and feedback on the report.

Andrea Johanson Ph.D.
Assistant Director, ABSP
Institute of International Agriculture, CANR Office of International Programs
319 Agriculture Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing MI 48824 USA
Email: andreaj@pilot.msu.edu
Phone: (517) 353-2290 Fax: (517) 353-1888
http://www.iia.msu.edu/absp

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 9:06 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: of Propaganda and Patents

Further to Saliem Fakir's post [4 December] about mea culpa type utterances of Monsanto Chief Executive Officer Hendrik Verfaillie, he is quoted as saying "Our science is right but our behavior isn't." (The AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER, Issue # 98 November 30, 2000). But not even their science is right. How can that science usefully contribute to future agriculture and food security whilst its presuppositions, based on DNA-thinking, guide its actions? An organismic approach which takes in the widest possible context is the only sustainable way in the long run.

David Heaf
Wales, UK
101622.2773 (at) compuserve.com

Background material on the presuppositions behind the science that has spawned gene technology are accessible at http://www.anth.org/ifgene/articles.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 9:28 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: GM sweet potatoes in Kenya

I would like to answer the question posed by Michel Ferry [4 December], below:

"I have just read an interview of Florence Wambugu, an African phytogenetic scientist, in charge of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) African bureau (paper published in the New Scientist, translated and published in la Recherche of December 2000). She has transferred Monsanto virus resistance genes to sweet potatoes and now will start field tests in Kenya with this GM plants. She is convinced that the yield of sweet potatoes will increase a lot. She affirms that Monsanto has no more than public relation interest in that operation. Could someone react to what seems an interesting example of a GE project adapted to improve food security?"

There are some very serious concerns about the virus resistant sweet potatoes. These include:

1. There is a dispute between Dr. Wambugu and others as to whether the ranges of sweet potato cultivation and wild relatives of sweet potato overlap in Africa, or not. If they do, as her critics suggest, then there is a high risk of passing virus resistance via pollen to weed species, who might be liberated from natural population suppression by viruses and become more serious problems. Some very major cosmopolitan weeds are relatives of sweet potato, so the concern is real.

2. Viral resistance is often conferred by inserting coat protein genes into the host plant. I do not know if this is the mechanism used by Dr. Wambugu, but there is concern that in plants containing coat protein genes, there is a possibility that such genes will be taken up by unrelated viruses infecting the plant. In such situations, the foreign gene changes the coat structure of the viruses and may confer properties such as changed method of transmission between plants. The second potential risk is that recombination between RNA virus and a viral RNA inside the transgenic crop could produce a new pathogen leading to more severe disease problems. Some researchers have shown that recombination occurs in transgenic plants and that under certain conditions it produces a new viral strain with altered host range. The risk here is of producing new and more damaging viral strains.

3. High incidence of aphid-borne viruses is usually a symptom of ecological disruption caused by excessive pesticide use and/or depauperate biodiversity and lack of ground cover. It has been demonstrated that agroecological approaches based on reducing pesticide use, and introducing biodiversity and ground cover into the cropping system, can be very effective. In the case of seed potatoes, they should be grown at high elevations where aphid incidence is low or non-existent. Unfortunately this accumulated knowledge is usually cast aside when we focus exclusively on biotech solutions.

It is my personal opinion that it is irresponsible to release transgenic virus resistant varieties without adequately resolving concerns about ecological and health risks, and without giving serious consideration to the alternatives.

Peter Rosset
Chiapas, Mexico
rosset@foodfirst.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 10:24 AM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Private sector help to institutes in developing countries

The problem of the market acceptance of GMOs explains perhaps the new interest of private biotechnology groups to "help" institutes and scientists in developing GM products in developing countries, and particularly in Africa. A part of the GM products that the USA has not succeeded in selling to Europe is now exported to Africa and other poor countries in the framework of food programme assistance. This new channel reduces the bad effect created by the problem of marketing GM products and consequently the decrease of demand for GM seeds by the American farmers. But it is essential for the private biotechnology groups to avoid the development of anti-GMOs campaigns in developing countries also.

Consequently, creating, by "helping" them, African lobbies of scientists and institutions in favour of GM products is probably an essential part of their strategy. It is difficult to establish counter power to these powerful groups in developed countries. How much more difficult it is in developing countries ! We know that the biotechnology groups are investing millions of dollars of propaganda and lobbying to oppose the campaign against GM products. We can imagine easily what kind of practices that means particularly in developing countries.

Michel FERRY
Directeur scientifique
Station de Recherche sur le Palmier Dattier
et les Systèmes de Production en Zones Arides
Apartado 996
03201 ELCHE
Espagne
tél: 34.965421551
fax: 34.965423706
e-mail: m.ferry@wanadoo.es

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 3:03 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Economic/trade implications of increasing yield

There has been much discussion about the premise that genetic engineering technology will do what the Green Revolution did i.e. increase yield - and therefore the quantity of food will increase.

If my memory serves me correctly, Amartya Sen did some analysis of the issue of increasing volume and the economic and trade implications of this. It has two sorts of contradictory economic impacts. On the one hand, you reduce the cost of food, and therefore are able to increase access by the poor because you make food more affordable [As discussed by Fernando Madalena, 5 December...Moderator]. On the other hand, the price is so low, because supply far exceeds demand. Since food is a perishable good, it needs to be sold quickly, thus forcing prices down, which inevitably in developing countries creates a disincentive for farmers.

This is so, because the cost of crop production in developing countries (in the absence of subsidies, or, as in the US where the government pays farmers not to farm when too much production is anticipated) is higher. The cost also increases, the more marginal the land is that needs to be ploughed and tilled. The lack of a cushion as we have in Europe or the US, simply forces developing country farmers to absorb higher costs than the prices they can fetch for their commodities in international markets. They inevitably end up producing for their limited domestic markets or just subsistence use. Developing country governments find that it is cheaper to import grain and other staple foods from the EU than their own farmers. This has the vicious cycle of lowering agricultural incentives, and discouraging farming, and the development of farming enterprises. Ironically, this is not only an issue in developing countries. When the US government introduced the US Farm Bill in 1996, to encourage US farmers to become more export driven, the biggest impact it has had is to kill off family farming in the US and encourage the flourishing of large scale corporate farming.

Some have even argued that food aid programmes, like the much publicised Bob Geldorf campaign in Africa, have had the similar effect as food dumping would have: completely destroying local food markets, although in the short term it may have positive effects by reducing famine. However, in the long-term, its impacts on agricultural stability and sustainability has been detrimental. Food production is dependent on active markets. And, agriculture, to this day remains a major creator of employment in developing countries. This was demonstrated for instance in Thailand. After the Asian crises of 1997, people reverted back to farming in rural areas to maintain livelihoods.

Saliem Fakir
Head IUCN-South Africa
sfakir@icon.co.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 3:47 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Livestock biotechnologies and poverty alleviation

From David Steane - until retiring a year ago, I worked in livestock production and mainly in animal genetic resources work for FAO for ten years - the last six in Asia.

Since the majority of under-nourished and poor are in Asia, it is interesting to note that at a recent meeting, ministers of Asian countries identified livestock production as the most common factor in trying to alleviate poverty. This conference has studiously ignored livestock (until today) and has been monopolised by a few people (not their fault !!) discussing GMOs and the 'dubious aims' of companies. Certainly, no one could claim that on the present list of participants, a consensus, as recently suggested, would have any claim to validity in the context of biotechnology. I would hope that all those who have, like me, been 'readers only' in this conference, will now communicate their views - it is crucial that all views are heard !

While I have considerable empathy with much of what has been written, we need to address the question raised more directly. Research funds can sometimes be diverted but, as indicated so far, most research is 'private' and is unlikely simply to be diverted to the problems which concern most of us i.e. alleviation of poverty and adequate food for all. The attack on such companies is hardly likely to help those people. There are likely to be areas where biotechnology could provide assistance (if not solutions) and I believe that we must be more positive in trying to get these aspects addressed by research.

One such area in livestock is, in my opinion, that of reproductive technology. While embryo transfer, in vitro maturation (IVM) and in vitro fertilisation (IVF) of ova were once 'all the rage', it has now been realised that they do not present massive opportunities to improve the animals of the developed world, although they can play a significant, complementary role. However, research to improve the techniques seems to have been dropped when, for the developing world, there could be major advantages.

This is not to ignore the problems, or indeed to say that this aspect is the most important (simple adoption of better feeding and disease control would be primary factors) but it does hold out large benefits in terms of sustainable production - for example in milk production. There is ample evidence, throughout, that the first cross, F1, (dairy cross indigenous) is much better than any other, BUT cannot easily be maintained (Brazil has an example of how it can be done, given the right circumstances- I note that the person involved (Fernando Madalena) contributed to the conference earlier today !). Interbreeding F1's does not provide the same result and commits a scheme (country ?) to a testing and selection programme which, in most countries, cannot be justified economically - even if it can be achieved. The constant production of the same cross using IVF, IVM and embryo transfer (given acceptable success rates - for which further research is required) could provide local farmers with the most effective animal and they could use other parities for whatever product is most desirable for them.

The changing of genotpes is not new - the speed and checks on such genetic change may be altering but, with responsibility and proper consultation (e.g. with farmers !) it should not be beyond the wit of man to meet such challenges. It is incumbent on us all to try to assist in any way possible within the bounds of sustainability to ensure that food shortage and poverty are eliminated - the challenge is not whether biotechnology can contribute but whether we are smart enough to harness it to do so.

David Steane, Thailand
desteane@chmai2.loxinfo.co.th

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 4:09 PM
To: 'biotech-room1@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Economic/trade implications of increasing yield

With so much talk of increased production and lower food prices in this conference, and elsewhere, Saliem Fakir is right [5 December] to suggest that we try to remember the lessons of the green revolution. To that end, I direct participants to a recent article we published, called "Lessons from the Green Revolution: Do we need new technology to end hunger?" It is available on the web at: http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/4-greenrev.html If you do not have web access I can email you a copy.

Briefly, we show that increased yields on the farms of larger, wealthier farmers, brought prices down for both consumers *and* for farmers, creating the effect that might be called the 'Paradox of Plenty:' more, cheaper food, together with more hunger, as falling crop prices and rising input costs drove many smaller, poorer farmers into destitution. We argue that the 'new' green revolution, based on biotech, is likely to repeat the errors of the first green revolution.

On the questions raised by Mr. Fakir concerning the effects of food imports, I have the following to say. Typically Third World economies have been inundated with cheap food coming from the major grain exporting countries. For a variety of reasons (subsidies, both hidden and open, industrialized production, etc.) this food is more often than not put on the international market at prices below the local cost of production. That drives down the prices that local farmers receive for what they produce, with two related effects, both of which are negative.

First, a sudden drop in farm prices can drive already poor, indebted farmers off the land, over the short term. Second, a more subtle effect kicks in. As crop prices stay low over the medium term, profits per unit area (per acre or hectare) stay low as well. That means the minimum number of hectares needed to support a family rises, contributing to the abandonment of farm land by smaller, poorer farmers - land which then winds up in the hands of the larger, better off farmers who can compete in a low price environment by virtue of having very many hectares. They overcome the low profit per hectare trap precisely by owning vast areas which add up to good profits in total, even if they represent very little on a per hectare basis. The end result of both mechanisms is the further concentration of farm land in the ever fewer hands of the largest farmers.

This analysis is taken from:
http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/policybs/pb4.html

Peter Rosset
Chiapas, Mexico
rosset@foodfirst.org

Return to Logs of Conference 5 or go to the main Forum pages. Note: you must join the Forum to participate in these discussions.